Thursday's Most Active Threads

The three most active threads yesterday were all posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. However, one of those was a thread that I discussed yesterday and will skip today. Still, half of the topics I will discuss today are political. The first of those was titled, "It is insulting to us American voters that we have to choose between a senile old man and a criminal". The original poster says that she is furious and cannot vote for either President Joe Biden or former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. She says that it is completely unacceptable that American voters have been put in this position and that the whole world is watching in horror. The worst part about our current conundrum is that it was not caused by our political system breaking down, but rather our political system working exactly as it should, at least in terms of selecting candidates. The Republican Party had a hard-fought primary with a number of credible candidates. Those candidates included several sitting or former governors, a U.S. Senator, and a former Vice President. Trump, as a former President — as well as a cult leader — always had an advantage. But the other candidates had a fair opportunity to defeat him and simply failed. Trump is clearly his party's preferred candidate. The Democrats' situation was somewhat different. It is rare that sitting Presidents face contested primary elections with anything other than token opposition, especially when the President has been successful as it can be argued that Biden has been. The stiffest opposition from Biden was from "uncommitted". But while the system functioned as designed, the institutions within that system have been weakened and/or are dysfunctional. Trump was twice impeached but each time the Senate, acting mostly along partisan lines, refused to convict. In the case of Trump's January 6 related impeachment, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell even agreed with the impeachment, but argued that Trump, as a former rather than sitting President, should be dealt with by the courts rather than Congress. It was the same McConnell who had previously engineered the appointment of three Supreme Court justices selected by Trump, once by refusing to confirm a nominee and once by rushing to confirm a nominee in record speed. The judicial system has simply not been up to the task of handling Trump and his Supreme Court picks are further assuring that he will not face legal consequences. On the Democratic side, most voters likely believed that Biden was going to be a one-term President. A bridge candidate who would defeat Trump, get the country back on track, and then prepare the ground for the younger generation. But somewhere along the way Biden, if he had ever agreed to this in the first place, changed his mind. Again, the institutions that could have played a role in easing him out failed. Mechanisms are grinding away now that may result in Biden's replacement, but whether that comes to pass is still an open question. The real challenge facing us is how we can strengthen the institutions that are fundamental to our democracy but which have simply not been functioning adequately. I don't really have an answer to that question.

The next most active thread, which was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, was titled, "Biden tells governors he got a medical checkup". The original poster included a lengthy quote from a Politico article describing a meeting that President Joe Biden had on Wednesday evening with several governors. The purpose of the meeting was to assure the governors that Biden is up to the task of being President. The original poster specifically drew attention to the part of the article in which Biden is described as telling the Governors that he had recently had a checkup and is in good health. However, Biden's claim was contradicted by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre who said that Biden had not been examined by a doctor since his annual checkup. The original poster asked if Biden's claim would satisfactorily address concerns about his health. Needless to say, most posters were not satisfied. Posters have a variety of views regarding Biden's current cognitive abilities. Many seemed convinced by Biden's debate performance that he is completely incapable of performing his presidential duties. Their perception of Biden during the debate is much more definitive than mine. I saw Biden as having both good and bad moments during the debate, leaving me unconvinced that he is not up to the job. Other posters believe that Biden likely is undergoing an uneven decline and probably has both good and bad days. As such, Biden can appear fully capable one day and in serious decline on another. Several posters are convinced that there is a conspiracy involving White House officials, other Democrats, and the media to hide the truth about Biden's condition. Many of these posters complained that Biden has not been publicly visibly demonstrating his cognitive strength since the debate. His few public appearances have been scripted with Biden reading from a teleprompter. Biden is scheduled to do an interview with ABC News tonight so maybe that will alleviate this criticism a bit. Things got worse for Biden when it was reported that he had told the governors that he needs more sleep and will no longer participate in events after 8 p.m. Many posters were convinced that this was a joke. The general consensus in this thread is that Biden has failed to change the perception given during the debate that he is cognitively unfit and, if anything, has only made things worse. He has done little or nothing to appear in public and caused confusion with his claim to have been examined by a doctor. His claim that he needs more sleep feeds directly into the "Sleepy Joe" nickname originally bequeathed to him by former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Biden could hardly do anything more to increase rather than reduce concerns about his fitness.

Next was a thread titled, "DD and friend - beach" and posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. I assume that anyone reading this is aware but in case anyone is not, "DD" refers to "dear daughter". The original poster says that she allowed her 14-year-old daughter to bring a friend to the beach this year but that it hasn't been going well. The original poster's daughter is irritable and rude to her friend. The daughter complains that she doesn't want to be in hostest mode all of the time. While the two girls do activities together, they don't last long. Now the friend, who doesn't seem to be having much fun, has been asking her parents to come and get her. The original poster says that she will feel like a failure of a parent if the girl's parents have to make the drive out to get her. She asks for suggestions to turn things around. Most of those responding concentrate on the modality of getting the friend home, if it comes to that. Several argue that the original poster should drive the friend home rather than making her parents come and get her. Some believe doing that might make it look like the friend is just being dumped off and suggest that instead the original poster meet the other family halfway. Some posters think that if the friend goes home, the entire family should end their vacation and return as well. But other posters think that this is punishing the entire family because of the daughter's actions and they don't support this idea. Other posters focus on what can be done to improve the situation so that the friend doesn't have to return. Suggestions range from giving the daughter a strong talking to and threatening severe consequences if she doens't improve her behavior to leaving the daughter practically locked in her room while the original poster and the friend go out for an enjoyable day. Another suggestion was to sign the kids up for classes or courses that will keep them busy for long periods. Along those lines, a number of posters stressed that having structured activities is important. One poster who says that she entertains a lot of kids suggested that in addition to plenty of activities, there should be planned downtime where the friend can read or use screens. That would give the original poster's daughter a break from hosting. The original poster returned to thank the others for the advice and to say that yesterday had ended up going pretty well and her daughter had rallied. She said that for the remaining days she would provide general structure for activities and let the girls know that they can have some down time. She also wondered if things would be easier if they invited more than one friend.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. Titled, "Neil Gaiman accused of sexual assault", the first thing that I had to do was figure out who Neil Gaiman is. For anyone who shares my ignorance, he is an author who seems to be most well known for comic books and graphic novels. Since I don't read either of those, I guess my lack of familiarity can be explained. At any rate, the original poster links to a report detailing accusations by two young women that Gaiman sexually assaulted them. The original poster says that she never really liked Gaiman and that the reports, while not surprising, are disappointing. The original poster appears very dedicated to this story, also posting the first and second response in the thread. After saying that she never really liked Gaiman in her first post, she described him as one of her heros in her third post. Several other posters also expressed their disappointment. Some of them said that they thought that there was something creepy about Gaiman, either due to his relationship with Amanda Parker or the content of his books. Gaiman's accusers said that they had had consensual relationships with Gaiman, but that he had gone beyond their consent to engage in acts to which they had not agreed. Gaiman claimed that they simply regretted the relationships and said that their relationships were completely consensual. Whenever a poster suggested any sort of sympathy or support for Gaiman, the original poster quickly attacked them and accused them of being a "Gaiman fanboy". Later in the thread the original poster began outright sock puppeting, replying to her own posts and agreeing with them. From the very beginning I was wondering what bone the original poster had to pick with Gaiman. After reading all of her posts, including those that were sock puppeted, it occurred to me that it is because of his support of trans people. Apparently Gaiman has criticized J.K. Rowling. The original poster repeatedly claimed that Gaiman defenders were blaming the accusations against him on "TERFs". Nobody in this thread did any such thing, but ironically the original poster appears to be a TERF, or at least TERF-aligned, who is orchestrating an attack on Gaiman. Obviously sexual assault of any sort is condemnable and those who perpetrate it should be punished. It is also true that these accusations, which involve consensual relations with someone who is apparently known for being somewhat libertine in his sexual practices, are going to encounter doubters. Regardless, the fake discussion created by the original poster is not helpful or necessary.