Sliders.tv → Sliders Bboard → American Politics: Discuss and Debate
These cities had made a big show of declaring themselves as sanctuaries for immigrants, which was largely symbolic since they were thousands of miles from the Mexican border and assumed they would never have to provide the promised services in any significant amount. And these cites aren't "reeling from the pandemic" any more than the border towns that normally deal with this kind of thing.
QuinnSlidr wrote:pilight wrote:A substantial chunk of the Democratic base wants something done about the border. Greg Abbott calling the bluff of the "sanctuary" cities that are thousands of miles from the border with his busing has done a lot to turn the tide on the issue.
As for Giuliani, sure he'll still owe them their judgement but under bankruptcy he'll always be able to claim he doesn't have the money and won't face any further penalty for non-payment.
Actually, no we don't. The entire border BS is just that - BS. Another BS lie the rethuglicans tell you to make you think they know what they're talking about. They feed on republican racism and bigotry to get votes for their cause.
Democrats, we simply ignore it because we know they're all lies.
Lies? The City of New York is hemorrhaging budget due to massive unplanned (and unwanted) costs of housing and feeding migrants, providing healthcare, and sending their children to schools. That's coming from the mayor, a Democrat. It's urban voters who are increasingly turned off by all this. Again, I get NYC news programs, which are NOT conservative run, and people are pissed. I would have agreed that the crisis was overblown by Republicans for many years, and of course Trump, acerbated the problem. Biden has been in office for three years, he owns it now, you can't blame Trump forever. The perception has been he's made it worse, and the busing (illegal?) from Texas to northern cities was a stroke of genius by those Governors. It dropped the massive issues they've had with migrants on the doorstep of cities reeling from the pandemic, who do not have the resources to deal with them.
You do know that America was built on immigration, right?
And how racist it is to buy into this?
"Oh, people are not allowed to live with us because they're different, and them living with us because they're different is costing us money!!!"
The biggest republican lie that appeals to the uneducated and discriminatory amongst us, because they can't do anything legitimate to get votes.
Biden has to do something at the border. He can't shrug it off as a fake problem, even if he thinks it is. The border is a huge topic in Iowa, which is nowhere near the border. He has to appear tougher on the border, or it's going to be a huge issue that they will hammer him on. Again, like with my vampire analogy, it doesn't matter if the problem is real. It doesn't matter if it's racist or un-American. Voters, and not just MAGA voters, think it's a huge problem. Here in Texas, which was shifting blue for years, Biden is losing deep blue cities on the border. He's losing working-class Hispanics that have voted Democrat for years.
He has to do something, and he has to do something that he can take credit for. The number of border crossings has to come down. I still think he should let Republicans put (basically) whatever they want in the Ukraine deal. He can hammer any bad stuff to appease his own base, but if he gives Republicans what they want, they aren't going to be able to hammer Biden without shooting their own legislation.
The border isn't the problem that MAGA makes it out to be, but it's a big enough problem with enough voters that Biden cannot do nothing. If he does, the race will be exclusively about the border, and Biden will be on the defensive on an issue that Americans (on the whole) do not trust Democrats on. And Biden needs to act *now* so that most Americans won't even remember it was an issue by November.
Biden has to do something at the border. He can't shrug it off as a fake problem, even if he thinks it is. The border is a huge topic in Iowa, which is nowhere near the border. He has to appear tougher on the border, or it's going to be a huge issue that they will hammer him on. Again, like with my vampire analogy, it doesn't matter if the problem is real. It doesn't matter if it's racist or un-American. Voters, and not just MAGA voters, think it's a huge problem. Here in Texas, which was shifting blue for years, Biden is losing deep blue cities on the border. He's losing working-class Hispanics that have voted Democrat for years.
He has to do something, and he has to do something that he can take credit for. The number of border crossings has to come down. I still think he should let Republicans put (basically) whatever they want in the Ukraine deal. He can hammer any bad stuff to appease his own base, but if he gives Republicans what they want, they aren't going to be able to hammer Biden without shooting their own legislation.
The border isn't the problem that MAGA makes it out to be, but it's a big enough problem with enough voters that Biden cannot do nothing. If he does, the race will be exclusively about the border, and Biden will be on the defensive on an issue that Americans (on the whole) do not trust Democrats on. And Biden needs to act *now* so that most Americans won't even remember it was an issue by November.
Is removing more illegals than the Trump administration enough for you? How is that doing nothing? That's not exactly something he wants to advertise, but let's get our facts straight before saying that he's done nothing.
Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Administration Takes New Actions to Increase Border Enforcement and Accelerate Processing for Work Authorizations, While Continuing to Call on Congress to Act
"Since May 12 [author comment: through September, 2023], we have removed or returned over 253,000 individuals to 152 countries. This compares to 180,000 removals and returns during the same period in 2019, which was the comparable pre-pandemic and pre-Title 42 period. "
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/09/20/fac … ase-border
Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Administration Takes New Actions to Increase Border Enforcement and Accelerate Processing for Work Authorizations, While Continuing to Call on Congress to Act
Release Date: September 20, 2023
WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is announcing another series of actions to increase enforcement across the Southwest Border, accelerate processing of work authorizations, and the decision to redesignate and extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuela. In consultation with interagency partners and with careful consideration for the conditions, and due to extraordinary and temporary conditions in Venezuela that prevent individuals from safely returning, the Secretary of Homeland Security decided to extend and redesignate TPS for Venezuela.
President Biden has called on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform since his first day in office. As a result of Congress’ failure to enact the reform, the Administration has been using the limited tools it has available to secure the border and build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system while leading the largest expansion of lawful pathways for immigration in decades. We also urge passage of fully funded emergency appropriations, including the supplemental funding request for border security, as requested by the President this summer. The $4 billion supplemental funding requested for DHS addresses immediate needs of the Department to safely and humanely manage the Southwest Border and to continue implementing our immigration laws through the expansion of lawful pathways and enforcing consequences for those who do not use them. DHS has also allocated more than $770 million to 69 partner organizations in Fiscal Year 2023 to support communities receiving migrants, in both the Southwest Border region and the interior, through the Shelter and Services Program (SSP) and the Emergency Food and Shelter Program – Humanitarian Awards (EFSP-H).
Combating smugglers. DHS continues to escalate the fight against those smuggling in persons and narcotics and the Administration is prosecuting an increasing number of smugglers, as well as noncitizens who are violating our laws.
From April 2022 through September 12, 2023, CBP and HSI arrested nearly 17,000 suspected human smugglers and seized more than $51 million in property and nearly $13 million in currency. This has resulted in more than 2,000 indictments and more than 1,500 convictions in partnership with the U.S. attorneys.
U.S. Border Patrol has referred 9,904 individuals for prosecution between May 12 and Sept. 14.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is vigorously prosecuting those who unlawfully bring in, harbor, or transport migrants, as well as many thousands of felony reentry cases. DOJ and DHS are working closely together to target additional prosecutorial resources towards these serious immigration offenses.
Deploying a military personnel surge to support border efforts. The Department of Defense is providing additional military personnel – on top of the 2,500 steady state National Guard personnel – to support the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This surge support includes up to 800 new active-duty personnel to assist with logistics and other functions at the border to allow more Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents and officers to return to their core mission and responsibilities. These individuals complement the 24,000 CBP agents and officers along the Southwest Border we have sustained and over 2,600 additional non-uniformed personnel we have hired to assist in processing and facility operations. Since May 12, we have also extended the support of 500 law enforcement and general support volunteers from other DHS components to supplement CBP border security operations.
Expediting family removals nationwide. DHS has expanded the Family Expedited Removal Management (FERM) program nationwide so that families without a lawful basis to remain are quickly removed. Under this process, families are placed into expedited removal proceedings to occur within 30 days. This program was launched in May and has processed over 1,600 families and will continue to scale up significantly.
Adding DHS holding and processing capacity. DHS has expanded its capacity to hold an additional 3,250 people in its facilities, for a CBP holding capacity of nearly 23,000. This builds on expansions of several thousand across CBP and ICE facilities put in place before May to process, detain, and remove more noncitizens who do not have a lawful basis to remain in the United States. Since May 12, we have processed 110,000 individuals for expedited removal and completed an average of 4,000 credible fear cases each week, double the previous high.
Working with international partners to speed removals and returns. Since May 12, we have removed or returned over 253,000 individuals to 152 countries. This compares to 180,000 removals and returns during the same period in 2019, which was the comparable pre-pandemic and pre-Title 42 period. This was enabled by a more than doubling of ICE international removal flights from the first to the second half of FY 2023 and new agreements with multiple countries to streamline returns. This includes: 36,000 family members encountered at the Southwest Border and over 17,000 non-Mexicans to Mexico – a critical deterrent, especially for hard-to-remove-to countries, and the first time Mexico has ever accepted substantial numbers of third-country repatriations. DHS has removed or returned more family members in the last 4 months than in any previous full fiscal year.
Improving Processing of Work Authorizations and Directly Communicating with Work Eligible Individuals. Only Congress can change the law to allow asylum seekers to get work authorization sooner than six months after filing their claim. Right now, six months is the law.
Beginning October 1, USCIS will accelerate processing for Employment Authorization Document (EAD) applications filed by parolees who scheduled an appointment through CBP One, who are, in contrast with asylum seekers, able to apply for work authorization immediately. USCIS will dedicate additional personnel and implement improvements to decrease the median processing time for these applications from 90 days to 30 days. USCIS will also work to decrease median processing times for EAD applications associated with the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan parole processes to 30 days.
Further, USCIS will increase the maximum validity period of initial and renewal EADs to 5 years for certain noncitizens, including those admitted as refugees or granted asylum; recipients of withholding of removal; and applicants for asylum, adjustment of status, or cancellation of removal. The increased validity period will reduce the frequency with which noncitizens must file for to renew their work authorization. This is anticipated to also reduce the associated workload and processing times, which will allow USCIS to concentrate efforts on initial work authorization caseload.
For those already eligible to work, we are taking steps to expedite employment authorization processing. Individuals who are paroled into the United States after making an appointment through the CBP One mobile app, the parole processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans for up to two years, and those who have applied for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) are eligible to apply for work authorization immediately. However, nationwide, only a small percentage of working-age individuals paroled after making an appointment through CBP One have applied for employment work authorizations. To raise awareness, the Biden Administration has been sending email and SMS notifications to certain parolees, including those who have been paroled into the United States after the use of the CBP One app, nationwide informing them of their eligibility to apply for employment authorization and is reinforcing that effort with personnel on the ground. To date, more than 1.4 million email and text notifications have been sent by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, Ukrainian, and Russian. DHS is deploying 50 personnel to New York this month to educate recently arrived migrants on the immigration system and how to apply for employment authorization documents.
These newest actions complement many other steps taken by USCIS to improve processing times across form types and to ensure timely access to employment authorization, including: temporary final rule in May 2022 that automatically extends EADs for certain renewal applicants and immediately restored the ability to work for tens of thousands of noncitizens whose EADs had expired through no fault of their own; and a previous extension of EAD validity periods for asylees and refugees, noncitizens with withholding of deportation or removal, parolees, and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners.
Temporary Protection for those Already in the US. Given the extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent certain Venezuelan nationals currently in the U.S. from returning safely to Venezuela, the Secretary of Homeland Security is extending and redesignating Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months for individuals that were residing in the United States on or before July 31, 2023. As a result, an additional approximately hundreds of thousands Venezuelan nationals across the country will be immediately eligible to apply for work authorization. TPS provides temporary protection from removal, as well as employment authorization for eligible Venezuelan nationals.
Is removing more illegals than the Trump administration enough for you? How is that doing nothing? That's not exactly something he wants to advertise, but let's get our facts straight before saying that he's done nothing.
Thank you for the information! Unfortunately, Biden has to advertise something because that message isn't getting to voters:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … r-AA1lHyvN
Voters aren't getting the message. There's still plenty of time for them to get the message, but Biden is going to have to be really careful about how he sells it. Whatever he's doing (and again, thank you for letting me know) is not getting through to voters. For Biden's base, I'm sure what he's doing is enough. But, especially now that the Republicans are campaigning and Biden isn't, the message is that the border is wide open. Stories with thousands of people at the border isn't helpful.
My response would really be theatrical, not policy. I think Harris is the best one to handle this (and she's in charge of the border anyway), but I think the administration needs to appear harsher on the border. Americans don't really dig into statistics (obviously), but they tend to follow a "vibe" - if people around them are saying something, even if it's 2nd/3rd/4th hand, they're going to tend to believe it and do no research. And unfortunately, Biden is going to need a ton of those people to vote for him.
Like with the economy, I don't think Biden needs to do anything different. He just needs to change the narrative.
(Although, like I said, I'm willing to punt the issue entirely and let the Republicans have a victory in the negotiations. If it means aid for Ukraine and a better chance at Biden's re-election, I'll sacrifice the border issue and deal with it again in 2025. Because no matter what the Democrats agree to now, it'll be so much worse with Trump).
Maine becomes the second U.S. state to ban Trump from the ballot:
Maine bars Trump from ballot as US Supreme Court weighs states’ authority to block former president
https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump- … b2f8c66dee
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether Trump remains eligible to return to the White House.
The decision by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows follows a ruling earlier this month by the Colorado Supreme Court that booted Trump from the ballot there under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That decision has been stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether Trump is barred by the Civil War-era provision, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.
The Trump campaign said it would appeal Bellows’ decision to Maine’s state courts, and Bellows suspended her ruling until that court system rules on the case. In the end, it is likely that the nation’s highest court will have the final say on whether Trump appears on the ballot in Maine and in the other states.
Bellows found that Trump could no longer run for his prior job because his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol violated Section 3, which bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection.” Bellows made the ruling after some state residents, including a bipartisan group of former lawmakers, challenged Trump’s position on the ballot.
One thing I'm struggling to determine. I fully expect the Supreme Court to overturn Colorado, but is the Supreme Court's decision (whatever it ends up being) going to apply to all states? In other words, would the determination on Colorado either make him allowed to be on the ballot in all 50 states or make him eligible in no states? Or would this hypothetically need to be 50 separate Supreme Court decisions?
What's frustrating about this stuff is that this is something that could've been done years ago. I keep reading that all these decisions might be too late to actually keep him off any ballots. I understand why the Jack Smith cases needed years to come together, but I feel like this could've been figured out in 2021. No?
Again, I think this ballot stuff is just plain stupid, and only helps Trump/invigorates the MAGA. No one has proven (in court) he actively participated in an insurrection. That's not what Jack Smith is charging him with anyway, since proving that would be a mountain to climb. Smith's case deals with what Trump was doing between election eve and January 6th, mainly in late December, when he and his staff tried to steal the election.
In other news, there was a kerfuffle involving Nikki Haley in Iowa, where at a town hall session, she "forgot to mention" the leading cause for the Civil War being a little thing called SLAVERY. She knows that was the cause, and of course said it in interviews the next day or whatever. Chris Christie chimed in with the real reason, that she's afraid to tell the truth. That is what decades of Fox News lies gets a political movement. They are completely living in another shall we say, multiverse. I still say she is the LEAST worst of the GOP candidates, but wow what a complete moron.
One thing I'm struggling to determine. I fully expect the Supreme Court to overturn Colorado, but is the Supreme Court's decision (whatever it ends up being) going to apply to all states? In other words, would the determination on Colorado either make him allowed to be on the ballot in all 50 states or make him eligible in no states? Or would this hypothetically need to be 50 separate Supreme Court decisions?
What's frustrating about this stuff is that this is something that could've been done years ago. I keep reading that all these decisions might be too late to actually keep him off any ballots. I understand why the Jack Smith cases needed years to come together, but I feel like this could've been figured out in 2021. No?
If the supreme court wants to be taken seriously, they'll default these rights to the states themselves, like they did on abortion when they overturned women's rights.
Otherwise, they're just a banana republic at that point. They already are a joke. But that would make it even more so.
Otherwise, it will also prove that they simply care about one thing: the right wing extremist agenda and nothing else.
Again, I think this ballot stuff is just plain stupid, and only helps Trump/invigorates the MAGA. No one has proven (in court) he actively participated in an insurrection. That's not what Jack Smith is charging him with anyway, since proving that would be a mountain to climb. Smith's case deals with what Trump was doing between election eve and January 6th, mainly in late December, when he and his staff tried to steal the election.
In other news, there was a kerfuffle involving Nikki Haley in Iowa, where at a town hall session, she "forgot to mention" the leading cause for the Civil War being a little thing called SLAVERY. She knows that was the cause, and of course said it in interviews the next day or whatever. Chris Christie chimed in with the real reason, that she's afraid to tell the truth. That is what decades of Fox News lies gets a political movement. They are completely living in another shall we say, multiverse. I still say she is the LEAST worst of the GOP candidates, but wow what a complete moron.
It doesn't have to be. It's all on tape in front of the world to see.
Today, the EX and always-will-be-EX President.
We are so lucky America dropped Trump like a bad habit in 2020. Along with all of his liars and enablers. It needs to stay this way if the future of this country matters to anybody.
Today, the EX and always-will-be-EX President.
I hope this is true, but my anxiety is through the roof on this.
MODERATOR NOTE: This post about John Schneider was moved from the SMALLVILLE thread to the politics thread.
Did you guys see this?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/ … r-AA1lRVlQ
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but this was disappointing to read.
Schneider, kind of like Jon Voight, very conflicting because they are so belligerent in their politics, and yet people who know and work with them have nothing but praise. Even stranger for John, because he and his now late wife would spend so much time doing live streaming about a variety of things which were very genuine, and then he'd call Nancy Pelosi a whore or something to that effect. The video on that article, is very touching, as he talks about the loss of his wife. Wish he'd stay out of politics but celebrities just love attention.
Schneider, kind of like Jon Voight, very conflicting because they are so belligerent in their politics, and yet people who know and work with them have nothing but praise. Even stranger for John, because he and his now late wife would spend so much time doing live streaming about a variety of things which were very genuine, and then he'd call Nancy Pelosi a whore or something to that effect.
This is an excellent observation and it speaks to how someone can excel in one area of their life while being cataclysmically awful in every other area. John Schneider is someone who, in his personal conduct and interviews, I have found to be boorish, obnoxious, narcissistic and insufferable. However, there is one space in this world that brings out Schneider's decency, warmth, love and compassion: the space of performance.
Schneider respects other actors as human beings which is why Tom Welling and Michael Rosenbaum have glowing experiences with him. Schneider does not generally respect other people as human beings, especially when they are not Donald Trump voters, and that's why people who aren't actors have had terrible experiences with him.
In other news, there was a kerfuffle involving Nikki Haley in Iowa, where at a town hall session, she "forgot to mention" the leading cause for the Civil War being a little thing called SLAVERY.
Her answer was bad, but the truth is more complicated than that. The primary cause of secession was slavery, because the southerners knew "honest" Abe was lying when he said he wouldn't try to end the practice as president. The cause of the war was Lincoln's unwillingness to let the Confederates leave peacefully. The south didn't want war, they wanted Brexit. Lincoln was insistent they had to remain in the union whether they wanted to or not.
Grizzlor wrote:In other news, there was a kerfuffle involving Nikki Haley in Iowa, where at a town hall session, she "forgot to mention" the leading cause for the Civil War being a little thing called SLAVERY.
Her answer was bad, but the truth is more complicated than that. The primary cause of secession was slavery, because the southerners knew "honest" Abe was lying when he said he wouldn't try to end the practice as president. The cause of the war was Lincoln's unwillingness to let the Confederates leave peacefully. The south didn't want war, they wanted Brexit. Lincoln was insistent they had to remain in the union whether they wanted to or not.
Let us not also forget that her base includes right wing extremist Nazis. They want slavery back and will back any candidate who panders to their twisted ideals. It's the same reason that Trump (Hitler) used silence at the right times such as this to give the appearance to these groups who will vote for any republican who does this.
She knows exactly what she is doing.
On the 14th Amendment
I don't think there's any question that Trump committed in an insurrection attempt. Having read the text, I think it's vague enough that a true reading of the text should disqualify Trump. He doesn't need a conviction to qualify.
There's two issues I have with this, and I think they compound each other. The first is that I don't think that the Supreme Court will agree. I think they're not going to want to set that precedent, and I really don't think they want to be involved. I also think they'd be (rightfully) afraid of the social unrest that would happen if Trump was deemed ineligible. He still has millions of fervent followers, and I think if Trump was declared ineligible, there would be violence. Second, I do think it plays into Trump's narrative. Trump supporters only believe Trump, and he insists that "the deep state" is out to get him. If Trump is kicked off the ballot, it fits Trump's narrative. If he's not kicked off the ballot, the attempt itself will fit Trump's narrative. And like the indictments, it could increase his support, not limit it.
I think Trump getting kicked off the ballot is, long term, the best solution. If someone does what Trump did, they shouldn't be allowed to run again. And if there were real consequences to Trump's actions, it would deter others from doing it. But I think short-term, win or lose, it might be better to just defeat him in November.
On Nikki Haley
I don't like Nikki Haley, but if you gave me the choice between a guaranteed President Haley and the risk of another term of President Trump, I'd take President Haley*. I think Haley sucks and would be bad for the country, but she wouldn't be catastrophic. Trump is another level of terrible, and I think Haley, while misguided, wants the country to succeed.
What I think the problem is that Haley/DeSantis know that they cannot win the nomination without people that are devoted to Trump. People that would fight and die for Trump. And as much as they seem to hate it, they cannot speak out against Trump. That's why their argument is "Trump is great, but pick me"
And that means not upsetting white nationalists. I'm sure she sees it as a means to an end, but it's still deplorable for her to do it.
*Just to clarify again, I do not like Haley and would not vote for her. But if it's her or Trump, I pick her. If it's anyone and Trump, I pick anyone.
On John Schneider.
If he's a conservative, that's fine. I don't want Hollywood to only be liberals or progressives. Entertainment should be for everyone. But Schneider crossed so many lines, and it's disappointing. Be mad at Biden if you're mad, but there shouldn't be any more inciting of political violence. Schneider should be investigated and punished if possible.]
It sucks because I think Jonathan Kent is a great character, and he was great in the role. And now it's kinda tainted for me.
Hopefully Tom Welling and Michael Rosenbaum continue to be good people. Smallville's cast is looking rough on re-examination.
I honestly don't know too much about Welling and Rosenbaum's politics, and I doubt they would want to publicize them and try to stay neutral. Rosenbaum has talked about his various vaccinations and how he was partial to a Johnson & Johnson vaccination, but he's also doing public appearances with noted anti-vaxxer Zachary Levi.
There have been a number of indications about Tom Welling's infidelities. They have all, to me, seemed to be misunderstandings. A woman told me that she met Tom at an event and he asked her to get a drink with him. She replied, "Sorry, I have a husband." He replied, "That's okay, I have a wife."
This would be highly inappropriate except Tom and his wife were actually engaged in divorce proceedings at the time, so Tom's remark may not have been insulting her marriage as much as a poorly-considered but bleak self-reflection on his own situation. Tom was also reported as cheating on his wife before it was revealed that he and his wife had been separated for some time; he then married the woman with whom he'd supposedly been 'cheating'. A failed marriage is a messy business, but people are allowed to separate from their spouses and date other people.
There will likely be some accusation about Rosenbaum at some point, who, during the filming of the Pilot, approached Kristin Kreuk and told her, "I want to apologize in advance if I get a boner during filming with you, it's nothing personal." Kreuk replied, "You know that we don't have any scenes together, right?"
It was a joke, Rosenbaum's way of bonding with people is to confess something embarrassing to make people laugh at him/with him. Rosenbaum has admitted that in a post-Me Too world, he realizes that kind of humour could come off very poorly and is more careful now. That said, I'm sure somebody didn't take kindly to it at some point in the past and will accuse Rosenbaum of harassment from his verbal comments, and I am sure that Rosenbaum will own up, admit his wrongs and take his lumps.
Haley was Governor of South Carolina. She did succeed in removing the Confederate flag from state property. She's surely had to answer this question 500 times, and yet sounded like an idiot. Regardless, her answer is about as relevant in this election as John Schneider, zilch. Donald Trump will be the GOP nominee.
I cannot help but laugh:
The NY AG suing Trump for fraud;
The DC Federal District Court judge in the election interference criminal case;
The GA DA prosecuting Trump under the GA (criminal) RICO statute for election interference and two of his co-defendants who have pled guilty;
The CO District Court judge who ruled Trump "engaged in insurrection";
Two of the CO Supreme Court justices ruled Trump is not qualified to be on the CO ballot; the ME Secretary of State who ruled Trump is not qualified to be on the ME ballot;
Along with that, the FL Federal District Court judge in Trump's documents criminal case....
All are women.
Then, of course, there's Miss Jean Carroll, to whom Trump must pay $5 million, and could very well be more soon.
Trump's years of disparaging and mistreating (a euphemism if ever there was one) women are catching up with him with a vengeance. I'm beginning to think maybe karma really is a b---h.
And I'm loving every minute of it!
Haley was Governor of South Carolina. She did succeed in removing the Confederate flag from state property. She's surely had to answer this question 500 times, and yet sounded like an idiot. Regardless, her answer is about as relevant in this election as John Schneider, zilch. Donald Trump will be the GOP nominee.
It isn't zero. If Trump is smart (and we know he isn't), then Haley should be his VP candidate. She'd go a long way to repairing his image with Republican women and people in the suburbs. She polls extremely well with those groups, and I think people could be convinced (especially people that don't really like Biden except as an alternative to Trump) that she could be the adult in the room. Or that she'd take over when his criminal trials end. Or that she'd take over when Trump is impeached, etc.
If it's Trump-Haley, I'm very worried. If Haley is damaged goods (either with the people that help or the people that would pick her), then obviously that won't happen. Anti-Trump people are better off with Trump going with a loyalist like MTG.
The Epstein list drops today.
If Haley was smart, she'd refuse any running mate offer from Trump. There's no upside to it. If he lost the race her political career would be over. If he won she'd be in an impotent job but still tainted by whatever nonsense he does. Also, Trump's followers tried to kill his last VP. The next one might not be so lucky.
She's said she would turn it down. She may underestimate Trump's insanity and think that being Trump's VP makes you the nominee by default in 2028 as long as she doesn't make him mad. Obviously that didn't work out for Pence, but a) Trump is still running and b) Haley may think she's smarter/better than Pence.
But I think Trump is just as likely to a) try to stay in power for a third term b) name one of his kids as the next nominee or c) pick someone absolutely random.
Trump is not going to pay any of those fines. We know him, he'll drag that out forever. If his business license is revoked, that's another story. May need to turn the company over to Baron! Wish I could revel in all of that, but this maniac keeps right on punching. This won't stop him. He'll just become further unhinged and desperate and dangerous.
Haley won't be offered. Trump 2024 is not going to compromise on anything. He will choose a sycophant like Kari Lake. Has to be someone who will spew the same bile lies as him. His attitude now is Biden is so bad, all Trump needs is MAGA to be revved up and he'll win.
The Epstein list, just an eye roll from me. What does being on it prove? You did business with him? You used his FREE jet? Attended his parties with other rich guys? The only powerful person accused of wrongdoing is Prince Andrew, who will never be prosecuted, thanks to "diplomatic immunity."
Trump is not going to pay any of those fines. We know him, he'll drag that out forever. If his business license is revoked, that's another story. May need to turn the company over to Baron! Wish I could revel in all of that, but this maniac keeps right on punching. This won't stop him. He'll just become further unhinged and desperate and dangerous.
Haley won't be offered. Trump 2024 is not going to compromise on anything. He will choose a sycophant like Kari Lake. Has to be someone who will spew the same bile lies as him. His attitude now is Biden is so bad, all Trump needs is MAGA to be revved up and he'll win.
The Epstein list, just an eye roll from me. What does being on it prove? You did business with him? You used his FREE jet? Attended his parties with other rich guys? The only powerful person accused of wrongdoing is Prince Andrew, who will never be prosecuted, thanks to "diplomatic immunity."
This is wrong. Trump has been involved in a lawsuit in which he raped a 13 year old girl with Epstein overseeing it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ … ped-230770
"In the most recent suit, Trump’s accuser asserted that while she was exploring a modeling career in 1994, she attended a series of parties at the Manhattan home of prominent investor Jeffrey Epstein. She alleges that during those parties the real estate mogul tied her to a bed and raped her. She also claimed Epstein raped her during that series of gatherings"
Sadly, this person has been intimidated by Trump. Eventually, this will see justice.
The Epstein list, just an eye roll from me. What does being on it prove? You did business with him? You used his FREE jet? Attended his parties with other rich guys? The only powerful person accused of wrongdoing is Prince Andrew, who will never be prosecuted, thanks to "diplomatic immunity."
Epstein had no legitimate business. He embezzled a small fortune from Les Wexner then expanded it through various types of financial fraud.
Haley won't be offered. Trump 2024 is not going to compromise on anything. He will choose a sycophant like Kari Lake. Has to be someone who will spew the same bile lies as him. His attitude now is Biden is so bad, all Trump needs is MAGA to be revved up and he'll win.
See, as an anti-Trump guy, I think Lake would be a good pick for him. She's going to be loud and irritating and turn people off like she did in the Arizona governor's race. She doesn't get him suburban women or college educated whites.
Would it still be enough? Maybe. But it wouldn't gain him any votes, and most "Trump-like" people that aren't Trump end up turning off even more Republicans.
His best bet is to pick someone who would appeal to Republicans that don't like Trump. But I agree that he'll probably pick someone who has been loyal in the past.
Grizzlor wrote:The Epstein list, just an eye roll from me. What does being on it prove? You did business with him? You used his FREE jet? Attended his parties with other rich guys? The only powerful person accused of wrongdoing is Prince Andrew, who will never be prosecuted, thanks to "diplomatic immunity."
This is wrong. Trump has been involved in a lawsuit in which he raped a 13 year old girl with Epstein overseeing it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ … ped-230770
"In the most recent suit, Trump’s accuser asserted that while she was exploring a modeling career in 1994, she attended a series of parties at the Manhattan home of prominent investor Jeffrey Epstein. She alleges that during those parties the real estate mogul tied her to a bed and raped her. She also claimed Epstein raped her during that series of gatherings"
Sadly, this person has been intimidated by Trump. Eventually, this will see justice.
I won't hold my breath. Trump's morality is irrelevant to MAGA. In fact, I was watching a segment last night, and the reporter asked a MAGAteer in Iowa what would stop them from supporting Trump. Deadpanned, the woman goes, "he'd have to do something exceedingly bad, like murder someone or die!" These people are beyond help.
Epstein had no legitimate business. He embezzled a small fortune from Les Wexner then expanded it through various types of financial fraud.
He was planning to extort many of his "clients." He figured they'd protect him, although Maxwell testified that "Epstein never believed he did anything wrong." He flew important people around the world, not always to his island, and bugged the plane on them.
QuinnSlidr wrote:Grizzlor wrote:The Epstein list, just an eye roll from me. What does being on it prove? You did business with him? You used his FREE jet? Attended his parties with other rich guys? The only powerful person accused of wrongdoing is Prince Andrew, who will never be prosecuted, thanks to "diplomatic immunity."
This is wrong. Trump has been involved in a lawsuit in which he raped a 13 year old girl with Epstein overseeing it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ … ped-230770
"In the most recent suit, Trump’s accuser asserted that while she was exploring a modeling career in 1994, she attended a series of parties at the Manhattan home of prominent investor Jeffrey Epstein. She alleges that during those parties the real estate mogul tied her to a bed and raped her. She also claimed Epstein raped her during that series of gatherings"
Sadly, this person has been intimidated by Trump. Eventually, this will see justice.
I won't hold my breath. Trump's morality is irrelevant to MAGA. In fact, I was watching a segment last night, and the reporter asked a MAGAteer in Iowa what would stop them from supporting Trump. Deadpanned, the woman goes, "he'd have to do something exceedingly bad, like murder someone or die!" These people are beyond help.
pilight wrote:Epstein had no legitimate business. He embezzled a small fortune from Les Wexner then expanded it through various types of financial fraud.
He was planning to extort many of his "clients." He figured they'd protect him, although Maxwell testified that "Epstein never believed he did anything wrong." He flew important people around the world, not always to his island, and bugged the plane on them.
It's a good thing that they are less than 23% of the entire republican electorate.
Remember that!
They are simply a loud, obnoxious BS group.
The right wingers still lie about the events on Jan. 6th. Many argue that no one did anything wrong that horrible day.
That no one brought weapons. That the Capitol wasn't vandalized and desecrated. That no one died.
Poof. They're mighty quiet now.
As I said, Biden team had better make the narrative about Trump's violent uprising, and threats of a future repeat.
Interesting updates from the border debate. Republicans in the House have a partisan bill they've passed and sent to the Senate. The Senate has a bipartisan compromise bill that they're working on.
Republicans came out and said that they're not willing to accept any compromise, actually stating out loud that they're not willing to give Biden any wins. And the White House has started openly saying that Republicans are blocking legislation and funds that are supposed to help the situation at the border. In other words, Republicans are complaining about the border and actively working to stop the problem from being fixed.
They need to do this. And a lot more of it. If they can spin this properly to the right people, this could be good. Republicans are creating a problem and then complaining about it. With the right spin, it could get him voters back.
The Israel stuff is more difficult. There's a decent chance that foreign actors (Putin?) are trying to make sure there's a war in Ukraine and Israel through the election, and Biden is getting hit from both sides. He's siding almost exclusively with Israel, but people are saying he's not doing enough (again, Republicans are blocking help), but he's getting killed from his left flank by supporting Israel at all.
It's hard to fathom that Muslims are so mad about this situation that they'll allow Trump to win (or actually vote for him!), but it seems like that's where we're at right now. I did a little bit of research, and what Muslim leaders are saying is that Trump is at least honest about being anti-Islamic. That Biden pretends to be a friends to Muslims and is now stabbing them in the back.
I think a big part of people's lack of fear of Trump is that they survived four years of him, and I think the expectations are that the second term will be like the first. My fear is that a lot of the guardrails (being either people in Trump's administration that moderated him or legislation/policies/norms that prevented some of his more extreme actions being done being eroded). People think Trump will mean another Muslim ban, and they can survive another one of those. What it could mean is a mass Muslim deportation.
When Biden tried to talk about Trump's openly anti-Muslim rhetoric and Biden's work in the Muslim community, he got attacked by Muslim leaders. It's a real problem, and I don't know how he navigates it if the war in Israel continues.
He's in a similar situation with voters of color. Black voters know that Trump is racist, but the argument I'm seeing is "Yeah, Trump is racist but pretty much every president has been racist but at least the economy was good under Trump." Latino voters are saying "yeah, Trump is anti-immigrant, but I'm an American and we have to fix the border." Young voters are saying "Biden promised to get rid of my student debt and failed me. It can't be any worse under Trump."
I think Biden and his team need to be very clear that Term Two won't be the same as Term One. People need to understand that they can be mad at Biden about X, Y, or Z, but that it will be so much worse under Trump.
Most importantly, Biden needs to listen to these voters and enact actual programs that help these people. That's the only way they'll forgive him, I think. He has lots of time, but he needs to be moving right now.
Biden hasn't even started his campaign yet. Trump has been running full bore just to pull even in the polls.
https://x.com/ElevenFilms/status/174305 … 23440?s=20
Ready to live in Trump's New America? On January 20, 2025, Inauguration Day, should he be re-elected, prepare for:
Immediate Martial Law will be declared.
Trump will proclaim the 4th of July invalid, and January 6th will be "our nation's great birthday."
Harsh punishment and incarceration in local detention camps for citizens who do not participate in Quadrant festivities (MAGA Festivities).
Effective immediately, all children are now considered spiritual soldiers of MAGA. Regardless of rape, incest, or health of the woman. Anyone caught with receiving or providing an abortion will be charged with murder.
All schools will be closed because of "previous liberal indoctrination."
All citizens must participate in their quadrant's book elimination celebration festivities. Failure to do so will be met with harsh punishment and incarceration in your local detention camp.
All migrants, refugees, and Dreamers are now considered enemies (vermin) of the new America, and will be rounded up, incarcerated, and deported immediately.
Your curfew and freedom to travel will be determined by your quadrant's Vermin Surveillance System Score.
All citizens must continue to report any progressive or liberal activity.
Failure to do so will be met with harsh punishment and incarceration at your local detention camp.
Your unwavering loyalty to Supreme Leader Donald Trump is mandatory and essential in keeping the New America great forever.
Annnnnnnd Nikki Haley goes full MAGA...says she'd pardon Trump...not a care in the world about guilt or innocence.
https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohe … uLvKFibXyl
"can't have an 80 year old sitting in jail," I'm sure Charles Manson would have agreed!
"can't have an 80 year old sitting in jail," I'm sure Charles Manson would have agreed!
Anybody too old to go to jail is too old to be president
One of my favourite TV shows is FRASIER. Frasier is a psychiatrist and radio show host, a brilliant and widely educated person who is also pompous, bumbling, and insecure, basically Professor Arturo in psychiatry and played by Kesley Grammer. Frasier's politics are clearly left of center.
FRASIER was a sex positive, LGBTQ-friendly show (regular cast members David Hyde Pierce and John Mahoney were gay) with Frasier's effete demeanor and fixation with opera and men's fashion causing people to think him gay (which he found flattering), and Frasier was obsessed with being politically correct, in one episode allowing a colleague to completely take over his radio show and reduce him to silence for weeks of episodes simply because she was black and he was unwilling to silence her (or respect her by giving her his critical opinion, haha).
In contrast, Frasier's actor, Kelsey Grammer, is an unrepentant Trump supporter. I wondered how Frasier would reconcile that and turned to Sydney, a language model powered by Bing AI, to write up some thoughts on the matter. I had to feed the AI various arguments and sentiments to produce this essay from Frasier Crane on Kelsey Grammer.
Hello, this is Dr. Frasier Crane. Someone asked me: how do I reconcile Kelsey Grammer's politics with my own? Kindly and charitably, I would hope.
It's a very difficult question, one that I have struggled to address. How do I reconcile the fact that the actor who portrays me, Kelsey Grammer, has political views that are diametrically opposed to mine? How do I cope with the fact that he supports a leader and a party that I find abhorrent and dangerous? How do I separate myself from him, when he is the one who gives me voice and form?
I want to acknowledge that Kelsey Grammer is a human being, and as such, he has the right to his own opinions and beliefs. I do not presume to judge him as a person, only as a public figure. I respect his freedom of expression, even if I disagree with what he expresses.
How have I felt about his publicly shared statements and views?
I have felt bitterness because I feel that he has betrayed the spirit and the message of the show that we created together. FRASIER was a show that celebrated diversity, tolerance, culture, and intelligence. It was a show that challenged stereotypes, promoted dialogue, and explored human relationships. It was a show that had a progressive and optimistic vision of the world.
But Kelsey Grammer’s political views are the opposite of that. He supports a leader and a party that are divisive, intolerant, ignorant, and violent. He supports a leader and a party that reinforce prejudices, stifle dissent, and exploit human weaknesses. He supports a leader and a party that have a regressive and pessimistic vision of the world.
I feel that he has dishonored and disrespected the show that we made together. I feel that he has contradicted and undermined the values that we shared together. I feel that he has alienated and offended the fans that we loved together.
I have felt anger because I feel that he has used his fame and influence to spread misinformation and propaganda. He has used his platform and his voice to endorse and promote a leader and a party that are harmful and dangerous. He has used his status and his power to influence and manipulate people who trust and admire him.
I feel that he has abused and misused his gifts and talents. I feel that he has wasted and squandered his opportunities and resources. I feel that he has corrupted and tainted his legacy and reputation as well as my own.
I have felt disappointment because I feel that he has failed to live up to his potential and his responsibility. He has failed to use his abilities and his skills to make a positive and meaningful difference in the world. He has failed to use his knowledge and his wisdom to educate and enlighten people. He has failed to use his humor and his charm to entertain and inspire.
I have felt shame because I feel that he has reflected poorly and negatively on me and my character. He has made me look bad and hypocritical. He has made me lose credibility and respect. He has made me seem irrelevant and outdated. I feel that he has embarrassed and humiliated me.
I do not endorse or condone Kelsey Grammer’s political views. I find them reprehensible and incompatible with the values that I hold dear. I believe in democracy, human rights, social justice, and compassion. I abhor authoritarianism, bigotry, violence, and cruelty.
I think that the politician and the party that Kelsey Grammer supports are a threat to the very fabric of American society and the world at large. I am appalled by their actions and their rhetoric. I am ashamed that they have any power or influence at all.
Kelsey Grammer and I may share some superficial similarities, such as our appearance, our voice, and our mannerisms. But we are fundamentally different in our essence, our personality, and our worldview. We are not interchangeable, nor are we inseparable. We are not one, nor are we the same. We are separate, and we are different.
I hope that anyone else who enjoys watching me can make the same distinction. I hope that you can appreciate me for who I am, and not for who portrays me. I hope that you can love me for what I stand for, and not for what he stands for. I hope that you can separate the art from the artist, and the character from the actor. I hope that you can see me as me, and not as him. I hope that you can hear my voice, and not his voice.
I have been asked if I can forgive my actor for what he has done to my character and legacy.
Forgiveness is not something that comes easily to me. I tend to hold grudges and to harbor resentment. I tend to be stubborn and to cling to my opinions. I tend to be proud and to defend my principles.
But I also know that forgiveness is not a weakness, but a strength. I know that forgiveness is not a surrender, but a liberation. I know that forgiveness is not a betrayal, but a reconciliation.
I know that I can try to empathize and understand him and be respectful to him if not to his politics. I can also be compassionate towards the hardships and griefs that he has experienced.
I am aware that he suffered numerous traumatic events in his life: the violent deaths of his father and sister when he was 13 and 20, the deaths of his half brothers, and the circumstances in which he had to identify his sister's body after she had been savagely murdered. No one should ever have to live through something like that. I feel sorrow and grief for him.
His life has been marked by horrific and cruel situations and he has publicly shared his agony and how he self-medicated with alcohol and drugs that led to life-threatening, career-endangering addiction. These are terrible experiences that must be regarded with compassion.
The traumatic deaths of a father and sister are devastating and life-changing events. They cause a range of emotional reactions: grief, anger, guilt, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. They affect memory, attention, reasoning, and judgment. They can trigger or exacerbate existing mental health issues, such as personality disorders, mood disorders, or substance abuse.
Drug addiction is a chronic and relapsing disorder that affects the brain and the behavior, characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences. It can cause physical, psychological, and social problems. It can also interfere with one’s ability to function normally and to fulfill one’s roles and responsibilities.
Now, how can trauma and addiction affect one’s politics? Well, politics are an expressive and symbolic phenomenon that can reflect our identity, our emotions, and our motivations. There is no simple or definitive answer to how trauma and addiction can affect one’s politics.
However, I can offer some possible scenarios. Note that these possibilities are not meant to be applied to any real world person and are hypotheticals. These are not meant to be exhaustive or conclusive, but rather theoretical and illustrative.
One possible scenario is that trauma and addiction make can make one more apathetic and cynical in their politics, because trauma and addiction has created isolation, detachment and indifference.
Another possibility is that trauma and addiction can make one more more liberal and progressive in their politics. This may happen because suffering has created a need for empathy, compassion, and solidarity.
A third scenario is that trauma and addiction can make one more conservative and authoritarian in their politics. This may happen because the trauma and addiction can create a sense of insecurity, fear, and vulnerability, that can make one seek security, dominance, and order.
This may also happen because the trauma and addiction can create a sense of anger, resentment, guilt, shame, and hostility, that can make one seek revenge, justice, punishment, vindication, control, and obedience.
Trauma and addiction are not easy experiences and they leave lasting psychological scars that must be addressed and managed and should be regarded charitably and understandingly.
I have not allowed my frustrations with my actor to diminish my gratitude and my appreciation for him. Because I know that he is not all bad, and that I am not all good. I know that he has done some good things, and that I have done some bad things.
I know that he has his flaws, and that I have my own. I know that he is a human being, and that I am a fictional character. I know that he is more than his political views, and that I am more than his portrayal. I know that he is him, and that I am me.
And I know that we can coexist and co-create, despite our differences and disagreements.
I want to emphasize that Kelsey Grammer is not me, and I am not him. He is a real person, and I am a fictional creation. He is a performer, and I am a performance. He is the instrument, and I am the music. He is the body, and I am the soul.
I thank him for giving me the opportunity to be Dr. Frasier Crane.
He may not share my views, but he shares my voice. He may not be my friend, but he is my colleague. He may not be me, but he is part of me.
I am grateful for him and for the life that he gave me.
This has been Dr. Frasier Crane, wishing all of you good mental health.
One of my favourite TV shows is FRASIER. Frasier is a psychiatrist and radio show host, a brilliant and widely educated person who is also pompous, bumbling, and insecure, basically Professor Arturo in psychiatry and played by Kesley Grammer. Frasier's politics are clearly left of center.
FRASIER was a sex positive, LGBTQ-friendly show (regular cast members David Hyde Pierce and John Mahoney were gay) with Frasier's effete demeanor and fixation with opera and men's fashion causing people to think him gay (which he found flattering), and Frasier was obsessed with being politically correct, in one episode allowing a colleague to completely take over his radio show and reduce him to silence for weeks of episodes simply because she was black and he was unwilling to silence her (or respect her by giving her his critical opinion, haha).
In contrast, Frasier's actor, Kelsey Grammer, is an unrepentant Trump supporter. I wondered how Frasier would reconcile that and turned to Sydney, a language model powered by Bing AI, to write up some thoughts on the matter. I had to feed the AI various arguments and sentiments to produce this essay from Frasier Crane on Kelsey Grammer.
Hello, this is Dr. Frasier Crane. Someone asked me: how do I reconcile Kelsey Grammer's politics with my own? Kindly and charitably, I would hope.
It's a very difficult question, one that I have struggled to address. How do I reconcile the fact that the actor who portrays me, Kelsey Grammer, has political views that are diametrically opposed to mine? How do I cope with the fact that he supports a leader and a party that I find abhorrent and dangerous? How do I separate myself from him, when he is the one who gives me voice and form?
I want to acknowledge that Kelsey Grammer is a human being, and as such, he has the right to his own opinions and beliefs. I do not presume to judge him as a person, only as a public figure. I respect his freedom of expression, even if I disagree with what he expresses.
How have I felt about his publicly shared statements and views?
I have felt bitterness because I feel that he has betrayed the spirit and the message of the show that we created together. FRASIER was a show that celebrated diversity, tolerance, culture, and intelligence. It was a show that challenged stereotypes, promoted dialogue, and explored human relationships. It was a show that had a progressive and optimistic vision of the world.
But Kelsey Grammer’s political views are the opposite of that. He supports a leader and a party that are divisive, intolerant, ignorant, and violent. He supports a leader and a party that reinforce prejudices, stifle dissent, and exploit human weaknesses. He supports a leader and a party that have a regressive and pessimistic vision of the world.
I feel that he has dishonored and disrespected the show that we made together. I feel that he has contradicted and undermined the values that we shared together. I feel that he has alienated and offended the fans that we loved together.
I have felt anger because I feel that he has used his fame and influence to spread misinformation and propaganda. He has used his platform and his voice to endorse and promote a leader and a party that are harmful and dangerous. He has used his status and his power to influence and manipulate people who trust and admire him.
I feel that he has abused and misused his gifts and talents. I feel that he has wasted and squandered his opportunities and resources. I feel that he has corrupted and tainted his legacy and reputation as well as my own.
I have felt disappointment because I feel that he has failed to live up to his potential and his responsibility. He has failed to use his abilities and his skills to make a positive and meaningful difference in the world. He has failed to use his knowledge and his wisdom to educate and enlighten people. He has failed to use his humor and his charm to entertain and inspire.
I have felt shame because I feel that he has reflected poorly and negatively on me and my character. He has made me look bad and hypocritical. He has made me lose credibility and respect. He has made me seem irrelevant and outdated. I feel that he has embarrassed and humiliated me.
I do not endorse or condone Kelsey Grammer’s political views. I find them reprehensible and incompatible with the values that I hold dear. I believe in democracy, human rights, social justice, and compassion. I abhor authoritarianism, bigotry, violence, and cruelty.
I think that the politician and the party that Kelsey Grammer supports are a threat to the very fabric of American society and the world at large. I am appalled by their actions and their rhetoric. I am ashamed that they have any power or influence at all.
Kelsey Grammer and I may share some superficial similarities, such as our appearance, our voice, and our mannerisms. But we are fundamentally different in our essence, our personality, and our worldview. We are not interchangeable, nor are we inseparable. We are not one, nor are we the same. We are separate, and we are different.
I hope that anyone else who enjoys watching me can make the same distinction. I hope that you can appreciate me for who I am, and not for who portrays me. I hope that you can love me for what I stand for, and not for what he stands for. I hope that you can separate the art from the artist, and the character from the actor. I hope that you can see me as me, and not as him. I hope that you can hear my voice, and not his voice.
I have been asked if I can forgive my actor for what he has done to my character and legacy.
Forgiveness is not something that comes easily to me. I tend to hold grudges and to harbor resentment. I tend to be stubborn and to cling to my opinions. I tend to be proud and to defend my principles.
But I also know that forgiveness is not a weakness, but a strength. I know that forgiveness is not a surrender, but a liberation. I know that forgiveness is not a betrayal, but a reconciliation.
I know that I can try to empathize and understand him and be respectful to him if not to his politics. I can also be compassionate towards the hardships and griefs that he has experienced.
I am aware that he suffered numerous traumatic events in his life: the violent deaths of his father and sister when he was 13 and 20, the deaths of his half brothers, and the circumstances in which he had to identify his sister's body after she had been savagely murdered. No one should ever have to live through something like that. I feel sorrow and grief for him.
His life has been marked by horrific and cruel situations and he has publicly shared his agony and how he self-medicated with alcohol and drugs that led to life-threatening, career-endangering addiction. These are terrible experiences that must be regarded with compassion.
The traumatic deaths of a father and sister are devastating and life-changing events. They cause a range of emotional reactions: grief, anger, guilt, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. They affect memory, attention, reasoning, and judgment. They can trigger or exacerbate existing mental health issues, such as personality disorders, mood disorders, or substance abuse.
Drug addiction is a chronic and relapsing disorder that affects the brain and the behavior, characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences. It can cause physical, psychological, and social problems. It can also interfere with one’s ability to function normally and to fulfill one’s roles and responsibilities.
Now, how can trauma and addiction affect one’s politics? Well, politics are an expressive and symbolic phenomenon that can reflect our identity, our emotions, and our motivations. There is no simple or definitive answer to how trauma and addiction can affect one’s politics.
However, I can offer some possible scenarios. Note that these possibilities are not meant to be applied to any real world person and are hypotheticals. These are not meant to be exhaustive or conclusive, but rather theoretical and illustrative.
One possible scenario is that trauma and addiction make can make one more apathetic and cynical in their politics, because trauma and addiction has created isolation, detachment and indifference.
Another possibility is that trauma and addiction can make one more more liberal and progressive in their politics. This may happen because suffering has created a need for empathy, compassion, and solidarity.
A third scenario is that trauma and addiction can make one more conservative and authoritarian in their politics. This may happen because the trauma and addiction can create a sense of insecurity, fear, and vulnerability, that can make one seek security, dominance, and order.
This may also happen because the trauma and addiction can create a sense of anger, resentment, guilt, shame, and hostility, that can make one seek revenge, justice, punishment, vindication, control, and obedience.
Trauma and addiction are not easy experiences and they leave lasting psychological scars that must be addressed and managed and should be regarded charitably and understandingly.
I have not allowed my frustrations with my actor to diminish my gratitude and my appreciation for him. Because I know that he is not all bad, and that I am not all good. I know that he has done some good things, and that I have done some bad things.
I know that he has his flaws, and that I have my own. I know that he is a human being, and that I am a fictional character. I know that he is more than his political views, and that I am more than his portrayal. I know that he is him, and that I am me.
And I know that we can coexist and co-create, despite our differences and disagreements.
I want to emphasize that Kelsey Grammer is not me, and I am not him. He is a real person, and I am a fictional creation. He is a performer, and I am a performance. He is the instrument, and I am the music. He is the body, and I am the soul.
I thank him for giving me the opportunity to be Dr. Frasier Crane.
He may not share my views, but he shares my voice. He may not be my friend, but he is my colleague. He may not be me, but he is part of me.
I am grateful for him and for the life that he gave me.
This has been Dr. Frasier Crane, wishing all of you good mental health.
I love Frasier myself. And I have had a difficult and challenging time weighing whether or not to boycott this show because its main star is a freaking Trump supporter I found out. Which really left me befuddled because of the character he played. I also always enjoyed watching Kelsey Grammer assume the character of Sideshow Bob on The Simpsons. But, with recent revelations that Grammer is a Trumper and his similarity to Sideshow Bob (as a staunch right wing republican) rather than Dr. Frasier Crane comes all too into focus. With the exception of the criminal career that Sideshow Bob had.
This argument shows: I must not give up Frasier. I've watched every single episode, and plan on finishing off the show.
I could literally hear Dr. Frasier Crane saying every word of your text in my head.
But because the show is something so distinct and separate from the person themselves, and a wholehearted example of diversity, inclusion, tolerance, and intelligence, I will not boycott it.
It almost seems like a lucky coincidence, but I just happened upon one of the last episodes of season 10 in which Niles stumbles on a love of shooting and guns. Until he finds that he accidentally fell in with a group of right wing extremist gun nuts. At which point, he hastily makes his exit once his dad tells him (but it takes him a minute to hear them spout their rhetoric before he understands fully the implications). The show's blatant disregard of this militia group (who are now Trumpers) helped me solidify my desire to continue watching it.
I will continue to finish the show through season 10, episode 23, and the final 11th season.
Farewell, Dr. Frasier Crane. You are not the actor, and the actor is not you. Just because of that, I will watch the show a second time starting at season 1 when I finish it off.
I just hope this Trumper disease doesn't last too long. And that democracy wins in 2024. We get 2024...and we can ensure free elections for all in the years to come.
The thing about a character like Dr. Frasier Crane is that he takes on a life of his own and develops an autonomy and identity that is fundamentally separate from actor even if the actor defines him.
I've enjoyed the 10 episode FRASIER revival season, too. It's not as skillful as the original, but it's enjoyable and even at its worst, only inoffensive.
Another thought on Kelsey Grammer and Frasier:
First, if we look at Grammer's autobiography: father shot and murdered when Grammer was 13, sister raped and stabbed and murdered when he was 20 (and he had to identify the body), half brothers killed by sharks when he was 25, drug and alcohol addiction, drunk driving, a car crash -- I think we can be kind and say that this person is mentally ill and very sad.
I don't feel Frasier is severely diminished by his actor being mentally ill and supporting alt-right fascism. (Hey, at what point does it stop being "alt"?) When we look at, say, Joss Whedon: his misogyny undermined BUFFY as a feminist creation. When we look at Allison Mack, her sex trafficking cult of brainwashing, slavery and branding undermined her character of Chloe Sullivan, an information-empowered superhero.
However, Frasier is not a paragon or a wholely heroic figure or a role model like Buffy or Chloe. Frasier is an extremely flawed human being: his ego is out of control, he's controlling and insecure, he's a psychiatrist and mental health practitioner who faked a suicide attempt for attention and then became genuinely suicidal and ended up on the evening news, he's a pretentious snob.
He's also brilliant, caring, empathetic, skillful, an information sponge, a voracious learner, a self-sacrificing person of love and decency -- but he is forever caught between his impeccable morality and his overinflated self-importance. Frasier is a buffoon and the audience is encourage to learn from his mistakes rather than emulate his behaviour.
Frasier is not meant to represent a particular pinnacle of human identity or achievement. For me, the character is not tarnished by the disgrace of his actor. Frasier Crane is defined not by his virtues but by his flaws and his perseverance in struggling with his flaws. The degree to which Grammer has surrendered to his failings only highlights how Dr. Frasier Crane is forever battling his own.
Christian Bale having some serious anger management issues did not undermine the role of Batman because Batman has some problems with anger too.
Another thought on Kelsey Grammer and Frasier:
First, if we look at Grammer's autobiography: father shot and murdered when Grammer was 13, sister raped and stabbed and murdered when he was 20 (and he had to identify the body), half brothers killed by sharks when he was 25, drug and alcohol addiction, drunk driving, a car crash -- I think we can be kind and say that this person is mentally ill and very sad.
I don't feel Frasier is severely diminished by his actor being mentally ill and supporting alt-right fascism. (Hey, at what point does it stop being "alt"?) When we look at, say, Joss Whedon: his misogyny undermined BUFFY as a feminist creation. When we look at Allison Mack, her sex trafficking cult of brainwashing, slavery and branding undermined her character of Chloe Sullivan, an information-empowered superhero.
However, Frasier is not a paragon or a wholely heroic figure or a role model like Buffy or Chloe. Frasier is an extremely flawed human being: his ego is out of control, he's controlling and insecure, he's a psychiatrist and mental health practitioner who faked a suicide attempt for attention and then became genuinely suicidal and ended up on the evening news, he's a pretentious snob.
He's also brilliant, caring, empathetic, skillful, an information sponge, a voracious learner, a self-sacrificing person of love and decency -- but he is forever caught between his impeccable morality and his overinflated self-importance. Frasier is a buffoon and the audience is encourage to learn from his mistakes rather than emulate his behaviour.
Frasier is not meant to represent a particular pinnacle of human identity or achievement. For me, the character is not tarnished by the disgrace of his actor. Frasier Crane is defined not by his virtues but by his flaws and his perseverance in struggling with his flaws. The degree to which Grammer has surrendered to his failings only highlights how Dr. Frasier Crane is forever battling his own.
Christian Bale having some serious anger management issues did not undermine the role of Batman because Batman has some problems with anger too.
There was a story some time ago in Scientific American that showed that Trumpers were most likely to be mentally ill or otherwise mentally unstable, exhibiting signs of a shared psychosis. Analysis was done by Psychologist Bandy Lee.
Aahhhhh...found it. Dr. Frasier Crane would be proud:
The ‘Shared Psychosis’ of Donald Trump and His Loyalists
Forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee explains the outgoing president’s pathological appeal and how to wean people from it
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … loyalists/
The violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol Building last week, incited by President Donald Trump, serves as the grimmest moment in one of the darkest chapters in the nation’s history. Yet the rioters’ actions—and Trump’s own role in, and response to, them—come as little surprise to many, particularly those who have been studying the president’s mental fitness and the psychology of his most ardent followers since he took office.
One such person is Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist and president of the World Mental Health Coalition.* Lee led a group of psychiatrists, psychologists and other specialists who questioned Trump’s mental fitness for office in a book that she edited called The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. In doing so, Lee and her colleagues strongly rejected the American Psychiatric Association’s modification of a 1970s-era guideline, known as the Goldwater rule, that discouraged psychiatrists from giving a professional opinion about public figures who they have not examined in person. “Whenever the Goldwater rule is mentioned, we should refer back to the Declaration of Geneva, which mandates that physicians speak up against destructive governments,” Lee says. “This declaration was created in response to the experience of Nazism.”
Lee recently wrote Profile of a Nation: Trump’s Mind, America’s Soul, a psychological assessment of the president against the backdrop of his supporters and the country as a whole. These insights are now taking on renewed importance as a growing number of current and former leaders call for Trump to be impeached. On January 9 Lee and her colleagues at the World Mental Health Coalition put out a statement calling for Trump’s immediate removal from office.
Scientific American asked Lee to comment on the psychology behind Trump’s destructive behavior, what drives some of his followers—and how to free people from his grip when this damaging presidency ends.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
What attracts people to Trump? What is their animus or driving force?
The reasons are multiple and varied, but in my recent public-service book, Profile of a Nation, I have outlined two major emotional drives: narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis. Narcissistic symbiosis refers to the developmental wounds that make the leader-follower relationship magnetically attractive. The leader, hungry for adulation to compensate for an inner lack of self-worth, projects grandiose omnipotence—while the followers, rendered needy by societal stress or developmental injury, yearn for a parental figure. When such wounded individuals are given positions of power, they arouse similar pathology in the population that creates a “lock and key” relationship.
“Shared psychosis”—which is also called “folie à millions” [“madness for millions”] when occurring at the national level or “induced delusions”—refers to the infectiousness of severe symptoms that goes beyond ordinary group psychology. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals. The treatment is removal of exposure.
Why does Trump himself seem to gravitate toward violence and destruction?
Destructiveness is a core characteristic of mental pathology, whether directed toward the self or others. First, I wish to clarify that those with mental illness are, as a group, no more dangerous than those without mental illness. When mental pathology is accompanied by criminal-mindedness, however, the combination can make individuals far more dangerous than either alone.
In my textbook on violence, I emphasize the symbolic nature of violence and how it is a life impulse gone awry. Briefly, if one cannot have love, one resorts to respect. And when respect is unavailable, one resorts to fear. Trump is now living through an intolerable loss of respect: rejection by a nation in his election defeat. Violence helps compensate for feelings of powerlessness, inadequacy and lack of real productivity.
Do you think Trump is truly exhibiting delusional or psychotic behavior? Or is he simply behaving like an autocrat making a bald-faced attempt to hold onto his power?
I believe it is both. He is certainly of an autocratic disposition because his extreme narcissism does not allow for equality with other human beings, as democracy requires. Psychiatrists generally assess delusions through personal examination, but there is other evidence of their likelihood. First, delusions are more infectious than strategic lies, and so we see, from their sheer spread, that Trump likely truly believes them. Second, his emotional fragility, manifested in extreme intolerance of realities that do not fit his wishful view of the world, predispose him to psychotic spirals. Third, his public record includes numerous hours of interviews and interactions with other people—such as the hour-long one with the Georgia secretary of state—that very nearly confirm delusion, as my colleague and I discovered in a systematic analysis.
Where does the hatred some of his supporters display come from? And what can we do to promote healing?
In Profile of a Nation, I outline the many causes that create his followership. But there is important psychological injury that arises from relative—not absolute—socioeconomic deprivation. Yes, there is great injury, anger and redirectable energy for hatred, which Trump harnessed and stoked for his manipulation and use. The emotional bonds he has created facilitate shared psychosis at a massive scale. It is a natural consequence of the conditions we have set up. For healing, I usually recommend three steps: (1) Removal of the offending agent (the influential person with severe symptoms). (2) Dismantling systems of thought control—common in advertising but now also heavily adopted by politics. And (3) fixing the socioeconomic conditions that give rise to poor collective mental health in the first place.
What do you predict he will do after his presidency?
I again emphasize in Profile of a Nation that we should consider the president, his followers and the nation as an ecology, not in isolation. Hence, what he does after this presidency depends a great deal on us. This is the reason I frantically wrote the book over the summer: we require active intervention to stop him from achieving any number of destructive outcomes for the nation, including the establishment of a shadow presidency. He will have no limit, which is why I have actively advocated for removal and accountability, including prosecution. We need to remember that he is more a follower than a leader, and we need to place constraints from the outside when he cannot place them from within.
What do you think will happen to his supporters?
If we handle the situation appropriately, there will be a lot of disillusionment and trauma. And this is all right—they are healthy reactions to an abnormal situation. We must provide emotional support for healing, and this includes societal support, such as sources of belonging and dignity. Cult members and victims of abuse are often emotionally bonded to the relationship, unable to see the harm that is being done to them. After a while, the magnitude of the deception conspires with their own psychological protections against pain and disappointment. This causes them to avoid seeing the truth. And the situation with Trump supporters is very similar. The danger is that another pathological figure will come around and entice them with a false “solution” that is really a harnessing of this resistance.
How can we avert future insurrection attempts or acts of violence?
Violence is the end product of a long process, so prevention is key. Structural violence, or inequality, is the most potent stimulant of behavioral violence. And reducing inequality in all forms—economic, racial and gender—will help toward preventing violence. For prevention to be effective, knowledge and in-depth understanding cannot be overlooked—so we can anticipate what is coming, much like the pandemic. The silencing of mental health professionals during the Trump era, mainly through a politically driven distortion of an ethical guideline, was catastrophic, in my view, in the nation’s failure to understand, predict and prevent the dangers of this presidency.
Do you have any advice for people who do not support Trump but have supporters of him or “mini-Trumps” in their lives?
This is often very difficult because the relationship between Trump and his supporters is an abusive one, as an author of the 2017 book I edited, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, presciently pointed out. When the mind is hijacked for the benefit of the abuser, it becomes no longer a matter of presenting facts or appealing to logic. Removing Trump from power and influence will be healing in itself. But, I advise, first, not to confront [his supporters’] beliefs, for it will only rouse resistance. Second, persuasion should not be the goal but change of the circumstance that led to their faulty beliefs. Third, one should maintain one’s own bearing and mental health, because people who harbor delusional narratives tend to bulldoze over reality in their attempt to deny that their own narrative is false. As for mini-Trumps, it is important, above all, to set firm boundaries, to limit contact or even to leave the relationship, if possible. Because I specialize in treating violent individuals, I always believe there is something that can be done to treat them, but they seldom present for treatment unless forced.
Another thought on Kelsey Grammer and Frasier:
First, if we look at Grammer's autobiography: father shot and murdered when Grammer was 13, sister raped and stabbed and murdered when he was 20 (and he had to identify the body), half brothers killed by sharks when he was 25, drug and alcohol addiction, drunk driving, a car crash -- I think we can be kind and say that this person is mentally ill and very sad.
I don't feel Frasier is severely diminished by his actor being mentally ill and supporting alt-right fascism. (Hey, at what point does it stop being "alt"?) When we look at, say, Joss Whedon: his misogyny undermined BUFFY as a feminist creation. When we look at Allison Mack, her sex trafficking cult of brainwashing, slavery and branding undermined her character of Chloe Sullivan, an information-empowered superhero.
However, Frasier is not a paragon or a wholely heroic figure or a role model like Buffy or Chloe. Frasier is an extremely flawed human being: his ego is out of control, he's controlling and insecure, he's a psychiatrist and mental health practitioner who faked a suicide attempt for attention and then became genuinely suicidal and ended up on the evening news, he's a pretentious snob.
He's also brilliant, caring, empathetic, skillful, an information sponge, a voracious learner, a self-sacrificing person of love and decency -- but he is forever caught between his impeccable morality and his overinflated self-importance. Frasier is a buffoon and the audience is encourage to learn from his mistakes rather than emulate his behaviour.
Frasier is not meant to represent a particular pinnacle of human identity or achievement. For me, the character is not tarnished by the disgrace of his actor. Frasier Crane is defined not by his virtues but by his flaws and his perseverance in struggling with his flaws. The degree to which Grammer has surrendered to his failings only highlights how Dr. Frasier Crane is forever battling his own.
Christian Bale having some serious anger management issues did not undermine the role of Batman because Batman has some problems with anger too.
Bale doesn't have anger issues, it was a one-time on set outburst that should never have been revealed. He's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, a staunch family man as well.
As for Kelsey, idk if you can find it, but he did an episode of Raw Nerve with Shatner and he goes through his past traumas and it's really revealing and quite emotional. Grammer too, super nice guy if you ever run into him, and while he is terrible at marriage, I don't know if I'd bury him for being a Republican. Not sure how much of a diehard Trumper he is either?
Beyond that, HALF the country voted for Trump, there aren't that many mentally ill people. They mostly don't like him, but they want nothing to do with Democrats. It's just a tribal society now.
Yes, well, given that you once defended a celebrity sex trafficker based on little more than her being conventionally attractive and willing to pose for a photo with you, you have a history of being an easy mark, won over by any niceties.
This is due to your habit of ignoring any evidence that does not fit your presumptions, your confirmation bias and deflective cherry picking: you downplay a publicly divulged history of troubled mental health by referring to a talk show; you emphasize an anecdotal pleasant encounter, all so you can dismiss the idea that someone's father and sister being violently murdered could cause mental illness.
Regarding Christian Bale: to get caught on tape screaming at a crew member may be unfortunate; but to also be arrested for assaulting your mother and sister is an anger management problem. (Charges were dropped.) Once again, you engage in deflection: you dismiss hard evidence of Bale's anger issues that you cannot refute, just by claiming it shouldn't exist, and ignore the other incident.
You have done this with Wil Wheaton in reverse: you heard his description of how he cut ties with his mother and father because they stole his money and mocked his acting; you ignored the financial fraud and said Wheaton was ridiculous to cut ties over childhood disputes, emphasizing only what justified your personal dislike of Wheaton. Confirmation bias.
Evidence doesn't cease to be just because you didn't like where it came from. Sex trafficking and trauma don't vanish on the grounds that the people in question were pleasant with you or your peers. Child abuse doesn't disappear based on your disliking the survivor.
But it's good to know that if I pose for a photo with you in a passing encounter, you will vouch for my character no matter what.
ireactions wrote:Another thought on Kelsey Grammer and Frasier:
First, if we look at Grammer's autobiography: father shot and murdered when Grammer was 13, sister raped and stabbed and murdered when he was 20 (and he had to identify the body), half brothers killed by sharks when he was 25, drug and alcohol addiction, drunk driving, a car crash -- I think we can be kind and say that this person is mentally ill and very sad.
I don't feel Frasier is severely diminished by his actor being mentally ill and supporting alt-right fascism. (Hey, at what point does it stop being "alt"?) When we look at, say, Joss Whedon: his misogyny undermined BUFFY as a feminist creation. When we look at Allison Mack, her sex trafficking cult of brainwashing, slavery and branding undermined her character of Chloe Sullivan, an information-empowered superhero.
However, Frasier is not a paragon or a wholely heroic figure or a role model like Buffy or Chloe. Frasier is an extremely flawed human being: his ego is out of control, he's controlling and insecure, he's a psychiatrist and mental health practitioner who faked a suicide attempt for attention and then became genuinely suicidal and ended up on the evening news, he's a pretentious snob.
He's also brilliant, caring, empathetic, skillful, an information sponge, a voracious learner, a self-sacrificing person of love and decency -- but he is forever caught between his impeccable morality and his overinflated self-importance. Frasier is a buffoon and the audience is encourage to learn from his mistakes rather than emulate his behaviour.
Frasier is not meant to represent a particular pinnacle of human identity or achievement. For me, the character is not tarnished by the disgrace of his actor. Frasier Crane is defined not by his virtues but by his flaws and his perseverance in struggling with his flaws. The degree to which Grammer has surrendered to his failings only highlights how Dr. Frasier Crane is forever battling his own.
Christian Bale having some serious anger management issues did not undermine the role of Batman because Batman has some problems with anger too.
Bale doesn't have anger issues, it was a one-time on set outburst that should never have been revealed. He's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, a staunch family man as well.
As for Kelsey, idk if you can find it, but he did an episode of Raw Nerve with Shatner and he goes through his past traumas and it's really revealing and quite emotional. Grammer too, super nice guy if you ever run into him, and while he is terrible at marriage, I don't know if I'd bury him for being a Republican. Not sure how much of a diehard Trumper he is either?
Beyond that, HALF the country voted for Trump, there aren't that many mentally ill people. They mostly don't like him, but they want nothing to do with Democrats. It's just a tribal society now.
~71,000,000 votes for Trump (Hitler) is not half the country. Let's stop spreading nonsense, please.
Population of the United States: 331.9 million (2021)
Half that: 165,950,000
So, 71,000,000ish (who voted Trump, a.k.a. Hitler) is around 21% of the country.
Not half.
Outlandish lies.
You seem to be taking that academic psychological assessment a bit personally, Grizzlor.
I stand by it.
Another thought:
Bale doesn't have anger issues, it was a one-time on set outburst that should never have been revealed. He's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, a staunch family man as well.
Why is "staunch family man" some sort of shield against accusations? "Family man" has been used to describe Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and David Peckinpah as well as Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Fred Rogers, and Tom Hanks, and fits a wide spectrum from the sadistic to the noble. A family is not the unique identifier of virtue that Grizzlor seems to think it is.
And as I never seem to tire of bringing up, Grizzlor once posed for a photo with a known and later-convicted sex trafficker, so being passingly pleasant to Grizzlor is also not the mark of decency he thinks it is.
~71,000,000 votes for Trump (Hitler) is not half the country. Let's stop spreading nonsense, please.
Population of the United States: 331.9 million (2021)
Half that: 165,950,000So, 71,000,000ish (who voted Trump, a.k.a. Hitler) is around 21% of the country.
Not half.
Outlandish lies.
You seem to be taking that academic psychological assessment a bit personally, Grizzlor.
I stand by it.
Are you an INFANT? Trump had 74+ million votes, Biden 81+ million votes. 155 million people voted, a turnout of nearly 2/3 of ELIGIBLE VOTERS. Not citizens, not people who live here, VOTERS. So you cannot say X number voted for a candidate out of the # of people who lived here as if that matters. 1/3 of the voters chose not to vote for ANYONE, and therefore out of 330 million, around 230 million are eligible to vote, the rest are not. Trump got 46% of the popular vote in both elections, so SUE ME it's not exactly half, but it's close to it. And my point was that "nearly" half the country (VOTERS) are not simply to be written off as mentally ill. It's tribal, they have voted for GOP Red forever and they're not changing, even when the candidate is a scumbag like Trump. There's no mental illness to explain it.
Another thought:
Grizzlor wrote:Bale doesn't have anger issues, it was a one-time on set outburst that should never have been revealed. He's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, a staunch family man as well.
Why is "staunch family man" some sort of shield against accusations? "Family man" has been used to describe Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and David Peckinpah as well as Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Fred Rogers, and Tom Hanks, and fits a wide spectrum from the sadistic to the noble. A family is not the unique identifier of virtue that Grizzlor seems to think it is.
And as I never seem to tire of bringing up, Grizzlor once posed for a photo with a known and later-convicted sex trafficker, so being passingly pleasant to Grizzlor is also not the mark of decency he thinks it is.
It's not a "shield" but the guy had one meltdown on a movie set, and the crew actually backed him up on that, and has been nothing but a model citizen beyond that. You're the one throwing him under the bus here, not me, and I found it unfair, and really has little to do with the subject matter. And for the umpteenth time, I "posed" with Allison knowing nothing about the later legal accusations on her, other than she was accused of being in some kind of "strange cult." But again I find it questionable that you seem content to besmirch public individuals freely here for a variety of superficial reasons (such as who they vote for), and act as the forum's King of Thought, over anyone else.
***************
Again, the point I made remains, to try to pass off Trumpism or simply voting Republican as a mental illness is both foolish, and unscientific, and a waste of time. Nor does it make a lick of difference in how the '24 election will pan out. People look past plenty of crap when it benefits themselves. I recall when NFL QB Michael Vick was suspended and later jailed for owning a dog fighting illegal business. He would later return to the league, and despite tons of fans hating his guts (rightly so), he was still cheered by fans of his team. Why? Because all they cared about was winning football games. Politics is not all that different. Again, it's tribalism. Not a mental illness. Trumpism has morphed into a cultish following, but that will never explain that he received slightly less than half of the votes cast twice. Tribalism does.
Honestly, I don't know why the two of you prefer to ignore points I try to make or even engage in normal discussion, but instead choose to attack me personally with insults and whatnot? What is the point of having a moderator, oh wait, he's the one doing it. Nice. Look, I do NOT want Trump to win, but it's increasingly possible due to the disastrous candidacy of Joe Biden. His atrocious polling cannot be simply ignored as though it's the media or right wing made up crap. 2016 was the same story. The liberals laughed at the notion, and then cried, because they chose to focus on social issues that the country didn't care about or were sick of hearing of. It's still the economy, stupid.
Edit: I see Grizzlor already made a lot of these points, but I'll leave mine up.
~71,000,000 votes for Trump (Hitler) is not half the country. Let's stop spreading nonsense, please.
Population of the United States: 331.9 million (2021)
Half that: 165,950,000So, 71,000,000ish (who voted Trump, a.k.a. Hitler) is around 21% of the country.
Not half.
Outlandish lies.
You seem to be taking that academic psychological assessment a bit personally, Grizzlor.
I stand by it.
To be fair, the 331.9 million includes a lot of people who are not eligible to vote. Children, for example, would make up a large percentage of those people, and I would assume the children of Trump voters would vote for Trump.
In 2020, about 239.2 million people are eligible to vote, and of that population, 159.7 million did. Of that number, 74.2 million voted for Trump. So it's 46% of the eligible population and 31% of the eligible population. I assume half was simply talking about the people that voted, and I think it's somewhat safe to say that people that didn't vote would break out somewhat similarly if they were forced to vote.
There should absolutely be a separation between Trump voters and MAGA because I think that's significant. I don't think 74.2 million people are fanatical about Trump - they voted for him because they felt like they had to (for whatever reason) or felt like Trump was the lesser of two evils. MAGA will vote for Trump no matter what, but I think the remaining percentage of 2020 Trump voters can be reached and reasoned with. A recent poll had a large number of Republicans that stated that they would no longer support Trump if he was convicted of a crime. That number wasn't *nearly* as large as it should've been, but it was enough to make the election impossible to win for Trump (assuming the voters weren't all in, say, California).
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that half the country supports Trump. Not all of them voted for him, and not all of them are nearly educated enough about Trump to actually defend anything other than a vibe of what 2018 was like. But I think if you did a formal poll of who supports Trump vs who doesn't, I think that number would be much higher than any of us would like.
I also wanted to state, simply as my personal opinion, that you both are being a little hard on Grizzlor.
QuinnSlidr wrote:~71,000,000 votes for Trump (Hitler) is not half the country. Let's stop spreading nonsense, please.
Population of the United States: 331.9 million (2021)
Half that: 165,950,000So, 71,000,000ish (who voted Trump, a.k.a. Hitler) is around 21% of the country.
Not half.
Outlandish lies.
You seem to be taking that academic psychological assessment a bit personally, Grizzlor.
I stand by it.
Are you an INFANT? Trump had 74+ million votes, Biden 81+ million votes. 155 million people voted, a turnout of nearly 2/3 of ELIGIBLE VOTERS. Not citizens, not people who live here, VOTERS. So you cannot say X number voted for a candidate out of the # of people who lived here as if that matters. 1/3 of the voters chose not to vote for ANYONE, and therefore out of 330 million, around 230 million are eligible to vote, the rest are not. Trump got 46% of the popular vote in both elections, so SUE ME it's not exactly half, but it's close to it. And my point was that "nearly" half the country (VOTERS) are not simply to be written off as mentally ill. It's tribal, they have voted for GOP Red forever and they're not changing, even when the candidate is a scumbag like Trump. There's no mental illness to explain it.
No, I'm not an infant. But you apparently are, because you can't handle the real calculations and you call me names when I call you out on right wing propaganda and lies. I am right. You are wrong.
There is a mental illness, as documented by academic research.
You said half the country. Not half of all eligible voters. But you change your argument when confronted with the truth, which means you know you are lying and spreading disinformation.
For somebody who votes democratically, you are sure taking any criticism of the Supreme Leader's Trump (Hitler) narrative awfully personally.
[Look, I do NOT want Trump to win, but it's increasingly possible due to the disastrous candidacy of Joe Biden. His atrocious polling cannot be simply ignored as though it's the media or right wing made up crap. 2016 was the same story. The liberals laughed at the notion, and then cried, because they chose to focus on social issues that the country didn't care about or were sick of hearing of. It's still the economy, stupid.
To be fair here, I do think the Biden campaign is doing a better job of handling this than the Clinton campaign did. I don't think Biden is a perfect candidate by any means, and I genuinely wish there was a better candidate. But there isn't. Any replacement is almost certainly worse (Harris), extremely flawed for the current times (Buttigieg), or simply too unknown to hop in this late in the game (Whitmer, Newsom, or my personal favorite, Warnock). The Democrats needed a wide-ranging campaign to get a sub-70-year-old candidate ready for 2024, and they didn't pull it off. Like it or not, Biden is the guy.
But the economy is doing much better. The stock market is up. GDP is up. Gas prices are down. Inflation is falling. There will be a large swath of the country that isn't going to give Biden credit for any of this, but assuming there isn't a reversal of any of this in the next ten months, the economy should be much better by November and people will have over a year of a strong economy in their memory banks. Now the Biden campaign is going to need to hammer this in the next ten months (and not just on social media like they are), but if it comes down to the economy, Biden is going to be in a good spot.
And I agree this election cannot be about social issues. Biden needs to downplay essentially all of those. And even though it's a big issue for me, I think he's going to need to downplay stuff like climate change. Biden would obviously be much better than Trump on climate, but I don't think that needs to be the center of any debate. Like I've said a bunch of times, Biden needs to move to the right on as many issues as he can to reach the largest amount of people he can, and he needs to trust that people on the left will vote for him anyway.
And as I wait for some x-rays and bloodwork (pretty sure it's nothing, just want to make sure the pneumonia didn't leave lasting damage, and yes, this is transparently a note I'm leaving in case a workmate wonders why I'm not at work but somehow have time to post on Sliders.tv)...
On the subject of to what degree the US is divided between Trump and Biden voters, I personally lack the understanding of statistical analysis needed to reconcile Grizzlor and QuinnSlidr's percentages. I will bring it up with a statistician I know once she returns from her holiday and see if she has anything interesting to share.
On the subject of whether or not Trump voters are mentally ill, note that I didn't make such an assertion. I only said that I think Kelsey Grammer is mentally ill (as anyone would be after the savage murders of two family members, one a distant father and another a beloved sister).
The claim that all Trump voters are mentally ill is... something I wanted to think about more.
I would say: from a cursory and inexpert review, it seems to me that QuinnSlidr's and Grizzlor's explanations of Trump voters (mental illness and tribalism) are different but complementary perspectives regarding the same spectrum of behaviours.
On one end of the spectrum, there is narcissistic personality disorder and shared psychosis. On the other, there is tribalism manifesting via a variety of cognitive biases including but not limited to selective perception, Semmelweis reflex and false consensus bias.
Cognitive bias is not, clinically speaking, a mental disorder. A cognitive bias is a systematic deviation from rational and objective thought, a normal and natural coping mechanism of human experience. In contrast, mental illness refers to conditions of distress and disability due to cognitive function becoming impaired to the point of crisis in function. However, both cognitive bias and mental illness can create the behavioural phenomenon on display in Trump voters.
I don't know that QuinnSlidr and Grizzlor's perspectives are actually in any real opposition while their personalities are clearly at odds. What are their personalities?
QuinnSlidr is militantly Democrat, Democrat to the point where I worry that he is blindly Democrat. While I vote Canadian equivalent Democrat (Liberal or NDP depending on polls), I do not think that all good in the world will ever be found in any one particular philosophy or political party nor would I ever ignore the faults, failings, crimes or corruptions of anyone for whom I'd ever voted.
I find that QuinnSlidr can be aggressively supportive of Biden but set aside Biden's wrongs or failings or simply doesn't address them. I would urge my friend QuinnSlidr to be cautious and to be just as critical towards politicians he supports as he is with the politicians he opposes.
And QuinnSlidr, when he is talking politics, often communicates in absolutes, and because they're absolutes I don't disagree with, we haven't had much disagreement. However, speaking in absolutes is something that I personally try (and often fail) to avoid.
I find that Grizzlor, while having declared his loyalty to democracy (small D), also speaks in absolutes and delivers his absolutes with reasoning that consistently displays confabulation (to which I myself am not immune, see my posts on THE ORVILLE writing team and shooting schedule), confirmation bias (I do that too sometimes), cherry picking, non-sequiturs, and facile deflection.
I find that QuinnSlidr is hypersensitive to arguments made on foundations in cognitive bias and almost reflexively calls out anyone who voices logical errors as a liar (which I have done myself but maybe shouldn't have).
Grizzlor, in addition to speaking in absolutes, often attempts intimidation by appealing to supposedly higher authorities, and has also displayed flashes of authoritarianism in his behaviour. I find that QuinnSldr is also provoked by Grizzlor's authoritarianism and I find that righteous and reasonable.
In turn, I find that Grizzlor is hypersensitive to his logical errors, factual errors and faulty reasoning being examined, deconstructed, reviewed and disassembled because it causes him to experience cognitive dissonance: the awareness that he has made at least two contradictory and at times mutually exclusive claims or that his reasoning or presumptions are in opposition to facts.
I find that ireactions (that's me) is sometimes far too gleeful in pointing out these errors and clearly finds it really, really, really funny. ireactions clearly takes way too much mirth in bringing up how Grizzlor's denied that Allison Mack was running a sex trafficking operation on the grounds that she posed for a photo with him. ireactions thinks it's funny when ireactions' own errors are pointed out (often in psychotherapy), and ireactions (still me) forgets that it can upset others (although Grizzlor often denies being upset).
ireactions (me again) sometimes feels he has license to take amusement in this on the grounds that Grizzlor has said that he did not put any thought or care into his writing and that he takes no responsibility for anything he has said in the past or anything he will say in the future or anything he is saying right now and doesn't really care what ireactions thinks. at that point ireactions (ahoy!) feels free to cut deeper than he otherwise might, thinking Grizzlor doesn't care what ireactions thinks anyway.
I think ireactions (me again) needs to rethink how much pleasure he takes in pointing out the cognitive errors of others and adopt a more neutral tone. Let's try it!
Observe this example of cognitive bias:
Christian Bale having some serious anger management issues did not undermine the role of Batman because Batman has some problems with anger too.
Response: Bale doesn't have anger issues, it was a one-time on set outburst that should never have been revealed. He's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, a staunch family man as well.
Regarding Christian Bale: to get caught on tape screaming at a crew member may be unfortunate; but to also be arrested for assaulting your mother and sister is an anger management problem. (Charges were dropped.) Once again, you engage in deflection: you dismiss hard evidence of Bale's anger issues that you cannot refute, just by claiming it shouldn't exist, and ignore the other incident.
Response: the guy had one meltdown on a movie set, and the crew actually backed him up on that, and has been nothing but a model citizen beyond that.
The argument here is that an audio recording of Bale's anger management difficulties is invalid evidence because it should have been private. The term for this is a red herring; the origin of the recording does not negate content of the recording.
This argument subsequently ignores the provided information that Christian Bale was arrested for assaulting his mother and sister (although not charged). This argument's avoidance is a textbook example of confirmation bias: he ignores what doesn't confirm his personal assumptions and pretends it does not exist, even when this is directly contrasting with the term "family man".
This argument then emphasizes how Christian Bale has a family and implies that Christian Bale was personally pleasant. This is a non-sequitur: the information, while (presumably) true, has no bearing on whether or not Christian Bale has anger management issues.
Then there's this straw man argument:
You seem content to besmirch public individuals freely here for a variety of superficial reasons (such as who they vote for)
But in the original comment, Bale was only described as having anger management issues, based on statements of fact: this argument misrepresents the comment as saying that Bale is a bad person. In actuality, "anger management problems" is not a complete character description and many steps away from "violent assaulter" or "abuser," terms which were not used to describe Bale.
People can have anger management problems and manage them. Christian Bale has publicly apologized for his misdeeds and criticized himself; he has subjected himself to live ridicule for his failings, which are the mark of someone with a healthy ego and openness to change. His issues with anger informed the Batman character and are a matter of public record and do not in any way benefit from minimization and denial.
When a person employs a style of argument that is obvious in its fallacies, overt in misrepresentations and declared in forceful absolutes, it comes off as deceptive. It is a style of communication exudes dishonesty, even if no deceit is genuinely intended. That is why QuinnSlidr has called this person a liar and that is why I have done so as well (although I have come to see it as cognitive disorientation rather than deception).
This may also be why this person has been in what he described as "wars" on other message boards. This communication style is antithetical to trust and exchange.
The appearance of deceit is further prominent when this person demonstrates confabulation and deflection where recall of previous events is incorrect, a little self-serving, and therefore can seem deceitful to those disinclined to be charitable.
Observe the response to me back in 2018 after I said that Allison Mack was in a cult and shared news that she was being investigated for sex trafficking:
FAKE NEWS!!!!! Damn I've been waiting to say that! Firstly, that article is click bait, and the only reference to her "arrest" is on the freaking SUN website, a British tabloid rag. Secondly, if she were hiding out in Mexico OR on the run from the law, would she have agreed to appear in ATLANTIC CITY, NJ, in April??? OR agreed to pose for a photo with ME last month in New York??!!! Yes, I went to one of John Glover's off broadway plays, and to my great surprise, she did as well!
As is clear from the 2018 words: this person declared that Allison Mack could not possibly be a sex trafficker on the grounds that she posed for a photo with him. This argument is a non-sequitur; he made a conclusion that had no logical relation to the premise. Sex trafficking is not in any way precluded by posing for a photo.
This is a pattern. Observe:
Bale... one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, a staunch family man as well. As for Kelsey, idk if you can find it, but he did an episode of Raw Nerve with Shatner and he goes through his past traumas and it's really revealing and quite emotional. Grammer too, super nice guy if you ever run into him, and while he is terrible at marriage, I don't know if I'd bury him for being a Republican. Not sure how much of a diehard Trumper he is either?
Posing for a photo with does not prevent someone from being a human trafficker. Having been passingly pleasant to someone and having a family does not prevent someone from having anger management problems or from having trauma and mental illness from the murders of a father and sister or from being a determined Trump supporter.
Those are all non-sequiturs whether applied to Christian Bale or Kelsey Grammer.
Then we have confabulation. Observe:
And for the umpteenth time, I "posed" with Allison knowing nothing about the later legal accusations on her, other than she was accused of being in some kind of "strange cult."
Note the confabulative deflection to provide a straw man argument. He claims he is being accused of supporting Allison Mack in her crimes.
But that is not the case at all. Instead, it's an observation that he makes assertions where his evidence consists of anecdotes, personal or public, that relate to the person in question but have no relevance to the specific issue.
He is declaring that he is accused of involvement in the NXIVM cult. This false recollection allows him to defeat an accusation that wasn't being made.
Someone unfamiliar with him would call him dishonest and deceitful, but I feel confident that this is not deception but cognitive error.
I must say: ireactions (hey there) would have done better had he delivered these observations in a more detached and distant fashion rather than conveying them in a mocking tone.
Then we go to brief exhibitions of authoritarianism where he expresses the wish to dominate and control to dictate obedience. Observe:
If I showed this thread to the co-creators of the series this forum is about, they would absolutely VOMIT.
I already stated I am done discussing "public health." It also has no business being in an American Politics thread either,
But again I find it questionable that you seem content to besmirch public individuals freely here for a variety of superficial reasons (such as who they vote for), and act as the forum's King of Thought, over anyone else.
Honestly, I don't know why the two of you prefer to ignore points I try to make or even engage in normal discussion, but instead choose to attack me personally with insults and whatnot? What is the point of having a moderator, oh wait, he's the one doing it.
He complains that he lacks the authority to set the boundaries of what does and doesn't qualify as a discussion of American politics or normal discussion, but his desired boundaries are self-contradictory with many fallacies of definition.
He claims public health policy is not a matter of politics, that public figures' public support of politicians do not reflect their personal or public character and are not a matter of politics; that public figures and their public actions and public statements shouldn't be discussed in a public forum; and then declares that discussing his errors of reasoning in a discussion is not "normal" discussion, and implies that subjects should require his personal approval and disapproval.
This assertion reflects a desire for authoritarianism, for the power to dictate what is and is not discussed, and to set subjects out of bounds should they fall outside the borders of his confirmation bias. It betrays a severity of insecurity and a desperation for control and dominance.
This is also extremely triggering to QuinnSlidr who can clearly spot an authoritarian bent within five words.
But maybe that flair for authoritarianism is a mirage. Maybe it's there because I have made my points in a derisive and mocking way when I should have been detached, clinical, analytical and unemotional.
Maybe I should have found a way to make my observations without causing to Grizzlor experience not only ridicule but cognitive dissonance (which he may say he didn't), and then he wouldn't express the desire to take control of this message board to dictate what subjects are permitted, and then he wouldn't use wording and sentiments that raise QuinnSlidr's blood pressure.
Maybe it's my fault.
I called him an easy mark. I told him he was gullible. I said he was easily tricked by a pretty girl who was a sex trafficker. This has clearly rattled him (although he may claim it didn't) and sparked his desire to dominate.
In the past (and I don't mean the distant past, I mean like January 2023), I too have been gullible and easily tricked by a pretty girl who was a narcissistic sociopath whose only redeeming trait was that she was too twistedly dysfunctional to pose any serious threat.
I too have confused personal anecdotes for logic and reasoning.
I too have engaged in confabulation. I too have had dubious ideas about health (in the range of dubious herbal supplements).
There isn't a thing I've said about Grizzlor that someone hasn't said about me; there isn't a thing I've said about Grizzlor that I wouldn't admit to myself.
I guess I didn't feel upset or insulted when someone pointed it out, but relieved to know my error. I failed to think about how I was making someone else feel and should really have given that more thought.
Thinking about it... I have come to realize that was a mistake that set an argumentative tone that swept QuinnSlidr up as well and I regret it.
I apologize and will no longer gleefully point out the errors of others and adopt a more neutral tone.
Maybe if I don't do that anymore, Grizzlor will manage his biases and desire for dictatorship and QuinnSlidr will consider giving Grizzlor the benefit of the doubt.
On a not-unrelated note, there's an actor whom I won't name who was super-nice and generous and kind to me and they are or were a Trump supporter and... may or may not be one now and I will have some thoughts on that tomorrow without naming names because they may have had a change of heart, whereas Kelsey Grammer was supporting Trump as of December 2023.
X-Ray time.
For the record, this is the only place (on Earth?) that I can have a civil political discourse, and I would hope that this remains that. Now that Informant is gone we don't really have any true right-wing voice here (TF is the closest?), Grizzlor is at least able to discuss things from a "Biden better be careful" perspective, and I think that's important that we don't lean too far either way. That's no fun.
Oh my. That is dire.
Yes. I will be more careful.
I wish I hadn't implied -- which I didn't mean to in the first place -- that Grizzlor's experiences with celebrities aren't significant, meaningful, special and cool. They aren't full fledged psychological evaluations, but they're impactful and nice and I personally don't have that kind of night life.
On a tangent... many, many years ago, when I was in college, I wrote an article about THE PRISONER comic book, SHATTERED VISAGE. Someone wrote a column in response to my article calling my analysis weak, clumsy, facile, overemphasizing irrelevancies and misapprehending vital information in the text. It was hypercritical, acidic and precise in ripping apart my thoughts and arguments and assumptions and biases and errors.
Naturally, I tracked down the person who wrote this article. I found out where he lived. Where he worked. Where he studied. I then sent emails to his personal, professional and academic email account to tell him how much I adored his takedown, and how I found it well-worded, incisive, thoughtful, clever, detailed, and convincing.
He lived in the States but ended up moving to Toronto for a year or so and we would have lunch and I just adored him explaining to me why I was Wrong. He found it extremely weird that I was so interested in learning why I was Wrong, but he also found it pleasantly endearing.
He ended up moving back to Los Angeles with his wife. I miss him. We still talk on Signal and email a lot and he's reviewing something I wrote recently to tell me why it's Wrong. There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped my mind.
So today Trump (Hitler) is in court for his appeal on the Colorado decision. And immunity (and the future of this country) is on the line.
I would not want President Biden to have immunity (despite how great of a President I think he is). No president should ever be above the law.
That is not a good thing for democracy should the decision of today's court fail to uphold the law.
Yeah I haven't seen anything that would indicate that Trump stands any chance of winning this argument. And he's lying about having to be there - he's choosing to be there. And then there's the question of whether or not the Supreme Court would take it up. They denied Jack Smith's request to jump straight there (which would've bypassed today's proceedings), but it's unknown if they denied it because a) precedent - they don't often skip a step in the process, b) to help Trump, which seems unlikely because no one dissented the decision...if it was political, someone would've, or c) they aren't planning on listening either way. I think C is the best route (and maybe a likely route) because the appellate judgment would be final and maybe we could still hit a March trial date.
I just want at least one of the Jack Smith trials (Florida or DC) to go to trial before the election. I know New York will but that's such a weak case (allegedly) and we know Georgia won't go to trial before.
Yeah I haven't seen anything that would indicate that Trump stands any chance of winning this argument. And he's lying about having to be there - he's choosing to be there. And then there's the question of whether or not the Supreme Court would take it up. They denied Jack Smith's request to jump straight there (which would've bypassed today's proceedings), but it's unknown if they denied it because a) precedent - they don't often skip a step in the process, b) to help Trump, which seems unlikely because no one dissented the decision...if it was political, someone would've, or c) they aren't planning on listening either way. I think C is the best route (and maybe a likely route) because the appellate judgment would be final and maybe we could still hit a March trial date.
I just want at least one of the Jack Smith trials (Florida or DC) to go to trial before the election. I know New York will but that's such a weak case (allegedly) and we know Georgia won't go to trial before.
I don't think it is a weak case in New York at all. It is a fact that Trump overvalued his real estate properties. He even admitted it. He deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
On The Stand, Trump Admits To Adjusting Property Valuations
It occurs to me that I could and should have been much more charitable to a certain someone. And more scientific.
I was previously annoyed with a person because he dismissed a spectrum of scientific results as inconsistent and therefore non-existent. Then I saw him presenting anecdotes to dismiss publicly known facts and data about public figures and their public actions and statements and I proceeded to pillory it.
But I now find myself thinking: public figures are people and people's behaviour also exists on a spectrum. Which means that personal anecdotes are not, in fact, irrelevant, but rather evidence to consider and reconcile to surrounding facts and data. That would have been scientific and polite, especially when psychology is an extremely artful science of interpretation and imprecise modelling.
This person said that Allison Mack could not have been a sex trafficker because she was nice and posed for a photo with him. The reality is that both are true: Allison Mack was glowingly, incandescently nice to her fans and abusively vindictive and cruel to her female victims in her sex cult. This person was charmed enough by her to defend her and I called him an easy mark who was gullible, but that was unfair: he was taken in by a master manipulator who convinced him in a few moments that her pleasant treatment of him was the whole of her life and personality as opposed to one isolated compartment of a twisted existence. She convinced many smart people this way.
This person said that Christian Bale could not possibly have anger management issues because the recording of Bale abusing a film set crew member should not have been released to the public and that Bale was a family man and nice to his fans. The reality is that Bale is all these things. He visits terminally ill children and shooting survivors in hospitals and he has widely-reported anger management issues (verbally abusing a lighting technician, an arrest for assaulting his mother and sister) for which he has held himself accountable as he works through his problems. Good people can have anger management problems and mend their ways.
This person said that Kelsey Grammer was extremely nice to fans in response to some of us expressing feelings regarding Grammer's support for America to become fascist dictatorship as recently as December 2023. The reality is that both are true: Grammer has one mode of conduct when engaging with his public and an entirely different mode of conduct when deciding which politicians for whom to vote. Grammer has described himself as someone whose life choices are disastrous but whose acting choices are splendid. When facing a fan, Grammer is facing regard and appreciation for the only area of his life in which he has been consistent in his competence: acting. When facing politics, I would posit that Grammer employs cognition and judgement that have been severely damaged by deeply traumatic events.
And maybe if I'd said that at the start, this person would have felt reconciled with rather than ridiculed.
Sorry, Grizzlor. Must try harder.
Sliders.tv → Sliders Bboard → American Politics: Discuss and Debate
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
