Khan

I don;t understand how everyone isn't outraged. "yes the sysrem is rigged, that isn't news". And it wasn't news to Bernie either, and just because that is the way the system is rigged doesn't make him wrong for speaking out against it or his supporters for declining to go along with the rigging. If the democrats want to rig the system against a guy who got just 1 million votes less than Hillary, maybe two, then they are basically telling over 40% of their voters to shut up, they don't count, the primaries are meaningless, and vote all you want but the nominee is Hillary. Now I know some people don't care because they want Trump to lose, but for the less cynical, for the honest Bernie supporters for whom his religion is not an issue and who don't have NBC hosts shilling for their candidate, they would be perfectly in the right to sit the election out if they wanted. Maybe that guy who wrote the religion email and Chuck Todd can cast 10 million votes in their absence, since they are all about rigging things. "He's right but I don't care" is not an adequate response to Bernie's accusations of rigging. Wikileaks is shady? So what, they didn't tell a single lie. "This helps Putin and Trump"...that's right it does, so why do it in the first place? Was she not able to secure the nomination without shenanigans? I'm as outraged as I can be under the circumstances. As Marceline said, HRC didn't use that plan, thank goodness. I'll be honest, Hillary and Debbie could have convened a coven to put a hex on Bernie or stuck needles in a voodoo Bernie doll and I would still vote for Hillary. I liked him, even if didn't agree with all of his policies, but never Trump. Any liberal who sits out this election is cutting off their nose to spite their face. Trump has said he won't stand by our NATO allies, he's said he doesn't feel the need to pay our debts. I like Mr. Robot as much as anyone, but I don't want to live it. His surrogates have said he'll put troops on the ground to fight ISIS. All of those things are insane and will destroy us. Oh, and then there's that part where he said we should kill the children of our enemies. That's what gets the bulk of my outrage. I know some people here disagree with me, but not even Ted Cruz is as dangerous as this madman. He's close, but we'd survive him. I may be an atheist, but I do believe that a house divided against itself can't stand and Trump is doing his best to tear us apart. Even if he loses in the fall he's damaged our country with his hate. My fear: whether or not he wins in November, Trump has lit a fuse with his politics of fear and hate; and if he does end up losing the election, those constituents, who believe Trump has given them their voice, will not go away quietly.

Here's my question: has Donald Trump, win or lose, destroyed the GOP? If so, then where does it go? Does it cede the party to those of Trump's ilk and form a new party? Does it slide over and redefine (or attempt to redefine) the Democratic party? Or does it just "wait this out" and attempt a take-back four years down the road? As I've said elsewhere, you KNOW the RNC was scraping the bottom of the barrel when they asked Scott Baio to speak. No way was the convention going to be a ratings-grabber with such a piss-poor lineup of speakers and guests.

Same. Let me get this straight: Camp Trump knew Cruz was not prepared to endorse him in his speech -- in fact, they signed off on it before he stepped onstage -- but they allowed him to go on anyway; and when Cruz did exactly what he promised (or not promised), they still became upset with him? (Please tell me I have this wrong.) Forgot to add: Ted Cruz knew exactly what he was doing last night, and he knew exactly the kinds of reactions he'd receive, too. About this, I have no doubt. Which really makes me loathe the guy for exposing his wife (the same wife he told Trump to "leave the hell alone") to potential physical danger both on the convention floor and later in the hotel suites. I mean, if I were Ted Cruz (ugh), and I knew I was about to deliver some words that might provoke certain individuals in certain ways, I'd probably tell my wife that it might be in her best interests if she were to sit this out.

Why am I not surprised? Like you said, Vee, "Lyin' Ted" went out in a good, old-fashioned blaze of glory.

I think that's the part that scares even Trump. I'm with you, DD, and I'm with Vee: I don't think Trump ever intended to go this far, but he is too proud to admit as much and drop out. Ergo, he's stuck playing out a narrative that, over time, has gotten away from him. I wonder whether one of Y&R's writers from the Bell era did, indeed, write her speech.

Well, jump back!

Neither does Tyler.

That's tough to say. GF herself accused DAYS of using her status to lure viewers, but never giving her a well-defined character; and really, once you break down Diana's history, it makes sense. On the one hand, you had the heiress/newspaper owner, framing Victor Kiriakis for an art theft in order to retrieve the fortune he had stolen from her, and later being forced to sell her paper in order to keep "Roman" from finding out about her marriage to Cal. (And didn't Diana leave under a cloud of suspicion? With dark hair and glasses and the suggestion she might not have been the real Diana after all?) On the OTHER hand, you had "Roman"'s first real love interest after Marlena, going on adventures with him (like Laura did with Luke), agreeing to marry Victor and turn over her money to spare her mother, who appeared to have been kidnapped but actually was in cahoots with Victor; accidentally shooting "Roman" and only recalling it later through hynopsis (a Laura-like plot twist, if ever there was one) and generally receiving the royal DAYS heroine/supercouple treatment -- freeze frames, musical montages, death threats from and abductions by supervillains, the works. So, I'd say Diana was a cross between Laura and Ceara. She didn't connive for a taste of The Good Life like Ceara (true, Diana romanced Victor when she first arrived in Salem, but THAT was in order to retrieve some computer disk, which was not necessarily the same thing). However, while Diana could be as hapless as Laura, she never came across as innocent as Laura, who had run off with a Charles Manson-like cult leader, carried on another illicit affair with the man who had been obssessed with her mother, married and divorced someone who was supposed to be her ideal mate, and STILL came off looking like a doe-eyed virgin when she fell in love with and married her rapist.

No, that dude hosts (or used to host) a series on the Travel Channel. His name is Don Wildman. But that IS Brooke Alexander (ex-Samantha #1, ATWT) appearing in the commercial with him.

As long as Elizabeth Hubbard portrayed Lucinda with those weird acting choices (like, for instance, the stuttering) she was never going to win. And I say that as someone who places her second after Beverlee McKinsey on the list of all-time best soap actresses. Her work on THE DOCTORS, IMO, is a much better, more cleaner representation of her skills without the idiosyncrasies, for lack of a better word. So that makes THREE NYC-based soaps Chris Noth worked on, with AW and OLTL being the other two. Does anyone know whether he appeared on any other soaps?

Frankly, Carl, I don't. IIRC, GF didn't have much to do once Ceara and Jeremy had married. I remember she was in some Enchantment-related scenes with Erica and maybe Jack, but that's about it. (Aside from being brained by Janet with a hospital lamp, of course.) Once Ceara had been outed as a child abuse survivor and had married Jeremy (in a godawful, Geoffrey Beene-designed gown that made poor GF look frumpy), it was as if the writers had stopped writing for her -- probably because, one, Ceara had become almost the total opposite of Agnes Nixon's original vision; and two, her place on the canvas as "'90's businesswoman" had been filled already by Natalie (who was still on the show, I think, but not with Kate Collins) and Brooke. Yet, for whatever reason, GF has said she really enjoyed being on AMC and hated when ABC told her (and I'm paraphrasing) she was worth more to them as Laura Spencer than as Ceara Connor Hunter. More likely, if GF had been allowed to re-up with AMC, she might've stuck around as a supporting player -- not an insignificant character, but probably not as on the front-burner as others -- until she followed Jean LeClerc over to LOVING. As it was, they had her stand-in mop play Ceara (either before GF had returned to GH, or after) for the character's death scenes in order to allow Jeremy to develop new romantic relationships in Corinth.

This was when AMC tried unsuccessfuly to sell GF's Ceara as a gold-digging vixen, coming between father and son. I don't recall the Ceara/Jeremy/David triangle being as cheesy as that promo, but I DO recall feeling a sense of whiplash when the triangle morphed into a full-blown Jeremy/Ceara romance, as well as with the revelation that Ceara had been abused sexually by her father as a child. In retrospect, however, it made sense for Agnes Nixon to go in that direction. GF WANTED to portray an un-Laura-like character, but I don't believe she had (or has) it in her. But she DID have good chemistry with Jean LeClerc; and that, along with the sexual abuse storyline, fostered Ceara's transformation into a less vixenish, more sympathetic heroine.

Perhaps Carl was referring to when Irna had characters from all her radio soaps cross-over with one another on (I think) "The General Mills Hour"? At least, I seem to recall reading about in one of the soap history books.

I hope he's better at selling luxury homes than he was at hair modeling.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about Jake's tats. Those are fake, right?

Q: Does Taylor Swift actually appear (naked) in Kanye West's new video, "Famous"?

That would've meant acknowledging ATWT's Oakdale and GL's Springfield dwelled within the same universe. Frankly, it was weird enough to see characters from AW's Bay City cross over to Oakdale.

I actually feel sorry for Heather. Even a gig with the Hallmark Channel Repertory Company would be better than trying to bring Tyler Perry's racist and misogynistic trash to life.

TLC, huh? Yep. "Tyla" will fit right in with "My 600-lb Life" and "Sex Brought Me to the E.R."

I think Oprah is kicking Miss Perry to the metaphorical curb with these new series. She used him to salvage her network and draw an audience, and now that that's been accomplished, it's bye-bye time for ol' Madea.

I just can't get over how far this show has fallen in terms of quality. "The View" was never -- NEVER -- my cup of tea, but there was a time when I respected it more than I do now. The panel was filled with bright, knowledgeable (or seemingly knowledgeable) women with varied POVs, who could discuss and, yes, disagree on important topics, yet still remain entertaining for their target audience of upscale, educated, middle-aged females. But now...? Now, even "RuPaul's Drag Race" is a more substantial program than "Whoopi & Friends."

I have two theories regarding Josh Kelly's sudden weight gain: 1) He thought it would fit his character and whatever emotional journey he's on for season two. (I don't watch "UnReal," but judging from what I have read (including the New Yorker article) it does seem as if his character is in a very dark place at the present, given the implosion of his relationship with Shirl Appleby's character, as well as the round-the-clock drama from working on a reality show.) 2) There are very real issues between Kelly and Sarah Gertrude Shapiro, who CLEARLY doesn't want him on her show; and Kelly's way of coping with that stress was to eat...and eat...and eat. And of course, there's also -- 3) Smoking marijuana makes one very, very hungry. Either way, I think Kelly called it on that violent scene which the New Yorker writer relates toward the end of the piece. I mean, if THAT isn't a way to get audiences and the higher-ups to turn against a character....

When it comes to bitch slaps, Lucci is boss.

With Rick Ryan instead of with Craig? I guess so. IMO, Douglas Marland had done such a masterful job redeeming Craig, it hurt to see all that undone years later by bad casting and writing. But, as Carl says upthread, Rick was a non-character, and thus, a blank slate. (Seriously, the only thing I remember about Rick is that he hated Bob with a passion.) But, you know, I'm not so sure making Rick the villain in those storylines (instead of Craig) would have made the stories any less intolerable. I mean, it was clear to me how plot-driven and devoid of depth much of that material was. I'd probably would have wished Rick dead just as I had wished Craig were dead by the end.

IA, Shackelford and Dobson don't look well at all.