Thursday's Most Active Threads

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.

The second most active thread was posted in the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum and titled, "Trump supporter in Takoma Park getting dragged on social media". For those who may be outside the DC area, Takoma Park is a suburb in Maryland that is extremely politically progressive. Apparently, a resident of the town put up a sign supporting former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump in his yard and has been subject to considerable discussion — most of it derogatory — on local social media. The original poster is upset about this, which is happening in what he describes as "Diverse, tolerant, welcoming Takoma Park at it's [sic] finest". He considers the social media posts to include "doxxing" and predicts that Trump will win the election because voters outside the "bubble" think Takoma Park residents are "obnoxious". Let's just skip over the fact that calling Trump supporters "garbage" — even if that is not what happened — is literally front-page news in America, but calling progressives "obnoxious" goes without remark. It is completely acceptable for Trump and his supporters to call their opponents names. What posters in this thread do object to, however, is the suggestion that tolerance must include acceptance of intolerant views. As posters point out, freedom of expression allows the Takoma Park resident to put a Trump sign in his yard. However, freedom of expression also allows other residents to mock the individual. Moreover, I find it strange that someone would put a sign in their yard announcing to the world that they support Trump, but then when other people mention on social media that the individual supports Trump, it is described as "doxxing". I could see an argument that, in some scenarios, social media posts could amount to bullying, but the original posters described what has been happening as primarily posting "hundreds of laugh react emojis". This is, again, a theme to which I constantly return. Trumpism is largely driven by resentment. A vote for Trump is, in many cases, an effort to "get back at" those who have given offense. Trump has spent millions of dollars running television commercials with pictures of transgender individuals without their consent. He has called his political opponents "vermin", he has threatened to use the U.S. military against those he calls the "enemy from within", and he has promised to deport 10 million immigrants. All of these things are offensive to most Takoma Park residents and a sign supporting Trump would signal, if not support, at least a lack of opposition. Yet, when residents object, it is apparently cause for those like the original poster to vote for Trump in order to get even. This is again the same phenomenon about which I wrote yesterday. MAGAs demand the right to be offensive, but not to be offended in response. For some reason, this thread degenerated into a debate about whether using terms such as "fascist" or "nazi" are offensive to Jews. As a result, I locked it.

Next was a thread titled, "If Kamala loses" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster asks what will happen to the Democratic Party if Vice President Kamala Harris loses the election? Will the party move to the left or to the right? Who will be blamed and what will happen to Harris? I fully expect that Harris will win the election and, therefore, this discussion is irrelevant. But for the sake of argument, let's consider what might happen. I expect Democrats to engage in two contradictory behaviors. On the one hand, Democrats will unite in order to combat former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. On the other hand, they will engage in a circular firing squad. Frankly, I am not sure how they will be able to do both at once, but I am certain that they will. Especially if Harris loses Michigan, Arab and Muslim Americans will be blamed with many Democrats hoping that Trump will treat them in the manner that these Democrats believe that they deserve. Those on the left who have supported transgender rights will have much of the blame placed on them. In turn, those on the left will return fire by blaming Harris for uniting with Republicans such as Liz Cheney rather than strengthening her base. Of course, President Joe Biden will be blamed for being old and having his statements misrepresented. What is a more interesting question is what will happen to the hundreds of Republican leaders who have backed Harris. As Omar Little says in "The Wire", "You come at the king, you best not miss." For these Republicans, Trump is effectively the king and, if he wins, some of them may actually have to leave the country. But what will happen to those who don't? Might this be an opportunity for the long-awaited emergence of a third U.S. party? Could we end up with one party based on Trumpism, one uniting never-Trump Republicans with centrist Democrats, and one that is progressive and possibly led by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Probably not. The two-party system is too entrenched in America. But who knows? Much that happens will be determined by Trump's actions and what tactics prove effective at opposing him. For instance, if Trump disrupts Obamacare as he has said that he will do, it may lead to further support for single-payer solutions. I assume that whatever Trump is able to do will make healthcare worse and, frankly, Obamacare has lots of room for improvement. Therefore, rather than campaigning on fixing whatever mess Trump makes by returning to Obamacare, arguing in favor of single-payer might be more effective. On the other hand, I suspect that many centrist Democrats will expend little to no energy fighting measures that Trump might take regarding "woke" issues such as transgender rights. To the extent that the left continues to champion such issues — and I believe it must champion them — it will become more isolated as centrist Democrats opt out of the battle. I think there might be some similarity between a defeated Democratic Party and the British Labour Party. Labour spent election after election losing to a very unpopular Conservative Party. Meanwhile, it devoted the bulk of its efforts to removing Jeremy Corbyn and ridding itself of any hint of progressivism, for instance going full J.K. Rowling on transgender issues. Once it had convinced the British public that Labor was nothing more than a competent version of the Tories, it won an election. Side note, after winning Labor immediately became historically unpopular. A Democrat who supports much of the Trump agenda may well be the future of the party. As for Harris, I think her popularity is derived from the hope that she can beat Trump. If she doesn't defeat Trump, then much of the impetus for her popularity will disappear. She may remain as the nominal leader of the Democrats until the presidential battle starts up. Then she will face a number of strong opponents.

The final thread that I will discuss is another one from the "Political Discussion" forum and is titled, "Why is the younger generation of men more conservative than in the past?" The original poster says that she keeps seeing articles about and interviews with mostly White young men who are much more conservative than young men in the past. She wants to know the reason for this change, suggesting that it is because of Democrats pushing the idea that "white men are the problem with society." Those responding have a number of different reactions to this post. Some posters question whether there is actually such a trend among young men. Their own experience with their sons and their sons' friends is that they are liberal. One poster linked to a recent survey that highlighted an increase in the number of young men identifying as conservative. However, the shift was only 5% who moved from liberal to conservative. Both with younger men and men in the next age bracket, nearly 50 percent identified as moderate. If these findings are accurate, there really hasn't been much change in how young men identify politically. Among those posters who believe there has been such a change, it is quite popular to put the blame on liberals who allegedly blame White men for all of society's ills. It is clear that many posters absolutely believe that schools and colleges now indoctrinate students to believe that, as one poster puts it, "cis gendered males = bad!" I have two sons who attended liberal DC public schools and now attend universities. Neither has encountered any such thing. So the best I can say about this is that experiences must differ. Other posters point out that with nearly half the country supporting former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, it would be expected that those parents would raise their sons to be conservative. With today's young people, it is common to blame everything on TikTok. It does seem to be true that today's youth have ignored traditional news sources and rely on social media postings for their news. Not all of these are necessarily bad, but there are a number of YouTubers who are popular with young men and who encourage conservative values. Undoubtedly, this accounts for some percentage of the young men who identify as conservative. However, before long, this thread returned to the same theme of resentment that I discussed above. Much of this is posters projecting their own resentments onto today's young males. These posters describe a host of alleged insults or offensives that liberals are supposed to have committed that — if you boil it down — hurt White men's feelings. For instance, one poster claims that because liberals have called Trump a Nazi, more young men are turning conservative. Other posters suggest that this resentment has less to do with insults by liberals and more to do with the fact that these young men are being forced to compete on more level ground. Without the advantages once bestowed upon White men, these individuals feel like the deck is stacked against them — a situation that they resent.