DCUM Weblog

Once again, the top most active threads were all political in nature. The topics are starting to get repetitive and, in some cases, bordering on the absurd. The most active thread, by some measure, was titled, "Trump giving speech in garbage vest" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Unless you have been living in a cave for the past few days, you will guess that this thread is about former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump showing up at a rally wearing a reflective vest similar to those worn by trash collectors. Trump also climbed into a garbage truck — not without difficulty, it must be said — and was driven around in circles. Trump was attempting to draw attention to President Joe Biden's statement that Trump rally speaker Tony Hinchcliffe is "garbage". Because much of the mainstream media is made up of click-chasers who long ago gave up on their own profession, several outlets wrongly reported that Biden had referred to Trump supporters as "garbage" rather than just Hinchcliffe. MAGAs, for whom a primary motivator is resentment, immediately jumped on this appellation and have reached heights of joy rarely seen previously. Hinchcliffe, of course, had referred to Puerto Rico as a "floating island of garbage" during his remarks at Trump's Madison Square Garden Rally. Biden, in his stuttering manner, defended Puerto Rico and said that the only garbage he saw was Hinchcliffe, referring to him as Trump's "supporter". MAGAs immediately proclaimed that this would not only undo the damage caused by Hinchcliffe, but would cause more voters to rally to Trump. Trump, by dressing like a garbage man, was supposed to be drawing attention to Biden's remark. The original poster of this thread considers this a demonstration of Trump's "uncanny ability to change the narrative" that "highlighted the Left’s hatred of the Right". As a result, claims the original poster, "This race is over". Consider the mental gymnastics involved here. First, Trump and his cult followers — as well as a disappointing number of members of the mainstream media — distorted Biden's remark. Then, the original poster is misrepresenting this manufactured insult to represent the feelings of the entire left, ignoring that Vice President Kamala Harris explicitly disassociated herself from any such insult, and then the original poster claimed that Trump's stunt had succeeded in changing the narrative and that the antic would win the election for Trump. This is how we have come to live in separate realities. In the other reality, the one in which I live, Puerto Ricans were offended by Hinchcliffe and, by extension, Trump, who has not condemned the remarks. Their opinion is unlikely to be changed by a suggestion that Trump supporters are "garbage", even if such a statement had actually been made. They probably agree with that sentiment. Indeed, the day after Biden's remark, Puerto Rican reggaeton artist Nicky Jam, who had previously endorsed Trump, withdrew his endorsement. Moreover, by keeping attention on the topic of garbage, Trump was not only drawing attention to Biden, but to Hinchcliffe's initial insult of Puerto Rico. I am not sure that this is the genius message management that the original poster believes it to be. Finally, Trump certainly has an ability to change the narrative, but generally he does that by stepping on the message that his campaign is attempting to put forth. For instance, I am not sure what message the Trump campaign was hoping for today, but Trump has ensured that his call for Liz Cheney to face a firing squad will get most of the attention.

The most active thread yesterday was the thread that I've already discussed about being offended by the suggestion that someone else is raising your kids. That thread is a classic stay-at-home-mom versus work-out-of-the-house-mom thread, and I probably should put it out of everyone's misery. After that was a thread titled, "Gov. Youngkin issues statement after DOJ files lawsuit over noncitizen voting in Va." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, which is the case with all the threads I will discuss today. The background of this thread is that on August 7, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order requiring non-U.S. citizens to be removed from Virginia's voting rolls. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit to stop the action because it violates the National Voter Registration Act, which requires a 90-day quiet period during which maintenance of voter rolls must be paused. The justification for the pause is that mistakes are often made during the mass removal operations. Youngkin's executive order fell on the 90th day before this year's election. Youngkin claims that his order is aimed at removing non-citizens, who are not allowed to vote in any case, from the voting rolls. The U.S. Justice Department's position is that the effort violates the NVRA and can wrongly hinder eligible voters' right to vote. In at least one case, the Justice Department has been shown to be correct. For instance, Nadra Wilson of Lynchburg, VA, who was born in Brooklyn, NY, and moved to Virginia 9 years ago, had her registration cancelled. A federal court ruled in favor of the Justice Department and ordered Youngkin's voter removal effort to stop. However, the case was appealed, eventually reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, which stayed the lower court decision and allowed Youngkin's program to continue. What complicates cases like this is that it is never clear if the actors involved are acting in good faith. Republicans, claiming to be acting in the interest of election integrity, have raised continual barriers to voting. They have also repeatedly alleged that Democrats encourage non-citizens to vote. The idea that Democrats are encouraging mass immigration and then allowing those migrants to vote is central to the racist "great replacement theory" that once was confined to QAnon types and mass shooters, but has rapidly become part of mainstream Republican thought. Youngkin, who postures as a serious Republican in contrast to extremist MAGAs, attempted to provide plenty of leeway to those who are being removed to demonstrate that they are citizens and should remain eligible to vote. However, in the real world, many of those provisions fail. For instance, in the case of Wilson, the letter sent to inform her that her registration would be cancelled was sent to a previous address. Once it made its way to her, the deadline to respond had passed. Wilson can still take advantage of same-day registration in order to vote and can prove her citizenship with a passport, but not everyone has a passport, and, in some cases, birth certificates are not easily located. As a result, there is still some chance that eligible voters will be wrongly stripped of their registrations. Most troubling about this is the action of the U.S. Supreme Court. The conservative majority has made a number of voting-related decisions. There has been no legal consistency among the rulings. Rather, the common element has been that the decisions generally favor Republicans. Such decisions often are handed down even, as was the case in this instance, the Court is clearly ignoring federal law.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Harris ‘closing argument’ speech next Tuesday on the mall" and was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started a week ago in anticipation of an address delivered by Vice President Kamala Harris last evening at the Ellipse on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. In the style of a true Democrat, the original poster is fearful that Harris is taking a "big swing" that could miss. But the original poster does express interest in taking her daughter to see Harris speak. The first part of this thread is almost funny, marked by a discussion of electoral votes provoked by a poster who was unaware that the District of Columbia has three electoral votes. Moreover, several posters didn't seem to understand that this is an equal number of electoral votes to the Dakotas, Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska. Several posters questioned why Harris would choose D.C. for such an important speech given that she can already count on the District's votes. Once Harris began her address, however, the answer to that became obvious. Harris had several goals with this speech, but primary it was about sending a message. With the backdrop of the White House and staged in the same location from which former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump launched an insurrection on January 6, 2021, Harris positioned herself as the "adult" alternative to Trump. Harris' message was clear. Where Trump caused chaos and division, she would unite the country and solve problems. "Donald Trump wants to put his opponents in jail. I will give them a seat at the table", Harris said. The Doubting Thomases who seem to dominate the Democratic Party were hopefully assured by this address. Harris will never be an orator on the level of former President Barack Obama, but her delivery was competent and miles above what we've come to expect from Trump. In my opinion, the content of the speech was nearly perfect. With a crowd size estimated to be in the range of 75,000, this was easily the largest crowd of the campaign and puts Trump's crowds to shame. Personally, it is difficult for me to find much about which to complain. If I were forced to identify a fault, I guess I would point to the absence of any mention of the Middle East. But I am not sure that there would have been much value in reiterating another empty call for a ceasefire. This also draws attention to the fact that despite Harris' promise to give opponents a seat at the table, supporters of the Palestinians have repeatedly been refused such a seat. Other posters had a litany of complaints. As usual, Harris' voice and speaking style were criticized. Some posters wanted more policy details. But for the most part, critics were left with distortions of her words, claiming that she had neglected issues that she actually mentioned, or desperately trying to change the subject. Harris was never going to please everyone, but overall, I think she achieved everything that she set out to do with this speech. She left Democrats excited, full of hope, and reinvigorated.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. The third most active thread was one titled, "Puerto Rico". All of the top threads that I will discuss today were posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and that will likely be the case for at least the next week and perhaps indefinitely after that depending on events. When I wrote yesterday about the thread discussing former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's Madison Square Garden rally, I mentioned "jokes" by Tony Hinchcliffe that many found offensive. One of those described Puerto Rico as an "island of garbage". The original poster of this thread embedded a tweet describing Vice President Kamala Harris' plan for Puerto Rico, which includes improving health care and rebuilding the power grid, and a video of Hinchcliffe's remarks. The original poster noted the contrast in messages. It is interesting how late in a campaign something unexpected can take on a life of its own. Think back to 2012 when Mitt Romney was filmed saying that "Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax". Romney was technically correct, but the context of the statement — he also described that 47 percent as dependent on the government and as considering themselves victims and was speaking to a room full of extremely wealthy people — infuriated many voters. The statement helped catalyze the impression that the election was a choice between a candidate who would serve the wealthy and a candidate supportive of the interests of the poor and middle class. In many ways, Romney's quote came to define that campaign. Hinchcliffe's "jokes" could well end up serving the same role this time around. Trump has always made opposition to immigration, especially by those from poor countries and specifically by Mexicans and other Hispanics, the bedrock of his campaigns. But over the years, Trump has been somewhat successful in convincing the public that he is really concerned with undocumented migrants and violent criminals and not the broader community of legal, Spanish-speaking immigrants. Hinchcliffe's jokes, however, tore away that facade. To many, Hinchcliffe demonstrated exactly what Trump and his supporters really believe about Hispanics, and not only undocumented migrants. Puerto Ricans, after all, are U.S. citizens. Along with a second joke about Latinos making babies, Hinchcliffe made clear that his target included all whose origins are poor Spanish-speaking countries (or in the case of Puerto Rico, a U.S. commonwealth). The impact seems to have been the waking of a sleeping giant. Puerto Ricans specifically and Hispanics generally are outraged. Throughout this thread posters report sending links to Hinchcliffe's remarks to friends and relatives. There are reportedly a half million Puerto Ricans in Pennsylvania, enough to easily sway the election to Harris. Several Republican politicians, understanding the electoral danger, criticized Hinchcliffe's remarks. The Trump campaign even disassociated itself. However, Trump himself has been silent. MAGAs in this thread are beside themselves, complaining that it was only a joke and refusing to recognize how Hinchcliffe's "jokes" have been received. MAGAs have never believed that they should suffer consequences for what they say. Their understanding of the 1st Amendment is that it allows them to say whatever they want without repercussions. Even criticizing their hateful statements is considered a free speech violation. The fact that they could lose an election as a result of a joke is beyond their ability to comprehend.

The most popular threads over the weekend were almost all political. Eight of the top 10 most active threads were in the main political forum, another one was in the local political forum, and one of the remaining two was in the family relationship forum but dealt with a political topic. That left only one non-political thread and was one that I've previously discussed and, therefore, will skip today. Moreover, all of these threads are very long and I can't read them in their entirety. The result is that today is going to be a lot of my own opinions on the threads rather than summaries of them. The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Women who say they aren't voting on the single issue of abortion rights" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As the title says, the original poster directed this thread towards those women who are not single issue abortion rights voters. The original poster asks them whether they have daughters, sisters, or nieces and lists several women's health issues that can be restricted by prohibitions on abortion. Essentially, the original poster is describing health risks to women presented by anti-abortion laws and asks why the women she is addressing would expose their loved ones to such dangers. In my opinion, there was no need for the original poster to limit this thread to women. Men also have daughters, sisters, or nieces, and wives. As such, this topic should be equally important to them. The position of anti-abortion posters in this thread basically amounts to a mass burial of heads in the sand. According to these posters, there are no unexpected negative ramifications to abortion bans. For instance, one poster writes, that "A D&C is not abortion", suggesting that a medically necessary dilation and curettage procedure would not be prevented by abortion bans. That would come as a surprise to Amber Thurman. It would, that is, if Thurman had not died after being denied a D&C due to Georgia's anti-abortion laws that classified the procedure as a felony for which doctors can be jailed for up to 10 years. As I am sure many others do, I find the abortion debate extremely frustrating. To be clear, I have no problem with abortion rights supporters. It is not for me to decide what women can do with their bodies. My issue is with those who want to restrict abortion. In this regard, I am much more sympathetic to those who believe that life begins at conception. I disagree with them, but I respect their belief. What I don't understand is how anyone can have that position and then support exceptions for which abortion is allowed. Aren't those, in these individuals' opinion anyway, exceptions for which murder is allowed? Similarly, I understand, and to an extent, agree with restrictions based on fetal viability. I just haven't seen evidence that there is any demand for aborting a fully viable fetus. Rather, there is limited demand for aborting fetuses that are incompatible with life and whose parents are devasted. I question the humanity of anyone who would force these parents to undergo unnecessary psychological and, in the case of the mother, potential medical, trauma. Between these two parameters, it is hard to see abortion restrictions as anything more than attempts to punish women for having sex. As a result, abortion restrictions might more honestly be called "sex restrictions". If men who support prohibiting abortion realized that they are actually supporting restrictions on sex, including for married men (married couples also have unwanted pregnancies), they might view this issue differently. Yes, yes, birth control exists, for now anyway. But birth control methods are imperfect and I don't see anyone supporting abortion exceptions for the cases in which birth control failed.

Yesterday's most active thread was one that I discussed in yesterday's blog post about predictions for the election winner. I'll skip that one today and start with a thread titled, "Michael Moore expects large female turnout on Abortion" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Frankly, this is the sort of thread that I hate and I should have deleted it as soon as it was created. Just about everything is wrong with the thread. As most probably know, Michael Moore is a filmmaker who has produced such movies as "Roger & Me", "Bowling for Columbine", and "Fahrenheit 9/11". Moore is also a political activist with left-wing populist views. He tends to be pretty perceptive. At a time when Washington pundits were literally laughing at the idea that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump might win the presidential election, Moore predicted — accurately as it turns out — that Trump would win. Apparently Moore has said something about female turnout in the election due to the abortion issue. The original poster did not link to any such statement and I haven't bothered to Google it and, as such, I have no idea what Moore said. Nor do any of the participants in the thread as far as I can tell. The original poster takes issue with Moore's expectation, asking where these women were in 2022. Before I read a single response in this thread, I already had a second reason for not liking it. The original poster's memory of 2022 is faulty. While it is true, as the original poster notes, that Republicans gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives, it was was by a small margin. Predictions had been for a "red wave" that was supposed to nearly wipe out the Democrats. The red wave never materialized. The Democratic loss can be attributed to New York State Democrats completely mishandling their redistricting process and basically handing several seats to Republicans. Where the women were in 2022, the original poster should know, was at the polls and voting for Democrats. Moreover, since then a number of special elections, ballot initiatives, and referendums have shown that the abortion issue has been a potent motivator of women. Again, without seeing Moore's actual statement, I would be more likely to criticize him for stating the obvious rather than for being wrong. There are a small number of MAGA women on DCUM who rush to threads like this to proclaim that they are not single issue voters and, to the extent that abortion is a priority at all to them, it is a very low one. But other women are just as strident to say that abortion rights, which realistically are inseparable from women's healthcare generally, are their prime motivator. The thread then turned into a debate about abortion which is the third reason that I hate this thread. DCUM has had innumerable abortion debates. There is nothing left to be said. If posters want to repeat the same arguments from countess previous threads, I have no issue with it but I would rather not have to read such posts for the millionth time. I seriously doubt that a single abortion rights proponent will change their mind because an anonymous MAGA called them a "baby killer" or claimed that Democrats support abortion after birth. I suppose that there is some hope that an abortion opponent might be persuaded when informed that abortion bans create health dangers for women that have nothing to do with abortion. Perhaps that is enough to justify this thread, but I am doubtful.

For the first time in a long time, yesterday's top 4 most active threads did not include any threads that I've already discussed. However, the top threads were heavily weighted towards the political forum, with 3 of the top 4 being posted there. The first of those was titled, "Who do you think is going to win and why?" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As you would expect, this thread mostly consists of posters responding with the name of the candidate they expect to win and, in most cases, some commentary supporting their answer. I've only skimmed this thread, but what I noticed is the very different attitudes generally reflected by Democrats and Republicans. For reasons that I've never understood, nearly the entire Democratic Party turns into Woody Allen during campaigns. Democrats in this thread are anxiety-ridden, pessimistic, and practically ready to concede before a single vote has been counted. Republicans, on the other hand, are euphoric and, opposite the Democrats, prepared to claim victory before a single vote has been counted. I suspect that both parties are being affected by the same Republican-led efforts. For weeks, Republican-leaning "polling firms" — I put that in quotes because these firms are really activist organizations pursing political agendas rather than authentic polling companies — have flooded the zone with garbage polls that show former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump easily winning the election. These polls have been used to convince Trump's cult followers that he is leading. One impact of this manufactured expectation is increased enthusiasm among MAGAs, but I suspect that the more important goal is to make eventual claims that the election was stolen more believable. If Trump loses, which I expect, he will say that the Democrats cheated and the proof is that he has been leading the polls. The near total conviction with which MAGAs have been predicting Trump's victory has rubbed off on others, including some Democrats. Democrats, predisposed to being disappointed in the first place, have generally been timid in pushing back on the Republican irrational exuberance. I've long understood that I could hardly act with the authority and alleged subject matter expertise that I do here in many places outside the DCUM sandbox. But that phenomenon is often even more extreme for our anonymous posters who are free to represent themselves any way that they would like. Based on some of the responses in this thread, our forum is filled with a number of Nate Silver and Nate Cohn wannabes. They crunch some numbers, provide some intelligent sounding analysis, and make their predictions. They sound like they know what they are talking about, but do they? Time will tell. I recently saw a warning on one of my social media feeds that professional campaigns have a lot of detailed data about voters and voting trends, going down to the block level. As such, they can make sense of information such as early voting numbers in ways that us mere mortals can't. Therefore, it is probably not wise to put too much emphasis on the data that is coming out now about early voting, mail-in ballots and such. Those who really know are probably not telling. My own prediction, based on little more than my gut and the analysis of pundits that I trust, is that Vice President Kamala Harris will edge out a comfortable victory. I have one caveat, however, which I will discuss later in this post.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Spin Off - Do a Kids’ Parents Political Views Impact You Allowing A Friendship?" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. With the election two weeks away and this website being based in Washington, DC, a lot of our users' minds are on politics. While we have two political forums — one for local politics and one for the rest — politics is finding its way into almost every forum. It's been a bit of whack-a-mole trying to keep up with them. That was the case with this thread which I didn't know about until earlier this morning when it was reported to me. Admittedly, the original poster has a nice story to discuss, dare I say heartwarming even. As the original poster explains, her daughter, who is Black, made friends at her public elementary school with another girl who is White. The other girl's parents supported a political candidate who the original poster could not stand. Because of these political differences, the original poster did not pursue a relationship with the other mother and hoped that the girls' friendship would die down. However, despite her hopes, the girls became best friends. Moreover, she discovered that the other girl and her mom were literally the nicest people she had ever met. The other family eventually moved away but after the George Floyd murder, the other mother wrote to the original poster describing how that had impacted her and asking if they could talk about it. The original poster never talked about politics with the other mother and the point of this post seems to be that close friendships are possible despite political differences. Fair enough, but I am not sure what this has to do with private and independent schools. Not surprisingly given DCUM's audience, most of those responding are Democrats. Therefore, the families who have different political views are mostly Republicans. What becomes clear almost immediately is that many of the posters make distinctions between traditional Republicans and supporters of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. The liberal posters don't seem to have much of an issue with those who are Republican because they support lower taxes, fewer business regulations, smaller government, and tough on crime public safety measures. But they have real problems with MAGAs. Most of the posters would be fine socializing with families whose political views are of the first category, but many would do their best to avoid those in the second. The posters who would avoid either Republicans generally or Trump supporters specifically are criticized for being intolerant and narrow-minded. But many of them offer no apologies for avoiding those who they claim are tolerant of racism, sexism, homophobia, and who support Trump despite his felony convictions and liability for sexual assault. I will say to my fellow liberals, particularly those who refuse to tolerate MAGAs, that you might consider opening your mind a bit. On a personal level, most MAGAs with whom I associate are very nice. Contrary to what you may believe, they don't have horns spouting from their heads. Generally they are not eager to bring up politics and, when they do, it is very gingerly. There is really no reason to be concerned about your kids making friends with their kids. As for this thread, it eventually turned into a general political debate that had no connection to the original topic, let alone private school issues. As a result, as soon as it was reported to me this morning I locked it.

The most active thread yesterday was the one that I discussed yesterday about the presidential candidates and McDonald's. I finally locked that thread because it was ridiculous. After that was a thread titled, "Divorced women in their 40s seem to be doing better in the dating market", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster repeats the claim made in the thread's title that divorced women in their 40s seem to be doing better in the dating market. Better than what is not quite clear. Better than when they were younger or better than other age groups? Who knows? The original poster makes a second claim that divorced men in their 40s are having less success. So perhaps she means that women in their 40s are doing better than men in their 40s? The original poster wonders why the women are more successful then men in this age group. If you detect an underlying note of skepticism in my tone, it is not your imagination. The original poster provides no information concerning how she arrived at these conclusions. Did she conduct a nationwide poll? Survey online dating sites? Or has she relied on purely anecdotal examples? Again, who knows? Nevertheless, most of those responding seem to accept the original poster's claims as true. This thread was really hard for me to follow because many of the posters seem to be on a completely different wavelength than me, and frequently from each other. Like the original poster, those responding kept making broad pronouncements about the state of dating but then, almost universally, someone popped up to contradict the statements. For instance, in response to the claim that men in their 40s are having less success, men in that age bracket posted about having tremendous success with dating, even — as one says — when balding with a "dad bod". Several responses suggest that short-lived flings are not hard to find. Many posters made clear that there are lots of divorced women in their 40s who are not interested in long term relationships, but rather are seeking short term intimacy. In those cases, there are plenty of younger guys willing to serve, not to mention men of the same age. Therefore, the success that divorced women in their 40s may be experiencing could be simply due to their interest in brief sexual encounters, something for which there is obviously always a market. One suggestion that comes up repeatedly is that while women in their 40s interested in sexual hookups can easily find younger guys, who for that specific purpose might be better prospects, guys in their 40s can't as easily find younger women. But guys in their 40s don't seem to be suffering from relationship droughts. In some cases they are finding matches with women who are seeking longer term or more serious relationships and, in other instances, their wallets make up for their other shortcomings. After reading this thread, I am fairly confident that the only generalization that can be made about divorced folks in their 40s and dating is that you can't make any generalizations. If there is anything eye-opening about this thread — and it is only eye-opening because I really hadn't thought about it before — it is the large number of women, especially those who are divorced, in their 40s who are not interested in long term relationships. If they were seeking such relationships, I suspect that their rate of success would be considerably lower.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Al Smith Dinner" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump was "hilarious" during his appearance at the "Al Smith Dinner", formally named the "Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner". The dinner is an annual white tie event that raises funds for Catholic charities in the Archdiocese of New York during which politicians exchange lighthearted jokes and are supposed to set aside differences for the night. While Trump attended the dinner this year, Vice President Harris chose to skip the event in order to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan. Harris did provide a video in which she spoke while being repeatedly interrupted by Molly Shannon in a reprise of her “Saturday Night Live” character Mary Katherine Gallagher, a Catholic schoolgirl. Trump's speech was quite pointed and, in several instances. off-color. Many of the posters responding in the thread agreed with the original poster that Trump was very funny. They did not seem concerned about whether or not Trump's jokes were appropriate for a ceremony hosted and attended by Catholic leaders. What this thread really demonstrates is the insatiable urge by conservatives to turn everything into a controversy. They immediately criticized Harris' absence, describing it as an insult to all Catholics and a personal snub of Cardinal Timothy Dolan. They also panned Harris' video which many seemed not to understand. Conservative posters made predictions that missing the dinner would harm Harris' election prospects and portrayed her absence as a huge political miscalculation. Trump's opponents were either critical of the former President or simply didn't care, even if they agreed that he was funny at times. It is doubtful that anyone attending the dinner or watching it remotely would change their vote as a result. Most voters have already made up their minds and the few who remain undecided have failed to have been swayed by a lot more important things than a fundraising dinner. Several critics of the Catholic Church in the thread were happy that Harris missed the dinner. One pointed out that just days earlier the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had agreed to a payment of $880 Million to settle sex abuse cases. These posters didn't think Harris should be doing anything to honor the Catholic Church. Moreover, many posters were not particularly impressed with Trump's speech. One poster described it as, "Poor delivery. Looking down and mumbling a bunch of someone else's dumb jokes." One of Trump's jokes that seemed to get lots of good reviews was based on a falsehood that appears to have been accepted as fact by many Trump supporters. Trump said that he didn't know men could get periods until he met Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. This seemed to allude to an accusation — subsequently proven to be false — that Walz was responsible for a law requiring that tampons be placed in high school boys bathrooms. In fact, Minnesota's schools did not do such a thing though Republicans widely believe that they did.