'Stupid should hurt more'

'What do wolves have to do with equity, justice, and inclusion?'

188 people are dead after Typhoon Kalmaegi slammed the Philippines

'Repeatedly stabbed her coworker'

News Pluribus So You’ve Watched Pluribus Episode 1 and Have Some Questions Reactor has got you. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on November 7, 2025 Credit: Apple TV Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Apple TV Warning! This post contains spoilers for the first two episodes of Apple TV’s Pluribus! You are doing yourselves a disservice if you read more without watching. Go watch a great show and then come back here for more. Apple TV didn’t reveal much in the lead-up to the premiere of Vince Gilligan’s Pluribus. One of the trailers did hint that something… not great would happen to the world, especially from the point of view of Carol, played by Rhea Seehorn. And much like Carol, you might be asking what she asks at the end of the trailer linked above: What the fuck is going on? The talk Carol has with the Secretary of Agriculture (or whatever) on C-SPAN at the end of the first episode explains a lot (and also evokes a similar scene from Jurassic Park), but there are likely more than a few moments you may still be wondering about. Here’s our take on some questions you may have after watching episode one. Credit: Apple TV So, what the fuck happened to everyone? As C-SPAN guy explained, the lab researchers fabricated the RNA sequence that was being transmitted in space. They infected rats with the sequence, a rat bit a person, and then the doughnut-licking ensued. The virus (or whatever) didn’t just take control of a person — it erased a person’s sense of individuality and connected every member of humanity into a hive mind that wants all living things, including Carol, to be happy. That hive mind also houses every person’s memories, skills, and experience, meaning, for example, that a TGI Friday’s server can fly a plane, no problem. It’s also why they all knew Carol’s name right after the turning. How did everyone suddenly turn so quickly? Remember those infected licking all those swabs for those petri dishes? And remember those planes flying overhead in a row as Carol and Helen talked outside the bar? Those planes were crop-dusting humanity — apparently it doesn’t take much alien virus to turn someone — leaving Carol as the only uninfected in the U.S. How did Helen die? Helen, Carol’s partner, was infected like everyone else. It’s clear though that many people didn’t survive the transition — if you were on the freeway, for example, when you got crop-dusted, odds are good that you’d died when your car crashed. Helen fell down and smacked her head pretty hard on the pavement when she was turning, so the head trauma likely caused her death (though perhaps some people just don’t survive the infection, full stop). What’s Carol gonna do now? We’ll have to watch and see! One thing that’s clear is that she’s far from safe: the infected want her to join them, after all. All they want is for Carol to be happy! “Come join us, Carol!” they think. “Why wouldn’t you want to join us? We’re living the dream!” In the meantime, however, they’ll do anything and everything they can to make Carol happy. How that plays out, I’d venture to say, will be a major consideration of the season. [end-mark] The post So You’ve Watched <i>Pluribus</i> Episode 1 and Have Some Questions appeared first on Reactor.

Oh My: Judge Green-Lights Lawsuit Accusing Newsom Aide of Facilitating Anti-Semitic Smear Campaign

New Hampshire's First Transgender Legislator Just Pled Guilty to Child Exploitation

Throughout the first week of November, ABC News’s The View used their Behind the Table podcast to vent about all the criticism they were receiving about their staunch stance of rejecting conservative guests who would give the co-hosts a hard time. The View started receiving flak after co-host Joy Behar declared that conservatives were “afraid of us,” and has dismissed all their new challengers as not meeting the “certain caliber of guest” the show was used to having. On Tuesday’s podcast episode, executive producer Brian Teta and co-host Joy Behar were discussing the interview they had just concluded with Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who they tried to recruit to become a Democrat. Behar said that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) should coming on the show or maybe Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). “We're asking people to come on now,” she boasted. But, as NewsBusters exclusively reported in 2023, The View thrice rejected requests from the Senator to make an appearance on the show despite being on the show multiple times. It might have had something to do with Cruz’s last appearance when came on set with a literal pocket full of recipes to call out their hypocrisy and bias. Teta went on to lament Behar’s “afraid of us” declaration because he and the other producers were swamped with requests challenging her notion. While mocking how conservative “got very worked up,” the pair claimed the requests they were receiving were from nobodies and random Republicans from around the country (Click “expand”): TETA: Everyone got very worked up and a lot of people you've never heard of kept saying like, ‘Well, I tried to get on and we can't get on the show.’ BEHAR: We’re talking about people who are actually in the center of Washington politics right now. TETA: Yeah, people that we talk about in Hot Topics, people that are – BEHAR: Not some Harry Fiduche who has a little business going in Sheboygan and he happens to be a Republican. That’s not what we’re looking for. TETA: Right. No, it's not that we can't have any Republican to come on, it's the people that are in power that we want to talk to. Um, but, uh, yeah, but yeah, every time you say something I get 400 calls.   On The View's podcast, EP Brian Teta whines about conservatives getting "very worked up" and calling them out for rejecting their requests to come on the show. "We're talking about people who are actually in the center of Washington politics, right now," Behar huffed, as she… pic.twitter.com/fTabHxTrlJ — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 7, 2025   Their dismissal of the guest requests based on quality was a refrain that was repeated on Wednesday’s episode between Teta and co-hosts Sara Haines and Sunny Hostin. Together, they mocked those requesting to appear on the show as nobodies who don’t live up to the “certain caliber of guest” they normally have on (Click “expand”): HOSTIN: I hope so. I mean, if Marjorie Taylor Green can sit with all of us, anyone can. TETA: And it’s not like – Listen, people like to say, you know, we don't have other people on. When you go through the names we've had on - HAINES: Oh wait, but Brian, first, one of the things after we talked about having other voices on. What made me laugh is there were people that you mentioned and then I'd mention, and you'd go "Who?" And you're like "That's the point." The View still has a certain caliber of guest. Just because you're conservative and you have some podcast and people listen to you, does not mean you're going to be invited to sit at the table. “We have people that mean something to our audience and are part of the hot topics we're talking about,” Teta argued. “We want to have conversations with the people that we're talking about.”   Teta and co-host Sara Haines mock the conservatives who have requested to come on and have been rejected (Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Byron Donalds, Riley Gaines, and many more) as not fitting the "caliber of guests" they have on the show: TETA: People like to say, you know, we don't… pic.twitter.com/MbiSh08B4F — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 7, 2025   But again, as NewsBusters reported, rejected requests came from Cruz, Congressman Byron Donalds (R-FL), female rights activist Riley Gaines (who has testified before Congress), and journalist Joel Pollak (who was on the show once before). In other words, people they’ve talked about on the show and even talked to on the show. The Media Research Center and NewsBusters were also among those who put in a formal appearance request. The View was very much familiar with NewsBusters’ work and had even talked about it on their show. They kvetched about a study we put out counting their legal notes. The View has since stopped issuing legal notes. And when it came to celebrity guests talking politics, The View didn’t seem to like that either. As a NewsBusters study showed back in July, the show had ZERO guests express conservative views, meanwhile 102 guests expressed liberal views. On Monday’s podcast, Teta and co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin tried to explain that away as just their guests being private (Click “expand”): TETA: I think there's a feeling out there that if you're on The View, you're gonna talk about Hot Topics, you're gonna talk about current events and the truth is that's always up to the guest. FARAH GRIFFIN: It totally is. TETA: I mean, it's not something we push them to do. If they're interested in doing it, of course, we're interested in having those conversations, but it's never something where. FARAH GRIFFIN: That they’re obligated. TETA: Absolutely not. “Of course, and there are examples of conservative celebrities that we have on the show and we say to them, do you want to talk politics? Do you want to talk about this in the same way? And, and if they don't, they don't,” Teta added. “It's totally fine and frankly sometimes it's a relief to just talk about someone's movie or their kids or anything else.”   Teta and co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin tried to write off The View's lack of vocal conservative celebrities as them just being private: TETA: I think there's a feeling out there that if you're on The View, you're gonna talk about Hot Topics, you're gonna talk about current events… pic.twitter.com/iVwcKzma4K — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) November 7, 2025   If they truly didn’t know many or any of the Republican and conservative people and organizations putting in requests, that was also failure of Farah Griffin since she’s supposedly the token conservative. Farah Griffin should be the one pushing to have prominent voices from the conservative movement on The View, but she’s not. And that’s by design. The View was more than just the name of the show, it was how it worked. Only one political view was allowed. And clearly they only wanted to speak with those from the right who were actively being a headache to party leadership, thus they could get along with them. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Behind the Table November 3, 2025 8:39 BRIAN TETA: Actress Jennifer Lawrence, who I'm a big fan of. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Me too. TETA: She was on the Interview podcast from The New York Times and after being vocal during Trump's first term. She says she really doesn't know if she should continue to speak out on politics anymore. Let's listen to what she had to say. [Cuts to video] JENNIFER LAWRENCE: Celebrities do not make a difference whatsoever on who people vote for. And so then what am I doing? I'm just sharing my opinion on something that's going to just add fuel to a fire that's ripping the country apart. [Cuts back] TETA: So she goes on and she continues to say that she doesn't want to turn people off from her work because of her political beliefs. What's your take on that? It's very um introspective, I think in a way that a lot of celebrities aren't always. (…) 11:55 TETA: It's so interesting because of our show. I mean, you know, we have a show that talks about politics more than most talk shows, daytime or late night, frankly. And You know, I think there's a feeling out there that if you're on The View, you're gonna talk about Hot Topics, you're gonna talk about current events and the truth is that's always up to the guest. FARAH GRIFFIN: It totally is. TETA: I mean, it's not something we push them to do. If they're interested in doing it, of course, we're interested in having those conversations, but it's never something where. FARAH GRIFFIN: That they’re obligated. TETA: Absolutely not. FARAH GRIFFIN: Well, I also, because I don't know if I realized that when I first started on the show and then producers shared that with me. I am impressed though how often when given the opportunity, celebrities want to take the time to say something political and to make a statement. TETA: Right. FARAH GRIFFIN: But I like giving them that option because at the same time like. They're there to do a job and I don't think we should force them into something. TETA: Of course, and there are examples of conservative celebrities that we have on the show and we say to them, do you want to talk politics? Do you want to talk about this in the same way? And, and if they don't, they don't. And so – And there's plenty of liberals that don't want to either. It's totally fine and frankly sometimes it's a relief to just talk about someone's movie or their kids or anything else. (…) November 4, 2025 2:20 TETA: I give her a lot of respect for coming here and having a conversation. JOY BEHAR: I give her, give her props for that for sure. TETA: I do too. I mean – BEHAR: And I think that Johnson should come on here and TETA: Yeah, absolutely. BEHAR: - we can have a conversation with him. We're asking people to come on now. I think Ted Cruz should come on. TETA: Well, two weeks ago you – after we had Cheryl Hines on – you said on TV - BEHAR: That Republicans don’t want to come. TETA: That Republicans are afraid to come. Then the world went – everyone got very worked up and a lot of people you've never heard of kept saying like, ‘Well, I tried to get on and we can't get on the show.’ BEHAR: We’re talking about people who are actually in the center of Washington politics right now. TETA: Yeah, people that we talk about in Hot Topics, people that are – BEHAR: Not some Harry Fiduche who has a little business going in Sheboygan and he happens to be a Republican. That’s not what we’re looking for. TETA: Right. No, it's not that we can't have any Republican to come on, it's the people that are in power that we want to talk to. Um, but, uh, yeah, but yeah, every time you say something I get 400 calls. (…) November 5, 2025 9:50 TETA: The way you understand or try to understand how they can do those things and how they can exist in those dichotomies is to have somebody come on the show and have a real conversation. SUNNY HOSTIN: Absolutely. SARA HAINES: Yes. TETA: And I think that was good and hopefully we'll have more of them. HOSTIN: I hope so. I mean, if Marjorie Taylor Green can sit with all of us, anyone can. TETA: And it’s not like – Listen, people like to say, you know, we don't have other people on. When you go through the names we've had on - HAINES: Oh wait, but Brian, first, one of the things after we talked about having other voices on. What made me laugh is there were people that you mentioned and then I'd mention, and you'd go "Who?" And you're like "That's the point." The View still has a certain caliber of guest. Just because you're conservative and you have some podcast and people listen to you, does not mean you're going to be invited to sit at the table. TETA: No, of course. We have people that mean something to our audience and are part of the hot topics we're talking about. HOSTIN: Sure. HAINES: Or politicians. TETA: Yes. We want to have conversations with the people that we're talking about. (…)

On Friday’s Good Morning America, the ABC program implied without evidence flights are being cut to purposefully harm Americans in this government shutdown and touted the partisan claims of a federal judge appointed by President Obama (which they refused to mention) accusing the administration of not fully funding the federal food stamps program to starve Americans. In just this week alone, ABC’s Good Morning America has repeatedly celebrated New York City communist Zohran Mamdani, defended an illegal alien taking immigration officials on a chase to her work at a daycare (where she could use the babies as human shields), engaged in sudden respect toward the late Dick Cheney, and was skeptical Nigerian Christians are being persecuted.  Weekend co-host Whit Johnson went down the airline cancellations route, huffing “travelers feeling turbulence as the FAA cancels hundreds of flights at 40 major airports because of the government shutdown” and “frustration mounting” with “more than 800 flights already canceled this morning.” Instead of leaving it at that, Johnson boasted “critics argue” the cancellations are “just a move to pressure Democrats to reopen the government as the shutdown reaches day 38.” Hilariously, Johnson’s evidence immediate fell flat thanks to his own words: ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ tries to suggest the Trump administration is having the FAA purposefully reduce/cancel flights to inflict pain on the American people and “pressure Democrats to reopen the government” But then they’re immediately discredited by showing an airport… pic.twitter.com/kgNMmLyfWj — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 7, 2025   As for the food stamps, co-host and Clinton official George Stephanopoulos teased:  Showdown over SNAP benefits...as concerns grow for more and more persons trying to put food on their table, a federal judge now accusing the Trump administration of withholding federal food assistance for political reasons and ordering it to fully distribute benefits. The reaction from the White House. Friday co-host Rebecca Jarvis later touted the judge as having “accused the administration of withholding the benefits for political reasons.” Senior political correspondent Rachel Scott cheered the “strong words from the federal judge saying the administration did not comply with his court order and must fully fund SNAP benefits by today, but it does set the stage for another legal battle with 42 million Americans hanging in limbo.” The virulent Trump hater parroted Jarvis and quoted from the Obama partisan’s alleged ruling that sure did not come off like a legal opinion and more like an MSNBC monologue: [T]his morning, a federal judge accusing the White House of withholding federal food assistance for political reasons and ordering the administration to fully distribute SNAP benefits by today. Judge John McConnell saying: “People have gone without for too long, not making payments to them for even another day is unacceptable.” Scott said the judge used a Trump Truth Social post about SNAP only fully resuming when the government reopens as proof they’re starving Americans: ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ — with @RachelVScott and @MichaelStrahan in this report — eagerly touted a partisan Obama judge claiming the Trump administration is intentionally causing Americans to go hungry and not fully funding SNAP in the shutdown, adding “it’s embarrassing”… pic.twitter.com/0gvyk7LD2a — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) November 7, 2025   “The judge pointing to the president’s own words, accusing the administration of defying the court’s order and causing ‘irreparable harm,’ saying ‘the evidence shows that people will go hungry, food pantries will be over burdened, and needless suffering will occur,’” she opined. Scott concluded with a hit on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), whining “the House of Representatives has been out of town and out of session for 49 days.” Co-host Michael Strahan threw in a Stephanopoulos-like jab, calling Johnson’s decision to force the Senate to do its job (a novel concept, right) “embarrassing at this point,” adding “it really is.” NBC’s Today only met GMA halfway by going along with the touting of Judge McDonnell. “Nearly 42 million Americans rely on food assistance, and the federal judge in this case blasting the administration for delaying those benefits, partly for what he called political purposes, adding, not making payments for even another day is simply unacceptable. The White House, though, already pushing back,” senior Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles began. Fretting “food benefits for roughly 42 million Americans remain in limbo” and assigning zero blame, Nobles touted “a federal judge in Rhode Island ordering the Trump administration to fully fund the food assistance program, known as SNAP, by today...follow[ing] weeks of chaos and confusion leaving families wondering how they’ll pay for their next meal and long lines at food banks across the country.” An anecdote from a New York City food kitchen later, Nobles acknowledged senators remaining in D.C., but framed Democrats as the ones fighting for Americans (click “expand”): NOBLES: Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, some faint signs of progress to end the shutdown. The Senate’s preparing to take a procedural step today toward creating a package that could lead to the reopening of the government. But Democrats insist Republicans must negotiate reforms to health care, including an extension of the tax credits for the Affordable Care Act. SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT); We’re here begging for negotiation, and our Republican partners are refusing to talk to us. NOBLES: Republicans maintain they’re willing to negotiate on health care, but say there needs to be a vote to reopen the government first. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER JOHN THUNE (R-SD): How much more do Americans have to endure before Democrats are satisfied? Nobles concluded with what seemed to have been a tacit admission about Democrats keeping the government shuttered, declaring “most Democrats are insistent that Republicans need to bring more to the table in order for the shutdown to end[.]” In contrast to all this, CBS Mornings didn’t promote the Obama judge or this conspiracy theory about trimming flights. Co-host Gayle King plainly stated: “The government shutdown is reporting a new reality to American life, waiting in long lines. These are the images of people lined up waiting at food banks after SNAP benefits ran out...[S]tarting today the airlines have been told to fly fewer planes during the shutdown.” Moments later from Phoenix Sky Harbor, transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave acknowledged the fire alarm going off as symbolic of the country’s aviation system. And, ahead of an interview King and co-host Tony Dokoupil conducted with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, Van Cleave further laid the ground work for stating the obvious for why the decision was made (click “expand”): VAN CLEAVE: They’re literally sounding the alarm at Sky Harbor for something, but it’s an apt metaphor for what is going on across the nation’s airspace. Controllers unpaid, under pressure, stressed and fatigued, prompting the FAA to order airlines to cut flights, starting at four percent, builds to 10 percent at the nation’s 40 busiest airports and it starts now. With thousands of flights set to be cancelled at airports across the country this weekend, traveler frustration over the government shutdown and its impact is mounding. (....) VAN CLEAVE: The air traffic controllers union says the nations was thousands of controllers short before shutdown. Now many existing controllers are calling out sick, some even quitting after having gone weeks without pay and receiving a second zero-dollar pay stub Thursday. NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION’s NICK DANIELS [on CBS News 24/7's The Takeout With Major Garrett, 11/07/25]: They’re worried about putting gas in their car. They’re worried about putting food on the table. They can’t even pay for child care in some instances. So, as that risk increases, you have to begin reducing the capacity of the system. To see the relevant transcripts from November 7, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).

Republicans weren’t supposed to have a big night Tuesday — but they had a worse one than expected.As usual, Democrats, who have had little to celebrate beyond street protests and government shutdowns, framed the results as a referendum on Donald Trump. That claim is exaggerated, but Republicans would be foolish to think the administration’s performance played no role. Weak candidates in blue states don’t explain everything. The message should be taken as a call for maintenance, not panic.If the Trump administration restores trust through accountability and delivers tangible improvements to ordinary Americans, it will earn a political legacy that lasts generations.The consensus takeaway is the right one: President Trump should return home and focus on his domestic agenda.That shift already seems to be under way. Immediately after the election, the president summoned Republican senators to the White House to urge them to revoke the filibuster and pass a bold domestic program. Whether or not ending the filibuster is strategically sound, the impulse behind it shows Trump recognizes that his domestic agenda needs care and attention.On Thursday, the president followed through by announcing a new affordability initiative, including a deal with Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk to slash the prices of popular weight-loss drugs.The missing elementAny serious domestic agenda must center on accountability. Trump’s original campaign gained enormous traction on that theme for a reason. Like affordability, accountability resonates because both expose a corrupt system that favors elites and leaves ordinary Americans powerless. The Epstein saga, still festering years later, stands as Exhibit A — another example of “the big guys getting away with it again.”That resentment fueled Trump’s rise in 2016 and explains his staying power today. It also helps explain Mamdani’s massive win on Tuesday. Americans are sick of a rigged system, and they are rejecting that system.Trump represents a chance to correct that system. His second administration has produced real accomplishments. But the obstacles remain daunting: a world in turmoil, an economy tilted against working people, a hostile bureaucracy protected by a conflicted judiciary, and a divided Republican Party that lacks a filibuster-proof Senate majority.Many within that party seem more interested in positioning themselves for the post-Trump era than advancing his reforms. It’s a weak hand outside the executive branch — but it’s also why voters sent him back to Washington.A coalition that needs proofFor Trump’s coalition to endure, voters must see results that affect their daily lives. They need proof that their votes produced meaningful change — not better conditions for elites or new foreign entanglements. They want to see powerful wrongdoers held to account and to believe the system can be fair again.Foreign policy deals won’t secure that trust. Trump’s skepticism of interventionism can survive only so many “necessary” international arrangements. However worthwhile some of those efforts may be, domestic priorities must come first. Accountability and reform should lead.That means confronting the deep state, disciplining the bureaucracy, and rewarding the citizens who put this administration in power. The ferocity of DOGE’s early efforts — once celebrated as a hallmark of domestic resolve — has largely evaporated. In its place, we’ve seen premature victory laps and deflections. The FBI supposedly reformed. The Butler assassination attempt, which nearly removed a political figure representing half the country, brushed aside as a bad day. The promise to deport illegal immigrants narrowed to the “worst of the worst.”When government fails to deliver transparency and fairness, the people begin to question the entire system — and rightly so. Americans don’t separate political corruption from economic corruption. It’s all part of the same tilted playing field. Trump still embodies their hope of leveling it.RELATED: Democrats are running as Bush-era Republicans — and winning Photo by Eduardo Munoz Alvarez / Contributor via Getty ImagesToo much sizzle, too little steakThat mission is undermined, however, by the self-promotional drift of several administration principals. Americans see endless television hits, turf wars, and personal branding. They hear more about Attorney General Pam Bondi than about the Department of Justice, more about Secretary Kristi Noem than Homeland Security, more about Secretary Howard Lutnick than the Department of Commerce.Most of these officials are countering a hostile media landscape — a necessary lesson from the first Trump term. But the result has been an overcorrection: too much personality, not enough policy. Americans didn’t vote for celebrity cameos. They voted for results.Trump’s cabinet would do well to follow his lead and return focus to the work at hand. Fewer cameras, more control. Roll up sleeves, reassert authority over agencies, and push through systemic reforms that prove Washington can change — permanently.The road to renewalIf the Trump administration restores trust through accountability and delivers tangible improvements to ordinary Americans, it will earn a political legacy that lasts generations.America could use that kind of durability — and that kind of hope.