Tuesday's Most Active Threads

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.

The next most active thread yesterday was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum and was titled, "Homan: ‘I guarantee’ funds will be cut from states not cooperating on deportation". The original poster quoted extensively from an article in "The Hill" that reported on an interview on Fox News with Tom Homan, who has been chosen to be the "border czar" in the incoming administration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Homan was asked about states that might not cooperate with Trump's plan for mass deportations and said that Trump would definitely cut federal funds to those states. Trump's plan for deportations has been among the most controversial of his proposals. Many MAGAs have looked forward to it and can't wait to see millions of migrants uprooted and dumped in other countries. Anti-Trump posters, on the other hand, have frequently warned of the dangers of this policy and it was frequently used as one of the most important reasons to vote against Trump. In the middle are both liberal and conservative posters who have argued that Trump won't actually carry out his plan. One of the watered-down versions of Trump's deportation plan is to concentrate on violent criminals. In this interview, Homan talks about prioritizing "public safety threats and national security threats". During the campaign, Trump constantly highlighted a handful of cases in which migrants had committed violent crimes, giving the impression that many immigrants are criminals. In fact, a relatively small number of those crossing the border commit crimes, especially violent ones. The idea of prioritizing criminals and national security threats is good for gaining support for the policy as there are few who will defend the right of such individuals to be in the country. However, there simply are not millions of such people who can be deported. Moreover, many of them are in prison. I don't know if Trump plans to empty U.S. prisons, but if so, I doubt many governors would object. I am also not sure how well a policy that frees criminals from prison would go over generally. The sparsity of criminal migrants who can be deported leads to the fear that many have about Trump's plan — that it will target otherwise law-abiding migrants. At the moment, we don't know the details of how Trump and Homan plan to operate. What sort of due process will those chosen for deportation be provided? What sort of crimes will cause a migrant to be eligible for deportation? What constitutes a "national security threat"? There are many scenarios that create legitimate concerns that Trump and Homan will violate the rights of those being deported. In such cases, a number of political leaders are likely to object, and many will probably refuse to cooperate. Based on Homan's remarks, Trump will retaliate by cutting federal funding. As with a lot of Trump's plans, that will probably end up in court. It might also have the unintended impact of strengthening opposition to Trump's policies due to resentment of the ham-fisted bullying.

Next was a thread titled, "If you're a fed, are you planning to quit or go back?" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster says that that First Lady Elon Musk and failed businessman Vivek Ramaswamy are pushing a return to office for federal workers in the hope that it will cause many to quit. In that case, the original poster asks what others plan to do. For his part, the original poster doesn't know a single federal employee who plans to go back to the office 5 days a week. Many of those who respond have no interest in returning to the office, especially 5 days a week. They are either looking for other jobs or will drag out their return to the office until quitting. Others will reluctantly return, either because financially they have no choice or due to an unwillingness to allow Musk and Ramaswamy's plan to succeed. Many are willing to return as long as some flexibility is allowed. Others believe that any return to the office demands will be short-lived due to realities. They say there is widespread interest in allowing at least limited work from home and exceptions to the return to office policy will be widespread. Others point to practical hurdles such as a lack of space that will prevent Musk and Ramaswamy from fully implementing their plan. Much of this thread is devoted to debating remote work and whether it is more productive or less productive than working in an office. Some posters point to studies that show that working from home is more productive. Other posters challenge the validity of those studies and argue that, in reality, working from home is less productive and prone to abuse. These discussions and the Musk/Ramaswamy plan share a fundamental flaw. They view all federal jobs, and hence federal employees, as the same. Many of the posters expect all federal employees to be in an office working from 9-5. This ignores that many positions don't work that way and, in fact, such an arrangement is actually less productive. Musk and Ramaswamy either don't realize or don't care that talent should be retained. The flaw in their plan is that those with the most options will be the most likely to quit. Those with the most options are also likely to be the most talented. There is a big difference between losing the least productive 10 percent of your workforce and losing the most skilled 10 percent. Musk and Ramaswamy are much more likely to do the second while acting like they are doing the first. Some posters are not entirely sure that losing the most talented employees would necessarily be considered a flaw in the Musk/Ramaswamy plan. These posters believe that the real goal is not to make government more efficient, but rather to kneecap it completely and make it less effective. A less effective government is easier to dismantle. Personally, I think plans for a complete return to office are simply a show for public consumption and that there will be no real effort to make all federal employees comply. Musk and Ramaswamy will worry less about who is working where and more about those employees whose jobs interfere with their own personal concerns. Anyone involved in antitrust regulation is probably going to be under a microscope while those involved in funding Musk's space program will probably be able to get away with working at the beach as long as the checks are delivered.

The final thread that I will discuss today was another one posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "‘Obama Did Not Want Her’", the original poster linked to a video on the Real Clear Politics website that showed a clip from the "News Nation" program in which Democratic megadonor John Morgan tells Chris Cuomo that many top Democrats did not want Vice President Kamala Harris to be selected as the Democratic Presidential nominee. There is a lot going on in this thread, which is sort of a Rorschach test of those replying. First, let's start with the original poster, who appears to be afflicted by a condition from which many DCUM posters suffer. That is an obsession with former President Barack Obama. In his remarks, Morgan mentioned Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi as frequently as he did Obama. Yet the original poster titled the thread as if only Obama was involved. This focus ended up influencing much of the discussion in the thread. Former President John F. Kennedy once said that "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan." The defeat of Harris has become just such an orphan. Now everyone is running from it, not least those most responsible for the failed campaign. Had Harris won the election, the number of posters claiming to have personally come up with the idea of her running would have filled hundreds of pages of DCUM posts. But since she lost, very few posters are willing to concede that they once supported her. Here is my memory of the days last summer leading up to President Joe Biden dropping out of the presidential race. After Biden's disastrous debate with President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, there was widespread agreement that he had little chance of defeating Trump. This led to discussion of his replacement as the Democratic nominee. There was then a period of conflicting leaks and off-the-record statements. One of the most frequently repeated rumors was that Biden would withdraw and that there would be a “lightning primary" or that several potential candidates would campaign at the Democratic National Convention. One crazy idea was a series of debates in which Taylor Swift would be one of the moderators. However, there were concerns that there was not enough time for any of these ideas. Moreover, legally, it appeared that only Harris could use the millions in campaign funds that had been raised by the Biden/Harris campaign. I don't know what Barack Obama's attitude and preferences were at that time. I also don't know what Pelosi was thinking. However, I am skeptical that Morgan actually knows. My guess is that he is just trafficking in gossip. What I do know is that Morgan was a diehard Biden supporter who didn't want him replaced even after the debate. He didn't like the choice of Harris and refused to raise money for her, but I don't think he would have liked any other choice either. He wanted to stick with Biden. What's really going on here is that Morgan resented efforts by Obama and Pelosi to oust Biden and now is basically blaming those efforts for causing Biden to endorse Harris. That's a nice bit of score-settling by Morgan. Much of this thread is devoted to debating Obama's legacy. MAGAs basically consider him the root of all evil while liberals in the thread have mixed feelings about him. One poster went so far as to outright invent history, claiming that "Obama endorsed [former Secretary of State] Hillary [Clinton] over Biden after Biden being his veep for four years." In reality, Biden announced that he was not running long before Obama got around to making any endorsement. Again, I have no idea what role Obama may have had in Biden stepping down, but the public record suggests that Pelosi was likely the prime mover. She is, of course, also hated by the MAGA crowd, but in this case, Obama has managed to deflect attention from her.