3,421 (edited by ireactions 2025-01-24 14:06:50)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

The day after the election, I cleaned out my phone.  I deleted the Apple News app, I got rid of the news widget on the far end of my home screen, and I made my browsers (at home and work) default to a blank screen instead of a "random news" screen.  I'm not withdrawing fully from the world - I don't go out of my way to avoid news - I find out plenty from my friends' group chat and just existing in the world.  And I'm not going to go out of my way to slam my head so far in the ground that I don't know about stuff like the LA wildfires or stuff like that.  Even trying to avoid inauguration stuff, I organically found out that it'd been moved inside.

Slider_Quinn21's attitude is a huge part of why Democrats keep losing elections.

By that, I mean: Slider_Quinn21 is not being paid to stay awake when it's not an election year, and he has earned his rest. But politicians and party strategists have treated the job of winning elections as something to only work on 6 -8 months before the polls open, and it's a serious problem. Slider_Quinn21 is right to take a break; the DNC should not be resting and Democratic politicians should not be capitulating to Trump... but so many are.

The Democratic Party has a tendency to go into hibernation unless there's an upcoming and nearing election. They've allowed conservatism and fascism to dominate social media and news while Democrats only really get started in an election year, aiming to eke out narrow wins. This sleepiness has led to a party that lacks strategic flexibility, is easily toppled by a more ostentatious and media-dominant party, and is boxed out of the mediasphere.

There's also the fact that Democrats have a tendency to embrace the working class when they're not in power but focus largely on the upper middle class and wealthy when they win elections. Kamala Harris' campaign had a lot to say to people in a position to make down payments on their first homes and start new businesses and pretty much nothing for the casual shift worker scrambling to make back rent and skipping meals to cover the water bill. That's what you get from a supposedly left of center political campaign run by Uber executives speaking to other Uber executives instead of to people who work for a living.

Anyway. Slider_Quinn21 has earned a rest; Simon Rosenberg, James Carville Jr. and others have a lot of work to do.

3,422 (edited by Grizzlor 2025-01-27 09:31:34)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

This is what most of the right wing channels are all preaching. And not all of it is fact.

What the right wing channels fail to address is the fact that the fires were so powerful and widespread that they were impossible to contain. No right wing community could have done better. Any winds over 55 mph, and planes are unable to effectively fly and put out the fires. This has nothing to do with state or city governance. It wouldn't have mattered if the reservoir was full or how many full fire hydrants we have, if they are not close to where the fires burned and raged or it's physically impossible to do. Conditions have coalesced into the driest winter on record, with little rain. If you combine that with the overall speed of the winds, and the embers that were flying all over the place, it's the recipe for a perfect disaster.

It doesn't matter whether you're democrat or republican: nature will treat you the same way. No republican would have been able to do it either.

Trump's victory is the absolute narrowest ever in history. It also was never a mandate as he erroneously likes to present it as. Like Hakeem Jeffries, the U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader has stated previously - "I don't think that this requires major reform of the party."

George W. Bush had the absolute narrowest victory in history.  California's management of the flora is absolutely a reason for the disaster there.  The citizens out there have vocally stated that, and they're not Republicans saying it.  They had decades to improve their water management.  Nothing.  You can't do anything there due to the overload of regulations.  California is loaded with homelessness because you can't BUILD homes!!!  Good luck rebuilding in LA. 

ireactions wrote:

Slider_Quinn21's attitude is a huge part of why Democrats keep losing elections.

By that, I mean: Slider_Quinn21 is not being paid to stay awake when it's not an election year, and he has earned his rest. But politicians and party strategists have treated the job of winning elections as something to only work on 6 -8 months before the polls open, and it's a serious problem. Slider_Quinn21 is right to take a break; the DNC should not be resting and Democratic politicians should not be capitulating to Trump... but so many are.

The Democratic Party has a tendency to go into hibernation unless there's an upcoming and nearing election. They've allowed conservatism and fascism to dominate social media and news while Democrats only really get started in an election year, aiming to eke out narrow wins. This sleepiness has led to a party that lacks strategic flexibility, is easily toppled by a more ostentatious and media-dominant party, and is boxed out of the mediasphere.

There's also the fact that Democrats have a tendency to embrace the working class when they're not in power but focus largely on the upper middle class and wealthy when they win elections. Kamala Harris' campaign had a lot to say to people in a position to make down payments on their first homes and start new businesses and pretty much nothing for the casual shift worker scrambling to make back rent and skipping meals to cover the water bill. That's what you get from a supposedly left of center political campaign run by Uber executives speaking to other Uber executives instead of to people who work for a living.

I actually wholly disagree.  The Democratic coalition has shifted to pick up huge swaths of college educated voters.  Those voters are far more likely to vote during off-year elections.  The Democratic Party needs a new image, I don't know what it is, as I've said before.  They spent the week freaking out about some Nazi salute that Elon Musk clearly was NOT doing.  Idiots.  They've chosen to blindly defend utter bizarro policies simply out of fear of stepping on someone's "feelings."  Trump couldn't care less. Vance couldn't care less.  Wokeness has ruined the Democratic Party.  They've become paralyzed by it.  I never understood the "die on a hill" for illegal immigrants stance of that Party.  Never understood the abject refusal to allow voter ID laws. 

Trump has had, for his agenda, a massively successful first couple weeks.  His nominees, while divisive, are going to get through.  The significance of their populism cannot be underestimated.  He's also had a huge week of immigration deportation round ups.  Having the Presidents of Mexico and Colombia cave to his tariff threats to take rightly deported individuals back.  These were lay ups.  ICE raids where TV crews recorded a Haitian gangster screaming, or the bust of a nightclub and 50 Venezuelan gang members.  How couldn't the Biden admin NEVER do this?  They fought it tooth and nail.  No vetting, just a porous open border.  Meanwhile, sexual predators, drug dealers, gang members with rap sheets all deported this week.  Publicity stunt?  Partially.  But does it NOT demonstrate (even artificially) government DOING its job?

I would say the biggest problem on the Left right now, is the refusal to admit when one is wrong.  On anything.  Then there has been this absolutely over the top (largely out of nowhere) crusade to infuse "trans" sensitive everything, everywhere.  They could not understand why parents were uncomfortable with "drag queen story time"????  I'm as socially liberal as you will find.  If my niece/nephew were subjected to that, I would raise hell!!!  WTF are we doing????  Trans-women make up a large portion of women's prisons, putting actually WOMEN at risk.  So the left is fine with this, as well as having biological men in women's sports.  Very safe.  When middle of the roaders try to argue how this is insane, they are labeled viciously.  NO, you're just void of common sense.  Not female inmates fault that previously male or trans inmates committed crimes!  Again, WHAT ARE WE DOING?  Look, Ron DeSantis breezed in Florida when he went up against this crap, easily defeating supposedly all powerful Disney, because the VOTERS approved of it.

Yes, these are at times trivial issues.  However, they represent at large what people identify with politics.  It has literally fueled an entire podcast space devoted to people who simply want their heads from spinning from wokeness.  And many of these NEW listeners are men and women of color!  You turn on MSNBC, and it's completely off the rails.  Trump NAZI Trump NAZI Trump NAZI.  It didn't work!!!  Enough already.  How about start reporting and highlighting successful DEMS!!!  Have them talk about initiatives, not how to stop a Trump cabinet pick, an utter waste of time.

Stephen A. Smith rant should be watched by every Democratic party official.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/stephen-smit … 38680.html

3,423 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2025-01-27 10:45:31)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I can't speak to anything that's happening because I'm actively not paying attention, but Grizzlor, I'm genuinely curious where you get your news.

********

I do know that people here in Texas are either really excited or really nervous about the ICE raids.  I guess I'm just waiting on everything to get super expensive.  Illegal immigrants cook a lot of our food, wash our dishes, build a lot of stuff, work on our oil derricks, and take care of our lawns.  I don't know who people think are going to do all these jobs if we get rid of everyone here illegally, but I know that whoever takes the job is going to cost a lot more.  Gasoline and restaurant prices are definitely going to go up, and I assume yards in richer areas simply won't get taken care of because the labor will just be gone.

And of course the people who complain the most would never be willing to do any of these jobs themselves.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Musk's gesture looked like a Nazi salute to me and the far right and neo-Nazis have embraced Musk as one of their own. The Anti-Defamation League claims it was not a Nazi salute, but white supremacists have celebrated the salute as a Nazi gesture.
To defend the salute when it was embraced by neo-Nazis and white supremacists strikes me as self-affiliating with Nazism and white supremacy.

As for the rest of Grizzlor's post: I find it transphobic, bigoted, either ignorant or disingenuous, and an attack on me, and on transgender and non-binary individuals, simply for existing and reading this board. He may not intend it to be so, but let's go through each transphobic and bigoted comment.

Grizzlor wrote:

Absolutely over the top (largely out of nowhere) crusade to infuse 'trans' sensitive everything, everywhere.

Your comment falsely implies that increasing visibility and inclusion of transgender issues and identities is unnecessary and intrusive as opposed to a long-overdue effort towards recognizing a significant population and their inherent rights and liberties as human beings. You're implying that transgender indviduals, just for merely existing and claiming personhood in a democracy, is a hostile attack on you and that they have no right to advocacy.

Grizzlor wrote:

They could not understand why parents were uncomfortable with 'drag queen story time'????

This comment is transphobic and ignorant, conflating drag performers with issues surrounding transgender individuals. Engaging in drag and being transgender are not the same concepts. Someone who conflates the two is either doing so ignorantly or doing so deliberately to engage in bigotry by deriding transgender identities as performative and insincere.

Regardless of the reason, someone who speaks this way about drag performers and the transgender is does not have the knowledge to offer an informed opinion on either one.

There is no evidence that children are harmed by drag performers and transgender identities. Anyone who uses such rhetoric is using the concept of defenceless children to justify transphobic bigotry and prejudice and falsely portraying all transgender individuals and their allies as child predators.

Grizzlor wrote:

Trans-women make up a large portion of women's prisons, putting actually WOMEN at risk.

This declares that the mere existence of transgender women is inherently dangerous to cisgender women, pointedly ignoring what transgender individuals have to deal with themselves in prison, declaring the well-being of cisgender women and only cisgender women are to be considered. Like the drag performer/transgender conflation, it is a transphobic, bigoted and prejudiced framing designed to present transgender individuals as threats and dangers and undeserving of human compassion.

Grizzlor wrote:

Biological men in women's sports. Very safe.

This comment about "biological men" is deliberately dismissive of transgender identity. The sarcastic "very safe" again implies that transgender women are a threat simply for existing, whether in women's sports or elsewhere, simply by being transgender, and that's not true.

Grizzlor wrote:

Ron DeSantis breezed in Florida when he went up against this crap, easily defeating supposedly all powerful Disney, because the VOTERS approved of it.

An electoral victory may legislate bigotry, prejudice and transphobia, but it does not make it any less transphobic or morally and ethically broken.

Grizzlor wrote:

Middle of the roaders try to argue how this is insane, they are labeled viciously.

It's interesting that the person implying "out of nowhere" that I'm a child predator for respecting the civil rights and liberties of the transgender community is complaining about being "labeled viciously."

When someone conflates transgender identity and drag, declares transgender individuals are a threat for existing and advocating, portrays transgender people as child predators and uses electoral wins to validate transphobia, they are clearly not a gender studies scholar or qualified to offer a 'middle of the road' perspective.

Middle of the road would be arguing that transgender political campaigns aren't effective at winning voters. None of these comments are 'middle of the road'. They are prejudiced bigotry. They are transphobic and and disappointingly commonplace for transgender communities to face.

They call it being "labeled viciously" when seen as transphobic after accusing transgender people and drag performers of being child predators and threats to cisgender women for existing; I'd call it being labelled accurately and anyone who dislikes being labelled as a bigot for bigotry could try looking in the mirror for who's at fault for that.

But when coming from this person, it may not necessarily be hatred.

I've seen a similar attitude from this person towards radioplays and the TV show STAR TREK: PRODIGY. This person wasn't really into audio drama or TREK animation, and in their general life, they gravitated elsewhere and weren't burning down recording and animation studios or anything insane.

But in their online discourse: whenever someone else raised audio or animation, this person had an intriguingly uncontrollable compulsion to respond and convey their fundamental intolerance and contempt for audio drama and cartoons and anything outside their tastes and personal perception of normalcy and anything they saw as 'other'. It's not enough to be uninterested; they need to actively act out their disdain.

The fact that its is present in how this person relates (or doesn't) to audio and sci-fi TV and the transgender community and the drag community suggests a general inability to handle human differences of taste and identity in a positive or even neutral way.

You know, Greg, I was really upset when you implied I was a terrorist for wearing a mask in public retail situations, but you effectively calling me a child predator for saying transgender people are people is... I mean, wow, Greg. This is quite the escalation.

Anyway. I'm going to find some trans-advocacy group and make a donation and also rewatch the transgender episode of QUANTUM LEAP and maybe some of us should learn the difference between drag and transgender, among other things, before speaking on it.

https://transequality.org/issues/resour … nding-drag

3,425 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2025-01-27 13:38:24)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

In the interest of being our resident peacemaker, I want to add some things:

1. I don't think Grizzlor meant to offend
2. I don't think Grizzlor is MAGA

I add the second point because of the question I asked: where does Grizzlor get his news.  And I ask because I feel like, oftentimes, Grizzlor uses language and talking points that I've seen come from right-leaning politicians and media members.  The fact that he's regularly used the word "woke" is, in particular, odd to me.  Because, up until the date of the election, I considered myself to be pretty plugged in to the discourse, and I'm still not 100% sure I could define what wokeness is.  When you ask MAGA, they describe it in a sort of "you know it when you see it" or "I know I don't like it" way.

If I was forced to guess, "woke" means treating people with kindness and empathy regardless of what their situation is, and trying to get to a place where everyone can be treated fairly and equally.  So if a person gets here illegally in pursuit of a better life, it's finding a way to treat them with respect and try to help them find that better life they sought.  If it's a transgender person, it's helping them find their true self and treating them the way they want to be treated.  If it's a black male, it's helping them navigate the systemic racism that exists in our society (whether we want to see it or not) so that they can have the same opportunities that I (a white male) have.

I don't think being woke is negative.  I also don't think I saw Democrats embracing "woke" or "being woke" or even defending aspects of "being woke."  When asked about transgender prisoners getting sex change operations, Kamala Harris said she followed the law.  The same law that was followed under Trump's administration.  And yet it was twisted into some sort of ridiculous plan by Harris to turn everyone transgender.  Trump talked about kids leaving for school one gender and coming back another.  As if that process doesn't take months/years, and as if schools are allowed to give major surgeries in some sort of coat closet without parental consent.  What's true is that schools can't even give out an aspirin without parental consent.

Republicans have created this word and then they create conservative nightmares out of thin air.  They twist words and they find extreme examples and make it seem like it's the norm.  If "woke" is "being nice to someone even if they're different" then I don't see a problem with it.  If "woke" is forcing children to undergo dangerous surgeries against their will, then that's just a boogeyman that never has and never would exist.

So I feel like Grizzlor must get his news from something right-leaning even if that's not his intention.

Now I do think Grizzlor is right that Democrats need to veer away from socially liberal topics because Republicans have made them incredibly toxic.  Ted Cruz, someone who is generally pretty hated in Texas even by conservatives, was able to win what should've been at least a pretty competitive race by running almost exclusively on "Colin Allred wants to sex change your kid".  He didn't run on the border or the economy or anything else.  Just trans issues.

I don't know how they pivot away from these issues without leaving behind people that have already been abandoned by too many people, but I don't see how Democrats can win if they don't minimize their public support for stuff like this.

Democrats need to focus on economic issues and helping low-income people.  Anything else they need to put to the side for now.  Society will come around and support marginalized peoples - it always does - but now seems to be a time when progress simply isn't going to be able to be made.

3,426 (edited by ireactions 2025-01-28 12:10:12)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Before I get further into this: I wish to reiterate that Slider_Quinn21 is not a politician or a paid political strategist and has the right to take a break from the news cycle. Most of us do.

Here's the Wikipedia page for Woke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

And now:

Grizzlor wrote:

I would say the biggest problem on the Left right now, is the refusal to admit when one is wrong.  On anything.  Then there has been this absolutely over the top (largely out of nowhere) crusade to infuse "trans" sensitive everything, everywhere.  They could not understand why parents were uncomfortable with "drag queen story time"????  I'm as socially liberal as you will find.  If my niece/nephew were subjected to that, I would raise hell!!!  WTF are we doing????  Trans-women make up a large portion of women's prisons, putting actually WOMEN at risk.  So the left is fine with this, as well as having biological men in women's sports.  Very safe.  When middle of the roaders try to argue how this is insane, they are labeled viciously.  NO, you're just void of common sense.  Not female inmates fault that previously male or trans inmates committed crimes!  Again, WHAT ARE WE DOING?  Look, Ron DeSantis breezed in Florida when he went up against this crap, easily defeating supposedly all powerful Disney, because the VOTERS approved of it.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I don't think Grizzlor meant to offend.

I consider myself non-binary, which can fall under a transgender categorization.

Grizzlor claimed that transgender people are, simply by existing and advocating for human rights, a threat to cisgender women and children. Let's call it for what it is: hate speech. Based on nothing more than my personal detachment from gender, he accused me (possibly unknowingly) and anyone like me of being a sexual predator.

Show of hands: who among us has posed for photos with convicted sexual predator Allison Mack? Who among us then denied that said predator was running a sex trafficking ring and called it fake news? Oh, look, only one person's hand is up! Who is it? Whose hand is it?

Oh, look, it's Grizzlor.

Being part of the transgender community has no correlation to criminality at all. But posing for photos with known predators and denying their crimes could be a highly indicting point of information.

Shall we pursue that avenue?

Or might we prefer to say that calling people sexual predators based on gender identity or posing for a fan photo or anything else that doesn't actually pertain to a crime is a foolish game that no one should play?

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I don't think Grizzlor meant to offend.

Greg and I are friends (yes), so he shouldn't declare that my gender identity correlates to criminality. Also, since he conflates drag and transgender, he isn't in a position of knowledgeability to speak on gender identities anyway.

As a friend, I should see Greg's photo for what it was: a fan posing with a performer and not an indication that Greg was part of a sex trafficking operation and he admitted he was mistaken to deny her criminality and hadn't been familiar with the situation at the time. He made his apologies and I think that, since we are friends, I should accept that to be sincere.

As a friend, I'm also prepared to see the hate speech as inadvertent and accidental, akin to Greg expressing his loathing for PRODIGY without seeing it: an ill-advised reactivity rather than genuine hate.

As Democrats lost and PRODIGY was written off and has no Season 3, it's a valid observation that electorally, transgender issues don't lead to enough votes for Democrats to win and PRODIGY didn't set the world on fire in streaming figures. I should see my friend Greg's words as an accident. A lengthy one, but an accident all the same.

However, it's up to Greg to be a friend and assure me of that.

And no one else is obligated to give Greg that chance. Nobody should have to come to a message board and be accused of a being a predator because they don't feel they match the body they were born in and want to make some changes.

Anyway. I thank our peacemaker for his ongoing and sterling service.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I consider myself non-binary, which can fall under a transgender categorization.

I've definitely misgendered you in the past.  At the risk of being woke, what are your pronouns?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

No one's misgendered me; I'm still using he/him. I just reject the entire idea that gender determines who someone is supposed to be or that, outside of awareness of societal privilege, gender needs to be a driving force in what anyone chooses to do with their lives.

3,429 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2025-01-27 18:42:24)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:
QuinnSlidr wrote:

This is what most of the right wing channels are all preaching. And not all of it is fact.

What the right wing channels fail to address is the fact that the fires were so powerful and widespread that they were impossible to contain. No right wing community could have done better. Any winds over 55 mph, and planes are unable to effectively fly and put out the fires. This has nothing to do with state or city governance. It wouldn't have mattered if the reservoir was full or how many full fire hydrants we have, if they are not close to where the fires burned and raged or it's physically impossible to do. Conditions have coalesced into the driest winter on record, with little rain. If you combine that with the overall speed of the winds, and the embers that were flying all over the place, it's the recipe for a perfect disaster.

It doesn't matter whether you're democrat or republican: nature will treat you the same way. No republican would have been able to do it either.

Trump's victory is the absolute narrowest ever in history. It also was never a mandate as he erroneously likes to present it as. Like Hakeem Jeffries, the U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader has stated previously - "I don't think that this requires major reform of the party."

George W. Bush had the absolute narrowest victory in history.  California's management of the flora is absolutely a reason for the disaster there.  The citizens out there have vocally stated that, and they're not Republicans saying it.  They had decades to improve their water management.  Nothing.  You can't do anything there due to the overload of regulations.  California is loaded with homelessness because you can't BUILD homes!!!  Good luck rebuilding in LA.

Can you please quote for me which citizens? I tend to trust the fire authorities stating what I said over citizens who may be vulnerable to right wing lies spread on the social networks.

Also, re: Trump's victory, not according to MSNBC. I certainly mis-stated the information. And for that, I admit I was wrong. I can correct that to: since 2000. There we go.

https://x.com/harryjsisson/status/1859025719827021893

https://i.postimg.cc/y8z1KrNr/image.png

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I have to wonder if Grizzlor's 'sources' on California wildfires are the same 'sources' that had him declare that my non-binary gender identity (under the transgender umbrella) makes me and any transgender individual and any drag performer a threat to children just for being in the same room and an issue for which he would "raise hell!!!"

I have to wonder if these same 'sources' told him drag performers and transgender individuals are synonymous. And if these sources told him that someone like me and any transgender or transgender-umbrella individual, just for existing is "putting actually WOMEN at risk" and that advocating for my human rights is an "absolutely over the top (largely out of nowhere) crusade to infuse "trans" sensitive everything, everywhere" as though Grizzlor is threatened by my personhood.

I'm going ask Slider_Quinn21, our peacemaker, what he thinks, and what he feels would be an appropriate process going forward.

A part of me wanted to say: until Grizzlor addresses his claim that I am a threat to women and children for my gender identity; until he addresses his implication anyone in my community is a violent abuser and a sexual predator, he should see every post he makes on any other subject blanked out and not restored until this is addressed. That's how hurt I was.

But because I'm so close to this, I realized: I have to let Slider_Quinn21 make the decision. Can't go wrong with following the lead of the peacemaker. And obviously, Slider_Quinn21 would want Grizzlor to have the chance to clarify or reconsider what he said.

There's also the fact that Grizzlor previously called me out on threatening to suspend or ban him when he called mask wearers "terrorists" (later clarifying that he felt the maskers he saw on TV were acting like terrorists and not mask wearers like me in general). I heard him. And I gave him my word that should something like that happen again, it would lead to a conversation, not a threat.

I don't think anyone should get to post transphobic remarks which imply that anyone who falls under the transgender umbrella -- like me -- is automatically a violent criminal and a threat to cisgender children and athletes and and then go back to posting about STAR TREK and which timer is their favourite.

I wouldn't demand that Grizzlor convert to my worldview. But I would hope that he would address his remarks and how they have deeply hurt me, and then no longer make these false accusations where he implies that I am a threat to others simply for my personal identity regarding the difference between an X chromosome and a Y chromosome.

But I'm going to defer to Slider_Quinn21 on this. There will be a $25 USD honorarium in it for him.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I think it's important to let people reassess their thoughts and clarify.  I think it's possible that Grizzlor has some misconceptions, and I think people should be allowed to make mistakes.  This thread is called "Discuss and Debate" and I think it's important that we have differing viewpoints.  Informant went off the deep end, but I think we lost something when we lost our most conservative voice.  I think a Republican (not necessarily a kool-aid MAGA person) might've helped us understand what happened and why it happened.  In our case, since we were all fairly behind Kamala, we were a bit lost.  It was more of a consolation session than a debate.

Grizzlor has been a member here for almost ten years and God knows how much longer before that.  He's been in the Sliders community for around as long as I have (the Sliders BBoard Hall of Fame has his oldest post in 2002 and mine in 1999 but both are probably before either of those dates), and I don't think he meant to offend.  I don't want to speak for him, but I think he would take the time to think about how his remarks bothered you and try to either reframe, restate, or form a new opinion.

We have a handful of people that post here.  Informant has the third most posts and hasn't made a post in six years.  He, Transmodiar and ominmercurial are in the top ten in posters that haven't posted in years.  We had 8 registrations in 2024 who made zero posts.  I want everyone to be kind, but this group isn't going to get any bigger.  The last episode of Sliders aired 25 years ago next week.  I would like Grizzlor to feel welcome here, and I want Grizzlor to make others feel more welcome here.

That's my thoughts.

3,432 (edited by ireactions 2025-01-29 12:20:05)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, I trust your judgement and defer to it.

I thought Kamala had a medium chance to win and Trump had a small chance to win, and it was entirely too close for me to feel confident or certain about it. I posted a lot from Simon Rosenberg, but I posted with the caveat that he could just be saying what I wanted to hear and not what was accurate, and what he said was, by his own apologetic admission, not accurate.

Honestly, you and I could well be the crazy ones who have gone off the deep end for thinking democracy ever stood a chance or that it still does.

You and I also enjoyed the Whedon cut of JUSTICE LEAGUE, so it'd be foolish to think our views are objectively rational at all times.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I really thought Kamala had momentum, and I thought the math was on her side.  I thought she'd at least eke out a 270-268 win, and I was starting to really hope that the polls had it wrong enough that she could win overwhelmingly.  The fact that he won still blows my mind, and I probably haven't allowed myself to come to terms with it.  The fact that he won the popular vote really blows my mind.

So my opinion is worth nothing, it seems.

3,434 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2025-01-29 15:09:40)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I really thought Kamala had momentum, and I thought the math was on her side.  I thought she'd at least eke out a 270-268 win, and I was starting to really hope that the polls had it wrong enough that she could win overwhelmingly.  The fact that he won still blows my mind, and I probably haven't allowed myself to come to terms with it.  The fact that he won the popular vote really blows my mind.

So my opinion is worth nothing, it seems.

You aren't the only one with that opinion, Slider_Quinn21. It took me the longest time to accept and move beyond, shall we say, other opinions which shall not be mentioned here. I don't think any of us, me included, wanted to see the implosion and destruction of America from within that's happening now by the billionaire broligarchy, but, here we are.

I wanted to believe that there was every indication Kamala was going to win. I wanted to believe Simon Rosenberg, Allan Lichtman, and Ann Selzer. I wanted to believe all the polls that said Kamala was ahead. Kamala's rallies were swelling by the day while Trump's rallies were dwindling massively badly. Trump made mistake after mistake, including attacking Liz Cheney, and was railed at by voters and non-voters. And won anyway. Kamala did not make very many mistakes and had armies of celebrity endorsements. Hundreds, maybe even thousands, wrote public letters to voters denouncing Trump. Republicans came out against Trump. It just doesn't make sense. Thousands of women posted to TikTok and Twitter videos of the implications of electing a rapist as President, begging their husbands to please not vote for Trump.

And I think that was the hardest part of accepting this loss. Just seeing how much campaigned against Trump, and all the positive movements on Kamala's side, and how Kamala still lost. And evil won.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

And evil won.

A long time ago, in the 90s, there was a TV show called MILLENNIUM, created by Chris Carter and in the same universe as THE X-FILES. MILLENNIUM was about the twisted nature of human evil as manifesting throughout society whether in the madness of serial killers or the insidious nature of governments and corporations and shadow organizations like the Millennium Group manipulating the world, with FBI profiler Frank Black encountering signs and portents that hinted at some cataclysmic global event to unfold in the year 2000, the apocalypse to be unleashed upon us all at the dawn of the millennium.

The end of days mythology of MILLENNIUM, since it was created by Chris Carter, is so confusing and contradictory that I'm not even going to try to explain it except that it was fundamentally about the omnipresent and all-consuming nature of evil whether corporate or governmental or industrial or supernatural, with the start of the year 2000 said to be the crux at which evil would take hold of the planet.

The show was cancelled after its May 21, 1999 episode and there was a peculiar November 28, 1999 episode of THE X-FILES ("Millennium") that offered an odd and confusing 'finale' that didn't make much sense. MILLENNIUM missed the moment of the millennium.

In 2015, comic book publisher IDW released a then-present day MILLENNIUM comic book in which Frank Black and the mysteries of the Millennium Group taking center stage. The comic distilled, explained and simplified the very confusing three season mythology of the TV show and explained the antagonist who'd been shaping events in all three years of the show, and also noted that the year 2000 had been a seemingly innocuous non-event and that the ominous foreshadowings had either been false or were in fact pointing to something more subtle and disturbing.

The fifth and final issue of the MILLENNIUM has Frank Black facing off against the villain and scoring a meaningful but slightly ambiguous victory as part of a very complicated mythos that I will not try to convey, and walking off into the sunset, recommitted to finding and battling evil. However, the final page shows that the defeated villain is recovering and regrouping. The villain remarks, "True good and evil never die, Frank. They just lay low for a bit, lick their wounds, and wait for the cycle to start again -- for an entire millennium, if necessary."

The 2015 MILLENNIUM comic effectively separates the mythology and the title of the series from the year 2000, declaring that MILLENNIUM was never about the year 2000 or any particular event in 2000, but rather about the eternal cycle of good against evil over a lengthy span of time, with each period of 1,000 years being a chapter in this conflict, with each period encompassing many disparate and separate events, instead of a single event in a single year.

3,436 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2025-01-29 16:37:58)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

If there's one thing that helps me not go crazy because of Trump's win, it's this: unless Trump takes the drastic step to eliminate elections (which could work because of the many ways its worked in the past or could blow up in his face), anything he does is reversible, some of which could be reversed four years from now.  Even if Trump ruins the economy or guts the government or gets 9 Republican members on the Supreme Court, it can be fixed.  The last one would obviously take decades, but it's all reversible.  Trump's presidency will fade.  His influence will fade.  His legacy will fade.  And unless he's infamous, before long he'll just be in a list of names that most people can't remember every name on.

Donald Trump wants to live forever and for his name to echo forever.  But some day, sooner than he'd like, he will be dead and his name will eventually be a footnote to most people that aren't presidential scholars.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:
QuinnSlidr wrote:

And evil won.

A long time ago, in the 90s, there was a TV show called MILLENNIUM, created by Chris Carter and in the same universe as THE X-FILES. MILLENNIUM was about the twisted nature of human evil as manifesting throughout society whether in the madness of serial killers or the insidious nature of governments and corporations and shadow organizations like the Millennium Group manipulating the world, with FBI profiler Frank Black encountering signs and portents that hinted at some cataclysmic global event to unfold in the year 2000, the apocalypse to be unleashed upon us all at the dawn of the millennium.

The end of days mythology of MILLENNIUM, since it was created by Chris Carter, is so confusing and contradictory that I'm not even going to try to explain it except that it was fundamentally about the omnipresent and all-consuming nature of evil whether corporate or governmental or industrial or supernatural, with the start of the year 2000 said to be the crux at which evil would take hold of the planet.

The show was cancelled after its May 21, 1999 episode and there was a peculiar November 28, 1999 episode of THE X-FILES ("Millennium") that offered an odd and confusing 'finale' that didn't make much sense. MILLENNIUM missed the moment of the millennium.

In 2015, comic book publisher IDW released a then-present day MILLENNIUM comic book in which Frank Black and the mysteries of the Millennium Group taking center stage. The comic distilled, explained and simplified the very confusing three season mythology of the TV show and explained the antagonist who'd been shaping events in all three years of the show, and also noted that the year 2000 had been a seemingly innocuous non-event and that the ominous foreshadowings had either been false or were in fact pointing to something more subtle and disturbing.

The fifth and final issue of the MILLENNIUM has Frank Black facing off against the villain and scoring a meaningful but slightly ambiguous victory as part of a very complicated mythos that I will not try to convey, and walking off into the sunset, recommitted to finding and battling evil. However, the final page shows that the defeated villain is recovering and regrouping. The villain remarks, "True good and evil never die, Frank. They just lay low for a bit, lick their wounds, and wait for the cycle to start again -- for an entire millennium, if necessary."

The 2015 MILLENNIUM comic effectively separates the mythology and the title of the series from the year 2000, declaring that MILLENNIUM was never about the year 2000 or any particular event in 2000, but rather about the eternal cycle of good against evil over a lengthy span of time, with each period of 1,000 years being a chapter in this conflict, with each period encompassing many disparate and separate events, instead of a single event in a single year.


I distinctly remember advertisements for this series. It sure looked interesting at the time and I thought about getting around to watching it, but never did. Ain't no time like the present, I guess...

3,438 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2025-01-30 06:13:16)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

If there's one thing that helps me not go crazy because of Trump's win, it's this: unless Trump takes the drastic step to eliminate elections (which could work because of the many ways its worked in the past or could blow up in his face), anything he does is reversible, some of which could be reversed four years from now.  Even if Trump ruins the economy or guts the government or gets 9 Republican members on the Supreme Court, it can be fixed.  The last one would obviously take decades, but it's all reversible.  Trump's presidency will fade.  His influence will fade.  His legacy will fade.  And unless he's infamous, before long he'll just be in a list of names that most people can't remember every name on.

Donald Trump wants to live forever and for his name to echo forever.  But some day, sooner than he'd like, he will be dead and his name will eventually be a footnote to most people that aren't presidential scholars.

Trump has taken drastic steps on everything and is hell-bent on destroying our entire way of life. The only reason that his attempts to freeze federal funding entirely failed miserably was due to public push back and one heroic federal Judge Loren AliKhan's push back in the form of an administrative stay.

President Elon Musk and Vice President Trump (I use those terms jokingly) are offering all federal workers buyouts to leave the Government with the option to return in September, 2025 if they are still able.

In other words, Trump is executing Project 2025 to the letter.

I don't think attempts to gut free and fair elections in order to cement his hold on power are out of the realms of possibility.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

But even that is fixable in time.  You can rehire the people that leave the government or hire new people.  We've had bad presidents before.  We've had terrible presidents before.  The next president cleans up whatever mess is created.

I maintain that Trump is a singular enemy and that "Trumpism" doesn't have the same ferocity without Trump both being alive and in power.  Even if you're being really generous, Trump is dead in ten years.  And without their messiah, I don't know if there's any singular vision for Trumpism.  It could splinter.  It very well might split the party in two or more pieces.  His voters will almost certainly splinter.

There's a light at the end of the tunnel.  It might be two years away, it might be four years away, it might be 100 years away.  But Trump won't win forever.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

I distinctly remember advertisements for this series. It sure looked interesting at the time and I thought about getting around to watching it, but never did. Ain't no time like the present, I guess...

I'm not recommending MILLENNIUM as a TV show. It has its fans, but it's bleak and depressing. I'm just noting that MILLENNIUM was building to a cataclysmic conclusion with a final battle upon the millennium in the year 2000 -- only to not be on the air when 2000 came. The 2015 MILLENNIUM comic book offered the view that the TV show's all-consuming focus on the year 2000 could be viewed differently if regarded in the context of a larger span of time.

The comic posits that anything that may have happened in 2000 would have merely been one of many significant battles of good against evil over the course of a millennium, over each period of one thousand years, as opposed to the year 2000 itself.

The comic, in noting that "millennium" can refer to 10 centuries instead of a specific year, suggested that definitive victories and defeats for one side or the other are not really the nature of an ongoing and perpetual conflict, and it might be myopic to view any one success or failure as a permanent situation regardless of which battle or which side won or lost.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I have a friend who is a public school administrator in a mostly-Hispanic school in North Texas.  He's nervous because all the immigration rumor mill is driving everyone crazy at his school.  And now there's apparently some executive order that forces all schools to be patriotic (his words, I didn't read the order or look into it). 

Literally everything that's coming out of the White House makes my stomach churn.  This is why my head is going six feet into the sand.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I was having dinner with a friend last night and got seriously distracted from our meal by Trump's threats to enact 25% tariffs on all Canadian goods. It was a mistake to open one of my newspaper apps.

It's a situation above my pay grade, I don't have the power to affect it, and I regret letting it distract me from dinner.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD7G0M6GbJs

This sums up my "Democrats need to reach stupid voters to win" argument.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:
QuinnSlidr wrote:

I distinctly remember advertisements for this series. It sure looked interesting at the time and I thought about getting around to watching it, but never did. Ain't no time like the present, I guess...

I'm not recommending MILLENNIUM as a TV show. It has its fans, but it's bleak and depressing. I'm just noting that MILLENNIUM was building to a cataclysmic conclusion with a final battle upon the millennium in the year 2000 -- only to not be on the air when 2000 came. The 2015 MILLENNIUM comic book offered the view that the TV show's all-consuming focus on the year 2000 could be viewed differently if regarded in the context of a larger span of time.

The comic posits that anything that may have happened in 2000 would have merely been one of many significant battles of good against evil over the course of a millennium, over each period of one thousand years, as opposed to the year 2000 itself.

The comic, in noting that "millennium" can refer to 10 centuries instead of a specific year, suggested that definitive victories and defeats for one side or the other are not really the nature of an ongoing and perpetual conflict, and it might be myopic to view any one success or failure as a permanent situation regardless of which battle or which side won or lost.

That's an interesting take, ireactions - thank you!! I'll keep it in the back of my mind as a potential something to watch if I'm all out of anything else to watch for a day, or two, or three...

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I was having dinner with a friend last night and got seriously distracted from our meal by Trump's threats to enact 25% tariffs on all Canadian goods. It was a mistake to open one of my newspaper apps.

It's a situation above my pay grade, I don't have the power to affect it, and I regret letting it distract me from dinner.

I'm sorry you got distracted with that negativity during dinner.

This is partly why I am blocking all the news apps unless absolutely necessary, and getting more re-acquainted with old hobbies. I need to live my best life and ignore all the Trump nastiness. At least as far as I'm concerned, he's a lame duck President because hopefully, like Slider_Quinn mentions, once Dems get back in everything will be reversed.

Speaking of which, I really need to turn off the notifications from Truth Social. I'm only on there on a fake account to verify that what's said by other folks on Twitter or BlueSky is actually true (such as: did Trump really post that snot-nosed drivel to Truth Social?)

It's going to be a long four years. sad

3,446

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

This sums up my "Democrats need to reach stupid voters to win" argument.

There are plenty of stupid people who voted for the Democrats. What they needed was a candidate who had been chosen by Democratic voters, not in some backroom deal.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Why isn't pilight running the DNC? He gets it.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:
Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

This sums up my "Democrats need to reach stupid voters to win" argument.

There are plenty of stupid people who voted for the Democrats. What they needed was a candidate who had been chosen by Democratic voters, not in some backroom deal.

Now, I'm going to fact check this. From MSNBC.

This is actually a right wing complaint (I am not calling anyone right wingers here, just saying the source of the complaint) that was first screamed about by Trump, so him being a pathological liar, this claim is absolutely not correct.

Debunking Trump's claim that the presidency was 'taken away' from Joe Biden

The U.S. Constitution says nothing about a party's nominating process. But that hasn't stopped Trump from pushing baseless coup claims.

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/lates … rcna166247

This is an adapted excerpt from the Aug. 10 episode of "Velshi."

After Donald Trump and his allies spent months dragging President Joe Biden for his age and mental acuity, they appeared to be caught flat-footed when someone younger and sharper took over the ticket.

Now according to Trump, Americans are being ripped off because, get this, the campaign was stolen from Biden.

"The presidency was taken away from Joe Biden and I’m no Biden fan. But I tell you what, from a constitutional standpoint, from any standpoint you look at, they took the presidency away ... For a country with a Constitution that we cherish — we cherish this Constitution — to have done it this way is pretty severe, pretty horrible. You would have thought they would have gone out to a vote, they would have had a primary system, they would have done something but to just take it away from him like he was a child..."

Hearing Trump say that he cherishes the Constitution is pretty rich but this isn’t the first time he's made this claim. Trump has posted on Truth Social alleging, “the Democrats have Unconstitutionally taken a Candidate ... and unceremoniously replaced him with a new Candidate." Team Trump has even likened the whole situation to a "coup."

If you’re like me, you’ve been seeing versions of Trump’s lie all over social media. And maybe hearing it from your conservative uncle who likes to argue during family dinners. I don’t want to give credence to every ridiculous claim Trump throws out but this one seems worth debunking.

So, for fact's sake, the presidency was not taken from Biden. Nor has Vice President Kamala Harris unconstitutionally robbed Biden of the Democratic nomination. In fact, the U.S. Constitution doesn't address the matter of party nomination processes.

Here are some other talking points to politely provide to your extra-loud uncle: Biden won the vast majority of the Democratic delegates during the primary election process and clinched the presumptive nomination back in March. But he was not formally the Democratic nominee — he was the presumptive nominee. This allowed him to, after much consideration, step aside voluntarily. He was not kicked off the party ticket and while the whole gambit might’ve been a politically risky move, there’s nothing illegal about it.

When Democratic primary voters selected Biden, Harris’ name was attached to his name and they chose her as vice president — you know, the role that takes over for the president if needed. So the argument that the American public did not have a chance to vote for Harris is categorically false. Also, they will have a chance to vote for her, or not vote for her, on Nov. 5.

The Democratic Party has a lot of rules in place for a situation as serious as a presidential election. There are rules for this exact scenario. Harris, in order to officially take Biden’s place on the ticket, needed to secure support from at least 2,350 Democratic convention delegates, including those who already pledged their support to Biden, and the elected officials, former presidents and other party elders dubbed the “superdelegates.”

3,449

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I didn't say anything about it being taken from Biden. He gave it up voluntarily. It was given to Harris, and not by primary voters. Her name was "attached" to his as an emergency backup. That's not the same as considering her as the actual candidate.

Why isn't pilight running the DNC?

Presumably because he's not a Democrat. He's not a Republican either.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

I didn't say anything about it being taken from Biden. He gave it up voluntarily. It was given to Harris, and not by primary voters. Her name was "attached" to his as an emergency backup. That's not the same as considering her as the actual candidate.

Why isn't pilight running the DNC?

Presumably because he's not a Democrat. He's not a Republican either.

No, but you were claiming that she wasn't chosen by primary voters, which is simply not true based on the facts in the article. It's another Trump lie:

What Trump said: "You would have thought they would have gone out to a vote, they would have had a primary system..."

That's exactly what you stated. I do not see how what Trump said above and what you stated are different:

What you said: "It was given to Harris, and not by primary voters."

3,451 (edited by ireactions 2025-02-02 02:00:15)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This is trivial hairsplitting. It's a factual statement to say there was no primary to choose a replacement for Biden; he dropped out and Kamala was the only option because she was the only one who could use his campaign funds. Kamala was appointed the presidential nominee. She was not elected as the presidential nominee via a primary.

Kamala was chosen as vice president by Biden via the vice presidential candidate selection of 2024 (and previously in 2020), not the presidential primary.

A presidential primary does not select a vice presidential candidate, only a presidential candidate. It is a statement of fact to say that Kamala was not chosen as the Democratic presidential nominee via a primary process. Someone pointing that out is not making a Trump argument or a Republican argument, but a simple observation of public record and campaign finance law.

You have posted a link to an article about Trump claiming that Biden's presidency was taken from him on the grounds that Kamala ran for president in 2024. That has no bearing on pilight's observation that Kamala was not the presidential nominee via a primary election. As a response to pilight's observation of historical record, it's a non-sequitur and utterly irrelevant.

pilight was talking about the process (or lack of one) that saw Kamala running as the Democratic presidential candidate in 2024. Whatever nonsense Trump had to say about whether or not Biden finished his term in office is irrelevant to pilight's statement, and the association you are making between Trump's inanities and pilight's observation is utterly non-existent.

pilight has no responsibility to answer for an article he did not post that has no relevance to his observation.

pilight is not responsible for what Trump says; pilight is only responsible for what pilight says.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

This is trivial hairsplitting. It's a factual statement to say there was no primary to choose a replacement for Biden; he dropped out and Kamala was the only option because she was the only one who could use his campaign funds. Kamala was appointed the presidential nominee. She was not elected as the presidential nominee via a primary.


Kamala was chosen as vice president by Biden via the vice presidential candidate selection of 2024 (and previously in 2020), not the presidential primary.

A presidential primary does not select a vice presidential candidate, only a presidential candidate. It is a statement of fact to say that Kamala was not chosen as the Democratic presidential nominee via a primary process. Someone pointing that out is not making a Trump argument or a Republican argument, but a simple observation of public record and campaign finance law.

You have posted a link to an article about Trump claiming that Biden's presidency was taken from him on the grounds that Kamala ran for president in 2024. That has no bearing on pilight's observation that Kamala was not the presidential nominee via a primary election. As a response to pilight's observation of historical record, it's a non-sequitur and utterly irrelevant.

pilight was talking about the process (or lack of one) that saw Kamala running as the Democratic presidential candidate in 2024. Whatever nonsense Trump had to say about whether or not Biden finished his term in office is irrelevant to pilight's statement, and the association you are making between Trump's inanities and pilight's observation is utterly non-existent.

pilight has no responsibility to answer for an article he did not post that has no relevance to his observation.

pilight is not responsible for what Trump says; pilight is only responsible for what pilight says.

I think these comments in red are a little unfair. I posted the correct article with the correct facts. Here is another fact from that same article.

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/lates … rcna166247

Fact:

"When Democratic primary voters selected Biden, Harris’ name was attached to his name and they chose her as vice president — you know, the role that takes over for the president if needed. So the argument that the American public did not have a chance to vote for Harris is categorically false. Also, they will have a chance to vote for her, or not vote for her, on Nov. 5."

Here is the proof:

https://i.postimg.cc/j5Km3tBk/image.png

Here is my original fact from that same article, showing exactly what was said, highlighted:

https://i.postimg.cc/zvhzwJh2/image.png

In fact, here's my screenshot with the captions proving that Trump said it on the video linked to...in that same article:

https://i.postimg.cc/W4K6tnwm/image.png

Whether or not a primary was held in 2024 makes no difference, because voters voted for her and she had their backing. If there were to be another candidate chosen, then the Democratic party could have made that happen without much of an issue.

I posted the facts to the article stating that Trump stated this exact same thing.

Here is exactly where Trump states it about Kamala not being voted in by primary on video (also linked to in the article), which is the origin of this lie meant to disenfranchise dem voters:

https://youtu.be/wgdhv1qbA4I?si=FOOLp73 … J&t=60

And I'm sorry, but I think it is a material fact that this particular saying is a lie spread by Trump. You can't say that dems didn't vote for Kamala because that is not what happened. Dems voted for Kamala as part of the President Biden ticket in 2020. The democratic party was free to choose another candidate by primary if they wanted to.

She has been an excellent Vice President, and has 30 years of experience in all three branches of Government. I would say she was an excellent candidate, resulting in one of the smallest popular vote margin wins in history since 2000.

Anyway, my points are correct, and they are in the article. And I posted the correct article with the correct facts backing up my claim.

3,453 (edited by ireactions 2025-02-02 09:12:16)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Your 'points' are a false representation of the presidential primary process and blaming pilight for your psychological triggers. pilight is not responsible for your mental shortcomings and behavioural difficulties.

pilight made a factual statement: Kamala Harris did not win a presidential primary to become the presidential nominee. A presidential primary elects a nominee for president, not vice president. Joe Biden was the elected nominee for president; Kamala Harris was the vice presidential candidate via vice president selection process.

You either do not understand the difference between a presidential primary election and a vice presidential selection or you're deliberately conflating them. A presidential nominee is elected. A vice presidential candidate is selected. The VP candidate becoming the presidential nominee by default was selected, not elected. Selection is not election.

Voters voted for Joe Biden to be the nominee and Biden chose Kamala as his VP candidate. Presidential primaries choose the nominee for president, not the VP. That's why it's called a presidential primary. It's not a vice presidential primary. Those are facts.

Trump took those facts to make a false representation, claiming that Joe Biden 'lost' his presidency from Kamala becoming the nominee without a primary process, conflating Biden's first term with a hypothetical second term. Those are lies.

You have associated pilight's factual statements with some Trump lies because you are triggered by pilight stating facts and Trump using those same facts to make a false conclusion. You have created a false association between pilight and Trump.

pilight observed that Kamala did not win a primary to become the presidential nominee; this is a fact.

Trump concluded this lack of primary process for Kamala meant she had stolen Biden's presidency; this is a lie.

pilight is not responsible for Trump's nonsensical conclusions from pilight's facts. pilight is not responsible for your being triggered by facts that trigger your memories of Trump's lies.

That's a you problem, not a pilight problem.

You have obvious psychological shortcomings: you are triggered whenever someone's facts causes you to recall a Republican lie, and then you associate the person with the Republicans. You have a clear pattern of this.

Grizzlor didn't like a speech from person who happened to be black; you associated that with Republican racism and called him a racist.

Slider_Quinn21 (quite correctly, it turns out) had doubts about Joe Biden having the support to run a successful campaign for a second term; you associated that with Republcian ageism and called him a Trumpist.

I described Joe Biden's fear that Republicans would imprison his family and the serious threat he faced; you associated that with support for Republican fascism and accused me of demanding respect for them.

I mentioned that Kamala Harris had lost the 2024 election; you associated that with a bizarre inversion of Republican election denialism and called anyone reporting this a liar.

pilight described how Kamala was selected and not elected as the presidential nominee; you associated that with a Trump delusion and accused him of repeating a Trump lie.

In each case, you were triggered by whatever false association you imagined between the person and Republicans. You blamed someone else for your false association and accused and harassed them and me. No one but you is responsible for your triggers. You are an adult.

Your harassment is obviously designed to try to make people afraid to post facts that trigger you. You want to make people afraid to post criticism of anyone who happens to be black, to post doubts about Democrat electoral prospects, to post news and analysis about Kamala's defeat, to post facts about Kamala being selected and not elected as the presidential nominee.

You are trying to intimidate people and it's a serious moderation problem. Republicans misusing facts doesn't make those facts off limits. Republicans use keyboards; does that mean we should stop typing? If you can't handle people posting any facts that Republicans will misuse in one of their lies, maybe you should find some other community for politics.

I don't know what community is going to be sufficiently curated for your triggers, but it won't be this one.

Ultimately, you are blaming other people for your inability to manage your own internal mental health crisis and maladaptive coping. That's really between you and your therapist. It's not an us problem. It's a you problem.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Okay, I'm going to try to explain this one more time in the way Slider_Quinn21, the peacemaker, would have me do it.

Donald Trump may issue an executive order declaring that because the sky is blue, SLIDERS is to never receive a revival or reboot.

pilight may say the sky is blue. That does not mean he is in favour of barring SLIDERS from being revived or rebooted. He just observed that the sky is blue which in itself is not offensive or a crime against humanity or an indication of a Trump affiliation, and does not justify accusing him of being an enemy of SLIDERS or a liar or a Trumpist.

I myself have been known to drink diet cola and enjoy fast food burgers. That is also not an indication of any affiliation with Trump.

3,455 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2025-02-02 11:34:59)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Your 'points' are a false representation of the presidential primary process and blaming pilight for your psychological triggers. pilight is not responsible for your mental shortcomings and behavioural difficulties.

pilight made a factual statement: Kamala Harris did not win a presidential primary to become the presidential nominee. A presidential primary elects a nominee for president, not vice president. Joe Biden was the elected nominee for president; Kamala Harris was the vice presidential candidate via vice president selection process.

You either do not understand the difference between a presidential primary election and a vice presidential selection or you're deliberately conflating them. A presidential nominee is elected. A vice presidential candidate is selected. The VP candidate becoming the presidential nominee by default was selected, not elected. Selection is not election.

Voters voted for Joe Biden to be the nominee and Biden chose Kamala as his VP candidate. Presidential primaries choose the nominee for president, not the VP. That's why it's called a presidential primary. It's not a vice presidential primary. Those are facts.

Trump took those facts to make a false representation, claiming that Joe Biden 'lost' his presidency from Kamala becoming the nominee without a primary process, conflating Biden's first term with a hypothetical second term. Those are lies.

You have associated pilight's factual statements with some Trump lies because you are triggered by pilight stating facts and Trump using those same facts to make a false conclusion. You have created a false association between pilight and Trump.

pilight observed that Kamala did not win a primary to become the presidential nominee; this is a fact.

Trump concluded this lack of primary process for Kamala meant she had stolen Biden's presidency; this is a lie.

pilight is not responsible for Trump's nonsensical conclusions from pilight's facts. pilight is not responsible for your being triggered by facts that trigger your memories of Trump's lies.

That's a you problem, not a pilight problem.

You have obvious psychological shortcomings: you are triggered whenever someone's facts causes you to recall a Republican lie, and then you associate the person with the Republicans. You have a clear pattern of this.

Grizzlor didn't like a speech from person who happened to be black; you associated that with Republican racism and called him a racist.

Slider_Quinn21 (quite correctly, it turns out) had doubts about Joe Biden having the support to run a successful campaign for a second term; you associated that with Republcian ageism and called him a Trumpist.

I described Joe Biden's fear that Republicans would imprison his family and the serious threat he faced; you associated that with support for Republican fascism and accused me of demanding respect for them.

I mentioned that Kamala Harris had lost the 2024 election; you associated that with a bizarre inversion of Republican election denialism and called anyone reporting this a liar.

pilight described how Kamala was selected and not elected as the presidential nominee; you associated that with a Trump delusion and accused him of repeating a Trump lie.

In each case, you were triggered by whatever false association you imagined between the person and Republicans. You blamed someone else for your false association and accused and harassed them and me. No one but you is responsible for your triggers. You are an adult.

Your harassment is obviously designed to try to make people afraid to post facts that trigger you. You want to make people afraid to post criticism of anyone who happens to be black, to post doubts about Democrat electoral prospects, to post news and analysis about Kamala's defeat, to post facts about Kamala being selected and not elected as the presidential nominee.

You are trying to intimidate people and it's a serious moderation problem. Republicans misusing facts doesn't make those facts off limits. Republicans use keyboards; does that mean we should stop typing? If you can't handle people posting any facts that Republicans will misuse in one of their lies, maybe you should find some other community for politics.

I don't know what community is going to be sufficiently curated for your triggers, but it won't be this one.

Ultimately, you are blaming other people for your inability to manage your own internal mental health crisis and maladaptive coping. That's really between you and your therapist. It's not an us problem. It's a you problem.


You clearly just don't like me for whatever reason. I posted the facts. You took another post I posted against Trump and now you are twisting things attacking me and accusing me of false harassment and spreading false information. I am not spreading false information nor am I harassing anybody.

I don't need this crap in this forum. I don't need somebody trying to attack me about what's fact and what's not. I lived through this bull. I know what's fact and what's not. I posted the unemotional facts from MSNBC. A reliable news station. Those are the facts. You, for whatever reason, want to perpetuate Trump lies. I post the facts. You attack me. That's on you for your own behavioral issues capitulating to Trump. Not me. Once Trump won the election, nobody's allowed to post on these forums that Trump stated (THIS IS FACT NOW - LOOK IT UP) on January 19th before inauguration that he let Elon Musk rig the election with Musks "voting computers". No one is allowed to post against Trump being President. Anybody posts anything opposing Trump, they're accused of harassment. My behavior is not at issue. Your behavior is, however, just like all those including Morning Joe on MSNBC who went running to Mar-A-Lago with their tails between their legs capitulating to Trump. Unless you gain a backbone defending fact, and admit you accidentally spread a Trump lie, there is no fact. There is no shame in admitting accidental spreading of Trump lies. Sometimes even the best of us think what he said was true. You are stating a false equivalency.

The fact is that this is a Trump lie, originating from and spread by TRUMP. I even posted the evidence. IT'S A TRUMP LIE. MSNBC STATES IT'S A TRUMP LIE.

Unless we agree, there is no point in having a discussion. I'll defer to Slider_Quinn21, but I am getting really tired of these attacks against me because you refuse to believe the facts posted and think I'm being "triggered." I tried to be civil and capitulate to this unfairness, but I'm not capitulating anymore. Especially when I received undeserved attacks in return for posting FACTS FROM MSNBC. Now if standing up for myself is going to get me banned again or permanently, so be it.

I really don't need to be in a community where all I am is attacked because the forum administrator clearly has a bias against me and screams that I am emotional for talking about the facts. Even when I posted facts from MSNBC, a reliable news source. Clearly, I have a permanent bad mark on my head even when vote flipping fraud turns out to be the truth and Trump admits it on live TV "Elon Musk knows 'those vote counting computers'": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9gCyRkpPe8

That's okay. I'm out. Good luck, ireactions, and everyone. Clearly we are not going to get along on this. I'm sorry we couldn't come to an agreement on basic fact.

3,456 (edited by ireactions 2025-02-03 13:57:40)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

"Unless we agree, there is no point in having a discussion" is not a call for discussion. Discussion doesn't require agreement. This sentence completely encapsulates this poster's toxic behaviour. It is a tactic to shut down dissent against this person's speculations which they falsely claim are "basic facts" and to suppress people from identifying this person as an abuser and a harasser.

It is the latest in a long line of incidents. I think that going forward: people who harass others for posting facts and who falsely post unproven theory as proven fact should be suspended from posting for a 72 hour timeout (as opposed to a permanent ban). It'll give the abusive harasser some time to think. But I'll let Slider_Quinn21 make that decision as I previously put it in his hands and respect his arbitration.

This is, by my count, the third time a certain abusive harasser has declared he's never coming back (only to be back shortly) and then made a fond farewell to "everyone" implying that he'll miss you all. He's attacked nearly every person here, calling you neo-Nazis and Trumpists and racists and liars. Who is his goodbye even addressing... ?

pilight should not be harassed for posting a factual statement: that presidential primaries elect presidential nominees and not vice presidential candidates. That the vice presidential candidate, selected by the presidential nominee via a selection process, was not elected by primary voters. That the vice presidential candidate became the nominee through the DNC delegate roll call and not a presidential primary election. And that a selection is not an election.

pilight is not responsible for how the facts from his accurate summary -- selection is not election -- were used in an otherwise false statement by someone else. No one should be harassed for posting factual information just because those facts were used by others in a larger lie.

There are times when I feel pilight has made inaccurate or unfair statements. I'm sure pilight would say they were his perspective, and he may be right. Regardless: saying Kamala was selected and not elected is a factual claim. I confess that sometimes, pilight's facts make me feel insecure and unsteady. But facts aren't always happy, and people should have the right to post them.

There is a different poster whom I feel has mistreated pilight in the same way he has mistreated nearly everyone else here. I feel this poster has turned Sliders.tv from a pleasure into an exasperating chore for me because I have had to constantly reiterate to him (and for some reason, only him): people are not to be harassed for posting factual information.

It's factual information that Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election; that there was no reported evidence of voter fraud (social media theories from people who don't understand air gapped voting machines is not evidence); that presidential primaries don't elect vice presidential candidates; and that the eventual 2024 nominee was not elected to be the nominee by a presidential primary.

People should be able to discuss the Democratic defeat of 2024 and the lack of presidential primary regarding Kamala without being associated with Trumpism or accused of ignoring evidence (and speculation is not evidence). Posters should not harassed with demands that they answer for Trumpist statements they did not make. They should not be harassed with demands that they reconcile their facts with unproven conspiracy theories that at this writing have no facts.

The only reason a person would harass others for making factual statements and claim their facts indicate Trumpist loyalties: it's an intimidation tactic. It's to make posters to be afraid to post criticism of Democrats for fear that they'll be attacked and drawn into exhausting exchanges where they have to defend themselves against false attack after false attack.

I have assumed this task for pilight because I do not feel pilight -- or anyone else here -- should have to deal with it.

I have had to repeatedly tell this person: their behaviour is an unacceptable intimidation tactic and I that I see it for what it is. It has been draining and wearying. It is not something that makes me fond of the person.

If I were constantly causing you stress and grief and extra work, you wouldn't like me either. I had to stop looking at Sliders.TV on my phone and restrict my time on this board because of the sheer energy it took to keep addressing this one person over and over again. It was keeping me from my other responsibilities.

I was at this amazing autism support event today. I was afraid to come home. I knew that once I did, I would be looking down the barrel of another post harassing people for factual statements and find myself writing a lengthy response about why this is wrong.

This is merely one instance of pngoing harassment. This has been a constant and recurring pattern even before the 2024 election. This poster was asked to cease hijacking conversations with unproven claims of voter fraud; he posts more and calls them facts. This poster was warned not to harass people for posting facts he didn't like; he continues to harass. This poster was told that their perpetually false accusations of Trumpism were obviously disingenuous abuse; he continues to abuse.

I explained why this person's behaviour is abuse and harassment, and he called me a Trumpist. Who in this thread hasn't he accused of being a Trump supporter?

Slider_Quinn21 had the right to say Joe Biden's chances of re-election were in trouble without being called a Trumpist. Grizzlor had the right to dislike a speech made by a black person without being called a racist Trumpist. Everyone had the right to observe the Biden's debate was a disaster without being called an ageist Trumpist. I have the right to report that Kamala lost the election and that there's no evidence of fraud (speculation isn't evidence) and demand that abuse and harassment cease without being called an administrative Trumpist.

And pilight has the right to say Kamala was selected and not elected as the nominee without being called a lying Trumpist.

This person's response to their pattern being pointed out was, once again: they claim the most recent harassment didn't happen and avoid addressing all the others.

I do not feel harassment of others for posting factual statements should pass without response, but the burden of these responses is wearing me out and intruding on my personal life and well-being. This person has attacked nearly every person in this thread; when called out, he declares that he's leaving and expresses regret for leaving a community (composed of people he's repeatedly insulted); he then promptly comes back. This is the pattern of an abusive person.

I no longer have the hours to keep addressing it in this manner. This person has already been given multiple warnings, a permanent ban that was reduced to a temporary suspension, and they consider it license to repeat their abuse and harassment and misinformation.

I ask Slider_Quinn21 to tell me if temporary timeouts are acceptable to his conscience and sense of community, which is something I deeply respect.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm sorry, guys.  I had a rough day yesterday (no big deal, nothing consequential) and I don't have the heart to chime in here right now.  Maybe I will later.  I guess my half-hearted response would be some combination of the same argument I made in regard to Grizzlor (we can't afford to lose anyone and we need varied viewpoints) and "go back to your corners and cool down."  I don't want QuinnSlidr to leave, and I don't like the idea of any sort of temporary ban in this case, but I do agree that QuinnSlidr should probably voluntarily avoid this post for his own mental health.  And maybe do the same with the news.  It can be stressful and a break from it might help.

For my two cents, I'll say this:

1. Kamala wasn't directly elected by primary voters

2. Outside of Biden stepping down months earlier, I don't see how it's logistically possible for the voters to have done a second primary.  And I don't recall that ever being something that was on the table.  And I think if they did something like that, it would've gone exactly the way that Biden's primary went - a couple of random nobodies would have run against her and she would've easily won.

Would some kind of fake primary have helped Kamala win?  I can't imagine there's any chance of that.  So I think, in the end, that argument is invalid.  Biden "won a primary' but did he?  People voted for him, but (and I apologize for this comparison), Putin wins a lot of elections.  Because the elections aren't real elections but just rubber stamps to make us feel better.

The real problem is that we think that incumbents shouldn't be challenged.  We think challenging a sitting incumbent is a sign of weakness, and it will expose the incumbent to challenges in the general election.

And my response to that is "....good?"  If an incumbent can't beat a challenge in a primary, they probably can't win a challenge in a general election.  And if the point of a primary is to get the best possible candidate, then every primary should be an open primary.  The problem is that people assume all primaries are going to be dirty and negative.  I think if the Democrats had run a true open primary but kept it positive, it wouldn't have hurt anyone.  And if Biden was the best candidate, he'd win.  If not, then "....good?"

The problem with the Democrats in the two elections they lost to Trump is that they kept saying how important it was to defeat Trump, but they didn't make any effort to get the best Democrat.  Hillary didn't face a true primary and neither did Biden or Harris.  I'm not convinced that Newsom or Whitmer or Mayor Pete could've beaten Trump, especially with how things went.  It seems like Trump was always going to win.  But in 2016, Hillary was just so historically unpopular in her own party and then went out of her way to alienate the Bernie voters.  She was clearly the better candidate, but she wasn't electable because of all her baggage with voters.

And I'm guessing if anyone had joined in a primary against her, they would've beaten her and probably won the presidency.  Heck a super old crazy socialist (my own editorializing - I like Bernie but I think that description fits) made it way closer than it should've been, and no one had ever heard of him previously. A real candidate would've beaten her the same way Trump beat her.  Obviously if Biden's son hadn't died, I think he would've run and won.

So in summary, I don't think a primary would've mattered because I don't think a real primary would've happened.  Everyone lined up behind Kamala - that was the primary.  It would've been a waste of time to frantically throw together a process where people would put Kamala's name on a ballot just to check a box.  And they didn't have any time.

And again, I don't think anyone was going to beat Trump.  I think Kamala did as well as anyone else would've.

**************

So as a favor to me, everyone should calm down and take a breath.  Everything sucks right now, and as a favor to me, just drop it and let's move forward.

3,458 (edited by ireactions 2025-02-03 09:29:23)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm sorry you had a rough day.

I liked Kamala. I thought she had a chance to win. I think she was probably the best choice in a bad situation.

pilight says Kamala wasn't elected but selected as the nominee, and a review of presidential primary and caucus processes indicates that pilight is correct.

Personally, I set that selection over election aside because I liked Kamala. pilight did not set it aside, and pilgiht has every right to not set that aside and to consider it indicting and disqualifying and a clear indication that Kamala should never have been the nominee. As his facts are correct, he has the right to offer an opinion of the facts, and he should not be abused and harassed for it.

pilight has every right to hold and present his personal reaction to the objective facts of Kamala being selected, not elected. pilight did not make up his own facts. pilight did not attack others for declining to accept his personal reactions and speculations. I can't say what's going on in pilight's mind because he's been guarded on that, but his conduct has been exemplary in sharing his personal opinion as a personal opinion, and he has not engaged in conversation hijacking or false accusations or abuse and harassment.

3,459 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2025-02-03 10:10:22)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Personally, I set that selection over election aside because I liked Kamala. pilight did not set it aside, and pilgiht has every right to not set that aside and to consider it indicting and disqualifying and a clear indication that Kamala should never have been the nominee. As his facts are correct, he has the right to offer an opinion of the facts, and he should not be abused and harassed for it.

pilight has every right to hold and present his personal reaction to the objective facts of Kamala being selected, not elected. pilight did not make up his own facts. pilight did not attack others for declining to accept his personal reactions and speculations. I can't say what's going on in pilight's mind because he's been guarded on that, but his conduct has been exemplary in sharing his personal opinion as a personal opinion, and he has not engaged in conversation hijacking or false accusations or abuse and harassment.

I agree with all that.  I only disagree with the premise that there was ever a chance of an open primary.  If the Democrats would've run a primary, anyone that could've beaten Trump would've chosen to sit it out.  It would've been a primary for the sake of doing a primary, and it would've ended up with the same result.  I guess you could technically argue that if they'd spent 4-6 weeks doing a primary across the country that Kamala's "honeymoon period" could have come later and maybe that would've helped her.  But I doubt it.

I also think that even if Kamala had chosen not to run, there wouldn't have been a true open primary.  It was political suicide for Kamala to run herself.  Losing a presidential election is typically career death (which is why Trump still won't admit he lost), and it would've killed the career of Whitmer or Newsom to run on a shortened timeline and lose.

pilight is perfectly okay to think it mattered.  And I think he's right if Biden had dropped out in 2022.  But aside from that, I think a phony primary that Kamala would've easily won wouldn't have affected the outcome one bit.  And a true primary would've taken way too much time and probably also wouldn't have affected the outcome one bit.

3,460

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I absolutely think Biden should have never run for another term. They needed a robust primary contest to assure they got the best candidate.

Harris getting handed the nomination may have been the Democrats only option at that point, but it hurt them in November. She didn't get the vetting that a primary front runner gets, so when Trump came after her it was all new to the public and she didn't have a response ready.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Biden absolutely shouldn't have run for another term.  He ended up doing the right thing, but it was too late.  If you look the way the wind ended up blowing, it might not have mattered no matter who the candidate was.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21, I will approach you again next week about an opinion regarding disciplinary measures. Again, sorry you've had it so rough and that you're so unduly burdened.

**

Trump enacted a 25 percent tariff against Canada (where I live) in an attack on our economy as our largest trading partner. Canada's responded with tariffs in kind, and we are now officially at war (a trade war).

The consequences for Canada will be severe: likely millions of jobs lost, auto production will stall, and the diminished exports will affect every single sector and the costs of food and housing and building materials and carpets and auto parts. We could go into a recession and our economy is not equipped to deal with a shock of this nature. We are in serious trouble and the United States is an elephant where we are an ant.

But the president has seriously underestimated how resilient and adept Canadians are and also, how unbelievably petty every single one of us are in any conflict ever whether it's War of 1812, the Alabama Claims, the Alaska Boundary Dispute, the Great War, World War II, Operation Medak Pocket or someone being mean to pilight for no reason whatsoever. People might find my obsessive documentation of all slights and grudges severe. Compared to Canadians in general, I'd seem downright mild.

The Canadian character is also blessed with excellent precision: we know not to strike our friends even as we retaliate against our enemies. We know our enemies are not Grizzlor, Slider_Quinn21, pilight, Temporal Flux or even Informant. We know who we're fighting.

Make no mistake: even though we're currently in a transition (the soon to be former prime minister resigned, Slider_Quinn21 needs some time to think), we Canadians are furious, we have electricity and we're not afraid to stop selling it, we have long memories, and we hold very bitter grudges.

We Canadians will be relentless in defending our economy and pilight's God-given right to dislike Kamala Harris (even though a lot of us here thought she was okay).

After https://www.thebeaverton.com/2025/02/ed … dians-are/

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor, I have moved your post from the Reboot thread here.

On January 27, 2025, you made a set of very serious comments about the transgender community. As I am non-binary which falls under a transgender umbrella, you were making those comments about me. You declared that anyone who is transgender is a threat to women and children, implying that anyone transgender is a violent abuser and a sexual predator. You were effectively saying that I am a violent abuser and a sexual predator based on nothing more than my gender identity and without evidence of any crime.
https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 973#p16973

I replied to you and described why your remarks were transphobic and misinformed and a set of false accusations attacking me whether you were aware of it or not.
https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 976#p16976

Slider_Quinn21 suggested you might not be well-informed on transgender identity (which is not drag) and asked that you be given some consideration and understanding.
https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 977#p16977

I was very hurt and said it was up to you to be a friend and come forward with an explanation.
https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 978#p16978

After none immediately came, my view was that you were to be suspended until you provided a satisfactory explanation.
https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 987#p16987

Slider_Quinn21 said you should be given the chance to address the offensive remarks.
https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 989#p16989

I deferred to him.
https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 989#p16989

Your subsequent post on February 4, 2025 was a comment about BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER.

Given that you have accused me and anyone like me of being a violent abuser and a sexual predator based on gender identity alone, it is not appropriate to be posting about science fiction and fantasy in this community until you have addressed your remarks about me and my identity and my community.

I ask that you do so.

I also wish to apologize to you for every single instance in the past where you hurt or offended me and I made threats and insulted you and derided you. I ask for your forgiveness for my trespasses, my ego, and my hotheadedness. I see now that it was not how I should have treated a friend, and that I should have asked for a conversation and an explanation. I would like to ask for that now.

Thank you.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

The Canadian character is also blessed with excellent precision: we know not to strike our friends even as we retaliate against our enemies. We know our enemies are not Grizzlor, Slider_Quinn21, pilight, Temporal Flux or even Informant. We know who we're fighting.

Make no mistake: even though we're currently in a transition (the soon to be former prime minister resigned, Slider_Quinn21 needs some time to think), we Canadians are furious, we have electricity and we're not afraid to stop selling it, we have long memories, and we hold very bitter grudges.

On behalf of all Americans, we are sorry.  Canada is supposed to be our friend, and I don't know why we're treating our friends this way.  We also do not want to make you an American state.  At the moment, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I hope America can find its way out of what we've become, and I hope Canada will forgive us when we do.

3,465 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2025-02-04 22:08:26)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I'm sorry, guys.  I had a rough day yesterday (no big deal, nothing consequential) and I don't have the heart to chime in here right now.  Maybe I will later.  I guess my half-hearted response would be some combination of the same argument I made in regard to Grizzlor (we can't afford to lose anyone and we need varied viewpoints) and "go back to your corners and cool down."  I don't want QuinnSlidr to leave, and I don't like the idea of any sort of temporary ban in this case, but I do agree that QuinnSlidr should probably voluntarily avoid this post for his own mental health.  And maybe do the same with the news.  It can be stressful and a break from it might help.

For my two cents, I'll say this:

1. Kamala wasn't directly elected by primary voters

2. Outside of Biden stepping down months earlier, I don't see how it's logistically possible for the voters to have done a second primary.  And I don't recall that ever being something that was on the table.  And I think if they did something like that, it would've gone exactly the way that Biden's primary went - a couple of random nobodies would have run against her and she would've easily won.

Would some kind of fake primary have helped Kamala win?  I can't imagine there's any chance of that.  So I think, in the end, that argument is invalid.  Biden "won a primary' but did he?  People voted for him, but (and I apologize for this comparison), Putin wins a lot of elections.  Because the elections aren't real elections but just rubber stamps to make us feel better.

The real problem is that we think that incumbents shouldn't be challenged.  We think challenging a sitting incumbent is a sign of weakness, and it will expose the incumbent to challenges in the general election.

And my response to that is "....good?"  If an incumbent can't beat a challenge in a primary, they probably can't win a challenge in a general election.  And if the point of a primary is to get the best possible candidate, then every primary should be an open primary.  The problem is that people assume all primaries are going to be dirty and negative.  I think if the Democrats had run a true open primary but kept it positive, it wouldn't have hurt anyone.  And if Biden was the best candidate, he'd win.  If not, then "....good?"

The problem with the Democrats in the two elections they lost to Trump is that they kept saying how important it was to defeat Trump, but they didn't make any effort to get the best Democrat.  Hillary didn't face a true primary and neither did Biden or Harris.  I'm not convinced that Newsom or Whitmer or Mayor Pete could've beaten Trump, especially with how things went.  It seems like Trump was always going to win.  But in 2016, Hillary was just so historically unpopular in her own party and then went out of her way to alienate the Bernie voters.  She was clearly the better candidate, but she wasn't electable because of all her baggage with voters.

And I'm guessing if anyone had joined in a primary against her, they would've beaten her and probably won the presidency.  Heck a super old crazy socialist (my own editorializing - I like Bernie but I think that description fits) made it way closer than it should've been, and no one had ever heard of him previously. A real candidate would've beaten her the same way Trump beat her.  Obviously if Biden's son hadn't died, I think he would've run and won.

So in summary, I don't think a primary would've mattered because I don't think a real primary would've happened.  Everyone lined up behind Kamala - that was the primary.  It would've been a waste of time to frantically throw together a process where people would put Kamala's name on a ballot just to check a box.  And they didn't have any time.

And again, I don't think anyone was going to beat Trump.  I think Kamala did as well as anyone else would've.

**************

So as a favor to me, everyone should calm down and take a breath.  Everything sucks right now, and as a favor to me, just drop it and let's move forward.

I am sorry you had a bad day, Slider_Quinn21. Anyway, as a favor, I will try and drop it and calm down, but I need to say one last thing that is absolutely wrong in other posts:

I was attacked for providing factual information. FACTUAL information. And called names for doing so.

It is fact that what I provided in the article was fact. I even provided the receipts and when I did so, I was attacked emotionally and viciously for proving I was right.

It is fact that Trump admitted to the crime of flipping votes on national TV on January 19, 2025 right before inauguration day. Every single democratic account on Twitter said "WTF?" and "is that a confession?" Facts are not harassment. And the facts make this an illegitimate election and Trump needs to be removed as soon as possible before more damage is done. More and more data is coming out from Smart Elections and The Election Truth Alliance that proves it and shows anomalies within the voting results that scream manipulation across the swing states. But, because dems are so scared of the optics they are slow and refusing to act, and want to blame the loss on other things and different narratives. Well I'm not scared of the optics.

I'm sorry I even capitulated in these forums when what I posted turned out to be true on January 19, 2025. So I will not be doing that again. What I can't get over is the forum administrator in this community whitewashing the facts for a couple of protected individuals and trying to scream that what I stated was misinformation. I didn't harass them...but I brought up questions about what they posted in the friendliest manner possible. That's not harassment. That's simply exposing false information that was provided by them. But instead I'm still accused of harassment and providing misinformation that does not exist in that particular instance.

I did not provide the false information that was spread by Trump. Just shedding light on it that Trump said it and that it originated from him. It doesn't matter it was "fact" before he took it for his own. It's how he said it and used it that makes it the lie, so everyone spreading it afterward is culpable. It doesn't matter that it was an actual "fact" but he twisted it and used it for his own gain.

What I should be is thanked for providing the facts and instead, I am viciously and emotionally attacked with a half-baked scan of the article by an administrator who didn't bother with reading the entire article and verifying that my facts were in there. This administrator didn't bother reading all the accounts on Twitter from that night or watching the video, I'm sure. And I am screamed at for harassment and misinformation trying to destroy my credibility even though anyone is free to disagree with me at any time (I have stated this at least 2-3 times in past posts). Do I need to still state this?

Anyway. I'm sorry, but I will avoid this thread since people don't want to have the facts and I don't have time to baby the facts so that they don't offend people. By the way, tonight, Hakeem Jeffries has called all democrats back to Washington for mobilization and stopping this nightmare. Whatever steps will be taken, I don't know. But that is fact that was shown on TV tonight. There are also massive protests at the U.S. Treasury that Elon Musk has taken hostage and is effectively staging a coup and blocked members of Congress from entering the U.S. Treasury. Is that okay to say here? Maybe not.

My apologies to Slider_Quinn21 and ireactions (still for that we can't agree on the facts) but the truth deserves to be said as it was reported. There is obviously bias against me because of it otherwise it would probably be fact if it came from Slider_Quinn21. Just like he said, a primary for Kamala probably would have made no difference anyway. But that will now be misinformation coming from me.

We'll see if I am still here in these forums later. And if so, at the request of Slider_Quinn21 I will avoid this post. I am sorry for stating the truth.

3,466 (edited by Grizzlor 2025-02-05 01:58:45)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

a) I do not know you or anyone else's personal characteristics here.  If someone said it, I'd forget or confuse with someone else.  It's something that does not enter my mind, as I don't hold anything for or against anyone for any belief or persuasion.  My intention is never to insult or chastise anyone here directly. 

b) Post I made was to continue to complain about why and how the Democratic Party has lost its way with the majority of the voting public.  Identity politics have left the Democratic Party in a bad way.  Trump is the backlash to that, this adherence to the rules of identity.  Don't dare break them.  You'll be ostracized. Canceled.  Paralyzed from doing simple things like incarcerating violent criminals.  Oh well, enjoy four years of MAGA. 

c) My thoughts were to protect young girls and women, who remain the most frequently victimized part of society, mostly by men.  I'm not backing down on barring biological men (post-puberty ages) from women's sports.  Particularly at the high school or collegiate level.  There are competive fairness concerns as well as physical injury concerns.  Anyone born male has inherent biomechanical advantages and those can be dangerous, just as an NFL linebacker would pose a risk to someone like me, who is not a pro.  Is it right or fair for trans women to be forced to compete in men's sports?  I'm really not sure what the ideal answer is, but I DO know that competitive sports particularly contact sports for women and girls, should remain solely for biological women and girls.  Joe Biden's administration thought differently.  They lost. 

d) I bashed "Drag Queen Story Hour," again, to some an innocuous idea, to others it was another instance where "normies" felt Liberals may have lost their minds.  I myself, have no problem with it.  If parents are informed, and given the choice to opt out, fine.  The kids really don't think about or care who's reading the dumb book.  They'd probably rather it be a Russian CGI YouTube character they all love.  HOWEVER, if you all don't think parents are unnerved by this stuff, you're not listening out there.  There is a larger argument in society about how to deal with potentially transgender children, which I am not touching with a 20 foot pole.  That one is as hot button as that volcano supposedly ready to pop off the coast or Oregon. 

e) Final one about the number of transgender women in women's prisons.  I had the thought in there, which I saw a bunch of times on-line and elsewhere, that was probably attributed to a UK study.  A study that showed very high percentages of trans women in female prisons, were convicted sexual offenders.  Not in the United States, because they don't largely allow mixing of genders in a prison, there are very small numbers of trans women in women's jails.  The studies also show that people who were born male, retain the same statistical pattern regarding criminality as those who remain "male."  Don't blame me, it's the Y-chromosome.  https://committees.parliament.uk/writte … 18973/pdf/

f) I did fail to mention that trans women are at risk in men's prisons as it is, which I did know was the case prior.  https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/ … t-2016.pdf  That being said, if you put a male convict in a female prison, you'd be run out of town.  Advocates for women simply don't view violent trans women as all that much less harmful than a violent male inmate.  How is this an attack on transgender people?  How is that an attack on ireactions personally?  This is the hill to die on?  That trans women have somehow given up the (I guess you could say) negative tendencies attributed to all men?  Are gay men in general less criminally active than straight men?  Probably not. 

g) Now, SQ21 asked where I get my news, well here's New York's NBC affiliate, surely not a right wing source, reporting on a phony trans person and convicted sexual predator, who took advantage of New York liberal's foolishness, to do what he does best, rape women.  https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigatio … s/5067904/  It's anecdotal, but goes back to my point that these wild stories are what gathers people's attention.  You see this type of story enough times, and you form an opinion I guess. 

*As moderator, ireactions could have simply responded that my stance was wrong. You have the facts twisted.  Etc., etc.  Another multi-post meltdown about how I have apparently attacked the very right to exist.  The hyperbole.  I'm not sure it's the place of a moderator to be the nanny for the rest of us?  Interpreting intent?  I have honestly never seen anyone, anywhere else, perform like ireactions does.  Maybe this is what they do in Europe (I hope not Canada) where social media posts have put people in jail for thought crimes.  He's supposed to be in the medical field of some sort, yet wants to argue against human biology.  I don't care WHO you are, how you dress, what skin color you have, statistically, if you're born male, you're far more likely to be violent than those born female.  That is a blanket statement on the whole of Earthly mammals.  Males have a biological drive to have sex, far more than female.  Often this results in violence.  End of freaking story.  I'm not talking about ireactions or anyone like him, I was talking about convicted criminals.  Who are already decided by society, to be unsafe to be in it, for at least a period of time.  If you truly believe orientation or gender choice makes someone less violent or predatory, than anyone else of the same biological gender, I really don't know what more to say.  You chose to run right over those conceptual arguments, and claim victimhood.  Was I too harsh about the left's rush to defend trans rights?  Probably yes that was too flippant.  Again, I SUPPORT those rights.  But no one has absolute rights if they may infringe on another individuals, either.  When you opt for absolutism, you lose.

In conclusion, I see no point of this politics thread.  It's basically a dumping venting ground for Trump disgust.  It's not a place for open dialogue.

3,467 (edited by ireactions 2025-02-05 12:32:38)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I would say this whole response from Grizzlor had a lot more nuance (explaining that your concern was more about people who were already violent criminals).

Thank you for writing it. I really appreciated it and felt great relief with reading each and every paragraph.

I'm not going to apologize for responding to a post that was shocking and required numerous responses to parse it and requiring an explanation before we resume our usual deliberations about ray guns and vampire slayers.

Your comments as originally presented did not center on violent criminals. You have clarified that your issues are with violent offenders, that you were offering observations of others' discomfort as opposed to your own, and that is to my immense relief and gratitude.

I've never seen you take attacks lightly; I don't either. Looking at TrekBBS, moderators instantly ban people for transphobia instead of having a discussion and asking the person to answer for it. Slider_Quinn21 advised just asking you to explain. And he was right.

Anyway. I appreciate you explaining what you meant. And I want to apologize to you again for all the times I didn't ask you for an explanation and a conversation. I don't feel that's what happened here, but because of all the times it did happen, I really can't take issue with your frustration about it. So I'll simply say thank you for being a friend.

3,468 (edited by ireactions 2025-02-06 00:24:17)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I see QuinnSlidr, despite accusing everyone on this forum of being a Trumpist, has decided to return to it.

I have warned QuinnSlidr repeatedly about his abuse and harassment and he has continued to engage in it. He continues to engage in conversation hijacking: someone posts facts and a perspective about one political subject (say, Kamala and presidential primaries); QuinnSlidr hijacks it with a response about a different subject (a false statement from Trump saying Biden's presidency was stolen from him) and then accuses the poster of being a Trump supporter for protesting the conversation hijacking. This is abuse and harassment. Donald Trump also engages in this tactic.

QuinnSlidr's hijacking includes claims that the 2024 election was stolen, citing 'facts' that are speculative comments from social media or vague statements from politicians known to be delusional. He has been asked to cease posting this content and claiming they are proven facts. No election official or even Kamala Harris herself has contested the election results. QuinnSlidr has no explanation for why how air-gapped voting machines were supposedly hacked (something something Starlink) or why Kamala Harris didn't contest the election.

QuinnSlidr has made harassing claims that no person or news source that reports or discusses the Kamala loss is credible because they don't accept his unproven conspiracy theory as fact. This is abuse and harassment.

QuinnSlidr has also accused every single person here of being a Trump supporter for not finding his lack of evidence credible or for protesting his conversation hijacking and his ongoing pattern of abuse and harassment. QuinnSlidr agreed to cease this behaviour but shortly resumed it in full force.

QuinnSlidr has, by my new count, declared that he is leaving Sliders.tv on four separate occasions, bid a regretful farewell to everyone (and note that he accused everyone of being a Trump supporter and by his own account should have no good feeling towards anyone here) -- and then he comes back. This is abusive behaviour: abusers often declare they are leaving to give their targets a false sense that the situation is over and to induce guilt in the hopes that their return will be tolerated. His claim that he is leaving this thread is clearly as serious as his previous farewell messages.

It's clear that he intends to continue this behaviour in full force because Slider_Quinn21 has given him complete and total immunity to do so.

QuinnSlidr is very much like Donald Trump. Donald Trump also repeats unproven statements as though repetition makes them fact, claims any source that doesn't grovel to him is invalid, cites unrelated information to justify false attacks, creates false assocations to attack people, regularly says he is leaving a relationship and then returns to it to engage in more abuse, and brags about total immunity.

QuinnSlidr is only permitted to post here because Slider_Quinn21 -- the first person he ever arbitrarily accused of Trumpism -- asked for QuinnSlidr's ban to be lifted. As I expected, QuinnSlidr has resumed the behaviour for which he was originally banned. His claim to no longer participate in this thread is obviously as untrustworthy as his regular farewell posts claiming that he will leave. He'll be back.

In the same post, he declares that he regrets ever pausing his abuse and harassment, effectively declaring intent to resume full time.

Slider_Quinn21 was unable to come up with a remedial course of action when asked for one earlier. I asked him to get back to me in a week, but QuinnSlidr's behaviour then escalated to declaring he should never have stopped his abuse and harassment and false claims, effectively meaning he never will. This has moved up the timetable.

I was initially thinking that when QuinnSlidr inevitably posted any more of his Trump style abuse and harassment, I could try to move those future posts to a separate thread. People could go to this separate thread if they were in desperate need to read more comments where QuinnSlidr accuses anyone and everyone of being a Trump supporter.

However, then my mother had so many medical appointments booked today that I realized: I wouldn't have time to monitor this. I have no time for QuinnSlidr any more. QuinnSlidr has been given multiple warnings about his behaviour and was banned for it once. Every time he says he's leaving this board, he returns shortly. He has now declared that he will never again cease his abuse and harassment and demands to be thanked for it.

Going forward, I'm going to suspend his account any further abuse and harassment. The length of these bans which will depend on my schedule and how available I am to monitor the situation.

I recognize that when Slider_Quinn21 asked for QuinnSlidr to be unbanned, I said I would defer to his arbitration on this. But when the arbitrator says "I don't have the heart to chime in" and only suggests inaction without response, then the arbitrator has ceased to arbitrate.

My agreement was to defer to an active and involved arbitrator. I thought I could wait a week, but QuinnSlidr is now Trumpianly bragging about how he should never have paused (and therefore can continue) his abuse and harassment. An arbitrator is supposed to resolve conflict, but the arbitrator's avoidance conveyed impunity and immunity to an abusive harasser and the conflict escalated. This is the opposite of arbitration. There is no arbitrator here. And I must now move forward as I see fit.

Sorry, Slider_Quinn21. I know you didn't mean to abandon your post; you got tired and I don't blame you at all. No one's paying you to do this. I'm tired too.

The only reason I'm posting here today is because, after a rough week with my mother's health, I had to take a day off at home... and the QuinnSlidr problem has taken up most of it. His pattern is unacceptable, pathological and clearly unchangeable given how he's had 12 warnings, he got to come back after being banned, and he still won't curtail his behaviour and now says that he never will.

The fact that his defender "didn't have the heart" to get involved gives me the impression that even he knew it was a lost cause.

3,469 (edited by ireactions 2025-02-06 19:27:02)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

On behalf of all Americans, we are sorry.  Canada is supposed to be our friend, and I don't know why we're treating our friends this way.  We also do not want to make you an American state.  At the moment, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I hope America can find its way out of what we've become, and I hope Canada will forgive us when we do.

Well, America isn't Americans. I doubt you or anyone you know, even the Canada hostile neighbours you may have, personally started a trade war. Even Republicans aren't keen on 25 percent tariffs, hence their pleading for the pause; it's going to massively increase costs for Americans. Even the threat of a trade war (paused for a month) has hurt Americans and Canadians alike, so the damage is on both sides due to one person's non-existent grasp of trade.

The trade war was paused. But that bell can't be unrung. As a Canadian, I am a bitter, angry, vengeful little creep and I will hold a grudge forever until I have seen it arrive at a satisfactory resolution, and I have an extremely peculiar standard for resolution that most human beings fail to meet.

I am someone who is offended by groveling apologies because I consider them insincere. Grizzlor is one of the few people whose responses I have ever accepted as 'apology' because Grizzlor's responses are distinctly unapologetic; they always convey that while he didn't mean to insult me personally, he's not changing his personal opinion. That was sincere and that I can respect.

And because I will hold American's decision to tariff Canada over America forever (or until my country gets a Grizzlor-esque response from American leadership), I will no longer trust American businesses. Pause or no pause, I can't count on being able to trade with them equitably. I can't count on being able to do business with Gillette or Neutrogena or Amazon or Netflix... so I will be looking at alternate arrangements to replace as much American commerce in my life with Canadian, Japanese and Korean commerce instead.

Anyway. Nothing for Slider_Quinn21 to apologize for on the trade war front.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Hi, again. Grizzlor, I'm sorry for the conflict. I had a very bad reaction to your first post, but reading your second has made me see things and see you very differently.

The original post, if reviewed in terms of observed discomforts and with the framework that males are more violent than females, takes on a remarkably different angle in the context of your follow-up post.

Grizzlor wrote:

My thoughts were to protect young girls and women, who remain the most frequently victimized part of society, mostly by men.  I'm not backing down on barring biological men (post-puberty ages) from women's sports.  Particularly at the high school or collegiate level.  There are competive fairness concerns as well as physical injury concerns.  Anyone born male has inherent biomechanical advantages and those can be dangerous, just as an NFL linebacker would pose a risk to someone like me, who is not a pro.

I don't have any opinion on anything sports related. I think that this is a very interesting opinion and something I would think about, that's engaging with biological characteristics of being born male or female as opposed to gender identity. It is a much more nuanced, and, I have to say, absolutely fascinating and complex portrayal than the original post implied.

I think the original comments about violent offenders were inadvertently generalized -- whether it was in how I read it or how it was written -- to transgender identity being a threat as opposed to male biological advantages in situations of physical conflict or competition, partly due to wording, partly due to me feeling attacked.

Grizzlor wrote:

I bashed "Drag Queen Story Hour," again, to some an innocuous idea, to others it was another instance where "normies" felt Liberals may have lost their minds.  I myself, have no problem with it.

Well, you did say, "I'm as socially liberal as you will find.  If my niece/nephew were subjected to that, I would raise hell!!!  WTF are we doing????"

In light of your second post, I have to conclude that either I have misread your comment about "raising hell", or you mean it very differently from how it was written. I don't know what you meant by it, especially as drag and transgender are not synonymous, but the comment in the first post doesn't correspond to the more measured perspective of the second. I am going to assume it's something in tune with the second.

I would now observe, when comparing your original post and this one, you observe people's prejudices, but write about them in a way that suggests that you share those biases... and you don't, but you have some specific concerns.

Grizzlor wrote:

Not in the United States, because they don't largely allow mixing of genders in a prison, there are very small numbers of trans women in women's jails.  The studies also show that people who were born male, retain the same statistical pattern regarding criminality as those who remain "male."  Don't blame me, it's the Y-chromosome.  https://committees.parliament.uk/writte … 18973/pdf/

My reaction to the original comments were because it seemed to present transgender people as threats in general as opposed to being specifically about violent offenders and/or physical competition in sports. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Grizzlor wrote:

if you're born male, you're far more likely to be violent than those born female.  That is a blanket statement on the whole of Earthly mammals.

Grizzlor wrote:

He's supposed to be in the medical field of some sort, yet wants to argue against human biology.

This last sentence, if misunderstood in the wrong context and mistaken for a general comment on transgender studies, could seem like arguing that transgender identity is an argument against human biology; when in a paragraph about how individuals born are male at least statistically more aggressive than female, it takes on a much more nuanced and thoughtful perspective.

I have never really thought about or studied the biology of whether men are more aggressive than women, but statistically, violent crimes are slanted towards male perpetrators. The second post about male-born people having higher levels of aggression and physical advantages strikes me as observable reality.

Women wouldn't have to struggle and battle for every inch of civil rights and liberties if men weren't physically stronger. I don't think I have ever argued one way or another on whether or not men are more violent than women due to biology, but I have certainly made that argument statistically, if not here, then elsewhere. So it is not something I could or would argue against.

The specific issue of transgender people in sports or transgender violent offenders in prison is so specific that I understand that comments in that area are not meant to be about transgender people in general.

I am sorry again for our conflict. Thank you again for a very detailed, very thoughtful, very interesting response that I will probably be contemplating and reading more about for weeks if not months.

3,471

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't dislike Harris. I have no strong opinion about her as a person or even as vice president. As president I'm sure I would have agreed with her sometimes and disagreed with her other times, much as I do with any president.

She wasn't a strong candidate and was ill-prepared to ascend to the top of the ticket in the manner that she did. I'll agree that the Democrats were left in an impossible situation. There was no obvious solution to the bind Biden left them in.

3,472 (edited by ireactions 2025-02-06 19:04:04)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Good to know. And as I am empowered by my Tim Hortons discount card to speak for all Canadians:

We as Canadians collectively pledge to be tireless in defending our economy, sovereignty, natural resources and pilight's inalienable right to give his opinion of Kamala Harris as a weak and ill-prepared nominee who was selected and not elected, for pilight to give any personal opinion regarding any known matter of public record, and for pilight to do so without being accused of dumb and random crap that he never actually said.

**

Just now, at the clinic, I asked the nurse if she could take a second pint out of me. She said she could not, that I'd donated enough blood, and she asked what the problem was. I told her: I was afraid to go home and read Sliders.tv and whatever godawful thing a certain someone might have posted while I was out. She said she didn't know what that was and gave me another juice box.

You may wonder why I'm so torqued. Why pilight being insulted and harassed is infuriating. The answer is: I don't appreciate being taken advantage of.

I just reloaded my Tim Horton's prepaid card; I have the floor and speak for all Canadians for another half-hour. So, as I've established, we Canadians are a bitter and grudge-bearing lot.

We are still pissy over the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the unfair split of the Oregon Treaty of 1846, the USS Nashville sailing into the Great Lakes in 1907, the States trying to integrate British Columbia into a West Coast military command point in 1934. And I guess there was that time in 2012 when Slider_Quinn21 offered to help me write a SLIDERS story and didn't come through. These have all irked us nationally as Canadians, but the thing that really burns our collective Oka cheese: when someone breaks a deal again and again.

When someone makes a deal and they burn us once, we as Canadians are acrimonious. When you burn us multiple times, we become downright vengeful. Of course, we have to note that Slider_Quinn21 came back to help us with the SLIDERS REBORN fanfic in 2016, so we marked that situation as a promise kept.

But when Canadians make deals, we expect you to live up to them. And a certain poster here -- let's call him 'Bryan' -- has broken our deal. Repeatedly.

Bryan was told that it was not appropriate to arbitrarily accuse people of being Trump supporters every time he didn't like their less-than-uniform support of Democrats. Bryan was told that it was not acceptable to hijack conversations with unproven claims of voter fraud in 2024. Bryan was told it was not acceptable to hijack conversations with arbitrary accusations of Trumpism.

He was warned to stop, by my count, eight times. He kept doing it. He was warned that he would be banned if he kept doing this on two separate occasions, by my count. After the tenth instance (by my count), he was banned and it should have been over. It should have been finished. It should have been done.

But then God spared Bryan. Or rather: Slider_Quinn21, who is unto a god, gave Bryan a second chance. Slider_Quinn21 was the first person Bryan had ever attacked on Sliders.tv with accusations of Trumpism for Slider_Quinn21 worrying that Biden would lose in 2024. Slider_Quinn21 was the first target of Bryan's abusive and harassing tendencies... and Slider_Quinn21 forgave him and asked for Bryan to be pardoned and reinstated. I saw Slider_Quinn21's mercy and grace and I was moved and humbled by it.

I bowed to what God and Slider_Quinn21 asked of me and Canada. The deal was struck: Bryan could return so long as there was no further hijacking, unfounded accusations and unproven claims of 2024 electoral fraud.

Bryan has broken every term of our agreement, much in the same way Donald Trump has broken every agreement he's ever made. Every single one. Bryan has trespassed and stepped over every single boundary, just as Donald Trump has done the same in his life.

Bryan has proven duplicitous, dishonest, dishonourable and utterly untrustworthy. He agreed not to make false accusations. He agreed not to post his conspiracy theories. His last several posts have contained all of the supposedly curtailed behaviours with a declaration that he should never have ceased in the first place. Like Donald Trump, Bryan's word has no bearing on his conduct.

Bryan has no respect for boundaries. When told that to stop posting unproven claims of 2024 voter fraud and false accusations of Trumpism, Bryan's approach was to claim any news article that reported the 2024 Democrat loss was from a fraudulent and untrustworthy news outlet or to make the same accusations but claim they were corrections, and then simply posted more unproven claims and made the false accusations outright.

When Bryan is given a boundary, he treads on the boundary lightly and gradually and then steps over it entirely. Like Donald Trump, he is incrementally disrespectful of boundaries, creeping and encroaching; he denies he is preparing to break the boundaries when this is spotted; he then breaks the boundaries and claims he wasn't previously curtailed from doing so and that the boundaries either didn't exist or weren't ones he should have to follow.

Bryan is manipulative and controlling. He constantly claims that he is leaving Sliders.tv, bids farewell to 'everyone' (even though he's accused us all of fascism for not being sufficiently groveling to his political party of choice), attempting to trigger guilt and regret and make certain people feel a sense of loss -- and then he comes back, tactically seeking to capitalize on the hope for reconciliation and a second chance in order to continue trespassing on boundaries and ignoring all agreements.

This is precisely how he took advantage of Slider_Quinn21's goodwill and patience and forgiveness, and now Bryan flaunts that abuse of Slider_Quinn21's kind nature as Bryan declares he should never have ceased the behaviours he barely ever stopped to begin with, and then he complains that he isn't liked for "some reason" as opposed to the mountain of reasons accumulated over every broken promise and trespassed boundary and the chances upon chances that he's abused.

As Canadians, when we see you take advantage of our kind-hearted friends, we will detest you on a deeply personal level that makes it difficult to breathe.

We Canadians can spot an abusive, harassing manipulator like this from a one kilometer distance. We Canadians can tell that the only real difference between Donald John Trump and Bryan here is that Bryan claims to vote Democrat and is probably less in debt.

Canadians loathe people who have consistently proven that their word is worthless.

And let's be clear: Slider_Quinn21, like any friend, is only human too. But here's the thing: we Canadians know that when Slider_Quinn21 doesn't come through, it's because he had a screenwriting obligation or because he was tired, we forgive it, we consider asking less of him, and we save our national rage for someone who's actually out to screw us over time and time again.

We know that when Bryan turns on us and breaks our deal, it isn't because he's tired or disoriented or busy. It's because he's malicious and deceitful and most importantly: he fundamentally doesn't respect us or you or me or anyone but himself.

As Canadians, we also have a particular contempt for people who give false apologies. Who apologize for their misdeeds, give assurances that they understand the strain and pain they have caused -- and then proceed to inflict more of the same in exactly the same way and prove that any apology past or present or future is as worthless as their word.

And as Canadians, when you break your word with us, we consider you an active hostile. When your apologies are proven meaningless because you repeat the same behaviour, we find you treacherous and duplicitous. When you gradually creep upon boundaries to break them, we find you incrementally insidious and manipulative.

We will consider you to have destroyed your lifetime allotment of any leniency or goodwill.

We will no longer trust you. We will monitor your actions. We will resent the exhaustion and drain of managing the situations you constantly create.

We have been hurt so consistently and repeatedly by you that we have gone from wounded to wrathful and now, we will document your behaviour and how you suckered us and launched unprovoked attacks on our friends time and time again and then we'll comb through every loophole and clause and then we're going to get back at you just as hard as you got us by striking at a precise moment in a specific way that will be small-scale and trivial and inconsequential and not in any way physically or financially or professionally harmful and yet incredibly annoying and aggravating and exasperating from now to eternity because we Canadians are petty, we are obsessive, and we despise people who exploit the goodwill and forgiveness of others, who take no accountability, have no integrity, and demonstrate total disregard for fair dealing.

Satire inspired by https://thebeaverton.com/2025/02/editor … dians-are/

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump's recent executive orders attacked the transgender community, stripping funding from gender affirmation procedures that, I've read, reduce suicide risks. Another threatens funding from schools that let transgender studnets use bathrooms consistent with their identities. Another bans transgender athletes from women's sports. Trump says it's to protect women.

https://www.vox.com/politics/398382/tra … rump-lgbtq
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … hletes-ban

The hateful intent and rhetoric of these executive orders resembles some of the things Grizzlor has said, but I don't believe that Grizzlor and Trump come from the same place. I no longer believe (and never really did believe) that Grizzlor hates transgender people. I think there is some divide between how Grizzlor really feels about transgender people and what he wrote in his first post, some loss of nuance, and the second post is, I'm sure, closer to his views than his first.

Grizzlor has voiced concerns about biological differences of men in transgender identity specific to settings of physical conflict (sports and prison) that inclusion may not address. Transgender women in prisons and sports is... clearly a more complex issue than I thought it to be. The fact that people who were men at birth have distinctions that cannot be dismissed by gender identity is a challenge in integration and inclusion.

I don't know what to do about it or what to say about it. I don't know how to reconcile those challenges with my belief that transgender people are human beings with human rights. I also don't know if minors should have gender affirming surgery and medications.

This was a lot of verbiage to say nothing, really.

However, I do know that none of this legislation from Trump is in any way about addressing these biological and physical differences or about protecting women in any way.

Donald Trump is a convicted sexual abuser; his cabinet is filled with men who have assaulted women. These executive orders are simply to isolate, curtail, assail and harass transgender people and tell them they are not human and don't have civil rights and liberties and to remove any medical and institutional supports they have. They are to score political points, to win the approval of bigots.

Trump's orders are abhorrent. These people don't care about women at all and are doing this out of hate and contempt and and opportunism and the belief that some people are less human than others, and that's not Grizzlor. I apologize for ever suggesting it could be.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Simon Rosenberg who turned out to be pretty wrong in predicting a Kamala win for the 2024 election, suggests a new strategy for fighting the Trump and Musk robbery of the US Treasury: criminal referrals.
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/time … s-for-elon

I don't think I would trust any more of Rosenberg's polling analysis in the future, but in terms of strategy, he could be onto something.

The Jacobin had an interesting article pointing out: Obama and Biden weren't any different from Trump in deporting migrants. Obama and Biden were just a bit better than the rest at drawing media attention elsewhere:
https://jacobin.com/2025/02/democrats-t … guantanamo

However, Trump has thrown government and the entire globe into chaos whereas Obama and Biden were more stable and workable and weren't attacking Canadians via tariffs.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

A constant claim by Biden supporters, including Simon Rosenberg and others: the economy under Biden was great, and voters were mistaken to think that it was not.

However, this Politico article notes: unemployment rates discounted people who were underemployed. Median wage statistics tracked full time wages, not wages from underemployed, part-time workers. As a result, this created flattering numbers for the economy that did not reflect reality.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … y-00203464

This seems like the sort of mistake an Uber executive running Democrat strategy would make.

I find this lines up with Bernie Sanders' view that Democrats, despite tax credits and supports for the middle class, had effectively abandoned the working class. They couldn't even see the working class or conflated them with the middle class.