August

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Breakfast drama", and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she has a 5 year old child who is just starting kindergarten. She and her husband divide up parenting duties in the morning. While one parent is getting ready, the other serves breakfast to their daughter and then the first parent takes the child to school. Two days this week the original poster's husband was responsible for breakfast. The first day, he served the girl toast with peanut butter. When the original poster took over, her daughter had not eaten and wanted jelly with the peanut butter. They didn't have jelly and the girl refused to eat. The original poster, believing that eating before going to school was more important than a food struggle, quickly made her cereal. The next day, the original poster's husband attempted to serve the same leftover toast with peanut butter which, again, the child refused to eat. This time the original poster made oatmeal and an egg. The original poster is worried that her husband thinks that she is coddling the child but she is also frustrated with her husband for providing the leftover breakfast which the girl had already rejected. This post involves at least three very touchy issues: 1) child-parent relationships; 2) husband-wife relationships; and 3) food. DCUM posters have strong feelings about all three and even a single one of these topics could have provoked a long thread, let alone all three at once. Many posters focus on the first issue concerning how the parents are handling their child. While a few favor the "eat this or nothing" rule for meals, most prefer offering the child at least limited choices. Once the choice has been made, the child is expected to eat it. Because the original poster was not there when her husband provided the toast with peanut butter, she doesn't know whether the child initially requested it. However, she faults her husband, as do many other posters, for providing the day-old bread with peanut butter on the second day. Some posters say that at kindergarten age, their kids were already able to take care of their own breakfast. Regarding the original poster's relationship with her husband, a few posters believe that her husband is trying to fail so that he will be relieved of responsibility for breakfast due to incompetence. The original poster doesn't think this is the case because he wants to do it, but she says he is very stubborn. Some posters argue that the original poster should stay out of her husband's breakfast choices and let him deal with it, but that means that the original poster would end up taking a melting-down hungry child to school. Others say that the original poster should just have a conversation about the issue with her husband and work out ways to address this sort of thing. Finally, the issue of food. Posters have a range of opinions about what children should eat in the morning. From "anything" at one end of the spectrum to "must be protein" on the other. Probably the only thing those responding agreed about is that day-old toast with peanut butter is not appropriate.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Sooo am I just the best parent ever or are the others complete duds?" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster is very proud of herself because she just completed a 3 hour flight with her preschool and elementary school-aged children. She had packed lots of games and engaged her children constantly during the flight. Meanwhile she noticed that other kids on the airplane were all using iPads while their parents used their phones. The original poster feels she is superior to the other parents because she used the travel time for talking and engaging with her kids while the other parents did not. The original poster did not post again until the 13th page of the thread at which point she criticized DCUM posters as "screen-addicted parents with screen-addicted kids". In terms of the replies, one of the posters responding basically did my job for me by writing a lengthy post that described the types of replies the thread received. I'll just crib some points from that post. As the poster noted, there was not agreement among posters about what constituted "good parenting". Many posters considered that good parenting was determined by how little their children bothered other passengers. In this regard, providing a child with a iPad and headphones is great parenting if it keeps the child quiet and still during the flight. Other posters, including the original poster, based their judgement on what they believed to be best for the child. But members of this group were not in complete agreement with each other because there were differences of opinion about what was best for the child. The original poster believes that engagement with a parent is best while others have different ideas, including the suggestion that using an iPad might be best. Another group of posters prioritized what is best for the parent. Because travelling can be stressful and parents, especially moms, are expected to not only plan and pack for themselves, but the children as well, the plane ride may be the only time parents will have to relex and de-stress. An iPad can help distract the kids while the parents have a break. The bottom line is that almost all posters beyond the original poster and a very few others view children using iPads on airplanes as potentially good parenting, rather than bad as the original poster believes. This includes posters whose families are "screen-free" in most other circumstances, but make allowances for air travel. As you would expect, there are plenty of posts that are critical of the original poster who is considered "judgemental", a "troll", and someone who likely has parenting failures as well and probably shouldn't be so smug. More than one poster noted that for all of her criticism of screens and screen-addicted adults, the original poster was using a screen to post on DCUM and appeared to be quite familiar with the website, suggesting frequent screen use. But, I'm sure the original poster can quit at any time.

I'm skipping yesterday's two most active threads because they are ones that I've already discussed. The third most active thread yesterday was titled, "Bible verse card at work", and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster says that she is a public school teacher and that yesterday every teacher received a sealed envelope in their school mailbox containing a personalized Bible verse signed by a local church. The original poster is very upset and believes that the school secretary must have been involved in allowing the envelopes to be distributed. The original poster considers this an unacceptable intrusion of religion into a secular space. Responses can be categorized as three different types. There are many posters who think the Bible verses were harmless and many of these posters consider sending the verses to have been a nice gesture. This group believes the original poster is wrong to feel offended. Next are posters who agree with the original poster that distributing Bible verses in public school teachers' mailboxes is inappropriate. But they simply don't consider it to be a big enough deal to be upset about. They would have tossed the envelopes in the trash and not given them a second thought. Third were those posters who both agree with the original poster that the envelopes were inappropriate and that their distribution was worthy of a response. The original poster said that she had talked to her principal and emailed the church, steps that are consistent with the advice offered by other posters. Other public school teachers posted about the intrusion of religion into their schools. This includes prayers during meetings at which attendance is required and the reading of Bible verses at staff functions. Many posters argue that this is not only an unwelcome violation of the separation of church and state, but potentially an illegal one as well. Those who support the Church in this episode argue that it is simply the Church's right of free speech to distribute the Bible verses. What is particularly notable about this group is what I can only describe as their passive aggressive methods of practicing Christianity. The thread is full of such things as offers to "pray for" the original poster that are clearly not meant to be true offers to help the original poster in anyway. Rather, these are clearly attempts to further poke her. In addition, as several posters point out, it is very likely that the same posters who so adamantly claim support for the 1st Amendment that would be among the first to support banning books that offend them. Moreover, these folks have a very specific understanding of the 1st Amendment. Even if we disregard the establishment clause issues of distributing Bible verses at a public school, many of the supporters of that action don't seem to recognize a similar free expression right to oppose the activity. If we accept that a church can send teachers Bible verses, certainly we must also agree that a teacher has a right to vocally oppose the church's action. But many among the pro-Church crowd consider that to be intolerant and, because liberals are supposed to be tolerant, hypocritical (they also assume the original poster is a liberal).

Yesterday's most active discussion was titled, "JK Rowling's gender policing finally caught up to her", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I am sure that by now everyone has heard about the controversy involving Algerian boxer Imane Khelif and the Olympics. But for anyone who has been locked away in a cave, here is a summary. Khelif was identified at birth as a female, raised as a female, and has competed in boxing as a female for several years. After she defeated a Russian boxer, the Russian President of the International Boxing Association, Umar Kremlev, claimed that tests showed that she has XY chromosomes and, therefore, is a man. Kremlev disqualified Khelif, along with Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu Ting, from competition. Notably, Kremlev has not revealed which tests were conducted or who conducted them. Nor have the results other than his general statement been provided. The International Olympic Committee has suspended relations with the IBA and rejects its findings regarding Khelif and Lin. It is important to remember that allegations that Khelif has XY chromosomes and tested high in testosterone come only from Kremlev and have not been confirmed otherwise. While many posters in this thread assume Kremlev's allegations are true, that remains an open question. Regardless, Khelif's participation in the Olympics led to a wave of on-line hate and bigotry towards her. Some prominent individuals, including J. K. Rowling and Elon Musk, joined in and encouraged those attacks. In response, Khelif has filed a complaint in French courts accusing those two and others of cyberbullying. The original poster of this thread is doubtful that successful legal action would do anything to temper Rowling's attacks on women who do not conform to her own rigid gender norms, but is happy that Rowling may at least suffer financial repercussions.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Failed my test" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she had a date with a guy who was in many respects great. He is close to her age, has a great job, and is a decent guy. While the original poster found him to be a bit too publicly affectionate for her taste, she doesn't seem to have been overly bothered by that. What really put her off however is a "test" that she uses to filter the men that she dates. She offered to split the check for their dinner and he accepted. In this way, he failed her test. She fully expects her offers to split the check to be politely declined. She believes that this is an indication of a man's generosity and his willingness to care for her. Despite the date being otherwise good, she has no plans for a second date because this guy failed her test. Before going any further, I should address the issue of whether or not this poster is a troll. I received about a half dozen reports suggesting that is the case. All I can say is that this thread is consistent with previous threads by the poster and, despite posting 34 times in the thread, she did nothing to suggest that she was trolling. Instead, she repeatedly stuck to the same message: that she is a high-earning, divorced, mid-40s, professional woman who has the luxury of being picky about men and has strongly held views about gender roles. This does not mean that she has purely traditional ideas about gender roles — she says that she contributed equally if not more to expenses in her marriage and a subsequent long term relationship — but she feels strongly that a woman should not be seen to pay for food in public. Needless to say, not every poster who responded was impressed with the original poster's test. The test was variously described as "idiotic", "silly", and a test of whether her date could "read your mind". While the original poster didn't really care about the amount she ended up paying — she has plenty of money and can easily afford it — other posters tended to fixate on that aspect. The topic of splitting checks on dates has come up a lot in the relationship forum. Some women are uncomfortable with the practice of guys picking up the check and some guys resent the financial burden it places on them. As such, this is a part of dating, particularly first dates, in which there is no agreed upon practice and expectations may differ. That contributes to the view among many of those responding that the original poster's test is flawed and she is wrong to adhere to it so strictly. Many posters have no problem with the guy agreeing to split the check, but they are bothered by his physical forwardness. They consider that a much bigger red flag and are astonished that the original poster, while expressing her discomfort with it, was not more bothered by his aggressiveness. As best as I can deduce, the original poster considers his attempts at public affection to be an indication that he is an "alpha male" which is not something that really displeases her. Rather, it was her date's departure from this alpha male persona when he allowed her to split the check that bothered her. Not all of those responding were critical of the original poster's test. Some thought it was a good screening mechanism. Far more common, however, were posters who thought that the guy was a loser who should have been rejected for multiple reasons. They didn't care which specific reason motivated the original poster and his failure of her test was as good as reason as any to pass on further dates with him.

Yesterday was another day in which many of the most active threads were ones that I've previously discussed. As a result, the first thread that I will discuss today was actually the fourth most active yesterday. Titled, "Trump's rambling speech today" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, this thread was actually started back in January when former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump gave a speech in which he confused Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi and made number of other errors. Yesterday, the thread added seven new pages of posts due to a press conference that Trump held at Mar-a-Lago. Posters live-posted throughout the event and provided a running commentary. The tone of yesterday's discussion was set by the first poster to comment on the press conference who wrote, "Good lord, this man is totally detached from reality...". In many ways the press conference was simply a repetition of Trump's greatest hits and most of his answers could have been easily clipped from any of his recent rallies. Typical of Trump, he spewed a cascade of lies and misinformation. For instance, Trump claimed that he had attracted crowds on the National Mall that were larger than Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington speech. He also described a near death experience in a helicopter in which he was flying with California politician Willie Brown. Brown later said that he had never been in a helicopter with Trump. On the other hand, California Governor Gavin Newsom said that he and Trump used a helicopter to tour fire damage during Trump's time as President but that they didn't come close to crashing. Trump may have confused Willie Brown with former Governor Jerry Brown who was also on the flight. Trump also claimed that he had given Israel the Golan Heights. Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 after occupying them since 1967. The mainstream media has spent two days debating the difference between Tim Walz "serving as a Command Sergeant Major at the time he retired" and "retired as a Command Sergeant Major". Yet, Trump's slew of lies will get very little attention. Another thing that has constantly bothered me about media coverage of Trump is the practice of cleaning up Trump's way of speaking. Trump will ramble incoherently from one topic to another and back again, hardly making any sense at all and the New York Times will report that "His wide-ranging remarks were sometimes meandering." That's like saying that Fidel Castro's famous 7 hour speeches "ran a little long". Technically accurate but hardly conveying the truth. Even worse was when Trump was asked whether he would ban mifepristone, a drug used in medicated abortions that account for about half of U.S. abortions. Trump's answer was, "You could do things that will be — would supplement absolutely and those things are pretty open and humane, but you have to be able to have a vote. And all I want to do is give everybody a vote, and the votes are taking place right now as we speak." How did the New York Times cover this gobbledygook answer addressing one of the most important issues of concern to voters? It ignored it completely.

Two of the threads that I discussed yesterday were also the top two most active threads again yesterday. Because I've already discussed those threads, I'll start with what was yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Cori Bush defeated in Primary" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is obviously about the defeat of Representative Cory Bush — note that the original poster misspelled her name — in Missouri's primary election on Tuesday. But, more than that, the thread is about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC. Bush is a member of the "Squad", a group of progressive members of Congress who have failed to join in the lockstep support of Israel that is normal in the U.S. Congress. In American politics, if an elected official is not nearly 100% supportive of Israel, the official is considered "anti-Israel" or even "anti-Semitic". This has been the fate of most members of the Squad. For years AIPAC denied that it was involved in campaign funding, arguing that despite its name, it was not a political action committee or PAC. That was true. While AIPAC was not a PAC, its board members were linked to a number of PACs that contributed in a coordinated fashion to have tremendous financial influence on elections. I am not exactly sure when, but fairly recently AIPAC seems to have decided to end the charade. The organization created a related PAC called AIPAC PAC and not only contributes directly to campaigns, but in contrast to its past evasiveness about contributions, is now quite happy to have its influence publicized. Consistent with this new posture, AIPAC has been looking for scalps. AIPAC's modus operandi has been to focus on a candiate who has inherent weaknesses. In some cases these candidates have not even been anti-Israel. For instance, in the primary to choose a Democratic candidate to run for Katie Porter's open seat, AIPAC supported Joanna Weiss against Dave Min despite the two having nearly identical records regarding Israel. AIPAC is estimated to have spent over $1 million opposing Min, attacking him primarily because of a past DUI. Min nevertheless won the election. AIPAC is not always motivated by religion either. In 2022, AIPAC contributed heavily to defeat Michigan Representative Andy Levin who is not only Jewish, but had been president of his synagogue. During the current round of primaries, AIPAC has focused on Representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cory Bush. Bowman had been weakened by redistricting that created a district that was not very favorable for him. Bush is under investigation for illegal use of campaign funds. In addition, neither candidate has been particularly good at their job. In these candidates, AIPAC found vulnerable enemies and poured millions of dollars into defeating them. In the case of Bush, AIPAC spent at least $8 million and, in its opposition to Bowman, a whopping $14 million. On the other hand, AIPAC has more or less left alone Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib and Minnesotta Representative Ilhan Omar, both effective politicians who are popular among their constituents. Tlaib was unopposed in her primary on Tuesday. AIPAC also targeted Pennsylvania Representative Summer Lee, spending $2 million through its United Democracy Project. Lee prevailed in her primary and AIPAC is now spending in support of her Republican opponent in the November general election. As in this thread, discussion of AIPAC and its influence can be touchy. Not everyone involved in funding AIPAC and its PACs is Jewish, but the organization is certainly dominated by Jews. Criticism can quickly become uncomfortably close to the anti-Semitic trope about rich Jews controlling politics. While AIPAC is not actually controlling political outcomes, it is certainly having significant influence. Moreover, that is not an influence about which the organization is in anyway shy. At least not these days.

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.

The most active thread yesterday was again the thread about Vice President Kamala Harris' choice for running mate. But I've already discussed that thread and will skip it today. The most active thread after that one was titled, "How will the stock market crash impact the elections?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. A similar thread was also created in the "Money and Finances" forum but I decided to leave both threads since they had different focuses. That thread was the 9th most active yesterday. The thread in the political forum was started early yesterday before financial markets had opened in the U.S. The original poster described stock market meltdowns in Japan and South Korea and predicted a crash in the U.S. market. He wondered how this would impact the election. Normally, the current administration receives blame for any economic problems that occur under its watch. Therefore, several posters thought that blame for a market crash would rest with President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. However, as is the case with everything these days, responses mostly broke down along partisan political lines. Conservatives seemed eager, almost joyful, at the prospect of a stock market collapse. They couldn't contain their excitement over the opportunity to criticize Harris due to economic problems. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump posted in all caps on Truth Social that "STOCK MARKETS CRASHING. I TOLD YOU SO!!! KAMALA DOESN’T HAVE A CLUE." Liberals, on the other hand, suggested that we wait and see exactly what happens with U.S. markets. Moreover, they pointed to multiple significant market drops during Trump's administration. Some posters accepted that there might be a significant market collapse, but expected recovery by the Fall. All of this was before the U.S. markets even opened. Posters debated whether we were facing a collapse of the market that could lead to ongoing economic problems, including a recession, that could involve significant job losses or whether this was a simple market correction from which we would soon recover. Fairly soon it became apparent that this wasn't much of a downturn at all, let alone a major collapse. While on a day to day basis most stocks lost some value the market has grown so much lately that the set back was minimal at best. Just over an hour after the stock exchanges opened, one poster wrote, "Well, that market correction was short lived." Despite the constant complaints about inflation and equally common predictions of an imminent recession, the Biden/Harris administrations appears to have pulled off a nearly mythical soft landing. While economists such as Larry Summers predicted 10% unemployment would be necessary to control inflation, Biden and Harris have roped in inflation with unemployment around 4%. Based on today's market opening, I would say that we are already recovering from this "crash" and yesterday will be long forgotten by the November election.

As has been the case recently, the political forum dominated discussion over the weekend. All but two of the ten most active topics were in the political forum. The most active thread was titled, "Second Gentleman scandal" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an article by the Daily Mail that reported that Vice President Kamala Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff had an affair during his first marriage. The website claimed that Emhoff was involved with a woman who was a nanny for his children and a teacher at their school. Moreover, Emhoff apparently impregnated the women. The Daily Mail reported that friends of the woman said that she terminated the pregnancy but also reported on a video posted on the woman's Facebook page that showed a baby around the time she would have given birth. The result is that it is not clear whether the woman gave birth to Emhoff's child and, if so, what happened to it. In reaction to the story, Emhoff released a statement confirming the affair and saying that he had taken responsibility for the situation, though it is not clear what that entailed. Other relevant facts of this story are that the affair happend at least four years before Harris and Emhoff met each other. However, Harris was aware of the affair when they got married and the story was known by the Biden campaign when Harris was selected as his running mate. Clearly this story tarnishes Emhoff's otherwise pretty good reputation. But, as many posters in the thread were quick to point out, Emhoff is not running for anything and the affair has nothing to do with Harris. Moreover, posters who support former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump are not in a position to criticize Emhoff given the fact that Trump cheated on all three of his wives. in addition, according to court testimony and FBI documents, one of those wives, Marla Maples, had multiple affairs herself while married to Trump. So, if being a cheater or being married to a cheater is a problem for a presidential candidate, that's bad news for Trump. But none of this stopped the MAGA cultists who were posting in the thread. Either they were sure a child had been born and that Harris had abandoned it or they were sure that the nanny had had an abortion and that had some negative reflection on Harris. Either way, according to them, it was bad for Harris. While Trump himself seems to be fixated on Harris' race and ethnicity and his choice for Vice President, J. D. Vance, is preoccupied with Harris' not having given birth, many MAGA cultists, including several of those posting in this thread, have decided that Harris sex life — whether real or imagined — is their best issue. For instance, Valentina Gomez, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State in Missouri, recently tweeted that, "Fat & Slut shaming is how we take America Back. Kamala Harris is an Indian hoe". Many posters in this thread seemed to have signed on to this agenda with many using Emhoff's past to disparage Harris, despite her having no connection to it. Other MAGA cultists simply used the thread as an opportunity to directly attack Harris in terms similar to what Gomez tweeted. As such, I eventually locked the thread.

Yesterday was another day in which the "Political Discussion" forum dominated. Fully 8 of the top 10 most active threads were posted in that forum. That includes three of the top four threads  that I will discuss today. The most active thread was titled, "Uh, seems like Trump's visit to the NABJ is not going well...". This thread is about an appearance by former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump at a conference of the National Association of Black Journalists. As the title suggests, things did not go well. Trump's attendance at the conference was controversial before he even arrived. Convention co-chair Karen Attiah resigned in protest over the invitation to Trump and other journalists boycotted the event. There were enough controversies during Trump's appearance — which ended prematurely when Trump's aids intervened — to fill a book. Right out of the gate Trump called ABC News "fake news" and described a question — in which panelist Rachel Scott listed several of Trump's statements about people of color — as "very rude". Then Trump questioned Vice President Kamala Harris' ethnicity, saying that he had known her for a long time and she had always been of Indian heritage. Trump claimed that she suddenly "turned Black". Trump spewed lies at such a rate that the panel of journalists questioning him couldn't keep up correcting him and, eventually, simply gave up. When Fox News' Harris Falkner asked Trump whether his running mate, Ohio Senator J. D. Vance would be ready on day one to run the country if necessary, Trump ignored the question and argued that historically the pick for Vice President didn't affect the election. That was not much of a vote of confidence for Vance. Within the thread the topic that caught on the most was the issue of Harris' ethnicity. Like Trump, several of his supporters in the thread sought to downplay Harris' race. Both Trump and his supporters seem to struggle with the concept of being biracial. Pro-Trump posters pointed to instances in which Harris has identified as being Indian as if that is proof that she is not Black. One poster made the false claim that Harris' father was half-White. These allegations harken back to Barack Obama and claims that he was not "Black enough". It is not at all clear to me what Trump and his supporters hope to gain from questioning Harris' race. The number of Black people who will be convinced that Harris is not Black based on what Trump has to say must be close to zero. Maybe a few White people might go along with Trump, but the likelihood that they would have ever voted for Harris in the first place is also probably close to zero. Basically, this is a stupid tactic with no real benefit and Trump's supporters in this thread are simply stupid enough to go along with it.