Tuesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was titled, "Honestly asking Trump voters: how can you support him after this bizarre episode?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a Washington Post article about a bizarre incident involving former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and asks what the thinking is of those who continue supporting someone who is so obviously mentally declining. The incident in question occurred during a town hall meeting Trump was holding in Pennsylvania. The event was interrupted twice by medical emergencies involving audience members. But after those were addressed, Trump suddenly said that he was done taking questions and suggested that music be played. He spent the next 39 minutes slowing dancing on stage as a list of his own personal bangers was played. Even before Trump decided that he would dance the night away, he had already displayed a lack of mental acuity. When an audience member noted that her grocery bill was still very high and asked Trump what he would do about inflation, Trump replied that people mention grocery prices to him a lot. But then Trump started talking about farmers and Chinese President Xi. Trump went on to say, "But you asked another question about safety and also about Black population jobs..". The audience member had not brought up those things at all. Trump then veered into talking about immigration and unions. After that, Trump rambled on about Hannibal Lecter for a while before turning his attention to the Border Patrol. Trump then discussed Springfield, Ohio, a city whose Haitian population he has falsely accused of eating pet cats and dogs, though he didn't bring pets up on this occasion. Finally, Trump wrapped up by complaining about early voting. Nothing in this response addressed how Trump would combat inflation. This thread is 23 pages long and I can't read it all. But from what I did read it looks like many posters provided additional evidence that Trump is losing his mental capacity. The day after his town hall, he cancelled a scheduled interview with CNBC. While he did appear at a question and answer session before the Chicago Economic forum, that did not go well for him. When asked if he would break up Google, Trump went on a tangent about voting rolls in Virginia, never mentioning Google. When President Biden was still in the race, conservatives repeatedly highlighted the slightest mental lapse he experienced, accusing Biden-supporters of being in denial about his condition. Now, the tables have turned and Trump-supporters deny what is plain for everyone to see. Just imagine the conservative reaction if Biden had spent 39 minutes swaying to music while in the midst of a town hall? Conservatives in this thread either simply denied that Trump is showing cognitive decline, claiming that liberals are providing biased descriptions of events. Otherwise, they tried desperately to change the subject. Their most frequent diversion was to Biden, who of course, is no longer a candidate.

The next three most active threads were ones that I've previously discussed, leading to another thread posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. That thread was titled, "Immigration - how is it such a huge issue in this race?" The original poster notes a phenomenon that I've also observed which is that those most fixated on immigration as an election issue don't really seem to be affected by it. The original poster notes a number of benefits from immigration and says that in her experience immigration is a good thing. She asks others to explain how immigration has become such a major issue. The first poster to respond reflects my own thinking perfectly, saying that "Trump made it an issue because he had nothing else to run on". Trump actually made this clear when he urged Republican senators to vote against the bipartisan immigration bill that had been authored by a very conservative Republican senator. Trump did not want the bill to pass because he wanted to be able to attack Democrats on immigration. Just about the only issue that posters can cite in which they are personally impacted by immigration is schools. They complain that schools are overcrowded and and too many resources are devoted to non-English speaking students. Still, even in these cases, it is not clear if the posters are describing schools their kids attend or if these schools are more theoretical. While Republicans are often quick to claim that they are only against unauthorized immigration and have nothing against legal immigrants, responses in this thread also demonstrate opposition to legal immigration in some cases. For example, some posters expressed concern about visas offered to immigrants who can be employed in hard to fill jobs, often in the tech sector. Generally posters appeared unable to give first-hand examples of how immigration has negatively impacted them and, instead, spoke generally about immigration. Considerable effort was devoted to criticizing Biden/Harris policies regarding immigration. In addition, some posters tried to divert discussion onto other topics including abortion. I am willing to concede that undocumented immigrants can overburden services in some instances and that individual immigrants can at times behave undesirably. But, like the original poster, I think migrants are a net positive for the nation and the benefits they provide could be significantly enhanced by better management of the response to them. Furthermore, I suspect that those most vocally opposed to immigration — legal or not — would probably be among the most harmed by harsh restrictions on immigration, let alone the deportations promised by former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. If it didn't involve so much human suffering, I would almost support temporarily implementing the sort of restrictions supported by the anti-immigration crowd just to prove the point. But humans are not pawns and lives are too important for playing political games. That, of course, is not a concern of those who cynically use immigration simply as a political strategy.

The next most active thread was titled, "Who Is Wrong Here?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she and her husband both use an electric kettle to heat water in the morning. Her husband fills the kettle each evening because he wants to save time by not doing that in the morning and it allows the water to warm to room temperature which he thinks will shorten the boiling time. However, the original poster tends to wake up earlier and she wants the water to boil faster so she dumps out half of it, boils water for herself, then refills the kettle for her husband and sets it to boil. Her husband has caught her doing this several times and accused her of being wasteful and inconsiderate. In response, he has started pouring her tea down the drain if she leaves it unattended. The original poster wants to know which of them is wrong. Those responding seem to be in agreement that dumping brewed tea down the drain is unacceptable and the original poster's husband is clearly wrong in that regard. Beyond that, posters are more willing to spread blame around, considering both the original poster and her husband to be stubborn and inflexible. A small minority of the posters were sympathetic to the original poster's husband who they saw as trying to do something that would benefit both of them only to be undermined by the original poster who was doing something only for her own benefit. Several suggestions for compromise were offered. One was to simply buy a second kettle so that each can do their own thing. The second was for the original poster's husband to fill the kettle to halfway in the evening. A third suggestion was for her husband to fill another container so that the water could warm to room temperature in that and the original poster could then either use half of it or fill the kettle halfway directly. In follow-up posts, the original poster confuses things a bit. Many of those reading, including me, understood from the original post that she was refilling the kettle and setting it to boil so that when her husband woke up, there was hot water waiting for him. But the original poster later stated that instead he has to boil cold tap water himself. He is angry because room temperature water boils in two minutes while cold water takes 4 minutes. Plus he is mad about the water that the original poster wastes. The fact that the original poster now says that she doesn't turn on the kettle again causes more posters to side with her husband. However, the contradiction between the original post in which the original poster clearly says that her routine is to "refill the kettle and set it to boil again" and her follow-up which says "No, he doesn't wake up to boiling water" but instead has to wait for cold water to boil caused me to suspect that that the original poster is trolling. I checked for other posts in the thread by the original poster in which she didn't identify herself and found several that were written from the perspective of someone strongly defending her husband. Possibly the original poster and her husband share a computer and both posted in this thread, with the husband not identifying himself, but I suspect that the original poster was playing a bit of a game.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum and titled, "If every kid is doing the same damn EC". The original poster suggests that with grade inflation, mid-range test scores, test optional admissions, and everyone doing similar extracurricular activities, most high school seniors seem the same. First, let's stipulate that not all high school seniors have good grades, mid-range test scores, or participates in many, if any, extracurricular activities. However, those students are not pursuing admissions at a top universities and, as such, are probably irrelevent to this discussion. The original poster appears to be speaking in the context of applying to a selective university where having a unique application is beneficial. Several posters agree that simply playing a varsity sport, playing in the band, participating in student government, or leading a school club is not enough to stand out. Even some of the less conventional activities such as starting a non-profit are not that impressive given the number of applicants who have done such things. Some of those responding suggest that for these activities to make a difference, the student has to be among the top nationally. It seems to be generally accepted that not doing extracurricular activities is worse than doing the same extracurricular activities as everyone else and, as such, kids shouldn't skip them. Moreover, a slew of extracurricular activities that don't differentiate an applicate that much might not help for Harvard or Yale, but might be the deciding factor for a lower-ranked, but still prestigious school. Other posters argue that pursuing an extracurricular activity that is different than what most kids are doing is helpful. For instance, one poster suggested that rather than playing piano or violin, very common instruments, electric guitar — if it were pursued seriously — might be more beneficial. Many posters are cynical about what they see as a sort of cookie cutter formula students aiming for a top university tend to follow. The result is they end up doing a lot of extracurricular activities in which they are not truly interested and, for which, they have no true passion. This also leads to the situation the original poster is describing in which it is hard to differentiate between college applicants. One poster states that top universities prioritize "individual achievement, notoriety, success, or ranking" in their applicants. That poster went on to say that "These kids with some sort of fame, including an individual random ‘hobby’ that will garner continued national recognition or achievement matter a lot more than a perfect scores and perfect grades." But this triggers pushback from posters who are advocates of test scores and who claim that test scores are a better indicator of success in college than any other factor. The result is a debate about the value of test scores versus individual talent and creativity in non-academic areas. I don't know enough to have an opinion on this debate. However, I don't know of any violin players who went to Harvard (though I am sure there were many) but I do know that Tom Morello went to Harvard. So this is enough to make me agree with the poster who advocated electric guitar over violin.