Thursday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active threads were again dominated by political topics which filled three of the top four places. The first of those was titled, "Biden’s ‘Big Boy’ press conference" and, obviously, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster started this thread in anticipation of a press conference that would be held yesterday evening by President Joe Biden following the conclusion of the NATO summit held in Washington, DC. Following Biden's poor performance in the presidential debate with former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, he has been under tremendous pressure to participate in unscripted events that would allow the President to demonstrate his cognitive fitness. This press conference was such an opportunity. For reasons that I cannot begin to understand, the White House itself chose to refer to the event as the "Big Boy Press Conference". As has been the case in all recent Biden public events, this thread immediately started off with conspiracy theories. Posters predicted that Biden would be given the questions in advance, that everything would be rehearsed, and that Biden would be drugged to perform better. These same claims had been made prior to the debate and, obviously, did not turn out to be true. But a track record of being wrong has never stopped these posters. Many posters had very low expectations for Biden, assuming that the debate performance was an accurate indicator of his neurological state. The President did little to convince them otherwise when earlier in the day he introduced Ukrainian President Zelenskyy as "President Putin". Biden started the press conference off strongly with a prepared statement that was obviously read from a teleprompter. But, whatever hopes Biden might have had of changing minds about his fitness were almost immediately shattered when he referred to "Vice President Trump" when he obviously meant Vice President Kamala Harris. Of course posters in the thread immediately jumped on both of these gaffes which almost completely set the tone for the rest of the press conference. It cannot be denied that Biden is no longer a very good communicator. He has a stutter which causes him to speak slowly in order to avoid. His voice is gravely and he has a tendency to stumble over words. But as he showed throughout the rest of the press conference, he has a solid grasp of details of complex topics and can understand and explain the nuances of complicated issues. When it comes to being able to understand and articulate policies, Biden is far more able than Trump. Many posters in the thread recognized this, but others either could not or would not get past the gaffes. These misstatements are unfortunate, but which of us parents has not called our own children by the wrong name on occasion? That doesn't mean that we don't know who our children are or that we are suffering from dementia. But, in Biden's case, it reinforces a concerning perception that he has lost his mental sharpness. Biden's performance was almost the worst cases scenario. Had Biden entered the room unable to remember what day it was and promptly provided a recipe for banana bread in response to a question about his plans for the Middle East, the decision to replace him would have been easy. Alternatively, had he put in an error-free performance that included Obama-level oration skills, he probably would have quelled most of the criticism. However, he did neither. This press conference was neither fish nor fowl. As such, the fight over the Democratic presidential nominee will go on.

The next most active thread yesterday was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Abortion messaging needs to change", the original poster says that she is a "Liberal Christian Woman" and that she feels that those like her are not included in the messaging regarding abortion from either those on the right or the left. According to her, the right considers abortion to be murder, period. The left, on the other hand, considers abortion to be a women's health issue, period. But she is in the middle. She opposes abortion as a "lifestyle choice", but supports abortion rights in cases of "health of mom and baby, rape and incest, family planning, procedures like D&Cs". Abortion is a complex topic and one that for which developing cogent one-liner policy explanations is nearly impossible. Even those who claim that "abortion is murder" have run afoul of many of their own compatriots due to conflicts between that policy and in vitro fertilization, forcing moderation in many cases. Abortion rights activists have difficulty opposing late-term abortions because there are cases in which a fetus suffers from severe birth defects and is determined to be incompatible with life and they don't want to force women to carry these pregnancies to term. Even the orignal poster's own post shows how this is not an easy issue to discuss. She opposes abortion as a "lifestyle choice" but supports it for "family planning". What is the difference? Whether the choice in question is to not have a child or to have a child through IVF, aren't both "lifestyle" choices? While the original poster receives some support from those responding, posts in opposition are more common. One of the problems is that the original poster, as she repeatedly insists, is only talking about messaging, not legislation. She does not propose that her opposition to "lifestyle choice" abortions be legislated. But, political messaging is almost by definition about policy and policy is expected to lead to legislation. Politicians can, and do, say that they personally oppose abortion but support the legality of abortion. But, getting more specific about that as the original poster suggests gets into tricky territory. Notably, in a later post in which the original poster outlines a policy position that she believes Democrats should adopt, she left out her opposition regarding "lifestyle choice" completely. What she is left with is a policy with which which abortion rights proponents have only minor differences. Later, in response to another post, the original poster agreed with even a broader position that essentially said only that abortion choices should be left to women and their doctors. That is basically the extreme pro-abortion rights position. As far as I can tell, the original poster wants Democrats to support a broad abortion rights position while also saying that it is okay to personally object to abortion as a lifestyle choice. However, this is the essence of choice. When politicians say that they support a women's right to choose an abortion, they are not saying that women have to have an abortion. They simply have a choice and their choice can be not to have an abortion. Moreover, they have that choice regardless of their motivation. Women are free to oppose abortion because it is a lifestyle choice or because they believe abortion is murder. It's their choice. The original poster seems to want women to have that choice, but in some cases to also face a bit of moral condemnation.

Next was the sole non-political thread that I will discuss today. Titled, "Seeking Advice: Nanny Refuses to Drive Teen After Weed Incident", the post was originally posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum but I moved it to the "Childcare other than Daycare and Preschool" forum because it is about a nanny. The original poster says that her family has a nanny whose primary responsibility is to drive their kids to practice and school. Recently they learned that their teen child had been in possession of marijuana. Moreover, he had had it in the car while the nanny was driving. As a result, the nanny is concerned that if she would get pulled over and drugs were found on the teen, she would get in trouble. The original poster asks for advice about how to reassure the nanny. In a later post, the original poster adds that the situation goes beyond the nanny's discomfort and that she is actually refusing to drive the teen at all. Because this is the main duty of the nanny, she is basically refusing to do her job. Many posters are sympathetic with the nanny and support her position. They point out that if she is foreign and was arrested, she might be deported. They don't think that the original poster's problem is with the nanny, but rather with her son. The original poster says that they have already punished her son, something of which the nanny is aware. The problem now is how to get the boy to his practices and other events to which he needs to be driven. Some posters argue that the original poster will need to plan her summer without expecting the nanny to drive the teen, something that is not acceptable to the original poster. Few of the posters support firing the nanny because they don't think that would be justified. Some posters hope that if the nanny is fired, she will sue the original poster. A few posters do argue that if the nanny is refusing to do her job, the original poster has no choice but to replace her. The vast majority of the discussion is devoted to the son and what should happen to him rather than how to resolve things with the nanny. This frustrates the original poster. Some good advice was to pay for the nanny to consult with a lawyer in order to understand her rights. Either she would be assured and be willing to drive the teen or she would be even more reluctant to drive him. Either way, the original poster would have an answer. But at least one poster thought that even this would not adequately address the nanny's concerns because depending on her immigration situation, she may have a strong fear of any involvement with the legal system. Other posters suggest that the nanny knows the original poster's son and she knows the original poster's parenting style and, as such, has good reason to believe that her son will again have marijuana in the car. The only outcome many posters see is that the original poster provide a large and generous severance to the nanny so that she can look for another job.

The final thread that I will discuss today is another one posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "198 Democrats Voted Against the SAVE Act", the original poster says that the U.S. House of Representatives just passed the "SAVE ACT" with almost no Democrats voting in favor of it. According to the original poster, all the bill does is enforce the prohibition of non-U.S. citizens voting in federal elections. In more detail, the bill stipulates a list of documents that can be used to prove citizenship and requires voters to provide such documents before being allowed to vote. Each state would be required to establish its own process for administering this requirement. Notably, the bill does not provide funds for its implementation and, therefore, represents an unfunded mandate. This bill is not serious legislation. Voting by non-citizens in federal elections is already illegal and there are penalties for doing so. Moreover, there has never been evidence provided to show that voting by non-citizens even occurs in meaningful (or even not meaningful) numbers. Basically, this bill is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and, in doing so, actually creates problems. Before getting to those problems, let's be clear about this bill. This is what is sometimes called a "messaging bill". Republicans have no expectation that this will become law. It probably won't even be brought up in the Senate. The point is simply to force Democrats to vote and then use their votes against the bill to claim that they support allowing non-citizens to vote. The votes will probably make their way into a few campaign ads, but other than that, the bill has no real purpose. If the bill were to become law, it would be an administrative nightmare. States would have to establish systems to collect and maintain citizenship information. Voters in many cases would be required to travel in person to a voter registration office and present one of the eligible documents. In some locations, this is quite a distance to travel and could represent a significant hardship. The hurdles increase if there are limited hours during which the office is open and accepting the documents. Based on what we have seen with such things as voting locations, in Republican states there will be many, well-staffed, and easily accessible offices in White areas and few, if any, offices in minority areas. As far as this thread is concerned, the bill had its intended impact among the MAGA posters. It is always difficult to tell if they truly believe their own posts, but taking the posts at face value, the MAGAs are convinced that Democrats routinely rely on the votes of non-citizens and that Democratic opposition to this bill is further evidence. The "Great Replacement Theory" that posits that White people are being replaced by people of color who are dependent on the Democratic Party was once only believed by Nazis, White nationalists, and mass shooters. But, as this thread, shows the theory is basically mainstream among Republicans these days.