October

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.

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 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.