The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The two most active threads over the weekend were the thread about the murder of the UnitedHealthCare CEO and the ECNL soccer league age cutoff changes. Since I've already discussed these two, I'll start today with the third most active thread which was titled, "UGA EA Stats and decisions dates" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This thread is about the University of Georgia and its Early Action round of admissions. We are now into the college admissions season and we can expect threads of this sort to frequently be among the most active until late Spring. Most of the college admissions excitement at this time of the year involves Early Decision applications. Students are only allowed to submit one Early Decision application and must make a binding commitment to attend the university if they are accepted. Early Action admissions shares the earlier deadlines and release of results of Early Decision, but doesn’t have the one application limit or the required commitment. Still Early Action allows students to target their preferred schools and determine in advance whether they need to resort to alternative choices. The original poster started this thread back in early November. Unless the original poster was hoping to demonstrate how neurotic some parents get when it comes to college admissions — something she succeeded at doing whether it was intentional or not — she really made a mess of things. First of all, she started the thread by posting nothing but a link, something that is prohibited by DCUM's guidelines and something that would normally cause me to delete the thread. I am leaving the thread alone this time only because of all the posters who posted over the weekend and who would be disappointed to see the thread disappear. Even worse, for reasons that I cannot begin to comprehend, the original poster engaged in blatant sock puppeting. After starting the thread with just a link, she later posted her daughter's grade point average, test score, and other admissions data. She then went on to reply as if she were a different poster to her own post several times. Saying in one post that she didn't think the girl would be accepted and in another post saying she thought she would be accepted. Imagine being so obsessed with a college admissions decision that you start a conversation with yourself on DCUM? As for the posts that weren't written by the original poster, a lot of them simply addressed the University of Georgia’s admissions statistics and debated the quality of the school. Some posters insist that it is a top university and even a so-called "public Ivy". Others are not as impressed and don't consider it to be among the top universities. Building up to the 4 p.m. Friday release of results, posters were mostly posting about how difficult it was for them to control their anticipation. Approximately 5 minutes after the release, a poster said that her child had been accepted. After that, there was a steady flow of acceptances and deferrals.

The next most active thread over the weekend was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Trump in France with world leaders", the thread was started by a poster embedding a tweet by Monica Crowley, a former Fox News commentator who has just been selected by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump for a top position in the U.S. Department of State. I always refer to Trump as a cult leader because I truly believe that MAGA is a cult. One demonstration of the MAGA cult is the need by cult members to portray normal activities as somehow extraordinary. The tweet contains video of Trump attending the reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral's grand reopening. Trump is walking along a line of world leaders, each of whom rises to greet him. This is normal protocol which is extended to any of the invited leaders. But, in the MAGA cult mind, this is elevated to almost religious significance. Crowley writes in the tweet, "This is what respect for our President and country looks like" as if the same wouldn't have been done for any U.S. President, or indeed the President of any country who attended. The original poster was impressed sufficiently to be compelled to start an entire thread, posting nothing more but the tweet. The original poster posted a second time, embedding a second tweet showing Trump greeting a group of U.S. Marines, probably the Marine guard at the U.S. embassy. Again, this is a routine task that every U.S. President would undertake, but in the MAGA cult, it is somehow extraordinary. I really hope that we are not going to be subjected to four years of threads about Trump successfully tying his shoes or managing to walk down a ramp unaided. The truth of the matter is that, far from being a much-admired figure among world leaders, outside the realm of autocrats and dictators, Trump is widely considered to be a joke. During Trump's first administration, world leaders literally laughed at him during a speech at the United Nations. As for the thread, it mostly demonstrates the gulf that exists between Trump supporters and his opponents. Trump supporters are torn between glorifying the most mundane of Trump's actions and a desire to gloat. Several of the pro-Trump supporters are dismayed that liberals are not literally genuflecting due to the fact that world leaders were polite enough to shake Trump's hand. This moment is supposed to reflect the return of the United States to a position of esteem and respect in the world. What they don't seem to realize is that, outside of the MAGA cult, the U.S. already had that position. If anything, it is Trump who puts that position in danger. Almost lost in the discussion was the purpose of the event, the grand reopening of the Notre Dame Cathedral. Some posters argued that it was the Cathedral, not Trump that deserved to be the center of attention. While a worthy sentiment, this suggests a complete lack of familiarity with either Trump or his supporters.

Next was a thread titled, "What will be the next demographic shakeup in electoral politics?" and, like the previous thread, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster notes that not long ago many argued that "demographics are destiny" and that, because of the diversifying electorate, Republicans would soon be in deep electoral trouble. However, in the recent election, President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump did very well among minorities generally thought to be strongly Democratic. For instance, Trump actually won among Hispanic males. On the other hand, college-educated White voters are increasingly voting for Democrats. The original poster asks which group will shift next. While I wouldn't have put things exactly the same way the original poster did, I think this is an interesting topic. One question that comes to mind for me is whether political parties and leaders lead or follow demographic political trends. Certainly, such trends can be influenced by advertising and political outreach, but could such efforts be successful in the absence of underlying currents already propelling such change? The most significant modern demographic shift with which I am familiar began after the passage of civil rights legislation. Contrary to today's assumptions that Democrats would support such bills while Republicans opposed them, most of that legislation passed with bipartisan support, and Republicans often played a crucial role in passing it. Many Democrats opposed the legislation, leading to many Southern Democrats, generally termed "Dixiecrats," leaving the party. One such Democrat was Ronald Reagan, who, as a Republican presidential candidate, capitalized on that trend by adopting the "southern strategy" to appeal to Southern White voters. Increasingly, the Republican Party became the party of White voters, while the Democrats forged a coalition of various minorities, educated urban voters, and some working-class White voters. Trump has successfully appealed to working-class voters across racial and ethnic lines and, in the process, shattered the Democratic coalition. For their part, Democrats have struggled with the interdependence of race and class. In recent years, Democrats have engaged in identity politics and attempted to appeal to specific racial and ethnic groups. At the same time, Democrats such as Bernie Sanders have argued that class is a more important factor. I remember in 2016 when Sanders found himself in hot water for arguing that reparations were a bad idea and that the struggles of the Black community would be better met with anti-poverty measures, addressing unemployment, and promoting higher education. He was roundly taken to task due to his failure to understand the unique circumstances faced by minority groups. Now, however, Democratic leaders are suggesting that it is time to move beyond identity politics. The alternatives are something along the lines of Sanders’ class-based appeal or a new coalition based on geography and gender. Having lost working-class White voters, and now at risk of losing working-class minorities as well, Democrats could adopt Sanders' strategies and try to reverse the trend. Another possibility is nicely explained by a poster in this thread who says, "The two dominant shifts are toward (1) gender-based political alignment regardless of race; and (2) urban versus rural regardless of geography." Many Democrats are convinced that the future of the Democratic Party depends on attracting educated, suburban voters. Once classified as "Rockefeller Republicans" and the women more recently being characterized as "soccer moms", it is thought that these voters can be combined with urban liberals to form a winning coalition. Such a coalition failed to be successful last month, but whether that will discourage top Democrats are cause them to double down remains to be seen.

The final thread that I will discuss today is another one that was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Rebel forces advancing in Syria …", this thread was started this past Thursday when rebel forces in Syria first launched an attack against government forces. The original poster asks, "Aren’t predictable dictators better than unpredictable rebels ?" As I have written a number of times, I have studied the Middle East for more than 40 years. Because of Syria's involvement in Lebanon, my particular area of study, I have followed developments there pretty closely. Nevertheless, I am completely confused by recent developments and don't feel qualified to have much of an opinion on the current situation. What I do know is that uprisings of this sort require weapons, and weapons cost money and must be supplied by someone because I doubt Syrian rebels have much of an arms manufacturing industry. The weapons could only come through Turkey or Iraq and were likely funded with Gulf money. None of that would happen without the approval of the United States, if not at the U.S.'s direct request. One of the ironies is that the main rebel group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, is a U.S.-designated terrorist group that was once part of al-Qaeda and also has connections to the Islamic State. The U.S., along with Israel, has an interest in seeing the demise of the Assad regime because Syria has been an important conduit for supplying arms from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Immediately after the rebel takeover, the U.S. bombed 75 targets in Syria, and Israeli forces moved to take over some Syrian territory including strategic Mount Herman. I assume Israel plans to stay in that location so more Arab territory falls under its occupation with no objection from the West. Parts of Syria are held by Kurdish forces and parts by another rebel group supported by Turkey. There is even a small part occupied by U.S. troops. In short, the situation is a mess now, and I doubt that anyone knows what will happen next. I suspect that there will be considerable fighting between the various groups as they vie for power. If there is a good model for what to expect, it is probably Libya. Few tears were shed when Muammar Gaddafi met his end, and even fewer will be shed for Bashar al-Assad. But Libya has been in a constant state of turmoil since Gaddafi was ousted. I don't have a lot of faith in the current administration's ability to manage a crisis in the region, but I have even less hope for the incoming administration's. Trump's inclination seems to be to stay out of it, which is probably wise. But Israel, Turkey, and others will probably not be as reluctant. We are probably facing a failed state in the middle of a critical region. There is the possibility that what will develop is some version of Afghanistan under the Taliban, but even less stable. I am still wondering who paid for this uprising and what their agenda might be.