2024

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "John Oliver slams Democrats who think transgender people lost them the election" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Immediately after the election, Democrats began looking for scapegoats on whom to place blame for Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat. Many centrist Democrats immediately focused on support for transgender rights. During the campaign, President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump spent hundreds of millions of dollars highlighting old statements Harris made regarding gender-affirming care for prisoners and claiming that while Trump was for "you", Harris was for "they/them". Many found these ads to be effective, and they were never countered by the Harris campaign. Centrist Democrats were generally predisposed to blame the transgender issue because many of them have been vocally opposing pro-trans positions all along. The topic came to a head when Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi criticized Democrats for support for trans girls playing in girls' sports. Another Democrat, Congressman Seth Moulton, made similar remarks. The original poster of this thread highlighted a portion of John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight" show in which Oliver slammed Democrats such as Suozzi and Moulton for "jumping to predetermined conclusions that don't match the campaign that just wrapped up." As Oliver pointed out, Suozzi and Moulton blame "pandering to the left" on trans issues for the loss and urge a move to the center. But Harris' entire campaign strategy involved moving to the center. She never brought up trans issues other than when pushed on the topic in a Fox News interview. Her response was a reluctant commitment to "follow the law", hardly a ringing endorsement. Harris talked more about her Glock handgun than she did about trans rights. She campaigned with Liz Cheney, took a hard line on immigration, and refused to make the slightest compromise to Arab and Muslim Americans regarding her complete support for Israel in its wars in Gaza and Lebanon. As Oliver says, centrist Democrats got the campaign that they wanted and lost. Rather than questioning their strategy, they are blaming support for trans people. Some argue that even though Harris did not campaign as a trans-supporter, the Democratic brand is tarnished because of "woke" issues, especially trans rights. This would be a more persuasive argument if Democratic Senate candidates had not been successful in swing states that Harris lost. In Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, Democratic candidates prevailed despite Harris losing their states. While Pennsylvania appears to be going to the Republicans, it is by a hair's breadth. This is hardly the sign of a damaged Democratic brand. Rather, it indicates that Harris had problems that the Senate candidates didn't, and that wasn't simply support for trans people. Oliver suggested a strategy to counter the Republican attacks on trans rights, especially trans youth in sports, based on a factual recital of data showing how marginal this issue is in reality. Few trans kids are actually involved in sports. I disagree with Oliver on this. I think the issue is emotional and a rational response, while correct, would not have been effective. Rather, I think Harris should have turned Trump's attacks around by reminding voters that trans people are our neighbors, our friends, and our family members. When Trump attacks "they/them", he is really attacking "us". While Trump is campaigning against "us" and causing division, Harris was working for "us" with policies that encourage new factories in the U.S., accessible healthcare, reproductive rights, and controlling inflation. Trump is working for himself and his billionaire friends. Harris works for "us" because we are all in this together.

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.

The most active thread yesterday was the one about Israel and Lebanon which I have already discussed and will skip today even though that conflict has heated up with Israel killing over 500 Lebanese, mostly civilians, yesterday. After that was a thread titled, "When do you have time to eat?" and posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. The original poster apparently has multiple children, a husband who works extremely long hours, and an eight hour a day job herself. She outlines her daily schedule which involves shuttling the kids to and from school and evening sports practices. In between the driving, she puts in her work hours, prepares dinner, and helps the kids with homework. She finishes the day with a bedtime routine for the kids. This schedule doesn't leave the original poster time to eat. As the original poster responds to questions from other posters, her situation turns out to be even worse than it first appears. Several posters ask why she doesn't eat when the rest of her family eats. The answer is that the kids eat dinner in the car while she drives them to their practices. She doesn't eat because she doesn't like sandwiches or cereal and she finds it hard to eat while driving. Several posters point out the obvious. The original poster is trying to do too much in too little time with no help from her spouse. The posters suggest eliminating some activities or getting additional help such as someone to cook meals or assist with childcare. Some suggest that she cut back on her work hours. But the vast majority of those responding seem to accept the necessity of this schedule and offer advice about how to make it work better. There are several suggestions that the original poster wake up 15 minutes earlier and eat a quick breakfast before the kids wake up. They suggest preparing meals on the weekend that can be reheated during the week. Some posters have specific meal plans or meal suggestions. Other posters suggest eating dinner later, after the practices, which would allow the original poster to join her kids for the meal. Several posters conclude that the original poster is a "martyr mom" who really doesn't want to improve her situation but rather simply wants to be recognized for her sacrifice. This leads to more criticism of the original poster with some of those responding suggesting that she might have an eating disorder. Others criticize her parenting, arguing that putting the kids through this schedule is not healthy for them and that she is modelling a bad lifestyle. This trend became more pronounced after an apparently frustrated original poster responded to suggestions that she was over-scheduling her family by saying that she would pull her kids out of all activities, including one child's therapy. Nobody had made such a suggestion and this reaction reinforced the belief among many posters that the original poster was not really looking for advice.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "apparently something big is about to drop about mark robinson..." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster embedded two tweets, the first saying that Republicans in North Carolina were pressuring Mark Robinson, the Republican candidate for Governor, to drop out of the race. The second suggested that information harmful to Robinson was about to be made public. For those not familiar with Robinson, which at this point is probably nobody, he has a history of controversial statements including anti-Semitic remarks and Holocaust denial. Beyond his crazy statements, the staunchly anti-abortion Robinson also admitted that he paid for his girlfriend — now his wife — to have an abortion. Recently he was accused of having regularly visited pornographic video stores. Given the sort of information that had already been made public about Robinson without causing Republicans to distance themselves from him, posters immediately began speculating on what it would take to reach this point. Former Governor of Louisiana Edwin Edwards once famously said, "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy." Thinking the same about Robinson, some posters guessed that whatever was coming might involve a live boy. Others joked that it could involve eating a cat. It soon emerged that what was motivating the North Carolinian Republicans to pressure Robinson to drop out was a story about to be issued by CNN. When that story finally dropped, it reported that Robinson had been linked to posts on a pornography website’s message board. As CNN explained, many of Robinson's posts were too graphic to be published and described them as "gratuitously sexual and lewd in nature". In addition, Robinson referred to himself as a "black NAZI!" and supported the reinstatement of slavery. While Robinson campaigns as being strongly anti-transgender, he posted that he enjoys viewing transgender pornography. The CNN story was pretty damning for Robinson, but even worse were excerpts of his posts that started appearing on social media, including one detailing a sexual encounter with his sister-in-law. It was clear why CNN has been unable to publish them. At any rate, the midnight deadline for a withdrawal passed with Robinson still in the race. The North Carolina Republican Party issued a statement accepting Robinson's denial that he had made the posts in question and attacking Vice President Kamala Harris. Robinson had already been trailing in the polls and, presumably, the latest revelations will not help him. The real battle in North Carolina is not the governorship, which Republicans appear to be willing to write off, but rather its electoral college votes. The state is essential to former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's re-election hopes. The Republicans' fear, and the Democrats' hope, is that Robinson will drag Trump down. This is a real concern given that there is video of Trump praising Robinson and saying that he is "Martin Luther King on steroids."

As I predicted yesterday when I wrote about the thread about the presidential debate, that thread was the most active yesterday, exploding from 15 pages prior to the debate to 129 pages as I write this. But as I wrote yesterday, since I have already discussed the thread I'll skip it today. The next most active thread was titled, "Dave Grohl, sooo disappointed (had a baby outside of his marriage)" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. As the title says, it was revealed yesterday that Dave Grohl, former drummer for Nirvana and frontman for the Foo Fighters, has fathered a baby outside his marriage. In an Instagram post, Grohl promised to take responsibility for the baby and maintain a loving relationship with her. He also said that he would now work to regain the trust of his wife and daughters. The original poster establishes what will be a major theme of responses in this thread, saying that she had a huge crush on Grohl and believed that he was a feminist with a strong relationship with the women in his life including his mother and daughters. As such, she is very disappointed. The original poster is joined in these feelings by a number of other posters who had held Grohl in high esteme and now feel that he let them down, if not outright betrayed them. Some posters who are also disappointed by Grohl at least respect that he is taking responsibility and planning to maintain a relationship with the child. They say that this is more than what many men in this situation would do. But others suggest that Grohl's statement was a creation of his public relations team and probably should not be taken too seriously. They predict little in the way of a true relationship between Grohl and his new daughter. A number of posters commented on the future of Grohl's marriage with some saying that if they were his wife they would immediately divorce him. Some guessed that this was likely not the first time that Grohl had cheated and they blamed him for putting his wife at risk of STDs in addition to being unfaithful. Others suggested that his wife may have been willing to look the other way in the past, but this public incident could not be ignored. Posters were divided between whether forgiving him would encourage Grohl to continue cheating or whether it was the right thing to do in this situation. Some posters argued that it was in her interest to remain married. Many posters were utterly disgusted by Grohl with some being particularly worried about the impact on his daughters, suggesting this showed a very negative attitude towards women. For other posters, however, this was no big deal. As a rock star, eager and willing women were probably a fact of life for Grohl and a rock star having sex outside of marriage is hardly news. For some, this was less an issue of morals and more of one of judgement and practicality. Sex is one thing, but unprotected sex is quite another and, at least, Grohl should have had a vasectomy they say.

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Why do men still believe that divorce laws favour women?", and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster notes that child custody and assets of spouses are split 50/50 during divorce and asks why men still believe that divorce favors women. She says that some men claim that occasionally she reads about men who claim to have lost custody of their children and their house and this is confusing to her. I know next to nothing about divorce laws and, to be honest, that seems to be true of a significant number of posters in this thread as well. Responses seem to reflect anecdotes that posters have heard, in some cases many years ago, partial knowledge, pure speculation, and a limited amount of personal experience. As a result, many of the replies directly contradict each other and, not personally knowing fact from fiction in this case, I have no idea which responses are accurate. Many posters, presumably women, argue that men believe that 50/50 is unfair to them. Others argue that men only lose custody of children in extreme circumstance and, when this happens, they are reluctant to admit their own failures and, therefore, blame unfair courts. Several other posters, presumably men, claim that the presumption of 50/50 division is not true everywhere and, in many cases, women end up with considerably more. Where a big difference of opinion exists, and ironically reinforces both main narratives, is over the issue of who earned the family's income. Several posters note that men often earn more money than women, this is especially the case when the women is a stay at home spouse. Some male posters argue that men work extra hours and make sacrifices to provide for their family and allow their wives to stay home and when those women turn out to be "losers" men are expected to continue working just as hard to provide the women the same lifestyle after divorce. They feel that these women should be required to get jobs and support themselves. Women posters contend that what is missing from such scenarios is the value stay at home wives contribute to their families and the sacrifices that they often make to further their husbands' careers. Other posters list a number of areas in which women are frequently treated unfairly, including wage disparities and professional advancement. But this sort of divisiveness doesn't characterize the entire thread. There are several posts from those who have divorced, split their assets and custody of their children 50/50 and are quite content about the situation.

The two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed and, as such, will start today with the third most active thread yesterday. That thread was titled, "10+ AP classes" and posted the "College and University Discussion" forum. I'm sure that everyone is aware but on the slight chance there is someone who is not, "AP classes" are "Advanced Placement" high school classes that use college curriculums. Examinations offered after completing the classes can, if passed with a sufficient score, provide college credit. The benefits of AP classes is that they are more challenging, look good on college applications, and can shorten the time needed to complete undergraduate studies, which also saves money. The original poster of this thread says that she has seen reports of kids taking more than 10, sometimes as many as 20, AP courses in high school. She does not know how this is possible because she has looked into her child's schedule and the maximum possible number is 10. Several posters whose kids have taken more than 10 AP classes explain how it was done. Some schools allow 9th graders to take one course, so many of the students get a head start that way. Next, these kids try to take two classes as sophomores. During junior and senior years, they take 5 each year. Doing this accumulates 13 APs. However, many posters report that their children exceeded even this number, sometimes taking as many as seven AP courses a year. One poster even reported that her child took an AP class while in 8th grade. A lot of this depends on what schools offer, with opportunities being less available in many schools. Similarly, school policies outlining the number of classes that can be taken and during what years differ significantly among schools. AP classes are another area in which an arms race has developed. Not only can a large number of AP classes help a student get into a university, it can provide advantages to the student once they are in the school. They are able to skip classes for which they passed the AP exam and start with higher level courses. No surprise than that many parents push their kids to take as many AP classes as possible. Some posters worry that this is an unhealthy attitude and that these parents are too focused on their children getting into a prestigious college. One poster worried that kids in this situation will be too focused on passing AP classes and college acceptance, believing these things will bring them happiness. They will then arrive at college with feelings of "anxiety and depression and constantly compare themselves to their equally high strung peers." Posters are also divided between what they view as the primary benefit of AP studies. Some posters prioritize the impact on college admissions and, therefore, value only the highest scores on AP Exams, believing that admissions officers won't be impressed by lower scores regardless of how many AP classes were taken. Other posters are less concerned about the exam score as long as it is high enough to receive college credit. They value the savings in time and money that passing an AP exam allows more than any benefit that it might provide to admissions.

The most active thread yesterday was a political topic but with a twist. Titled, "I live in Takoma Park. I’m voting for Trump!", the thread had both national and local aspects. The original poster chose the "Metropolitan DC Local Politics" forum for the post. That was the twist because much of the discussion ended up being about national politics. The essence of the original poster's post is that the original poster is a legal immigrant and a registered independent who wants to put a sign supporting former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump in her front yard. She lives in Takoma Park, MD which is famously ultra-progressive. While the original poster believes that it would be a positive demonstration of freedom of expression in America to dissent from the vast majority of surrounding opinion, she is worried about possible vandalism or social harm to her family. Reading this I thought that this story sounded invented. Taking a look at the original poster's other threads, there is a reasonable possibility that this was a troll attempt (and a fairly successful one at that). The original poster has previously demonstrated a liberal perspective on politics and even referred to Trump supporters as "magats". On the other hand, the original poster has previously shown opposition to undocumented immigrants, a position that she reiterates in this thread. Therefore, potentially she might vote for Trump based on that single issue. But, I am doubtful. She has also written favorably about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and unfavorably about Ohio Senator J. D. Vance, the two party's nominees for Vice President. Beyond that, a proper response to the original poster's concern depends on the specifics of her home's location. Does she live on a main drag where thousands of people a day might see her sign or is her house tucked back on a side street where only immediate neighbors might notice a sign in its yard? In the first case, there is no telling what a random hothead who happens to be driving by — and might not even live in Takoma Park — might do. In the second, it depends on the neighbors. Presumably the original poster knows her neighbors and would have some idea how they might react. None of those responding in this thread know those specifics and, instead, most answer based on stereotypes of Takoma Park residents. Right-wingers get tremendous joy from exposing what they consider liberal hypocrisy when liberals are not welcoming of right-wing views. This is often based on the right-wing's rather strange understanding of free expression which they believe should allow them to express whatever sentiments they wish but that liberals should not be able to state their dislike for those sentiments because that would be intolerant and liberals are supposed to be tolerant. As such, there is considerable drooling over an opportunity for Takoma Park liberals to expose themselves as hypocrites. Discussion eventually turned toward Trump's political agenda and what some posters don't like about it. Another popular trend among DCUM's conservative posters is to disassociate themselves from all but a small portion of Trump's positions. They might argue that they are personally pro-choice, support LGBTQ rights, aren't racist, and so on, but due to one or two specific reasons, they have decided to vote for Trump. In the original poster's case, this reason is immigration. But, as other posters see it, when you put up a Trump sign, you are supporting the whole enchilada. Intentionally or unintentionally, you are telling everyone that you support Trump's attacks on democracy, his threat to the rule of law, and his plan to forcibly expel a million undocumented migrants.

Politics continues to dominate the most active topics being discussed over the weekend and seven of the top ten most active threads were political. Many of those were threads that I've already discussed, including the most active thread (the choice of Tim Walz to run for Vice President). The first of the threads that I haven't already talked about was titled, "Trump is awful but I want helicopter money and illegal immigration to stop" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The background to this title is that during the COVID pandemic the government made considerable amounts of money available to keep the economy afloat. This was metaphorically described as "dropping money from helicopters". This influx of cash has been blamed by many for the rise in inflation. The original poster says that she believes that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump is "awful" and his running mate, J. D. Vance was "the wrong pick". Nevertheless, she says that she cannot take Vice President Kamala Harris seriously about the border and immigration. She says that there is a chance that Trump can fix these things because he will have other individuals at the helm running things. The original poster believes, however, that this would not be the case if Harris wins. I am not going to bother with the rest of the thread because there is plenty here on which to comment. While it seems to have vanished from our collective memory, there were economic stimulus programs during Trump's administration. This includes the $2 trillion CARES Act that provided direct payments to Americans and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) that provided forgivable loans to millions of U.S. businesses. Therefore, if the helicopter drops were bad, Trump is also to blame. While I accept that the conventional wisdom is that the helicopter drops of money caused inflation, I believe that this is a case in which the conventional wisdom is either partially or fully wrong. What I think most people don't consider is the alternative to the helicopter drops. Respected economists were expecting a severe recession with massive loss of employment. The influx of cash kept many businesses alive and was welcome income to lower and middle class Americans. Prices did rise, but so did corporate profits. As such, corporate greed is also responsible for inflation. Under the stewardship of President Joe Biden, the U.S. economy has led the world and Biden has engineered a "soft landing" that many thought impossible. Inflation is now under control and prices are dropping. Harris will likely continue this trend. In contrast, Trump proposes a 10% tariff on all imports. This would undoubtedly be inflationary as it would lead to price increases on imported goods. With regard to immigration, this is another case of viewing Trump's presidency through rose-colored glasses. Migration actually rose during Trump's administration. His policies were either ineffective or inhumane. Many children separated from their families as a result of Trump's brutal policies still have not been reunited with their parents. Trump is now promising the forced expulsion of a million undocumented residents which would result in even greater human tragedy and potential social upheaval. Harris has been tasked with exploring the root causes of migration. As such, she likely has a more comprehensive and long term view of how to control immigration. Moreover, she supports the bipartisan immigration bill that Trump prevented from being passed. Harris would follow a course of action that has broad support from both political parties and would likely be much more effective than the inhumane approach proposed by Trump. Even in the case of appointees, there is every reason to believe that Trump's would be much worse than Harris before we even consider court nominees.