TheRealT

In all seriousness, why even take the chance of Amber contacting Leah without any kind of supervision? Amber is obviously in the midst of a mental health crisis and is obviously doing drugs (that she shouldn't be doing) and/or not doing drugs that she should be doing (her meds). She's also known to be prone to crazy rants, set off by whatever. She could call Leah and go off on some drugged-out, crazy rant at any time. She could tell Leah that she's thinking about killing herself, etc., etc., etc. Even if she doesn't say something egregiously inappropriate, I can totally see her having weird, inappropriate, circular conversations with Leah where Leah would need support cutting things short because it's obvious Amber is high/in the midst of a manic episode, whatever. I honestly believe that she shouldn't have unsupervised visitation or communication with either of her kids.

Poor Leah, Gary, and Kristina. It's bad enough dealing with an insane deadbeat mom, especially as the child is becoming an adolescent and more aware of what's going on. And it would be really horrible if said crazy deadbeat mom posted crazy rants online for their immediate circle of family and friends to see. Having the deadbeat lunatic post crazed, probably drug-addled rants online in her underwear and knowing that thousands of people will watch it and it will be reported on by international tabloids would be beyond horrifying. And Gary and Kristina are too decent and too aware of why it's important to try to maintain a positive relationship with Amber for Leah's sake to do the totally justifiable, easiest (for them), and most obvious thing-- cutting Amber out of their lives permanently. I can't even imagine. At this point, Leah (and the other OG babies) are old enough to access the show (all seasons), as well as news/gossip/commentary about their parents/families/lives online. ALL of the parents should be concerned about that and they should all probably quit the show to at least mitigate the negative effects on their kids at this vulnerable time in their lives. If they were off the show, it would at least slow the generation of new reporting/commentary about them (the stuff that already exists is more than enough to traumatize all the kids for life).

[Didn't realize the season was on and, since I'm a masochist, I'm catching up now.] I was curious about the timing of all of Cate's breaks, so I looked up the dates. Vaeda was born on Feb 23. Cate's spa day was on her birthday, Mar 12. The trip to Boca was a week before Amber's birthday on May 14. I'm all for moms taking time for themselves, but wow. Totally judging. It would be one thing if Cate were in crisis and needed to get treatment (preferably not 1000 miles away) or spend some time with friends/by herself, but since she claims to be basically ok, that seems like a lot of "mommy time" away from a (nursing) newborn, even before you consider the toddler with separation anxiety. And she's hoping/planning to get pregnant again when Vaeda is 6 months or a year? WHY?!?!? And it really seems like Tyler is more hands-on with the kids than she is, so her beleaguered, "Nova needs so much attention, all the time!" (Yes, Cate, it's called being a toddler.) and "It's really important that I take time for myself so I don't get post-partum..." are a bit much.

Yeah, that's really messed up if the judge (or whoever) minimized Amber's crime against him because he's a large man. No one should be subject to physical abuse and it's not appropriate or legal to assault others, especially one's domestic partner/co-parent, especially in front of one's child. Amber (a known lunatic and domestic abuser) suggested that Andrew's claims of abuse were ridiculous because he's much bigger than she is, implying that he could/should just beat the shit out of her if she attacked him. It's disgusting that a government official would express the same idea in a legal proceeding. She looks really skinny in this picture. Is she back on meth (or whatever)?

I've come to realize that Joe just talks out of his ass every day (when he bothers to show up). I think that, in his heart, he is and always will be a "Republican" (whatever that means to him). So, on some level, it just feels right to him to support Republicans and trash Democrats. So some days he twists himself in knots to do that. On the other hand, he's very angry at his beloved Republicans for supporting Trump, with whom he has personal beef. So some days he embraces Democratic achievements/ideals in order to seem "principled" and "non-partisan." Mostly, he just likes to hear himself talk and make money. Politics (of whatever party) are really secondary to those goals.

That's too bad about poor people dying, but I think we can all agree that we don't want to live in a country where rich people's taxes get raised.

Mika's dream is to be socially relevant, like a white Oprah, basically. Obviously, that's completely delusional.

I'm constantly struck by how tribally Republican Joe is, despite his "leaving the party." He DESPERATELY wants to get the old GOP back together and clearly dreams of a day when Trump is gone and "real Republicans" will be able to do that. He constantly makes the ridiculous argument that Trump isn't actually a Republican; he's a Democrat, grasping at the flimsiest straws. Last week he said something about Trump applying his (secretly Democratic) attitudes toward blowing up the deficit (obliquely referring to the REPUBLICAN supported/demanded tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires). OK. Mika is literally like a backup singer, but for the "news". Most of her contribution to the show (aside from mangled teleprompter reading) is her intoning, "Crazy," "Unbelievable," "Wow," in the background while Joe goes off on some bombastic rant. It's crazy, unbelievable, wow. Just, WTF? I find it amusing on some level, but at this point, it's lost any charm or novelty it might have once had. This woman gets paid 7 figures to mutter random words in the background while her husband bloviates? Really?!?!? This is an actual thing in 2019 on a show that heavily features "analysis" of the 2020 election?

Also, does a woman whose children are in college still count as a "working mother"? I'm not even sure what the significance of them being "working mothers" is in the context of one of them complaining about being sexually harassed on the job except for making it more clear what a bad position the harassed woman was put in. Should we be sympathetic toward Mika for publicly supporting a sexual harasser, though she believed he was guilty of the accusations against him, because she was a "working mom" (who was getting a 7-figure salary, earned in part by fucking her boss)? The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. Mika is publicly known to have advanced her career by fucking her boss (while they were both married). She probably shouldn't ever comment publicly on any type of sexual harassment allegations. At all. Ever. Yet she does so all the time, usually siding with men who are sexual harassers/abusers. All while trying to advance her personal brand as some kind of advocate for women's rights (or something). It's mind-blowing.

No, she was angry with Cliff and Nicole (naturally).

I've thought about how it might affect their "relationship" if Holly wins. On the one hand, I could see that being incentive for Jackson to stick it out with her for longer, both to enjoy the spoils of her winnings (and possibly even guilt her into breaking him off a piece), and to have the opportunity to passive-aggressively punish her for beating him. He would LITERALLY NEVER STOP making comments about how she wouldn't have won without him; how it's great that she's paying for their trip to Hawaii, but she might as well since he's the one who got her the money; how you'd think that someone who completely owed him for winning $500K and the accompanying fame would insist that the energy drink sponsor who gave her an IG deal do the same for him; etc., etc., etc. That would be on top of, "Why are you wearing that outfit? Why did you tell me to get over myself? Why did you forget to get my protein shakes when you went grocery shopping?" I want to hurl myself off a cliff just thinking about how exhausting it would be to be in a relationship with him. I don't think Holly would take her money and send Jackson packing, at least not for a while. If she won, she would totally buy into his narrative that she "stole" the victory from him and somehow wronged him, especially if he continued the relationship. It would be even worse/harder for her if they publicly stayed together, maintaining a "happy" facade while Jackson continued/escalated his emotional abuse in private. It's probably better for her if he wins and dumps her. According to her subsequent conversations with Jackson, she didn't realize that not winning HOH would mean that she was guaranteed to go on the block as an original nom or replacement nom if one of the noms got vetoed. She seemed to be genuinely shocked and butt hurt when Jackson pointed this out to her.

Didn't Cliff and/or Nicole tell her before the comp that she didn't have to throw it if she didn't want to? And didn't she drop literally on Jackson's orders? So she already knows who "strong armed" her into the throwing the comp; she's just in denial about it for now. I wonder how she will feel when she gets out and sees Jackson admit that he told her to throw it because it was best for his game. On top of that, he's going to dump her ASAP once the show is over. I figure he'll wait a week so it won't be too awkward when they do the post-show stuff with other cast members. He will absolutely frame the break up as all her fault and him just doing what he truly thinks is best for her. If she so much as says, "Maybe I should have taken Nicole to F2..." or anything that could be remotely interpreted as not being 100% supportive of his win, he will totally use that as part of his justification for dumping her. The only thing that could maybe make the relationship last longer is if they get recruited for Amazing Race. But I think Jackson would much rather do AR with Jack, or even Tommy, if he could swing it. Holly has some emotional issues, so I hope she gets the support she'll need after the show. I think she'll be devastated at how she was portrayed and how Jackson used her to win $500K, then dumped her to hook up with a bunch of younger women, probably at least semi-publicly. If he doesn't do another reality show, he'll certainly be posting about his great new life on SM all the time. She was hoping she'd be portrayed as a young, beautiful bad ass who was really sweet and an inspiration to young women. Instead, she came off as kind of a skank and a dumbass who was controlled by her asshole bf. It will be even worse if she wins Part 3 and takes him to the end, just in terms of the narrative that will create. She'll be Holly, the chick in S21 who threw her game away for a shitty showmance with the guy who won. Of course, most people, even people who watch the show, won't remember or care after a month, but I think it will bother her a lot. And every time someone in a mall 6 years later comes up to her and says, "Hey, aren't you that chick from BB? The one who was in a showmance with that guy with the square head, what was his name?" that will bother her too.

I actually wonder where Holly's head is. I have a personal theory that she's 35, not 31, but, regardless, she is certainly older and wiser than Jackson. Even if she's gotten caught up in the atmosphere in the house/the game/etc. in terms of her relationship with him, she doesn't seem completely stupid or inexperienced with relationships, so you'd think there is at least a small part of her that realizes that there's no future there. She clearly has self-esteem issues and is having a hard time emotionally with being on the show/dealing with the stress of the game/being emotionally abused by Jackson/etc., but I still don't get why she's behaving the way she is. I was particularly struck a couple of weeks ago when she was having a really hard time emotionally and Jackson was berating her for 2 days over her muttering "Fucking asshole..." while in a contentious conversation with him. He literally went ON and ON for AT LEAST 2 DAYS about how horrible it was for her to call him that name and how it would reflect so badly on her, which he knew she was worried about, and how he would never have done such a thing and he totally didn't deserve it and he didn't care, but he was just worried about how his family, her family, and America would view her because he cared about her so much. All while she was sobbing, apologizing over and over, and trying to explain how that one moment wasn't representative of her character. Then she went into a bunch of stuff about how (basically) she has really low self-esteem and she beats herself up more than he ever could, etc., etc. Jackson replied with what I believe is his standard schtick for when he's dumping someone, "I care about you and I want you to be happy, but, obviously, I can't make you happy, so I'm going to let you go to pursue whatever it is you need to be happy. I'm basing all of this on logic and your own actions, so there's nothing you can say to contradict me." You would think that a reasonably intelligent 31-35-year-old woman would be able to see through that shit immediately, but, apparently, that's not the case for Holly. Weird and sad.

It doesn't really matter how "right" or "wrong" the jurors are in their reasoning, though. The winner's "job" is to figure out what s/he needs to do to get to F2 and get a majority of the votes. That depends on reading the jurors, figuring out what strategies/messages/appeals/etc. will work with each of them, etc., etc. Having a reasonable, logical argument for why one or more jurors aren't "correct" in voting against you is worth bupkis. It's more valuable to get jurors to vote for you for "dumb, illogical, inconsistent, 'wrong'" reasons. But people aren't consistent. BB is an emotional game. It's bad strategy/jury management/etc. to count on everyone being "consistent" and "logical" in deciding their votes. Any savvy player understands that jurors will vote based on their personal experiences/feelings/assumptions/worries/relationships/etc./etc. Expecting people to vote based on "consistent" application of their stated values/plans/opinions is just dumb, IMO.

ITA. BB is a social/emotional, as well as strategic/physical/mental, game. It's arguable that the social/emotional aspect is the most important. I don't think it's arguable that playing such a bad social/emotional game that jurors will vote for anyone but you shouldn't matter if you're good at strategy and comps. If anything, it's the other way around. Someone who gets to F2 with the majority of the jury wanting to give them the money has, IMO, played a better game than someone who gets there with the majority wanting them NOT to get the money, regardless of comp wins, strategery, etc. Ah, I don't think jury members have to coherently and consistently explain their motives in advance. It's an emotional game and most people can't predict what effect living with the other players for however long will have on them. People may come in saying, "I'm going to vote based on strategy/comp wins/whatever," but then they become BFFs with someone who hasn't met those benchmarks, or they feel mistreated by the person who met the benchmarks, or they feel the person who met the benchmarks is a dick, etc., etc. That's part of the game. It's not like the Olympics, where it's reasonable to assume that if one runs the fastest race, they will win. It's much more subjective than that. But that's the game (to me).

Is it true that Cliff lost his job and/or cashed in his 401K? I thought he said that the money from winning the game wouldn't really make much difference in his life?

Thanks. So Kat and Jackson had sex within the first week or less of meeting, then when the feeds started Kat decided she didn't want to continue banging him publicly and Jackson was simultaneously getting interested in Holly and "broke up" with Kat? And Holly knew he had been banging Kat, but she was cool with that and slept with him within a week (or 2, being generous)? Then, weeks later, Holly freaked out when she realized she was sleeping with a skanky 24-year-old in front of the whole internet because that might seem contradictory with her self-image as a conservative, non-skanky lady? Really?!?!?! I don't even have a problem with people having casual sex, but, under those circumstances (sleeping with a dude you and your friend met 7-10 days ago after your friend boned him, in a small/closed community, on the internet/national TV, while purporting to have "conservative values") is just... ewwww. If she owned it and was like, "I'm just trying to get laid, I don't really care..." or felt some kind of serious connection with Jackson and, therefore, set aside his recent sexual past with Kat, I could maybe see it. But can you really claim some kind of "meaningful connection" with a person you met less than 2 weeks ago who was fucking your friend for the first 7 or so days of that? It would be extremely skanky (IMO) if it happened IRL and doing it knowing that the whole internet was watching makes it 10 times more skanky. And Holly sobbing over it a month and half later because she's really "conservative" and worries that she's being portrayed "unfairly" makes it 10 times more embarrassing. (For the record, I consider it a given that Jackson is a nasty skank ho to fuck 2 different women he just met in a house they're all living in in front of the whole internet, but at least he didn't cry about how he's a "nice boy" and is so worried people will get the wrong idea about him.)

Could someone give a recap of what happened with Jackson/Kat and his transition to Holly? I gather that he slept with Kat early on (maybe before the feeds started?), then he broke up with her and started "dating" Holly?

You guys just don't get it! That's what their relationship is like. They joke around and have the same dark, twisted sense of humor! You just don't get it! No one gets them because they're so different and edgy! That's what makes her so different from his other hos! Those bitches don't get his humor and get bent out of shape if he talks about ejaculating on them in public. So annoying! Yes, it does always seem to be Chris who's "jokingly" insulting and demeaning Kail, but still! She's totally in on the "joke"! Seriously!

I totally get that, BUT, if a gun-related crime has been accused and the suspect has posted numerous videos on SM about his gun/ammo collection and (presumably) there are public (or at least police) records of him buying multiple guns/ammunition, do police typically accept finding no weapons in his house at a given moment as sufficient to allay any concerns that he committed the gun-related crime that has been alleged or might commit other gun-related crimes in the future? Really?!?!? Did they even ask him where all his guns and ammunition were? I have no idea what the laws are around that, but, presumably, you can't just tell law enforcement, "Yeah, I had a bunch of guns, but I threw them all away/gave them to people whose names I don't know. You can see they're not here, so, whatever!" If the allegation was that UBT had threatened Barb with a gun (for example), would they execute a search warrant, find no guns, and be like, "Ok, I guess Barb's story is total BS. You're good to go!" Even though there's public evidence (provided by UBT) that he has lots of guns? I don't get it.

Yeah. I know it would be a very small price to pay for her actual crimes (covering for the psycho who murdered her dog in front of her kids/wasting government resources to investigate a crime she subsequently decided to abet after the fact/being a horror show of a "mom" on every level/etc., etc., etc.), but shouldn't she pay at least a nominal price for playing with law enforcement/publicly-funded services/etc., allegedly (by her own account) for publicity? At minimum, she should have to pay for some or all of the expenses for the investigation(s). True justice (if her story were true) would be her being criminally charged. Are regular people allowed to "make up" crimes (I believe she was telling the truth for once when she reported Nugget's murder) for "publicity;" waste weeks of law enforcement's time/money; and incite "unfair harassment" of a "suspect" who actually did nothing wrong AND a tsunami of public complaints (further taxing law enforcement's resources) and negative publicity for the local jurisdiction, then just go, "Psych! I just made it all up! LOL!"? I doubt it. Also, according to this narrative, UBT did nothing to Nugget and Nugget just ran away or was kidnapped by aliens/hatters/Nathan/Barb/Doris/whomever. So why did UBT confess to killing Nugget? Do they seriously expect anyone to believe that if Jenelle fabricated a story about UBT killing Nugget, which resulted in the kids being taken away, that he would be totally cool with that and instaforgive her for doing him wrong like that? They're so delusional that it hurts. Does Jenelle hope to have a future as a SM/reality TV "star" after publicly declaring that she made up a story about her husband violently murdering her dog and stuck to the story for weeks, even after her kids were removed from her home, for publicity?!?!?! Granted, I can't understand how any company would be interested in her endorsement/involvement even before this, but still. Who the fuck relates to a "mom" who allows her kids to be taken away based on a lie she made up for publicity OR who allows her kids to be taken away to side with her dog-murdering husband?!?!?! I guess she already had the support of the latter group, so are they cool with the former scenario as well? Like, they "support moms," but don't care whether those moms actually give a fuck about their kids or not?

That might be why Chris prefers that she "eat his dick." No more trap miracle babies!

In ALL fairness (because I agree that Chris is a horrible, disrespectful person), some "dick eaters" like/don't mind talk such as, "You were just eating my dick..." So I don't think it's inherently disrespectful to talk to one's sex partner that way. For me, the real question is why did Kail record that conversation and post it on SM? Even if she gets off on "humiliation" (I don't think it's inherently humiliating to "eat dick" or have the owner of the eaten dick talk about it, but some people see it that way.), I think it's disrespectful to her kids for her to post "sexually humiliating" videos on SM. Or "sexual [anything]", really. But that's me/my standards (strictly speaking/being as "fair"/non-judgemental as I can possibly be/etc.). Maybe Kail thinks it's fair game to post whatever type of sexual content she wants to and she's unconcerned with how it will affect her kids/thinks it won't affect her kids negatively. Again, I disagree, but, technically, she's free to do what she wants within the law and I wouldn't necessarily advocate for a mom's parental rights to be restricted/changed because she posted content I deemed to be "sexually inappropriate" online.

And the thing is, to me, the trip to Hawaii is more humiliating than the face shot. If someone likes/doesn't mind her/his/their sex partner ejaculating on their face, there's nothing wrong with it. But I think it's fucked up to talk about that publicly in a way that demeans the sex partner on the receiving end (or the partner on the giving end, for that matter). And it's really pathetic to post that on social media when you are the EXTREMELY THIRSTY FOR ANY TYPE OF ATTENTION FROM THE DUDE WHO SPLOOGED IN YOUR FACE, THOUGH HE'S REFUSED TO COMMIT TO YOU (or even admit that he was "dating" you) FOR YEARS, sex partner (who desperately wants to be "girlfriend," or, better yet, "wifey.") I would feel sorry for Kail if she weren't such a horrible person who has treated her sex partners so badly throughout her adult life.

I wonder how many pool seasons she will accommodate him? Wasn't it last year that she made the solemn vow that they had "been together" for 3 years and if he wasn't willing to commit within a year she would be done?