Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2024 U.S. Election of President and Vice President

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

    I pray for her safety.
    Thanks buddy

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    My wife has signed up to work at the county voting office as well as being a poll worker. Can't say I have no concerns for her safety TBH.
    I pray for her safety.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    My wife has signed up to work at the county voting office as well as being a poll worker. Can't say I have no concerns for her safety TBH.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Panic buttons, Kevlar vests and bulletproof glass: Election-worker safety gets serious

    BRIGHTON, Colo. ‒ Bulletproof glass. Security cameras. Panic buttons.

    As the elected county clerk and recorder in a suburb of Denver, Josh Zygielbaum's days are normally filled with marriages, vehicle licensing and house-sale registrations. But for this former U.S. Marine, security concerns are now a daily consideration in his role as the chief Adams County elections official during the bitterly contested 2024 presidential election.

    Someone followed Zygielbaum home during a recent election, prompting the local sheriff to recommend he start wearing body armor. His staff has stashed Narcan around the office in case of a fentanyl attack. And a ballot tainted with white power temporarily derailed counting during one ballot tally.

    "Unfortunately, it's become a normal part of our everyday lives," Zygielbaum said.

    Zygielbaum’s job used to be considered one of the least controversial cogs in a functional democracy. But as a county clerk – even in an otherwise unremarkable suburban Denver county unlikely to make a difference in November’s presidential contest – he and this nation's other election workers have found themselves facing increasingly volatile attacks.

    Other election officials in 15 states received suspicious packages this week, including in Nebraska where a return address on a package containing white powder was labeled with the return address “US Traitor Elimination Army.”

    With two recent attempted assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump, and surveys showing many of Trump's supporters will refuse the election results unless he wins, fears of violence focused on election offices are very real, experts say.

    Some of the threats are coming from disgruntled voters, but others have been traced to foreign countries trying to sow chaos and exploit the resulting divisiveness.

    "It's frankly ridiculous because the people who are truly running elections are our neighbors," said Zygielbaum. "You see them at the grocery store, at church or the synagogue or the mosque. You might see them out walking their dogs."

    Since the 2020 election, the Justice Department’s Election Threats Task Force has arrested and prosecuted about a dozen people for threatening election workers. In contrast, experts say actual voter fraud, or instances of people voting improperly, are vanishingly rare.

    In a statement, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat who serves as president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, said the threats are part of a "disturbing trend" unfolding as the Nov. 5 election approaches. Simon has previously said that while he supports the right of Americans to ask good-faith questions about how elections are run, some people are being deceived into outright hostility.

    "Our democracy has no place for political violence, threats or intimidation of any kind," Simon said in his statement this week.

    Elections workers are taking security seriously
    Like Zygielbaum, election officials across the country are trying a lot of different things to try to secure themselves, said Tammy Patrick, CEO for programs at the National Association of Election Officials.

    "Going into this election, I think our election officials are better prepared than they ever have been,” she said. “The first 16 years of this job, I didn't know a single elections official wearing a Kevlar vest. And now I know many of them."


    A woman watches ballot processing at the Washoe County (Nevada) Registrar of Voters office from a glassed-in observation booth installed so that the public could watch the process without interrupting workers, following concerns about harassment during a previous election.

    Other precautions being taken nationally include:

    ◾ In Nevada's Washoe County, elections officials installed a glass-fronted observation booth so people can watch but not harass election workers counting ballots.

    ◾ In Arizona's Maricopa County, workers have received "de-escalation" training to help reduce confrontations.

    ◾ Across Georgia, election workers have been practicing to handle ransomware attacks and "swatting" calls tied to voting.

    ◾ In Los Angeles County, all election mail is being screened by trained sniffer dogs.

    Experts fear critics will seize on any mistake to create chaos
    Patrick worries the seriousness of threats against election officials seems to be increasing.

    “The challenge is that we don't know what's to come, and how it's going to be used as a bludgeon against the legitimacy of the election," she said.

    The goal of bad actors is not just to disrupt and sow division, but to create an environment in which the public feels it can't trust anything it hears, she said.

    Patrick is concerned that any errors election workers make will be "blown out of proportion or leveraged to cast doubt on the outcome of the election."

    "Any mistake can cause a huge ripple effect, and it doesn't even have to be a mistake,” she added. “If facts don't matter, and the truth doesn't matter, no matter what you do, you can still be targeted for whatever reason."

    In Brighton, Zygielbaum, the Adams County clerk, said he's focused on running the best election he and his 13 full-time staff can run.

    "I know with 100% confidence that our elections are accurate," he said.


    A remote ballot drop box in Adams County, Colorado, near Denver, has been fitted with a surveillance camera as required under a state law requiring 24/7 monitoring of all election-related infrastructure and spaces.

    He said they learn from each election and fix whatever vulnerabilities they find. He said he remains frustrated that some voters are being tricked into skepticism or outright election denial by outside influences.

    "There are certain people that no matter what you tell them, they are not going to believe the election is accurate, unfortunately. And it didn't used to be this way. People used to trust the system," he said.

    "The foundation of our country is our democracy. And if you disrupt our democracy, the United States can no longer stand."
    ________

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    I caught a few excerpts of Trump with Huckabee. One, he was asked what he would do to protect auto worker manufacturing in Michigan. Well, he then went on a tangent that the biggest threat was nuclear weapons. Another question was about how he would bring down grocery prices. Actually a stupid question as a President has zero control over pricing. Nonetheless he went off on what was an incoherent dialogue which would make any sane person shake their head. Neither question was answered in the slightest. Are his supporters that incredibly dense that they don't see that or do they have some special skill in understanding the incoherent?
    Dense or skilled? For the most part no. They simply don't care, they're angry and Trump just gives them targets (of his choosing) that they can direct that anger/blame at for everything they perceive as being 'wrong' with America. They're the fuel and the flame. Trump is simply the guy holding the flame thrower. The key point being that he doesn't actually direct the flame at the route causes of their unhappiness but instead targets what he perceives to be individuals/issues that benefit him personally rather than his constituency.
    Last edited by Monash; 28 Sep 24,, 00:50.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    I caught a few excerpts of Trump with Huckabee. One, he was asked what he would do to protect auto worker manufacturing in Michigan. Well, he then went on a tangent that the biggest threat was nuclear weapons. Another question was about how he would bring down grocery prices. Actually a stupid question as a President has zero control over pricing. Nonetheless he went off on what was an incoherent dialogue which would make any sane person shake their head. Neither question was answered in the slightest. Are his supporters that incredibly dense that they don't see that or do they have some special skill in understanding the incoherent?

    Leave a comment:


  • statquo
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Always been Trump's advantage. Remember the Trump supporters who complained that nobody even gave him a chance when he was getting railed Day 1 of his presidency. I guess birtherism and Trump's attacks on Obama were only remembered by half the country.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Millions Have Amnesia About the Worst of Trump’s Presidency. Memory Experts Explain Why.
    How Trump is benefiting from the limits of our memory.

    One of the most oft-quoted sentences ever penned by a philosopher is George Santayana’s observation that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” In 2024, this aphorism is practically a campaign slogan. Donald Trump, seeking to become the first former president since Grover Cleveland to return to the White House after being voted out of the job, has waged war on remembrance. In fact, he’s depending on tens of millions of voters forgetting the recent past. This election is an experiment in how powerful a memory hole can be.

    In March, Trump posted this all-caps question: “ARE YOU BETTER OFF THAN YOU WERE FOUR YEARS AGO?” A realistic answer for most would be, hell yeah. Four years prior, the Covid pandemic was raging, the economy was cratering, deaths were mounting, and anxiety was at a fever pitch. Trump responded erratically, downplaying the threat, pushing conspiracy theories, and undermining scientific officials and public health recommendations. (Bleach!) In the final year of his presidency, more than 450,000 Americans died of Covid. A Lancet study concluded the US death rate was 40 percent higher than in similar countries, and that many of those deaths could have been averted had Trump handled the crisis responsibly.*


    Dr. Deborah Birx and Dr. Anthony Fauci listen as President Trump gives a March 2020 Covid-19 press briefing.

    Yet his question—a rip-off of a line used by Ronald Reagan in 1980—assumed many voters would not recall the horror of 2020; he was encouraging them to focus on the sentiments (and high prices) of now, not the mortal dread of then. And to regain the White House, Trump needs to cover not just the pandemic but a lot else with the mists of time, including his attempt to overturn an election and his incitement of January 6’s insurrectionist attack, a trade war with China that cost the US hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in GDP, his love affairs with dictators like Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, his broken vows to boost infrastructure and to replace the Affordable Care Act with a better and cheaper program, his two impeachments, and nine years of chaos, scandals, and mean-spirited, racist, and ignorant remarks.

    That’s a lot of forgetting to rely upon, and the fact that Trump still has a good shot at victory is a sign that he can successfully stuff much of this history into the mental recesses of the electorate. Fortunately for him, the nature of human memory plays to Trump’s favor—even, perhaps especially, when it comes to a pandemic.

    Historians have long observed how quickly the so-called Spanish flu of 1918, which killed 50 million worldwide and nearly 700,000 in the United States, vanished from public conversation. As George Dehner, an environmental historian at Wichita State University, observed in his book Influenza: A Century of Science and Public Health Response, “the most notable historical aspect of Spanish flu is how little it was discussed,” resulting in “a curious, public silence.”

    “Humans are really good at compartmentalizing things in the past, and Americans appear to be especially good at that. That’s a nicer way of saying we don’t keep track of history very well,” Dehner tells me, explaining Trump is “counting on, and his supporters are cultivating, this tendency to compartmentalize unpleasant associations from the past.”

    A\
    A Maryland crematorium in April 2020. Owners estimated a 30 percent increase in demand due to the pandemic.


    Cheyenne Pipkin (left) and her mother, Loraine Franks (center), on April 27, 2020, in Porterville, California. Pipkin was visiting her grandfather, Jerry Hogan, who contracted coronavirus in a nursing facility.

    Guy Beiner, a professor of history at Boston College who edited a 2021 collection of essays called Pandemic Re-Awakenings: The Forgotten and Unforgotten ‘Spanish’ Flu of 1918-1919, notes that today “there is plenty of social forgetting generated in regards to Trump’s presidential term, in particular the mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic. It could be argued that such forgetting is typical of post-­pandemic societies.”

    In August, Weill Cornell Medical College psychiatrists George Makari and Richard Friedman argued in the New England Journal of Medicine that a “collective inability among many people in the United States to remember and mourn what was endured during the pandemic” could help explain why, in early 2024, half of Americans told pollsters they were no better off than they had been “at the height of the deadliest epidemic in the country’s history.” They likened the finding to classic studies by German social psychiatrists that explored how many post–World War II­­­­­ Germans “had seemingly lost the ability to acknowledge the atrocities.” Makari points out that chronic trauma and stress can inhibit memory—and the pandemic yielded much of both. “In addition,” he says, “psychologically this loss of memory is compounded by defenses against helplessness. Finally, socially this is all made worse by collective amnesia. No one wants to remember how terrifying that first year was, before tests, before vaccines. I can barely recall…So from biological, psychological, and social points of views, we grow hazy.”

    In a way, this is a mechanical issue. The basic function of memory allows for—or even facilitates—such forgetting, says William Hirst, a New School for Social Research psychology professor. “When you recall the past, you do so selectively,” he explains. “Trump people do that selectively with his agenda in mind.” As Hirst puts it, a narrative that leaves out information “induces forgetting of the unmentioned material.”

    “You might think that normally if you don’t mention something, it slowly fades,” he says. “It’s much more dynamic than that.” Talking about other parts of the story actively leads people to forget what is not discussed. So when Trump brags about how wonderful his presidency was and, of course, doesn’t mention the horrors of Covid or the violence at the Capitol, memories of these events become suppressed—but only, Hirst adds, for “in-group members” who see Trump as a legitimate conveyor of information.

    “We seem to have a brain that is designed to build a collective memory around collective remembering and collective forgetting,” he explains. “Why? It’s adaptive. We’re social creatures oriented toward our in-group and away from out-groups. Memory is designed to reinforce our in-group membership.”

    When Trump falsely says no one was killed during the January 6 riot—which he doesn’t call a riot—and calls the marauders victims and patriots, this shapes the memories of his supporters, according to Hirst, and recollections about brutal facts of that day are smothered. Trump’s repetition—a cornerstone of propaganda—boosts this process. “Each time they hear his account of that day,” Hirst remarks, “the negative part—the breaking-in, the broken windows, the violence—becomes less accessible. And once you suppress the memory image of people breaking in, it’s easier to impose the false memory of protesters having been invited in. There’s no longer a competing memory. So Trump creates this collective forgetting to establish the groundwork for another narrative that is not accurate.”

    Memory HoleCertainly, all politicians want voters to forget the negative and remember the positive. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris do not often discuss 2021’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Because of that, their supporters may have weaker memories of that event and stronger recollections of the accomplishments Biden and Harris tout.

    Trump’s attempts to ride a wave of pandemic amnesia may have been aided by the Harris team’s choice to keep her campaign rollout future-focused. But the foundation was laid long before that, in our lack of any collective narrative about the era. As Makari and Friedman wrote, “Nearly everything about the Covid-19 pandemic is contested: its origins, what could have been done to stop its spread, how politics affected various outcomes, the performance of public health sentries, vaccine science, and the appropriate balance between personal liberties and public health demands. Debates about these issues are often marked by misinformation, tribal allegiances, and rage.” After the pandemic, there was no bipartisan, blue-ribbon panel established—like the 9/11 Commission—that could derive a consensus account of what occurred during that crisis and how it was handled by the Trump administration and others.


    El Paso County inmates earning $2 an hour load bodies wrapped in plastic onto a morgue trailer in November 2020.

    Trump is in a unique position for a non-incumbent presidential candidate. He has a record as the nation’s chief executive. And to win, he needs to shape how millions of voters remember that time. Whether he realizes it or not, the human mind affords him much opportunity. How we recall the past, Hirst says, “is a real memory hole, and it can become so deep it’s difficult to get out of…It’s not a pleasant story, but it’s what we are as humans.”

    Dehner wonders if accurate memories might end up prevailing in this election, but he is not sure: “In the quiet of the voting booth or just in thinking about it, will voters revisit what it was really like during the previous administration? These personal memories remain, and I suspect there will be a certain unease about how one portion of the candidate pool is seeking to portray that past. As an academic, I’m curious about how this all will turn out; as a citizen, I’m quite disturbed.”

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Scientific American makes presidential endorsement for only the second time in its 179-year history



    A top science magazine has waded into the political sphere after making a presidential endorsement, only the second in its 179-year history.

    “Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” read the headline in Scientific American on Monday, announcing the publication’s official support for the Democratic presidential candidate.

    Harris is Scientific American’s second presidential endorsement in its history, after the magazine backed President Joe Biden during the 2020 election.

    “The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”

    They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”


    Scientific American, which has a global readership of six million, cited Harris’s record as vice president, senator and presidential candidate as reasons for endorsing her.

    They acknowledged that Trump, “also has a record - a disastrous one,” during his time in the White House.

    The magazine firstly focused on the candidates’ healthcare policies and proposals, in particular, health insurance in its comparison.

    Praising the Biden-Harris administration for bolstering the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - which expanded the number of adults eligible for health insurance - the editors noted that while Harris has said she would expand the program, Trump has pledged to repeal it but failed to clarify what he would replace it with.

    “I have concepts of a plan,” he said while facing off against Harris during the September 10 presidential debate.


    Kamala Harris shakes hands with Donald Trump before the debate on September 10 in Philadelphia

    The article refers to the debate multiple times, seemingly agreeing with many across the political spectrum (including some of Trump’s closest allies) that Harris won.

    The article highlights Trump’s baseless claim during the debate that some states allow a person to obtain an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy, and calling it “execution after birth.”

    “No state allows this,” Scientific American clarified. The magazine also emphasized that Trump refused to answer whether he would veto a national abortion ban.


    Meanwhile, Harris was hailed as a “staunch supporter of reproductive rights” for vowing to improve access to abortion care and for co-sponsoring a package of bills to reduce rising maternal mortality rates when she was a senator.

    Turning to technology, the editors highlighted the CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law by Biden in 2022, which brought more funding to the chip-making industry to boost homegrown production and research.

    They said the legislation “invigorates the chipmaking industry and semiconductor research while growing the workforce.”

    The magazine claimed that a second Trump administration would “quickly” undo this progress under a conservative framework, Project 2025, that has been set out to guide his potential second term.

    “Under the devious and divisive Project 2025 framework, technology safeguards on AI would be overturned,” the editors wrote. “AI influences our criminal justice, labor and health-care systems.

    “As is the rightful complaint now, there would be no knowing how these programs are developed, how they are tested or whether they even work.”

    The article concludes: “One of two futures will materialize according to our choices in this election.”

    The editors closed by underlining their point. “We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris.”

    Scientific American is not the only endorsement Harris has won following the debate, with Taylor Swift posting her endorsement on Instagram almost immediately after the showdown.
    ________

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Originally posted by JRT View Post
    Jimmy Don Bowman (his name at birth, since changed several times); aka James David "JD" Vance, freely admits his willingness to lie to gain attention.
    Loved his attempt at damage control. This guy makes Sarah Palin look like a Rhodes Scholar

    Leave a comment:


  • JRT
    replied
    Jimmy Don Bowman (his name at birth, since changed several times); aka James David "JD" Vance, freely admits his willingness to lie to gain attention.

    Originally posted by The_Guardian
    Sunday, 15 September 2024

    JD Vance admits he is willing to ‘create stories’ to get media attention

    Republican vice-presidential candidate defends spreading false, racist claims demonizing Haitian immigrants

    by Edward Helmore

    In a stunning admission, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, JD Vance, said he was willing “to create stories” on the campaign trail while defending his spreading false, racist rumors of pets being abducted and eaten in a town in his home state of Ohio.

    Vance’s remarks came during an appearance on Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, where he said he felt the need “to create stories so that the … media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people”.

    Asked by the CNN host Dana Bash whether the false rumors centering on Springfield, Ohio, were “a story that you created”, Vance replied, “Yes!” He then said the claims were rooted in “accounts from … constituents” and that he as well as the Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, had spoken publicly about them to draw attention to Springfield’s relatively large Haitian population.

    Vance’s remarks drew a quick rebuke from the US transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat who supports his party’s White House nominee in November’s election, Kamala Harris.

    “Remarkable confession by JD Vance when he said he will ‘create stories’ (that is, lie) to redirect the media,” Buttigieg wrote on X. “All this to change the subject away from abortion rights, manufacturing jobs, taxation of the rich, and the other things clearly at stake in this election."

    Vance further insulted people in Springfield who are Haitian as “illegal”, though the vast majority of them are in the US legally through a temporary protected status (TPS) that has been allocated to them due to the violence and unrest in their home country in the Caribbean. The status must be renewed after 18 months.

    The rumors proliferating out of Springfield have led to bomb threats aimed at local hospitals and government offices. Vance on Sunday told Bash it was “disgusting” for the media to suggest any of his remarks had led to those threats. He also used the same term to refer to the people issuing those threats, though – in a separate appearance on Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press – he made it a point to blame the media for accurately reporting on them, saying it was “amplifying the worst people in the world”.

    Vance ultimately defended his endorsement of the lies about Springfield as calling attention to the immigration policies at the White House while Harris has served as vice-president to Joe Biden.

    "I’m not mad at Haitian migrants for wanting to have a better life,” Vance said. “We’re angry at Kamala Harris for letting this happen.”

    Haitians in Springfield have been thrust under the US’s divisive political spotlight after Trump alleged that some of them were responsible for the abduction and consumption of pets during the former president’s debate with Harris on Tuesday.

    Town officials have vociferously rejected the lies, and a woman who helped start the rumors on a widely circulated Facebook post acknowledged they were unfounded hearsay.

    Nonetheless, Springfield has been subjected to far-right conspiracy theories.

    About 15,000 immigrants began trickling into Springfield – a city of about 60,000 – in 2017 to work in local produce packaging and machining factories. They have been particularly in demand at a vegetable manufacturer and at automotive machining plants whose owners were experiencing a labor shortage in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    The Republican governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, said on Sunday on ABC’s This Week that Haitians in Springfield “are here legally”.

    “What the employers tell you is, you know, we don’t know what we would do without them,” DeWine said. “They are working. And they are working very hard. And they’re fitting in.”

    Nonetheless, while vulnerable with voters over their handling of reproductive rights, Republicans have helped spread the xenophobic rumors in Springfield in an attempt to capitalize on voters’ dissatisfaction with Democrats’ handling of immigration.

    Vance on Sunday also sought to distance himself from a second controversy, telling the Meet the Press host Kristen Welker that he doesn’t like remarks by the far-right Trump campaign ally Laura Loomer that the White House “will smell like curry” if Harris wins the election.

    Harris is of Indian and Jamaican heritage. Vance’s wife, Usha Vance, is of Indian heritage, too.

    “I make a mean chicken curry,” he said, but “I don’t think that it’s insulting for anybody to talk about their dietary preferences or what they want to do in the White House.

    “What Laura said about Kamala Harris is not what we should be focused on. We should be focused on the policy and on the issues.”

    Vance has spent much of his vice-presidential run on the defensive, including over his stated belief that women who choose to pursue professional careers rather than roles as family matriarchs are miserable.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    CNN:

    Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump faced off in their first presidential debate on Tuesday night.

    CNN tracked how much speaking time each candidate used during their first meeting on the debate stage.

    Trump talked more than Harris throughout the entire debate broadcast, and finished five minutes ahead after closing statements wrapped. At the end, Trump had spoken for approximately 42 minutes and 52 seconds, while Harris spoke for about 37 minutes and 36 seconds.

    While the debate was designed to offer both candidates an equal chance to respond to questions, they could choose not to use the maximum allotted time. The ABC moderators also allowed more time for responses after some exchanges.

    = = =

    It shouldn't be that hard to keep a real-time record of who speaks more, and then present the less heard-from speaker with an equalizing amount of time at the end.
    "Mr President, you've spoken for five minutes and 25 seconds longer than your opponent."
    "Madam Vice President, you have the floor for that amount of time."

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Trump during the 9/11 moment of silence this morning…says everything you need to know about this malignant narcissistic sociopath...

    1 0

    Check out Uday and Qusay in the second row. They look like they're itching for another bump of Big C.

    Leave a comment:


  • statquo
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

    I'm given to understand there was a murder committed on live TV last night: A woman clubbed a baby seal over the head with a sledgehammer.

    Other than that, not much.
    She put Donald over her lap and gave him a spanking over and over and over.

    Post analysis of the debate is talking about the contrast between the two. The main contrast I saw was that of a professional and a complete amateur. Trump looked real bad last night.

    It boggles my mind that when networks interviewing undecided voters after the debate, there’s still undecided voters who are unsure who they’ll vote for.

    On the other hand, reading Trumps supporters reactions, they think he won the debate and are questioning why childless cat ladies are silent while illegals are eating cats.
    Last edited by statquo; 11 Sep 24,, 17:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

    I'm given to understand there was a murder committed on live TV last night: A woman clubbed a baby seal over the head with a sledgehammer.

    Other than that, not much.
    Clubbed a baby seal? Now that is horrible.

    OTOH, clubbing a rabid dog terrorizing the neighborhood sounds better to me. So long Cujo...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X