DCUM Weblog

Yesterday was another day in which politics dominated discussion. Over half of the ten most active topics were political, including the top four that I will discuss toda. The first of those was titled, "2024 Democratic National Convention" and, of course, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started Saturday in advance of yesterday's opening day of the Democratic National Convention. The original poster appears to be a Republican who asked if anyone was planning to attend the convention and then quickly turned to expectation setting by suggesting that the DNC might get a bigger audience than the Republican National Convention because the RNC was held while everyone was on vacation. It is clear to anyone that enthusiasm and momentum have clearly switched to the Democrats since Vice President Kamala Harris replaced President Joe Biden as the presidential nominee. That even Republicans understand this is evident from the preemptive excuse-making of the original poster and the apocalyptic tone of many of the Republican posts. For instance, one MAGA poster claimed that the DNC would be "watched for decades to come as the death of democracy in America". The thread was 10 pages long before the convention even got started as posters debated whatever political issue crossed their minds. I have long since given up that any thread in the political forum will stay on topic for longer than a few posts. In this thread, posters were debating Harris' anti-price gouging position and Doritos, both of which have their own threads. Once things finally got started, the thread settled into a routine of each side trying to spin events as much as possible. There have been expectations of large, possibly violent, protests against Israel's war in Gaza. As it turned out, the number of protesters was smaller than expected. Police had erected several rows of fences to contain the protesters and, while protesters broke through one row at one point, things remained under control and there was no real violence. That didn't stop some posters from fixating on the protests and doing their best to blow them out of proportion. On the other hand were posters who attempted to minimize the authentic anger aroused by Biden's complete and total support for Israel while it kills tens of thousands of Palestinians, blaming the protests on Iran. With regard to the speeches, things were much the same. Conservative posters found many things about which to complain while liberals were full of praise. Much of the discussion revolved around Biden and his stepping down from the race. Many posters, most of whom were probably Republicans, claimed that there was something irregular about Harris replacing Biden at the top of the ticket. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump has been referring to this as a coup and some of his supporters in this thread followed suit. Several posters asserted that nobody had voted for Harris and, therefore, her accession to presidential nominee was anti-Democratic. Factually, due to the peculiarities of the American political system, voters in the primary elections actually select delegates rather than an actual candidate. The majority of the delegates elected were pledged to Biden. When he stepped down, however, Biden asked his delegates to support Harris. Those delegates were free to support any candidate of their choice, but most chose to support Harris. There is nothing anti-Democratic about this, particularly since Harris was Biden's running mate in the first place.

The most active thread on DCUM over the weekend was titled, "Price gouging as her first policy announcement? Really?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Some days I feel like there is practically a contest on DCUM to see who can post the most uninformed post. Today is one of those days and this thread is one of those threads. A corollary to this is a widespread desire to be contrarian as if that automatically bestows some sort of intelligence on the poster. It doesn't. The original poster of this thread transgresses in both of these ways, at least in my opinion (admittedly, completely worthless). The original poster's primary point in her post is to question why Vice President Harris chose price gouging as her first major policy announcement and to argue that such a policy is unnecessary and brings back memories of 1970s price controls. As the very first response in this thread points out, this is not Harris' first major policy announcement. She had already announced plans for the national protection of reproductive health and support for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Second, the original poster clearly knew nothing about Harris' proposal and, therefore, was misleading in her post. However, had the original poster made an effort to inform herself before posting, she might have some lingering confusion for which she could be forgiven. Harris did not exactly announce a policy but rather a plan to develop a policy. Her announcement promised the development of "clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can't unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries." She also committed to authorizing the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to “impose strict new penalties” on companies that price gouge. Harris would also address anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions that cause grocery price increases. Because none of the details of these initiatives were announced, a lot of exactly what Harris will do is unknown. But, nothing Harris outlined suggested that there would be price controls. Moreover, several states have existing anti-price gouging laws and don't impose price controls. Many of those responding are supportive of Harris, noting that posters have been complaining about inflation generally and grocery prices specifically for months. Now Harris is promising to address those concerns. The MAGA reaction is as expected. They accuse Harris of being a communist. There is literally no policy that Harris could announce which would not cause MAGA posters to claim that she is a communist. Somewhere in the middle were those who oppose former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and would like to support Harris, but are opposed to this initiative. Some of them claim to be professional economists. What I have noticed over the past few years is that mainstream economists have adopted a fairly conservative view of economics. For instance, the acclaimed Lawrence Summers repeatedly argued that unemployment would have to reach 10% in order to control inflation. President Joe Biden somehow managed to get inflation under control while keeping unemployment at historic lows. I normally respect expertise. But, professionals in two specialities, weather forecasting and economics, really seem to be wrong more than they are right. I no longer have much faith in either one.

Yesterday's most active discussion was titled, "JK Rowling's gender policing finally caught up to her", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. I am sure that by now everyone has heard about the controversy involving Algerian boxer Imane Khelif and the Olympics. But for anyone who has been locked away in a cave, here is a summary. Khelif was identified at birth as a female, raised as a female, and has competed in boxing as a female for several years. After she defeated a Russian boxer, the Russian President of the International Boxing Association, Umar Kremlev, claimed that tests showed that she has XY chromosomes and, therefore, is a man. Kremlev disqualified Khelif, along with Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu Ting, from competition. Notably, Kremlev has not revealed which tests were conducted or who conducted them. Nor have the results other than his general statement been provided. The International Olympic Committee has suspended relations with the IBA and rejects its findings regarding Khelif and Lin. It is important to remember that allegations that Khelif has XY chromosomes and tested high in testosterone come only from Kremlev and have not been confirmed otherwise. While many posters in this thread assume Kremlev's allegations are true, that remains an open question. Regardless, Khelif's participation in the Olympics led to a wave of on-line hate and bigotry towards her. Some prominent individuals, including J. K. Rowling and Elon Musk, joined in and encouraged those attacks. In response, Khelif has filed a complaint in French courts accusing those two and others of cyberbullying. The original poster of this thread is doubtful that successful legal action would do anything to temper Rowling's attacks on women who do not conform to her own rigid gender norms, but is happy that Rowling may at least suffer financial repercussions.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Failed my test" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she had a date with a guy who was in many respects great. He is close to her age, has a great job, and is a decent guy. While the original poster found him to be a bit too publicly affectionate for her taste, she doesn't seem to have been overly bothered by that. What really put her off however is a "test" that she uses to filter the men that she dates. She offered to split the check for their dinner and he accepted. In this way, he failed her test. She fully expects her offers to split the check to be politely declined. She believes that this is an indication of a man's generosity and his willingness to care for her. Despite the date being otherwise good, she has no plans for a second date because this guy failed her test. Before going any further, I should address the issue of whether or not this poster is a troll. I received about a half dozen reports suggesting that is the case. All I can say is that this thread is consistent with previous threads by the poster and, despite posting 34 times in the thread, she did nothing to suggest that she was trolling. Instead, she repeatedly stuck to the same message: that she is a high-earning, divorced, mid-40s, professional woman who has the luxury of being picky about men and has strongly held views about gender roles. This does not mean that she has purely traditional ideas about gender roles — she says that she contributed equally if not more to expenses in her marriage and a subsequent long term relationship — but she feels strongly that a woman should not be seen to pay for food in public. Needless to say, not every poster who responded was impressed with the original poster's test. The test was variously described as "idiotic", "silly", and a test of whether her date could "read your mind". While the original poster didn't really care about the amount she ended up paying — she has plenty of money and can easily afford it — other posters tended to fixate on that aspect. The topic of splitting checks on dates has come up a lot in the relationship forum. Some women are uncomfortable with the practice of guys picking up the check and some guys resent the financial burden it places on them. As such, this is a part of dating, particularly first dates, in which there is no agreed upon practice and expectations may differ. That contributes to the view among many of those responding that the original poster's test is flawed and she is wrong to adhere to it so strictly. Many posters have no problem with the guy agreeing to split the check, but they are bothered by his physical forwardness. They consider that a much bigger red flag and are astonished that the original poster, while expressing her discomfort with it, was not more bothered by his aggressiveness. As best as I can deduce, the original poster considers his attempts at public affection to be an indication that he is an "alpha male" which is not something that really displeases her. Rather, it was her date's departure from this alpha male persona when he allowed her to split the check that bothered her. Not all of those responding were critical of the original poster's test. Some thought it was a good screening mechanism. Far more common, however, were posters who thought that the guy was a loser who should have been rejected for multiple reasons. They didn't care which specific reason motivated the original poster and his failure of her test was as good as reason as any to pass on further dates with him.

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. 

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.