Tuesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was, believe it or not, the thread about the ECNL soccer league changing its age brackets. I didn't check to see what provoked this burst of interest so that will remain a mystery. After that was a thread titled, "Hegseth Hearing Live Now" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This is the first of several threads that I will discuss today from that forum. This thread was started just as the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth was getting underway. President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump has nominated Hegseth to be the Secretary of Defense. While Hegseth is a veteran, having served in the National Guard, he is best known as a Fox News commentator. He is a controversial choice due to his inexperience but also because of several personal issues. Like Trump, he has a history of cheating on his wives and has fathered children with three different women, in one case out of wedlock. In addition, Hegseth was accused of sexually assaulting a woman and eventually agreed on a monetary settlement with her. On top of all of that, Hegseth is said to have a drinking problem. As such, Hegseth is not exactly a model nominee. Nevertheless, MAGA Republicans are determined to see him confirmed. One Republican Senator, Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, went so far as to suggest that many of his colleagues are drunks and to say that he has committed jail-worthy offenses for which his own wife has forgiven him. It's notable that personal failings that would prevent a normal person from getting a security clearance have practically become badges of honor for MAGA Republicans. As for the thread, posters debated developments in the hearing as they occurred. For the most part, Democrats had their worst fears confirmed. Republican posters, on the other hand, either defended Hegseth or attempted to switch the conversation to Democratic officials whom they believe are also flawed. One policy-related aspect of the hearings that was newsworthy involved Hegseth's view toward women serving in combat. For years, Hegseth has railed against women in combat. But, with his confirmation on the line, Hegseth has had what Senator Elizabeth Warren referred to as a "confirmation conversion". Now Hegseth wants us to believe that he supports women in combat roles. Whether this was a conversion of convenience meant to get him across the voting threshold or an actual change of heart is, I guess, something that remains to be seen.

Yesterday's next most active thread was another one posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Harris declines to invite Vance for courtesy visit to vice president's residence before inauguration", the original poster linked to a CBS News story concerning Vice President Kamala Harris, Vice President-elect J. D. Vance, and the Naval Observatory residence that is the official home of the Vice President. Traditionally, Vice Presidents host their successors for a visit to the home. However, Harris and former Vice President Mike Pence never had such a meeting. Either an invitation was not offered or an invitation was quietly offered, depending on who you ask. Either way, President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump was at that time opposed to accommodating the incoming administration. Now, according to the article, Harris has declined to host Vance and his wife, Usha. Usha Vance has reached out to Harris' staff to inquire about what might need to be done to childproof the mansion. Apparently, Navy staff is working to address that issue. Basically, this is not much of a story. Harris was not hosted when she was Vice President-elect, and she does not want to host the Vances now that she is the outgoing Vice President. Norms are not being followed, but that is normal when Trump is involved, even indirectly. Moreover, both Vances made pretty personal remarks during the campaign about Harris and the fact that she has not borne children. Harris may not be ready to let bygones be bygones. At any rate, discourse in this thread is about what you expect. Either this is proof that Harris lacks class, understands nothing about children, and is simply rude, or Harris is perfectly justified and the Vances shouldn't have hooked their wagon to the Trump train if they wanted normal treatment. This is again part of the MAGA mindset that I mentioned yesterday. They want to be free to say vile things, act in terrible ways, but then be invited to lunch. As with most threads in this forum, several posters paid no attention to the topic and simply posted about their favorite pet issue. As such, discussion included immigration, inflation, and campaign finance. None of which, of course, has anything to do with a visit to the Vice President's residence.

Next was a thread titled, "If you went to top schools but your kids are attending a lower tier, are you worried about downward mobility?". This is the only thread that I will discuss today that was not posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Rather, it was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster suggests that those who attended top schools and have wealthy lifestyles may have children who, for example, attend Clemson University and may have narrower chances of achieving the same lifestyles. The original poster wants to know how others are preparing their children for such a situation. By way of background, there has been a rash of threads across DCUM forums on topics related to children experiencing downward mobility. It is fairly common that posters try to wedge a popular topic into other forums. For instance, the recent fires in Los Angeles are primarily being discussed in the "Off-Topic" forum, but posters have also started threads in the political forum and the college forum (to discuss the impact on colleges in the area). I would not be surprised to see the topic pop up in the lawn and garden forum due to a desire to discuss brush removal or tree trimming. I don't know if children's downward mobility is such a topic, but in the college forum it nicely merges with another popular topic which is school rank. Many posters have the same belief that the original poster apparently has that school rank is destiny. According to this view, the graduates of the best schools will end up with the best jobs and the best lifestyles. Those from lower-ranked schools will not do as well. Several of those replying object to this view. As one poster writes, "Just wait until you see some of the schools that Fortune 500 CEOs went to." Other posters stress that generational wealth rather than college choices generally has a bigger impact on one's financial fortunes. Posters also have different perspectives about financial success. A poster who said that both she and her husband went to top 20 schools but had to take out loans and repayment has been a financial burden. Therefore, they are prioritizing debt-free education for their kids. They will help with home down payments and such instead of tuition at brand-name schools. Because the original poster mentioned Clemson, there is a debate about the school throughout the thread. It is possible that this entire thread was nothing but a disguised attempt to troll Clemson fans.

The final thread that I will discuss today was another one posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Michelle Obama", the original poster says that there had been speculation that Michelle Obama might run for president in 2024. That did not happen, but the original poster asks what she is doing now and suggests that it would be great to see her as part of the conversation for 2028. Public opinion polls regularly show that Michelle Obama is extremely popular and that she would be a formidable presidential candidate. However, she has repeatedly said that she has no interest in running for office. As is the Republican tendency, they have vilified her, and an entire litany of anti-Michelle Obama discourse has developed among right-wingers. Much of that is repeated here. For the most part, this thread consists of Democrats repeating that Michelle Obama has no interest in running and that others should leave her alone. Republicans, on the other hand, demand to know why she did not attend the funeral of former President Jimmy Carter and will not attend the inauguration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. They also bring up controversies from the past in order to argue that she would not be a good candidate. Michelle Obama has generally been portrayed by right-wingers as the more extreme of the two Obamas. In 2008, rumors spread across the Internet that Republicans were in possession of a tape on which Michelle Obama was recorded criticizing "whitey". This became known as the "whitey tape" and, despite never materializing, was used as evidence that Michelle Obama was secretly racist. In this thread, right-wingers rely on similarly unsubstantiated evidence. They claim that Michelle Obama is missing events because she and Barack are having marital problems and may actually be separated. Democrats defend her by saying that she likely missed the Carter funeral in order to avoid sitting next to the Trumps. She would have been required to sit directly next to Donald Trump. Similarly, they suggest that she has no interest in attending his inauguration. Like most threads in the political forum these days, this one is pretty useless and I don't recommend wasting time reading it.