Monday's Most Active Threads
Yesterday's topics with the most engagement included whether the election was a backlash against college-educated women, President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's announcement that he would place tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, the dismissal of federal charges against Trump, and questions about kids going to colleges that are far away.
The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will, therefore, skip today. After those was a thread titled, "Backlash against college educated women" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster feels like this year's election was a backlash against college-educated women more than anything. She thinks that men are gaslighting women by claiming that colleges are indoctrination centers. In addition, she thinks that social media pundits have been so successful at denying centuries of women having no rights that other women have even come to believe it. Most polling of voting motivations suggests that concerns about the economy were the primary driver. Therefore, I don't think the original poster is correct to claim that a backlash against women played more of a role than anything else. But that is basically a nitpick with her argument. I don't think that there can be any doubt that resentment of women played an important role in the election's outcome. One need look no further than the triumphant taunting by Nick Fuentes claiming, "your body, my choice" to see where his mind immediately went after the election. Even earlier Democratic strategist James Carville argued that "too many preachy females" were turning men away from the Democratic Party. In recent years, women have outpaced men in college attendance, resulting in better employment and financial success. As a result, women are less likely to be dependent on men in general. This lack of dependence has enabled women to become more selective in the dating market, resulting in some men facing difficulties in finding a partner. Undoubtedly, this has led to increased resentment in some quarters. But not all women are on board with the original poster's argument. Indeed, despite hopes that things might finally change, the majority of White women once again voted for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. While Vice President Harris did win among college-educated women, plenty of them also voted for Trump. Ultimately, women — like all other voters — had a variety of motivations for their voting choices. For some, concerns about inflation were foremost. As was pointed out in earlier threads that I discussed, in many families women do the bulk of the grocery shopping and, therefore, are more cognizant of price increases for food. Similarly, many women were likely to have the same concerns as male voters with regard to a range of issues such as public safety, immigration, and foreign policy. While I don't have any evidence to support my gut instinct on this, I suspect that women might have even been more likely than men to vote based on concerns regarding Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. Some women, including some posters in this thread, agree that colleges are, in fact, liberal indoctrination centers. Still, I think the role of misogyny in the election cannot be discounted. I have written before that Harris was held to a much higher standard than Trump. Trump, who has been married three times, is a serial cheater, was found liable for sexual assault, and convicted of covering up payments made in connection to having sex with a porn star, was somehow the candidate of those with strong religious convictions. Harris, on the other hand, was attacked for not having given birth to children. The suggestion that women's primary role should be motherhood — rather than academic or professional achievement — is still soundly embedded in society.
Yesterday's next most active thread was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "25% tariff effective January 20th", the original poster says that President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump just announced increased across-the-board tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. The original poster suggests that this will result in significant price increases. What Trump actually announced was a 25% across-the-board tariff on Mexico and Canada aimed at punishing them for not preventing migration into the U.S. While migrants crossing the southern border have long been an issue for Trump, this was the first time I can recall him having a similar concern about Canada. With regard to China, Trump said that he would add a 10% across-the-board tariff on top of the existing tariffs. In the past, Trump has suggested tariffs on China as high as 60%, meaning that he could now be proposing a 70% tariff on goods from China. Yesterday said that the new tariff was aimed at punishing China for supplies of fentanyl being sent to the U.S. from China. Trump's unexpected announcement — which came in the form of two "truths" on his Truth Social social media network — highlights two concerns about Trump's second term. The first is the economic impact of tariffs. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding of tariffs. He claims that tariffs are paid by the country from which the goods originate. In reality, tariffs are charged to the importers of the goods which are normally U.S. companies. The importers, in turn, pass the fees along so that they are ultimately paid by consumers. Trump has suggested that tariffs will encourage U.S.-based manufacturing. He has also claimed that as a result of revenue brought in by tariffs, income taxes can be reduced. These are contradictory claims. If, because of tariffs, imported goods are replaced by U.S.-manufactured goods, there will be no revenue from tariffs. Trump and his supporters are also in denial about the price increases that tariffs will cause. Even in this thread, there are posters brushing off any concerns about higher prices. In addition to Trump's simple lack of understanding of one of his most prominent policies, the second concern is with regard to how Trump makes decisions. It is unlikely that Trump's announcement was little more than an impulse gesture that he took without consultation with his advisors. The announcement of the tariffs on Mexico and Canada was so surprising that some Trump supporters in this thread refused to believe the original poster. The ludicrousness of Trump's suggestion was clear to all. Among other things, Trump's new tariffs would violate the USMCA, the free trade agreement Trump negotiated in his first term to replace NAFTA. If this is an indication of how things are going to go during Trump's second term, we can expect continual chaos and a return to waking up every morning and needing to immediately check social media to see what insane thing Trump did while we slept. Few of us are likely looking forward to a return to that.
Next was a thread titled, "Jack Smith Requests J6 Charges Be Dropped" and, like the previous two threads, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster linked to an NBC News story saying that judge Tanya Chutkan had dismissed all federal charges against President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump in the cases involving stolen secret documents and election interference related to the January 6, 2021, attempted insurrection. The original poster seems to be pleased with this development. Other posters are very disappointed, however, suggesting that Trump is unfairly escaping justice. The charges were dropped due to a request by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Smith argued that the merits of the case had not changed, but that the circumstances had, referring to Trump's election as president. The Department of Justice has a long-standing policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. The case was dismissed without prejudice, which means that charges could be reinstated once Trump is no longer president. There are two distinct views in this thread. Trump supporters have never accepted the legitimacy of the charges, instead arguing that they were politically motivated and did not reflect actual crimes. They believe the charges reflected the politicalization of the Justice Department and had been an attempt to prevent Trump from regaining the presidency. Trump opponents, on the other hand, view the cases as fairly cut and dry. Trump was caught with possession of boxes full of highly classified documents, some stored in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago. The government had made repeated attempts to retake possession of the documents but had been rebuffed by Trump. It finally took an FBI raid to retrieve most of them, though some documents remain missing. As for January 6, Trump opponents see that as a violent attack on our democracy. Trump supporters, on the other hand, claim that it was nothing more than peaceful people walking into a building. It is not clear to me how they can deny the plentiful video of Trump supporters violently attacking the police. During the campaign, many Trump critics, including me, argued that one of Trump's primary goals in retaking the presidency was to stay out of jail. It appears that that strategy is going to be successful, at least for the next four years. Trump still faces sentencing in his New York State fraud case, but it is unlikely that the Court will want to jail a sitting president. Trump opponents are discouraged that Trump has escaped justice, at least for the time being. Moreover, they are concerned about the future of those involved in prosecuting Trump, especially Smith. Many suspect that Smith will find a reason to relocate outside the U.S. for the duration of Trump's term. Other posters express hope that despite Trump's success in avoiding justice, karma will catch up to him.
The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "If your kid is going out of state do you get comments like this?", the original poster asks whether others who send their kids to out-of-state colleges get comments from friends or family saying that they love their kids too much or would miss their kids too much to send them so far away. She considers such comments "a little strange" and asks how others would respond. A number of posters have kids who have gone quite aways away for college and they have encountered similar remarks. The issue seems to be lodged in different views of successful parenting. Key to the difference of opinion is the likelihood that those who go away for college will plant roots in that area rather than back home. One group of posters values close family ties. They look forward to grandchildren and being involved in the lives of their adult children. They want to spend holidays together and to have frequent contact with their offspring. To these posters, they will have succeeded as parents if their kids similarly value family ties and closeness. They do not want to risk this by having kids settle in some far-off place after college. The other group of posters values their children's independence and their fulfillment of their potential. If their child's goal is to go to a far-off college and has the fortitude to do such a thing, they would feel pride in having raised an independent child. Moreover, if that distant college is the best educational opportunity, they would be glad that they had not limited their child's opportunities. The same goes with their children establishing themselves somewhere else. Some posters remind others that the Washington, DC metro area is full of those who moved to the region from some distance to pursue jobs or education. Why would we prevent our children from doing the same thing? This group believes that they will have succeeded as parents if their kids are independent and living to their fullest potential. The parents who support their kids going away dispute that this reflects a lack of closeness within their family. Some of them even found themselves growing closer due to the distance. As for how to deal with the type of remarks described by the original poster, those responding have various strategies ranging from ignoring them to equally insensitive replies. Like a lot of parenting topics, what rankles many is the sense of judgement implied. A statement that someone loves their child too much to let them go a long distance for college implies that a person who did support such a choice does not love their child much. In most cases, that is both wrong and insulting. But also like a lot of parenting topics, this one has no one correct answer, but rather multiple correct answers.