The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The most active thread over the weekend probably comes as no surprise. Titled, "Joe is out", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, this thread was created minutes after President Joe Biden posted a letter on X (formerly known as Twitter) announcing that he would stand down as a candidate for President. The thread has already reached 133 pages, making it among the fastest-growing threads in DCUM history. Because Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris within minutes of announcing that he would no longer run for President, most of the thread is about Harris rather than Biden. With regard to Biden, posters mostly praised him for putting the interests of the country above his personal interests. For the most part, posters had only good things to say about Biden's record as President. There were a number of complaints that Biden was being pushed out in an anti-Democratic manner. This concern extended to Harris' likely selection as Biden's replacement. I think that this is a situation in which two things are both simultaneously true. Clearly there was a group of wealthy donors whose interest in removing Biden from the top of the ticket was in good faith. Several of these individuals have their own agendas and the best interests of the Democratic Party and not necessarily part of those. The New York Times also played a particularly active role that often went well beyond it's mission as a provider of news. On the other hand, polling data, along with simple anecdotal evidence, shows that there has been significant grassroots support for replacing Biden. Democratic Members of Congress have reported strong constituent pressure to find an alternative to Biden. As such, I don't think Biden stepping down can accurately be described as solely the work of the rich and powerful or as only the result of an upswell of grassroots activity. It is a combination of both. With regard to Harris, the primary function of a vice president is to serve in the case that the President is unable. In this case, Biden appears to be unable to continue the campaign and, hence, the Vice President should rightfully step in. Those who voted for Biden in the primary elections were voting for a ticket that included Harris. As such, it can be argued that voters have cast ballots for her. The reaction to Harris, of course, included both support and opposition. I want to focus on the opposition because it is likely indicative of what we will see in the future from Harris' opponents. While a few posters based their opposition on policy grounds such as Harris' performance on border issues, it was much more common for criticism to be based on sexism and racism. I think that it is undeniable that the next several months will be filled with sexist and racist attacks on Harris. In terms of sexism, the most common attacks were lewd, often explicit sexual references. There is a sizable contingent of — I assume men — who cannot stop themselves from sexualizing women. The same posters who excuse former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's sexual escapades with a porn star while his wife was home caring for their newborn child are quick to condemn a relationship that a young Kamala Harris had with Willie Brown. "Slut shaming" will clearly be a mainstay of conservative opposition to Harris. Racism in the thread was demonstrated most often by claims that Harris is a "DEI" candidate and with questions regarding her legitimacy as a candidate due to the fact that her parents were immigrants. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has become one of the lastest conservative bugaboos, apparently replacing "CRT" in the conservative lexicon of evils. Obviously, Harris' race and gender played a role in her selection because Biden promised to selected a Black woman. But Harris was, and is, a qualified Black woman. Indeed, at the time she was chosen by Biden, her qualifications were far stronger than those of the current Republican nominee for Vice President. Given that being a White male was almost certainly a requirement of his selection, J. D. Vance is as much of a DEI candidate as Harris. Attacks on citizenship only seem to be made against people of color. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, for instance, was born in Canada, yet his eligibility for president is not questioned. Some posters seem to fear that sexist and racist attacks on Harris are a reason to choose someone else. That rewards misogynists and racists. It is better to simply prepare for such attacks and defeat them as they arise.

The next several most active threads over the weekend were ones that I've already discussed and, therefore, will skip today. I had to go down to the seventh most active thread which was originally posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. I moved the thread to "Health and Medicine" where it is more appropriate. Titled, "How do people not take better care of themselves?", the original poster is astounded by the "sheer number of desperately ill people in wheelchairs, oxygen masks, people in their 30s walking with canes..." that the poster sees in the northern Virginia suburbs and elsewhere. The poster doesn't understand why adults don't have workout routines and eat healthier. Topics dealing with weight always create controversy. Several posters point out, accurately, that there are many explanations for weight-gain that doen't involve failures of responsibility. Some folks have medical conditions, others are on medications, and some may just face genetic realities. Moreover, several posters argue that while exercise or working out are important for a healthy lifestyle, they don't really contribute to weight loss which, they contend, is much more dependent on diet. Other posters criticize the original poster for being in a privileged position. I will be the first to admit that I know very little about this topic. I have no expertise whatsoever. But, my uneducated view based on my observations is that it is undeniable that Americans are facing an obesity epidemic. Medical conditions and genetics obviously account for some of of this, but can't possibly explain it all. Our increasingly common sedentary lifestyles maybe somewhat to blame. But still, I think those who point the finger at diet are likely more accurate. Posters in this thread spent a considerable amount of time defending a lack of exercise, most frequently blaming a lack of time resulting from busy schedules. But less attention was focused on how such busy lives also prevent devoting time to healthy eating. Time constraints motivate a reliance on fast foods and prepared and processed, meals. Fresh food demands frequent shopping, something for which many simply don't have time. Other posters point out that, ironically, in some cases weight gain is a result of living healthier than earlier generations. For instance, as several posters mentioned, earlier generations were often kept thin as a result of smoking. But, generally, the attitude of those responding is that the original poster was wrong to criticize others, that people's health and weight are outside their control, and that it is "ableist" to comment on it. I fully agree with many of the original poster's critics who argue that "shaming" is ineffectual and counterproductive. But, so is ignoring the situation.

Next was a thread titled, "Walk me through the logistics of mass deportations" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster asks, regardless of the morality, how would former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's plan for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants work. Would it involve going door to door, how would the individuals be transported, from where would the money to pay for this come, and what about undocumented immigrants who have American-citizen children? As with many Trump policies, there are those who simply deny their existence or downplay their significance. For instance, the very first response in this thread claimed that "There will be no such thing; it’s just to rile up the base." So, let's address this point first. The Republican Platform that Trump released lists "CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY" as the second of its 20 goals. At times, Trump has suggested that deportations could number as high as 20 million. Therefore, that this is a goal of the Republican Party is undeniable. The second issue is whether Trump really intends to implement such a policy or if the goal is simply meant to motivate his followers. This harkens back to the beginning of Trump's presidency when we were advised to take Trump seriously, but not literally. This ignores that, in many cases, Trump eventually tried to literally do what he said he wanted to do. Moreover, regardless of Trump's own desires, as President he would likely put figures such as Stephen Miller in positions of authority. Miller clearly does want to enact mass deportation. Therefore, I think that it is logical to assume widespread deportations will take place if Trump is re-elected. I suspect that if Trump becomes president again, those detained at the border will be immediately, or at worst, expeditiously, deported and those numbers will be counted as meeting this goal. The Trump platform also says that those convicted of crimes will be prioritized. That number, despite what conservatives would have you believe, is not large. The question, then is from where are the rest of the "millions per year" going to come and what will the logistics of this be. Ironically, one tool Trump advisors have suggested will actually increase the number of undocumented residents so that there will more that can be deported. Miller told the New York Times that Trump will remove the Temporary Protected Status of millions of migrants legally in the United States. Once that designation has been revoked, those individuals will suddenly be illegal and subject to deportation. Miller said that Trump is planning for mass roundups, particularly at workplaces, and that personnel will be transferred from other agencies to assist in the deportation effort. Trump also plans to remove the requirement for a process hearing for those subject to deportation. This will raise the specter of legal residents being wrongly removed simply because they were unable to convince a law enforcement officer of their legality. Hopefully a victory by Vice President Kamala Harris in November will make this entire discussion moot. But, in the event of a Trump victory, I think that it is naive to believe that his goal of mass deportations shouldn't be taken seriously, and literally.

I have fallen behind again today and the website is requiring an inordinate amount of attention. So, I will stop at this point today.