Tuesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread by a long measure was titled, "She picked Tim" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster posted just after CNN revealed that Vice President Kamala Harris had selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate. The original poster didn't have much to say and the entire text of the first post was "Now what?" The answer to that was over 100 pages of debate. The state of the Vice President selection process up to that point had appeared to have been a choice between Walz and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Posters had debated between these two candidates and others for days. Walz had come to be seen as the "progressive" candidate because he had the support of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and other progressives. Shapiro, on the other hand, appeared to have the support of the Democratic establishment and, according to many posters, former President Barack Obama. When news broke that Walz was Harris' choice, reaction mostly broke along those lines. The Walz supporters were ecstatic while Shapiro fans were disappointed. Many of these posters complained that Walz was too liberal and that his selection signaled that Harris was capitulating to the left. At least since former President Bill Clinton made his first run for President, candidates have been expected to have their "Sister Souljah" moments. The term was coined when Clinton spoke to the Rainbow Coalition and criticized the then popular rap star for comments she had made regarding the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Sister Souljah moments have become a rite of passage for Democratic candidates to demonstrate that they are not beholden to the left wing of their party. Arguably, Shapiro has already had his Sister Souljah moment when he compared college students protesting Israel's war on Gaza to the KKK. While this may have put him in good graces with party centrists, it alienated him from many of the younger and further left voters. Walz, on the other hand, is unlikely to trouble himself with a Sister Souljah moment. Walz' support from the left was not a result of his own policies — those have been pretty much in the mainstream of Democratic politics. Rather, Walz has a number of characteristics that caused progressives such as Sanders to support him. First and foremost, Walz is committed to improving the lives of ordinary people. Second, he has been effective, using a one vote majority in the Minnesota state legislature to pass nearly his entire agenda. Third, Walz has a history of working in coalitions. He is focused on results and willing to work with either those on his left or those on his right — or even both at the same time — to get results. Therefore, progressives favored him because they can be confident that Walz is much more likely to view them as potential coalition partners rather than a group that he must publicly rebuke for political credibility. And, when they do work with him, they will probably get results. This is actually a case of the left demonstrating the type of political pragmatism and compromise that centrists have constantly demanded from them. Unfortunately, that compromise on the part of many on the left has been misinterpreted by some to their right to suggest that Walz is far more liberal than is true. Walz' popularity across the Democratic spectrum was evident by the fact that his selection as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate was applauded by both Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Joe Manchin. As Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, this may be the first time that those two agreed on anything. Among Republican posters in the thread, the tendency was to simply cast Walz as a far left liberal. Having gone in for a penny, Republicans were quickly willing to go in for a dollar. The allegations against Walz went from his being "far left" to him being a "socialist" to claims Walz is a "communist" and so on. Most of these posters knew nothing of Walz or his record and had nothing intelligent to say.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. Titled, "Where did you absolutely hate?", the original poster wants to hear about places that others visited but did not like and would not visit again. Each time I discuss a thread like this I say the same thing. So I'll just get it out of the way. I really don't enjoy threads that are mostly just lists. Nor do I like threads that are negative. It is no fun or even particularly easy to summarize a thread in which each post is basically just a list of places. As for the negativity, there will always be someone offended that someone else doesn't like a place that they enjoy. Travel destinations are very personal. Moreover, experiences can be very localized. For instance, in this thread several posters list London as a travel destination that they hated. But another poster was more specific, saying that she didn't enjoy the SoHo and Covent Garden areas of London. It makes sense that someone might generally enjoy a city as large as London but dislike certain parts of it. Along the same lines, when a poster said that she didn't enjoy either Miami or Orlando Florida and would avoid the entire state in the future, another poster argued that those were the two worst places in Florida to visit and she should not judge the entire state on their basis. Ultimately, individuals have different tastes. While some posters dislike Tokyo, others love it. Some posters prefer destinations that cater to tourists and provide a high level of service, others want to avoid the touristy destinations and get off the beaten path. Each would hate the other's choice. I don't really have more to say about this thread and I would much prefer a thread about places people loved rather than those they hated.

Next was a thread titled, "Usha Vance" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Soon after Ohio Senator J. D. Vance was announced as the running mate of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, many DCUM posters were introduced to his wife Usha for the first time. There seemed to be general agreement — which I practically had to do nothing to enforce — that Usha Vance would be out-of-bounds as far as political discussion was concerned. The same cannot be said for her fashion choices which came in for withering attack in the beauty forum. But, in the political forum, to the extent that anyone's opinions were voiced, the feeling seemed to be that as an well-educated, women of color who was working in big law, she might have a lot in common with the average DCUMer. Moreover, given that J. D. Vance had not long ago been a vocal Trump critic, it was considered likely that Usha was probably a secret Trump opponent. There was considerable sympathy for what many thought was her likely difficult position. This changed dramatically after Usha was interviewed by Fox News. In the interview, Usha completely misrepresented her husband's remarks about "childless cat women" in an attempt to put them in a good light. Moreover, the original poster of this thread was upset that Usha, as the mother of biracial children, would continue to defend Trump despite his attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris due to her ethnicity. Throughout this thread, Usha comes in for considerable criticism. Rather than the sympathetic figure forced to endure her husband's politics that she was initially considered to be, many posters now viewed her as willingly complicit. Posters went back to her time at Yale Law School and her relationship with Professors Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld, which led to clerk ships with right-wing judges, to argue that she has always been aligned with the right wing and, therefore, probably agrees with much of what her husband and Trump are espousing. On the other hand, Usha still has her defenders in this thread. Many of those are posters who are right-wing themselves and support much of the Trump/Vance agenda. Others argue that despite her public statements, Usha might not share those values. One poster pointed out that at the time she met J. D., Usha would have had no idea where he would end up politically. Many of the posts in this thread veer off from politics and focus on personal aspects of Usha's life. Perhaps because of those, there is considerable criticism by some posters that the thread is full of racism. Ironically, it appears to be White posters making those allegations while Indian posters object to that description.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "I can never reach DH when he’s out with friends." The original poster says that her husband always keeps his phone with him but when he is out with his friends, she can never get in touch with him. As an example, at the time that the original poster was writing, her husband had been at a golf tournament for 10 hours. She had texted him to ask when he would be home so that she could prepare dinner, but he ignored her text. She says this happens all the time and he never has good excuses for why he ignores her. The original poster wants to know if there is anything she can do to fix the situation or whether she should just accept that he is a selfish jerk. Many posters suggest that the original posters is too controlling and overly monitors her husband. This perception is furthered by the original poster's use of "Find My" on her husband's iPhone to track his location. This provokes a tangent discussion about using programs such as "Find My" to track spouses. Many posters say they don't use such programs and don't know anyone who does. Other posters are under the impression that most married couples do. Some posters are very put off by such programs and suggest that using such programs is a sign of being too controlling. The bottom line is that several posters conclude that the original poster's husband probably resents how much the original poster keeps tabs on him. Another suggestion is that her husband might be prevented from using his phone due to golf course rules. But the original poster rejects that idea because he also ignores her when he is not golfing. Another suggestion is that because her husband knows that the original poster is tracking him with "Find My", he may have left his phone some place so that he could be free from surveillance. That would explain his failure to respond to her texts. However, it raises other questions about what he might be doing if he is not actually at the golf course. Several posters don't see a problem with the original poster's husband ignoring her texts. They suggest that he needs time away from her and that he might not want to interrupt whatever he is doing to respond to her. Others understand that the original poster might want to know when her husband is coming home so that she could plan dinner. But others suggest that she not worry about her husband's dinner. If he is not there to eat, he will simply miss out.