DCUM Weblog

The most active threads over the weekend were mostly ones that I've already discussed. That was the case with the most active overall, but the second most active thread, which was titled, "Here’s Why Asian Americans Shifted Right by 9 points" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, was one that I haven't previously addressed. Therefore, I'll start with that one. This thread was started on Saturday and is currently 26 pages long. I was a bit confused reading the first post of the thread because the original poster did not indicate that the text was entirely a quote. When I started reading, I was under the impression that the original poster had personally conducted detailed research into the voting patterns of Asian Americans. I eventually figured out that the original poster was actually quoting from an article published on the Real Clear Politics website. The main point of the quote is that Asian Americans voted for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump in greater numbers than was initially believed and that their motivation was the Democrats' focus on "woke" issues, especially affirmative action. I think that it is worth pointing out that Real Clear Politics is a right-leaning website, the author of the article is an employee of the conservative Manhattan Institute, and it appears that only right-wingers were quoted in the article (at least in the portion quoted). That doesn't mean that the conclusions are wrong, but it is worth noting the perspective being presented. What was wrong, however, is the spin the original poster gave the thread. The thread's title suggests that the thread will explain why Asian Americans shifted toward Trump. Then the quoted passage only deals with "woke" issues, giving the impression that Asian Americans were mostly motivated by opposition to woke policies. However, the article itself says that Asian Americans were primarily motivated by concerns about the economy and secondarily by worries about public safety. The original poster, who did not mention the economy or public safety, was quite misleading in how this was presented. "Asian Americans" are getting a lot of attention these days, especially in topics surrounding education such as affirmative action. What is normally missing from such discussions is the diversity of the Asian American community. Not only are there East Asians and South Asians who differ significantly, but there is tremendous diversity even within those groups. It is somewhat ironic that at a time when Democrats are being criticized for "identity politics", it is conservatives engaging in identity politics when it comes to Asians. Moreover, there are some shortcomings in the analysis presented in this article. The author appears to have entirely judged the "shift" in Asian American voting based on presidential votes. It would be interesting to know if a similar voting pattern occurred in other races. In addition, the author seems to have relied on sources who are far from objective. For instance, local right-wing firebrand Asra Nomani is quoted throughout the article. Nomani's perspective is not all that widely shared even locally among Asians — at least as I can determine from DCUM posts — let alone nationally. Nevertheless, she is quoted as citing admissions changes at Thomas Jefferson High School as a reason for changes in Asian American voting. Call me skeptical that anyone outside the Northern Virginia region even knows about TJ, let alone changed their votes because of the admissions changes.

Once again, the two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed. Coincidentally, both of those threads involve school controversies. The most active thread for the past several days has been the one about the Hayfield football team scandal. With all that is going on in the world, it is interesting that high school football is getting so much attention. The second was the thread involving the former Head of School of the National Child Research Center preschool. That one is likely to stay near the top of the most active list for some time. After those was a thread titled, "Matt Gaetz is out" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As I am sure readers are aware, Matt Gaetz was a Congressman from Florida who has been embroiled for years in a sex scandal involving a 17-year-old that Gaetz allegedly paid for sex. Gaetz was chosen by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump to serve as Attorney General in Trump's second term. Almost immediately after the announcement that Trump had picked him, Gaetz resigned from Congress. Now, as the original poster of this thread says, Gaetz has withdrawn his name from consideration for the Attorney General post. Gaetz always seemed like a long shot to be confirmed, with even Trump reportedly saying that Gaetz only had a 50% chance of confirmation. A number of Republican Senators announced that they vote against Gaetz's confirmation. When the news that Gaetz would no longer pursue the Attorney General position broke, posters in this thread immediately began speculating about what had caused him to drop out. One theory is that the entire thing was orchestrated, possibly by Trump, to simply get Gaetz out of Congress. I'm not much of a believer in the theory that Republicans in Congress were able to rope Trump in on a conspiracy against Gaetz. A more likely theory is that the ethics report that has been drafted regarding Gaetz's sex and drug escapades was going to be particularly damaging. It is true that Gaetz's unusual resignation from Congress came just before the Ethics Committee was due to vote on the release of the report. Release of the report was ultimately voted down on party lines. Interestingly, however, the Republicans were not actually against the release of the report, just the release in draft form. This suggests that if Gaetz remained in federal politics, the report might be finalized and then released at a later date. As a result, some posters suggested that the report probably hardened opposition to Gaetz in the Senate. But, as other posters pointed out, Gaetz has been uniquely successful at alienating members of his own party. Some of the harshest and most revealing statements opposing Gaetz were provided by other Republicans. Therefore, some posters suggested that Gaetz would probably not have been confirmed even if the report were not an issue. Finally, just after Gaetz said that he would no longer pursue the Attorney General position, CNN issued a statement saying that less than an hour earlier they had contacted him about plans to report on an allegation of a second sexual encounter with the 17-year-old. That might have also motivated Gaetz. Other discussion revolved around what Gaetz would do next. There was some speculation that he would return to Congress since he was elected to serve in the next Congress. However, his resignation statement had ruled that out. Others suggested that he might run for the Senate seat being vacated by Senator Marco Rubio, who has been picked as Trump's Secretary of State. More than likely, however, Gaetz will avoid anything that will cause his past to be investigated. Therefore, his most likely fate is an appointment in the Trump administration, perhaps in a White House role.

Because the two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed, I will start with the third most active thread, which was titled, "Democratic pipeline of talent is sad". Posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the original poster repeats what has basically become a broken record among centrist Democrats in the forum, claiming that the election was lost because of progressives in the Democratic Party. Never mind that Vice President Kamala Harris ran as exactly the candidate the original poster and those who share her beliefs wanted. Given the choice of recognizing that their strategy failed and blaming powerless progressives, they reflexively blame the left. The original poster then went on to denigrate several potential future Democratic presidential candidates, often using Republican talking points. This is where we are at the moment. So-called "Democrats" are devoting their efforts to mimicking Republicans while attacking the best political organizers in the party. Meanwhile, the original poster and those like her seem completely oblivious to the threat being presented by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Instead of organizing to resist Trump, these posters are spending their time attacking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Not unexpectedly, these days, almost before the first page was complete, this thread had gone off-topic. Instead of discussing the pipeline of Democratic political talent, posters simply discussed how terrible leftist Democrats are and how they have ruined the party. That discussion has been had plenty of times already, so I am going to stick to the original topic. The main point that the original poster seems to be making is that there are no centrist Democrats poised to be strong presidential contenders. If the original poster is correct, the fact that centrist Democrats have proven to be unelectable can hardly be blamed on progressives. But, in fact, the original poster is wrong. She mentioned Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear herself, but brushed him off as "a nobody". However, another moderate Democrat is North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper. I think the bigger issue here is that politics no longer exists on a simple left-right spectrum. The old labels don't work, but those like the original poster haven't yet figured that out. The real division shown in the last election was not between the left and the right, but rather between populists and establishment politicians. When Harris first announced her candidacy, she took a populist slant and was boosted by a wave of popularity. Soon, however, establishment Democrats — the so-called "adults in the room" — took over the campaign and tamed things down. Instead of engaging in populist rhetoric, Harris took to campaigning with Liz Cheney, one of the most establishment figures in existence. A populist message that speaks to the working class will be necessary for the Democrats' future. But engaging populism while not alienating the Democrats' current base of affluent urban and suburban voters will take some talent. In that regard, I humbly suggest consideration of Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff. Ossoff is a liberal who has managed to win in a red state. He is a Jew who last night voted to embargo weapons to Israel. He is a young man in a party that has suffered from the age of its leaders. Most importantly for this discussion, he is a populist who can also appeal to urban elites. If someday the original poster realizes who our real opponent is and stops firing on fellow Democrats, I suggest that she take a look at Ossoff or one of the many other Democrats that make up a pipeline full of talent.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Head of School at National Child Research Center (NCRC) - Arrest warrant issued" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. By the time I learned that this thread existed yesterday, the title was already out of date. The original poster started this thread after learning of reports that an arrest warrant had been issued for James Carroll, the Head of School at the National Child Research Center (NCRC), an elite Washington, DC preschool. Less than half an hour later, Carroll's arrest for attempted coercion and enticement of a minor was announced. For me, this thread provoked an immediate sense of déjà vu. Back in 2006, when DCUM's forums were still in their infancy, a scandal involving a teacher at Beauvoir was the subject of what would become, at that time, the most active thread in DCUM history. That case involved Eric Toth, a 3rd grade teacher at Beauvoir who was found to have taken sexually explicit photos of children using a school-owned camera. Toth fled and ended up replacing Osama Bin Laden on the FBI's Most Wanted list after Bin Laden was killed. Toth, who was later arrested in Costa Rica and is now in prison, had actually been an active DCUM poster. My immediate reaction upon seeing this thread was to think that we were going to have another Beauvoir situation. Carroll has a long history in the DC private school world, including a Beauvoir connection. He apparently was teaching 3rd grade along with Toth at Beauvoir at the time of the Beauvoir scandal. That is an eerie coincidence to say the least. Carroll later joined the Beauvoir administration before leaving to become the head of school at Concord Hill School for two years. He has been head of school at NCRC since July 2018. The criminal complaint provided in this case is pretty tough to read and definitely not for the faint of heart. According to that document, Carroll came to the attention of an administrator of the Discord social media network when he uploaded a photo of "two naked prepubescent boys". The Discord employee contacted the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about the photo, and NCMEC alerted the FBI. The FBI was able to trace the Discord account used to upload the photo to IP addresses associated with NCRC and Carroll's home. A review of Carroll's Discord account showed that he "had engaged in conversations with other Discord users about child sexual exploitation, circumcision of teenage boys, urinating on teenage boys and adults, and had discussed the removal of adult male’s penises." In addition, the FBI discovered several "selfies" picturing Carroll. An FBI undercover law enforcement officer using an undercover Discord account established contact with Carroll and engaged in conversation about child sexual exploitation. The undercover officer posed as a father of a nine-year-old boy who was interested in sexually exploiting his child. Carroll provided suggestions for acts the "father" might commit. Reaction in this thread is, as you would expect, a mix of shock and anger. Many posters have children who were exposed to Carroll over the years and are desperately trying to ensure that their children were safe. Many are outraged at the continual flow of scandals involving private schools, not just Carroll and Toth but a number of others as well.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. The third most active thread was titled, "Trump wants Ann Selzer punished for her Iowa poll Predicition." and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster links to a New York Post article describing a demand by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump for an investigation of J. Ann Selzer. Selzer is the pollster behind the highly regarded Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll. Despite its reputation for accuracy, Selzer's poll had a big miss in this election, predicting that Vice President Kamala Harris would win Iowa by 2 points. Instead, Trump won by 13. Right-wingers have long viewed polls with skepticism, accusing pollsters of skewing polls for the past several elections. Moreover, it is fairly routine for MAGA posters on DCUM to brag about lying to those conducting polls. They are apparently invested in ensuring that polls are inaccurate. Trump did not specify what sort of investigation of Selzer he wants to see conducted. Selzer recently announced that she would be leaving the Des Moines Register, a departure that has been long planned and is unconnected to the polling failure. The MAGAs in this thread are certain that Selzer intentionally skewed her poll in order to boost Democratic morale and give a false impression of Harris' chance of winning. Some go so far as to describe it as an illegal campaign contribution. Liberal posters don't see any advantage to Selzer posting false polling results and accuse Trump of interfering with freedom of the press. The best explanation that I've seen of why Selzer missed so badly was posted as a response in this thread. According to the poster, Selzer's method of identifying "likely voters" unintentionally overlooks many likely Trump voters and leads to Trump voters being underrepresented in her poll. According to this poster, Trump voters tend to be hostile and uncooperative, if not downright belligerent, in response to polls. Selzer discards responses from those who are not cooperative as unlikely voters. In reality, antagonistic Trump supporters are apparently very likely voters. Don't forget that some of this lack of cooperation includes outright lying. At any rate, many posters question why Trump is bothering with Selzer given that he won the election. Some suggest, correctly, that Trump voters are mostly motivated by anger, and Trump needs to provide a constant stream of reasons to be angry. I think another explanation for Trump's threat is his desire for dominance. Josh Marshall, editor of Talking Points Memo, has spent years discussing Trump and dominance. As he has pointed out, Trump does not seek compromise with his opponents, but rather complete dominance over them. His goal is to leave them cowed and unwilling to challenge him in the future. This explains his frequent ritual humiliations of those who have crossed him. There is no question that Selzer's reputation has been severely hurt by her last poll. Normally, that would provide plenty of satisfaction for her critics. But not for Trump. By piling on, Trump is sending a message to anyone else who might challenge him. Act in a way in which Trump disapproves and he will come after you. Intimidation and bullying are Trump's tools of the trade. We can expect to see this behavior frequently during his second term.

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.

For the third day running, one of the most active threads was about a cabinet nomination by President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. This one was titled, "RFKjr Tapped to Head HHS" and was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As noted in the title, Trump announced that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was his choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services. I consider this choice a little unusual for Trump. His previous cabinet choices emphasized loyalty. Kennedy is a bit of a loose cannon whose loyalty might be in question. Putting Kennedy in charge of HHS is not just putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, it is more like putting someone who denies the moon landing at the head of NASA. The chances of Kennedy completely destroying the department are fairly high. At first glance, I can see several categories of damage that Kennedy might do. One is messaging. MAGAs especially tend to believe Trump and his top people rather than experts. The more that Kennedy deemphasizes important health measures and, instead, highlights unproven quackery, the more that public health is likely to suffer. Second is interference with important research projects that he simply doesn't understand. It is common practice to track down some esoteric research project that, at first glance, sounds ridiculous and highlight it as a waste of money. The problem is that you never really know where these projects might lead. For instance, the popular weight loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy had their origin in research into lizard venom. The flip side of this coin is that Kennedy might direct research into areas that aren't productive. A poster in this thread suggests that Kennedy might put significant funds into stem cell research which the poster believes would be a waste of time and money. I don't have the knowledge to comment on that in any way, but Kennedy has plenty of off-the-wall ideas that I could easily see him prioritizing that either lead nowhere or make things worse. Additional damage could be by simple neglect. HHS is huge, encompassing the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and much, much more. It is going to take a while for Kennedy to simply learn all this is under his purview. If he gets lost trying to reform the FDA, for instance, what will happen to the rest of the Department? One specific threat that Kennedy presents is his attitude toward vaccines. Kennedy has falsely linked vaccines to autism and has equated the use of vaccines to the Holocaust. Any steps Kennedy takes to discourage the use of vaccines could have a profound negative impact on health, especially of children. Kennedy also promotes discredited theories such as his claims about the benefits of raw milk. This is particularly concerning because the United States is currently experiencing an outbreak of the H5N1 bird flu virus in dairy cattle. The H5N1 virus can be spread through unpasteurized milk from infected cows. If the H5N1 bird flu continues to spread during the Trump administration, having at the head of HHS a man who promotes a mechanism for spreading it and who will likely interfere with vaccines meant to combat it will be, to say the least, problematic. Kennedy even supports some of the leading MAGA theories from Trump's first term, such as believing that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are effective COVID treatments. It is hard to pin down exactly which of Trump's cabinet picks presents the most threat to our well-being, but a very strong argument can be made for Kennedy.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Matt Gaetz tapped for AG" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Yesterday, I wrote about the nomination of Pete Hegseth and said that, "Trump's cabinet is quickly shaping up to be the MAGA version of the Star Wars bar, with every type of right-wing freak imaginable." But even with my expectations set accordingly, I was taken completely by surprise by this pick. So much so that I actually deleted the first thread about Matt Gaetz being chosen for Attorney General because I assumed that it was a troll. There appear to be several layers to this particular onion, and I am not sure that we have uncovered them all yet. I suspect that there are more surprises to come. With that in mind, here is what we know. Gaetz was previously investigated by federal authorities for his role in a sex trafficking ring. Gaetz, who will now oversee a significant amount of highly confidential information, left his Venmo transactions publicly viewable. His Venmo history showed payments to a woman who was linked to the sex trafficking ring. Gaetz was alleged to have paid the woman for sex at a time when she was underage. The Federal investigation of Gaetz was dropped without his being charged, but a close associate of his pled guilty and is currently serving an 11-year sentence. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ethics has been investigating Gaetz and his involvement in sex trafficking for some time. Former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy has said that Gaetz offered to drop his effort to remove McCarthy as Speaker if McCarthy quashed the Ethics investigation. McCarthy declined and subsequently lost a vote to remain as Speaker. The Ethics Committee was scheduled to release a report about Gaetz that has been described as "damaging" on Friday. He reportedly met with President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump earlier this week and convinced Trump to make the AG appointment. After Trump announced the decision yesterday, Gaetz resigned from Congress. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is not allowed to appoint a successor for Gaetz. Instead, a special election must be scheduled. It could be that Gaetz' early resignation was meant to allow time for that election and decrease the period during which an empty seat would further decrease the Republicans' slim House majority. However, it is more likely that Gaetz was trying to get out before the report was released. What will happen with that report remains to be seen. In this thread, there was immediate doubt about whether Gaetz could be confirmed. However, many Republican Senators rushed to offer support for Gaetz, and others expressed a lack of interest in having a fight with Trump over the nomination. While Maine Senator Susan Collins announced her opposition, the Republicans only need 50 votes to allow Vice President-elect J. D. Vance to break the tie. Therefore, it will take more than Collins alone to block Gaetz. Even then, Trump has expressed interest in making recess appointments, which would avoid the necessity of Senate confirmation. The upshot is that the next U.S. Attorney General is very likely to be someone who was involved in sex trafficking a minor and whose only qualification is loyalty to Trump. Just one more freak in the Star Wars bar.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "What are the ways you'll resist?", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster asks how others will "resist the current administration". I assume that the original poster is actually referring to the incoming administration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, which won't begin until early next year. The current administration is still that of President Joe Biden, and I don't think anyone would be making plans to resist Biden at this late date. When Trump was elected the first time, he was immediately met by the giant women's march. Protests soon became a feature of the early days of his administration. The later years of Trump's first term were characterized by Black Lives Matter protests, especially following the killing of George Floyd and ANTIFA-led protests in places like Seattle and Portland. The protests became a sort of wedge issue, with many who might otherwise support the causes growing tired of the disruption the protests caused and Trump using them as an excuse for increased militarization of the police. Add to this the slew of protests against Israel's war in Gaza, and mainstream Democrats are sick and tired of protests. As such, there is little interest in what many now see as an ineffectual tactic. In fact, while Democrats have been told, and many believe, that Trump is a unique threat to democracy, very little has been done to prepare to resist him. More common is a sense of resignation, often coupled with an expectation that Trump's administration will be a series of failures that often harm his supporters the most. MAGA posters are taking great pleasure in trash-talking Trump opponents and gloating over their victory. They search for any signs of "liberal tears" and make wild claims over what they expect to happen to the vanquished Democrats. The lack of any notable resistance actually is a disappointment to them. MAGAs want to point and laugh at the futile struggles of Democrats, but can't find anything worth the effort. As one poster wrote, referring to MAGA posters, "This board has been four years of them [MAGAs] whining about everything. And when they don't get the big freakout they've been waiting for, they whine about that." Some posters actually accused the original poster of being a MAGA troll trying to stir up drama that hasn't developed organically. As for the Democrats, they seem more interested in participating in a circular firing squad than resisting Trump. Centrist Democrats don't appear likely to be satisfied until every progressive has publicly renounced any use of pronouns and agreed that the subject of gender will henceforth never be mentioned again. As for progressives, they are too busy resisting other Democrats to worry about Trump. There actually seems to be more interest in resisting First Lady Elon Musk than there is in resisting Trump. People are cancelling X accounts left and right and refusing to allow Teslas to merge in front of them. Unrelated to the thread, but the saddest people on Earth right now must be liberal Tesla owners who bought the cars in order to help the environment and are now being tagged as Trump supporters.

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.