2024

Yesterday was another day in which many of the most active threads were ones that I've previously discussed. As a result, the first thread that I will discuss today was actually the fourth most active yesterday. Titled, "Trump's rambling speech today" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, this thread was actually started back in January when former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump gave a speech in which he confused Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi and made number of other errors. Yesterday, the thread added seven new pages of posts due to a press conference that Trump held at Mar-a-Lago. Posters live-posted throughout the event and provided a running commentary. The tone of yesterday's discussion was set by the first poster to comment on the press conference who wrote, "Good lord, this man is totally detached from reality...". In many ways the press conference was simply a repetition of Trump's greatest hits and most of his answers could have been easily clipped from any of his recent rallies. Typical of Trump, he spewed a cascade of lies and misinformation. For instance, Trump claimed that he had attracted crowds on the National Mall that were larger than Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington speech. He also described a near death experience in a helicopter in which he was flying with California politician Willie Brown. Brown later said that he had never been in a helicopter with Trump. On the other hand, California Governor Gavin Newsom said that he and Trump used a helicopter to tour fire damage during Trump's time as President but that they didn't come close to crashing. Trump may have confused Willie Brown with former Governor Jerry Brown who was also on the flight. Trump also claimed that he had given Israel the Golan Heights. Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 after occupying them since 1967. The mainstream media has spent two days debating the difference between Tim Walz "serving as a Command Sergeant Major at the time he retired" and "retired as a Command Sergeant Major". Yet, Trump's slew of lies will get very little attention. Another thing that has constantly bothered me about media coverage of Trump is the practice of cleaning up Trump's way of speaking. Trump will ramble incoherently from one topic to another and back again, hardly making any sense at all and the New York Times will report that "His wide-ranging remarks were sometimes meandering." That's like saying that Fidel Castro's famous 7 hour speeches "ran a little long". Technically accurate but hardly conveying the truth. Even worse was when Trump was asked whether he would ban mifepristone, a drug used in medicated abortions that account for about half of U.S. abortions. Trump's answer was, "You could do things that will be — would supplement absolutely and those things are pretty open and humane, but you have to be able to have a vote. And all I want to do is give everybody a vote, and the votes are taking place right now as we speak." How did the New York Times cover this gobbledygook answer addressing one of the most important issues of concern to voters? It ignored it completely.

Two of the threads that I discussed yesterday were also the top two most active threads again yesterday. Because I've already discussed those threads, I'll start with what was yesterday's third most active thread. That thread was titled, "Cori Bush defeated in Primary" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread is obviously about the defeat of Representative Cory Bush — note that the original poster misspelled her name — in Missouri's primary election on Tuesday. But, more than that, the thread is about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC. Bush is a member of the "Squad", a group of progressive members of Congress who have failed to join in the lockstep support of Israel that is normal in the U.S. Congress. In American politics, if an elected official is not nearly 100% supportive of Israel, the official is considered "anti-Israel" or even "anti-Semitic". This has been the fate of most members of the Squad. For years AIPAC denied that it was involved in campaign funding, arguing that despite its name, it was not a political action committee or PAC. That was true. While AIPAC was not a PAC, its board members were linked to a number of PACs that contributed in a coordinated fashion to have tremendous financial influence on elections. I am not exactly sure when, but fairly recently AIPAC seems to have decided to end the charade. The organization created a related PAC called AIPAC PAC and not only contributes directly to campaigns, but in contrast to its past evasiveness about contributions, is now quite happy to have its influence publicized. Consistent with this new posture, AIPAC has been looking for scalps. AIPAC's modus operandi has been to focus on a candiate who has inherent weaknesses. In some cases these candidates have not even been anti-Israel. For instance, in the primary to choose a Democratic candidate to run for Katie Porter's open seat, AIPAC supported Joanna Weiss against Dave Min despite the two having nearly identical records regarding Israel. AIPAC is estimated to have spent over $1 million opposing Min, attacking him primarily because of a past DUI. Min nevertheless won the election. AIPAC is not always motivated by religion either. In 2022, AIPAC contributed heavily to defeat Michigan Representative Andy Levin who is not only Jewish, but had been president of his synagogue. During the current round of primaries, AIPAC has focused on Representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cory Bush. Bowman had been weakened by redistricting that created a district that was not very favorable for him. Bush is under investigation for illegal use of campaign funds. In addition, neither candidate has been particularly good at their job. In these candidates, AIPAC found vulnerable enemies and poured millions of dollars into defeating them. In the case of Bush, AIPAC spent at least $8 million and, in its opposition to Bowman, a whopping $14 million. On the other hand, AIPAC has more or less left alone Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib and Minnesotta Representative Ilhan Omar, both effective politicians who are popular among their constituents. Tlaib was unopposed in her primary on Tuesday. AIPAC also targeted Pennsylvania Representative Summer Lee, spending $2 million through its United Democracy Project. Lee prevailed in her primary and AIPAC is now spending in support of her Republican opponent in the November general election. As in this thread, discussion of AIPAC and its influence can be touchy. Not everyone involved in funding AIPAC and its PACs is Jewish, but the organization is certainly dominated by Jews. Criticism can quickly become uncomfortably close to the anti-Semitic trope about rich Jews controlling politics. While AIPAC is not actually controlling political outcomes, it is certainly having significant influence. Moreover, that is not an influence about which the organization is in anyway shy. At least not these days.

Yesterday's most active thread by a long measure was titled, "She picked Tim" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster posted just after CNN revealed that Vice President Kamala Harris had selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate. The original poster didn't have much to say and the entire text of the first post was "Now what?" The answer to that was over 100 pages of debate. The state of the Vice President selection process up to that point had appeared to have been a choice between Walz and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. Posters had debated between these two candidates and others for days. Walz had come to be seen as the "progressive" candidate because he had the support of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and other progressives. Shapiro, on the other hand, appeared to have the support of the Democratic establishment and, according to many posters, former President Barack Obama. When news broke that Walz was Harris' choice, reaction mostly broke along those lines. The Walz supporters were ecstatic while Shapiro fans were disappointed. Many of these posters complained that Walz was too liberal and that his selection signaled that Harris was capitulating to the left. At least since former President Bill Clinton made his first run for President, candidates have been expected to have their "Sister Souljah" moments. The term was coined when Clinton spoke to the Rainbow Coalition and criticized the then popular rap star for comments she had made regarding the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Sister Souljah moments have become a rite of passage for Democratic candidates to demonstrate that they are not beholden to the left wing of their party. Arguably, Shapiro has already had his Sister Souljah moment when he compared college students protesting Israel's war on Gaza to the KKK. While this may have put him in good graces with party centrists, it alienated him from many of the younger and further left voters. Walz, on the other hand, is unlikely to trouble himself with a Sister Souljah moment. Walz' support from the left was not a result of his own policies — those have been pretty much in the mainstream of Democratic politics. Rather, Walz has a number of characteristics that caused progressives such as Sanders to support him. First and foremost, Walz is committed to improving the lives of ordinary people. Second, he has been effective, using a one vote majority in the Minnesota state legislature to pass nearly his entire agenda. Third, Walz has a history of working in coalitions. He is focused on results and willing to work with either those on his left or those on his right — or even both at the same time — to get results. Therefore, progressives favored him because they can be confident that Walz is much more likely to view them as potential coalition partners rather than a group that he must publicly rebuke for political credibility. And, when they do work with him, they will probably get results. This is actually a case of the left demonstrating the type of political pragmatism and compromise that centrists have constantly demanded from them. Unfortunately, that compromise on the part of many on the left has been misinterpreted by some to their right to suggest that Walz is far more liberal than is true. Walz' popularity across the Democratic spectrum was evident by the fact that his selection as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate was applauded by both Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Joe Manchin. As Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, this may be the first time that those two agreed on anything. Among Republican posters in the thread, the tendency was to simply cast Walz as a far left liberal. Having gone in for a penny, Republicans were quickly willing to go in for a dollar. The allegations against Walz went from his being "far left" to him being a "socialist" to claims Walz is a "communist" and so on. Most of these posters knew nothing of Walz or his record and had nothing intelligent to say.

The most active thread yesterday was again the thread about Vice President Kamala Harris' choice for running mate. But I've already discussed that thread and will skip it today. The most active thread after that one was titled, "How will the stock market crash impact the elections?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. A similar thread was also created in the "Money and Finances" forum but I decided to leave both threads since they had different focuses. That thread was the 9th most active yesterday. The thread in the political forum was started early yesterday before financial markets had opened in the U.S. The original poster described stock market meltdowns in Japan and South Korea and predicted a crash in the U.S. market. He wondered how this would impact the election. Normally, the current administration receives blame for any economic problems that occur under its watch. Therefore, several posters thought that blame for a market crash would rest with President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. However, as is the case with everything these days, responses mostly broke down along partisan political lines. Conservatives seemed eager, almost joyful, at the prospect of a stock market collapse. They couldn't contain their excitement over the opportunity to criticize Harris due to economic problems. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump posted in all caps on Truth Social that "STOCK MARKETS CRASHING. I TOLD YOU SO!!! KAMALA DOESN’T HAVE A CLUE." Liberals, on the other hand, suggested that we wait and see exactly what happens with U.S. markets. Moreover, they pointed to multiple significant market drops during Trump's administration. Some posters accepted that there might be a significant market collapse, but expected recovery by the Fall. All of this was before the U.S. markets even opened. Posters debated whether we were facing a collapse of the market that could lead to ongoing economic problems, including a recession, that could involve significant job losses or whether this was a simple market correction from which we would soon recover. Fairly soon it became apparent that this wasn't much of a downturn at all, let alone a major collapse. While on a day to day basis most stocks lost some value the market has grown so much lately that the set back was minimal at best. Just over an hour after the stock exchanges opened, one poster wrote, "Well, that market correction was short lived." Despite the constant complaints about inflation and equally common predictions of an imminent recession, the Biden/Harris administrations appears to have pulled off a nearly mythical soft landing. While economists such as Larry Summers predicted 10% unemployment would be necessary to control inflation, Biden and Harris have roped in inflation with unemployment around 4%. Based on today's market opening, I would say that we are already recovering from this "crash" and yesterday will be long forgotten by the November election.