November

I didn't write a blog post yesterday because I was devoting myself to helping with Thanksgiving preparations. Moreover, Thanksgiving is traditionally one of the slowest days of the year on DCUM. Today I will discuss the most active threads of the past two days, the most active of which was titled, "Trump will rollback student loan forgiveness" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to a story on politico.com discussing plans by the incoming administration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to roll back initiatives by President Joe Biden to forgive student loans. Republicans have consistently opposed student loan forgiveness, and the Biden administration was marked by a pattern of forgiveness efforts being implemented by Biden which were then rejected or stalled by the courts. The result is a number of efforts at various stages, many in limbo. Unrolling the various initiatives will be a complicated process, but one that Trump appears to be prioritizing. Student loan forgiveness is, in many ways, the perfect topic to illustrate the reality of today's politics. People have incredibly strong feelings about it, but most lack the most basic understanding of the details. The issue lends itself to demagoguery, which means that it is practically tailor-made for Republicans. To hear Republicans tell it, student loan forgiveness is a handout to privileged individuals who unnecessarily took out loans in order to pursue worthless liberal arts degrees that left them unemployable, and who now want the poor working people of America to pay for them. Reality is more complicated. As college degrees became increasingly essential, the cost of college increased. Easily obtainable loans were practically shoved into students' pockets, often with promises that repayment would be a breeze. What ended up happening, however, is that millions of graduates were chained to never-ending college debt. Most of those whose loans Biden wanted to forgive had already paid more than they originally borrowed and still have more to pay. Significant college debt has led to putting off purchasing homes, getting married, or starting a family. There is a strong argument that loan forgiveness has important economic and social benefits that reach far beyond those whose loans are forgiven. Nevertheless, MAGAs thrive on resentment, and the idea that the working class was being forced to pay the loans of freeloading college students was a powerful motivator of resentment. Making things worse was a generational divide. Older Americans have generally not understood the massive increases in college costs. Those who decades ago paid for their college tuition with a summer job don't understand why today's students can't do the same. A summer job wouldn't even pay for the meal plan at many universities these days. The bottom line is that student loan forgiveness makes sense when the details are understood. But in the lack of such understanding, it is easy to caricature. In the current climate in which Republicans are eager for revenge, the opportunity to stick it to liberals is too appealing to miss.

Because the top four most active threads yesterday were all ones that I've already discussed, I'll start with the fifth most active thread which was titled, "What's weird about where you are staying - Thanksgiving 2024 edition" and posted in the "Family Relationships" forum. As the original poster suggests by including a designation of the edition of this thread, topics of this sort are an annual tradition on DCUM. There will likely be a series of similar threads during the holiday season. Several posters didn't have any interesting stories to add to the thread, but joined to encourage others to post and to say how much they enjoyed these annual threads. The original poster of this thread is visiting her mother-in-law who keeps her house so cold that the original poster is freezing despite being wrapped up in a blanket. In addition, the original poster's mother-in-law insists on hosting Thanksgiving even though she hates cooking and does not have a full-sized oven. The original poster ends up doing the cooking which is a struggle in the circumstances. This set off a series of posts complaining about dull knives, old spices, and room temperatures that were either too cold or too hot. One notable post involved a new requirement for the poster and her family to wear paper booties inside the poster's in-laws' house. She thought that her mother-in-law might have suddenly become a neat freak, but it turned out that she had adopted three rescue dogs that had gone to the bathroom all over the house. The booties were to protect them from the stains that covered the carpets. The temperature at which those hosting Thanksgiving keep their homes was an especially big topic this year. There were posters who reported being forced to wear jackets inside the house because it was kept so cold and other posters who were sweltering because they were visiting homes that were kept too hot. In some cases, posters resorted to staying in hotels due to the temperature of the house. In some other cold houses, posters snuck in space heaters or electric blankets. I laughed at the poster who is stuck sleeping in a "little tikes fireman bed that was probably made in 1987". On top of that, the house is in the middle of nowhere in Wisconsin and doesn't appear to have heat in her room. In some cases, posters were actually hosting for the holiday, and their complaints were about their guests. One of the funnier examples was a poster who left her mother-in-law alone in the house for a couple of hours. The mother-in-law then asked in front of the entire family what was in "the red container in the basement freezer", suggesting that she had snooped through the entire house while the others were out. Based on other posts, it seems that snooping mother-in-laws are not uncommon. As for the contents of the red container, as of this writing, that remains a mystery.

Once again, the two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. Coincidentally, both of those threads involve school controversies. The most active thread for the past several days has been the one about the Hayfield football team scandal. With all that is going on in the world, it is interesting that high school football is getting so much attention. The second was the thread involving the former Head of School of the National Child Research Center preschool. That one is likely to stay near the top of the most active list for some time. After those was a thread titled, "Matt Gaetz is out" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As I am sure readers are aware, Matt Gaetz was a Congressman from Florida who has been embroiled for years in a sex scandal involving a 17-year-old that Gaetz allegedly paid for sex. Gaetz was chosen by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to serve as Attorney General in Trump's second term. Almost immediately after the announcement that Trump had picked him, Gaetz resigned from Congress. Now, as the original poster of this thread says, Gaetz has withdrawn his name from consideration for the Attorney General post. Gaetz always seemed like a long shot to be confirmed, with even Trump reportedly saying that Gaetz only had a 50% chance of confirmation. A number of Republican Senators announced that they vote against Gaetz's confirmation. When the news that Gaetz would no longer pursue the Attorney General position broke, posters in this thread immediately began speculating about what had caused him to drop out. One theory is that the entire thing was orchestrated, possibly by Trump, to simply get Gaetz out of Congress. I'm not much of a believer in the theory that Republicans in Congress were able to rope Trump in on a conspiracy against Gaetz. A more likely theory is that the ethics report that has been drafted regarding Gaetz's sex and drug escapades was going to be particularly damaging. It is true that Gaetz's unusual resignation from Congress came just before the Ethics Committee was due to vote on the release of the report. Release of the report was ultimately voted down on party lines. Interestingly, however, the Republicans were not actually against the release of the report, just the release in draft form. This suggests that if Gaetz remained in federal politics, the report might be finalized and then released at a later date. As a result, some posters suggested that the report probably hardened opposition to Gaetz in the Senate. But, as other posters pointed out, Gaetz has been uniquely successful at alienating members of his own party. Some of the harshest and most revealing statements opposing Gaetz were provided by other Republicans. Therefore, some posters suggested that Gaetz would probably not have been confirmed even if the report were not an issue. Finally, just after Gaetz said that he would no longer pursue the Attorney General position, CNN issued a statement saying that less than an hour earlier they had contacted him about plans to report on an allegation of a second sexual encounter with the 17-year-old. That might have also motivated Gaetz. Other discussion revolved around what Gaetz would do next. There was some speculation that he would return to Congress since he was elected to serve in the next Congress. However, his resignation statement had ruled that out. Others suggested that he might run for the Senate seat being vacated by Senator Marco Rubio, who has been picked as Trump's Secretary of State. More than likely, however, Gaetz will avoid anything that will cause his past to be investigated. Therefore, his most likely fate is an appointment in the Trump administration, perhaps in a White House role.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. The third most active thread was titled, "Trump wants Ann Selzer punished for her Iowa poll Predicition." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster links to a New York Post article describing a demand by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump for an investigation of J. Ann Selzer. Selzer is the pollster behind the highly regarded Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll. Despite its reputation for accuracy, Selzer's poll had a big miss in this election, predicting that Vice President Kamala Harris would win Iowa by 2 points. Instead, Trump won by 13. Right-wingers have long viewed polls with skepticism, accusing pollsters of skewing polls for the past several elections. Moreover, it is fairly routine for MAGA posters on DCUM to brag about lying to those conducting polls. They are apparently invested in ensuring that polls are inaccurate. Trump did not specify what sort of investigation of Selzer he wants to see conducted. Selzer recently announced that she would be leaving the Des Moines Register, a departure that has been long planned and is unconnected to the polling failure. The MAGAs in this thread are certain that Selzer intentionally skewed her poll in order to boost Democratic morale and give a false impression of Harris' chance of winning. Some go so far as to describe it as an illegal campaign contribution. Liberal posters don't see any advantage to Selzer posting false polling results and accuse Trump of interfering with freedom of the press. The best explanation that I've seen of why Selzer missed so badly was posted as a response in this thread. According to the poster, Selzer's method of identifying "likely voters" unintentionally overlooks many likely Trump voters and leads to Trump voters being underrepresented in her poll. According to this poster, Trump voters tend to be hostile and uncooperative, if not downright belligerent, in response to polls. Selzer discards responses from those who are not cooperative as unlikely voters. In reality, antagonistic Trump supporters are apparently very likely voters. Don't forget that some of this lack of cooperation includes outright lying. At any rate, many posters question why Trump is bothering with Selzer given that he won the election. Some suggest, correctly, that Trump voters are mostly motivated by anger, and Trump needs to provide a constant stream of reasons to be angry. I think another explanation for Trump's threat is his desire for dominance. Josh Marshall, editor of Talking Points Memo, has spent years discussing Trump and dominance. As he has pointed out, Trump does not seek compromise with his opponents, but rather complete dominance over them. His goal is to leave them cowed and unwilling to challenge him in the future. This explains his frequent ritual humiliations of those who have crossed him. There is no question that Selzer's reputation has been severely hurt by her last poll. Normally, that would provide plenty of satisfaction for her critics. But not for Trump. By piling on, Trump is sending a message to anyone else who might challenge him. Act in a way in which Trump disapproves and he will come after you. Intimidation and bullying are Trump's tools of the trade. We can expect to see this behavior frequently during his second term.

For the third day running, one of the most active threads was about a cabinet nomination by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. This one was titled, "RFKjr Tapped to Head HHS" and was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As noted in the title, Trump announced that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was his choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services. I consider this choice a little unusual for Trump. His previous cabinet choices emphasized loyalty. Kennedy is a bit of a loose cannon whose loyalty might be in question. Putting Kennedy in charge of HHS is not just putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, it is more like putting someone who denies the moon landing at the head of NASA. The chances of Kennedy completely destroying the department are fairly high. At first glance, I can see several categories of damage that Kennedy might do. One is messaging. MAGAs especially tend to believe Trump and his top people rather than experts. The more that Kennedy deemphasizes important health measures and, instead, highlights unproven quackery, the more that public health is likely to suffer. Second is interference with important research projects that he simply doesn't understand. It is common practice to track down some esoteric research project that, at first glance, sounds ridiculous and highlight it as a waste of money. The problem is that you never really know where these projects might lead. For instance, the popular weight loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy had their origin in research into lizard venom. The flip side of this coin is that Kennedy might direct research into areas that aren't productive. A poster in this thread suggests that Kennedy might put significant funds into stem cell research which the poster believes would be a waste of time and money. I don't have the knowledge to comment on that in any way, but Kennedy has plenty of off-the-wall ideas that I could easily see him prioritizing that either lead nowhere or make things worse. Additional damage could be by simple neglect. HHS is huge, encompassing the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and much, much more. It is going to take a while for Kennedy to simply learn all this is under his purview. If he gets lost trying to reform the FDA, for instance, what will happen to the rest of the Department? One specific threat that Kennedy presents is his attitude toward vaccines. Kennedy has falsely linked vaccines to autism and has equated the use of vaccines to the Holocaust. Any steps Kennedy takes to discourage the use of vaccines could have a profound negative impact on health, especially of children. Kennedy also promotes discredited theories such as his claims about the benefits of raw milk. This is particularly concerning because the United States is currently experiencing an outbreak of the H5N1 bird flu virus in dairy cattle. The H5N1 virus can be spread through unpasteurized milk from infected cows. If the H5N1 bird flu continues to spread during the Trump administration, having at the head of HHS a man who promotes a mechanism for spreading it and who will likely interfere with vaccines meant to combat it will be, to say the least, problematic. Kennedy even supports some of the leading MAGA theories from Trump's first term, such as believing that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are effective COVID treatments. It is hard to pin down exactly which of Trump's cabinet picks presents the most threat to our well-being, but a very strong argument can be made for Kennedy.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Matt Gaetz tapped for AG" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Yesterday, I wrote about the nomination of Pete Hegseth and said that, "Trump's cabinet is quickly shaping up to be the MAGA version of the Star Wars bar, with every type of right-wing freak imaginable." But even with my expectations set accordingly, I was taken completely by surprise by this pick. So much so that I actually deleted the first thread about Matt Gaetz being chosen for Attorney General because I assumed that it was a troll. There appear to be several layers to this particular onion, and I am not sure that we have uncovered them all yet. I suspect that there are more surprises to come. With that in mind, here is what we know. Gaetz was previously investigated by federal authorities for his role in a sex trafficking ring. Gaetz, who will now oversee a significant amount of highly confidential information, left his Venmo transactions publicly viewable. His Venmo history showed payments to a woman who was linked to the sex trafficking ring. Gaetz was alleged to have paid the woman for sex at a time when she was underage. The Federal investigation of Gaetz was dropped without his being charged, but a close associate of his pled guilty and is currently serving an 11-year sentence. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ethics has been investigating Gaetz and his involvement in sex trafficking for some time. Former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy has said that Gaetz offered to drop his effort to remove McCarthy as Speaker if McCarthy quashed the Ethics investigation. McCarthy declined and subsequently lost a vote to remain as Speaker. The Ethics Committee was scheduled to release a report about Gaetz that has been described as "damaging" on Friday. He reportedly met with President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump earlier this week and convinced Trump to make the AG appointment. After Trump announced the decision yesterday, Gaetz resigned from Congress. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is not allowed to appoint a successor for Gaetz. Instead, a special election must be scheduled. It could be that Gaetz' early resignation was meant to allow time for that election and decrease the period during which an empty seat would further decrease the Republicans' slim House majority. However, it is more likely that Gaetz was trying to get out before the report was released. What will happen with that report remains to be seen. In this thread, there was immediate doubt about whether Gaetz could be confirmed. However, many Republican Senators rushed to offer support for Gaetz, and others expressed a lack of interest in having a fight with Trump over the nomination. While Maine Senator Susan Collins announced her opposition, the Republicans only need 50 votes to allow Vice President-elect J. D. Vance to break the tie. Therefore, it will take more than Collins alone to block Gaetz. Even then, Trump has expressed interest in making recess appointments, which would avoid the necessity of Senate confirmation. The upshot is that the next U.S. Attorney General is very likely to be someone who was involved in sex trafficking a minor and whose only qualification is loyalty to Trump. Just one more freak in the Star Wars bar.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Psyched! He's closing the Department of Education in Washignton (sic) DC", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster, who managed to misspell the name of our country's capital city, very excitedly posted a video of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump saying that he would "close down" the U.S. Department of Education. Trump's plan is to send the Department's functions back to the states. While my predictive powers have been shown wanting recently, I am fairly confident in suggesting that the next several years will feature a torrent of complaints about leopards eating faces from those who voted for the leopards eating faces party. In fact, I expect that this cliché will be used so often in coming years that, if you are not sick of hearing it already, you will be soon. Nowhere is that more likely than in the event that Trump is actually successful in shuttering the Department of Education. It is pretty clear from the get-go that most MAGAs have no idea what the department actually does. Nor do they understand the right-wing motives for getting rid of it. What they know is that their cult leader supports it and, therefore, it must be good. That's enough to provoke this moment of near ecstasy from the original poster. As several posters point out, Trump doesn't actually have the power to shut down the department. That would require Congressional legislation. With a Republican majority in the Senate and a probable majority in the House, such legislation might be possible. However, given the Senate's filibuster and the very slight majority House Republicans are likely to have, passing any controversial legislation could be a struggle. As a result, MAGAs may be saved from themselves. But, in the case that they are not, they will likely be surprised by the results. Some of the MAGA posters in this thread believe that there is a national school curriculum that the Department of Education oversees. Of course, no such curriculum exists. Similarly, many of the MAGAs are convinced that it is this national curriculum that has resulted in "woke" education such as teaching about LGBTQ issues. They believe that with authority over education returned to the states, curriculums will return to emphasizing the fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic. What is more likely, however, is that there will be fragmentation as states take different paths. Based on what we have seen so far, Republican states, far from returning to the basics, will focus on putting religion, specifically Christianity, into the classroom. Oklahoma, for instance, has already decreed that every classroom must have a Bible. By sheer coincidence, the only Bible that meets the state's requirements is the one sold by Trump. Many of the liberal posters warn that another result will be to weaken, if not destroy completely, public education. They suggest that some states will favor vouchers and charter schools — including those run by for-profit organizations — instead of traditional public schools. The biggest fear cited by posters is the impact on special education. Currently, funding for special education programs comes from the Department of Education. If that funding goes away, states will need to fund such programs themselves. Poor states, which tend to be Republican states, will likely be hit harder than states with more money. This highlights why liberals should be cautious about taking pleasure in seeing MAGAs "finding out". As in this case, where the impact would likely fall on kids with special needs in red states, the victims of MAGA policies will tend to be powerless innocents.

Yesterday the most active threads were again all related to the election, but at least there was enough differentiation that I can write about them separately. The most active of the bunch was titled, "Why did Kamala lose ?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Ultimately, Vice President Kamala Harris lost because she did not get as many votes as her opponent, President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. That may sound trite, but Harris saw support drop from the level received by President Joe Biden in 2020 almost across the board. As a result, there are surely multiple reasons for her defeat. I don't think this was a case of one major failure, but rather more like a death of a thousand cuts. Certainly, as I wrote yesterday, her association with Biden's support of Israel's wars in Gaza and Lebanon cost her votes among important constituencies. Voters upset about inflation also turned to Trump in great numbers. As this 58-page thread demonstrates, there are a host of reasons voters had for not supporting Harris. There are the traditional Republican complaints about immigration, crime, and the economy, but there are a slew of other issues as well. There is a tendency in threads like this for posters to highlight their own pet issue. For instance, there is a longtime DCUM poster who is absolutely obsessed with H1B visas. There is no topic for which the poster will not find an H1B connection, and no surprise, this poster blamed Harris' loss on the Biden administration's support for H1B visas. Another poster blamed Harris' selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for her defeat. For others, the issue was not really Harris herself, but more a reflection of their disenchantment with Democrats in general. These posters tended to blame an alleged leftward tilt of the party, particularly when it comes to so-called "woke" issues and specifically support for transgender rights. This highlights one other factor in Harris' loss. She explicitly ran to the right, campaigning with Liz Cheney and hoping to appeal to moderate Republicans who were believed to be reluctant to support Trump. That strategy failed, not only with Republicans, but with some centrist Democrats as well who remained convinced that she would fill high school locker rooms with trans girls. Many simply did not believe that Harris deserved to be President. They tended to describe her as a "DEI candidate" who had only been selected as Vice President due to her race and gender and then "selected" as the Presidential nominee rather than winning the position in a primary. I am sure that there are some interesting Ph.D. theses on the topic of voter motivation, but the DCUM political forum has been a sort of laboratory that I've observed for nearly 20 years. My conclusion is that, for many, the decision between two candidates is emotional rather than rational. For reasons that they probably can't explain, posters prefer one candidate over the other. They then simply fill in the blanks to come up with a rationale. This used to be described as choosing the candidate with whom you would rather have a beer. Because of this, I think that there may be more to the accusations that racism and misogyny played a significant role in Harris' defeat. It has been well-established that women are held to higher standards concerning what is acceptable behavior than men. A disconcertingly high number of people didn't like Harris because of her laugh, and it is hard to argue that those opposing her because of "DEI" are not motivated by race. I'm no expert, and with my track record of being wrong about this election, you should probably ignore anything I have to say. But if I had to pick one reason for Harris' loss, it would probably be her inability to escape blame for inflation. Also, as much as I hate to say it, some credit must be given to the Trump campaign for effective campaigning. Sometimes you lose, and sometimes you just get beaten. I think this election was a bit of both.

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.