Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday was another day in which the "Political Discussion" forum dominated. Fully 8 of the top 10 most active threads were posted in that forum. That includes three of the top four threads  that I will discuss today. The most active thread was titled, "Uh, seems like Trump's visit to the NABJ is not going well...". This thread is about an appearance by former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump at a conference of the National Association of Black Journalists. As the title suggests, things did not go well. Trump's attendance at the conference was controversial before he even arrived. Convention co-chair Karen Attiah resigned in protest over the invitation to Trump and other journalists boycotted the event. There were enough controversies during Trump's appearance — which ended prematurely when Trump's aids intervened — to fill a book. Right out of the gate Trump called ABC News "fake news" and described a question — in which panelist Rachel Scott listed several of Trump's statements about people of color — as "very rude". Then Trump questioned Vice President Kamala Harris' ethnicity, saying that he had known her for a long time and she had always been of Indian heritage. Trump claimed that she suddenly "turned Black". Trump spewed lies at such a rate that the panel of journalists questioning him couldn't keep up correcting him and, eventually, simply gave up. When Fox News' Harris Falkner asked Trump whether his running mate, Ohio Senator J. D. Vance would be ready on day one to run the country if necessary, Trump ignored the question and argued that historically the pick for Vice President didn't affect the election. That was not much of a vote of confidence for Vance. Within the thread the topic that caught on the most was the issue of Harris' ethnicity. Like Trump, several of his supporters in the thread sought to downplay Harris' race. Both Trump and his supporters seem to struggle with the concept of being biracial. Pro-Trump posters pointed to instances in which Harris has identified as being Indian as if that is proof that she is not Black. One poster made the false claim that Harris' father was half-White. These allegations harken back to Barack Obama and claims that he was not "Black enough". It is not at all clear to me what Trump and his supporters hope to gain from questioning Harris' race. The number of Black people who will be convinced that Harris is not Black based on what Trump has to say must be close to zero. Maybe a few White people might go along with Trump, but the likelihood that they would have ever voted for Harris in the first place is also probably close to zero. Basically, this is a stupid tactic with no real benefit and Trump's supporters in this thread are simply stupid enough to go along with it.

The next most active thread was not posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, though it perhaps should have been. Posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "Husband voting for Trump", the original poster says she is so angry that her husband said that he is voting for former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump that she feels that her marriage may be over. She is particularly bothered that her husband doesn't realized the impact another Trump presidency could have on their two daughters. The thread almost immediately turned toward debate about the strengths and weaknesses of Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Posters seemed to suddenly feel the need to explain their own voting preferences. From my point of view, this type of thread is frustrating because most of the posters are fully aware that their posts belong in the political forum but still go ahead and post their responses knowing full well that the thread is in the relationship forum. One poster proudly announced that she never goes into the political forum because it "is a waste of time" but then argued that "Abortion will never go back to being illegal". That poster probably should spend some time in our political forum because she could then learn that abortion is already illegal in several states and that there are efforts to ban it nationwide. The same poster insisted that the only people who could be bothered by a Trump-voting husband were liberal White women. Based on these two positions alone, I would suggest that this poster is probably not the best source of relationship advice. While a number of posters agree with the original poster that a husband who is voting for Trump is a deal breaker, several criticize the original poster instead. Fundamentally, the issue here is the true dangers that Trump is perceived as representing. To those like the original poster, Trump is an almost unique danger to the rights of Americans, especially women. They fear that he will either directly or indirectly threaten women's reproductive rights and they are concerned about whether he will subvert our democracy. These are posters who agree with the saying, "vote as if your life depends on it because it does." On the other hand are posters who may disagree with Trump, though some support him, but see support of Trump as just another political issue. In their opinion, supporting Trump is really no different than someone supporting a tax cut that they don't like or being in favor of a healthcare plan that they oppose. It's a simple political difference about which reasonable people should be able to disagree. The second group demands that the first group be tolerant of differing views. But the second group sees no reason to tolerate views that support harming them. The gulf between these two groups is too wide to easily be crossed.

Next was a thread titled, "What rights is Donald taking away" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. As I mentioned when discussing the previous thread, many posters are convinced that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump is a threat to their rights. This is especially true for women who are concerned about reproductive healthcare. Other posters are convinced that this is an unrealistic fear spread by the media. The original poster, who is likely a member of the second group, wants to know which rights Trump might strip if he were elected. One poster lists healthcare, job safety, overtime pay, and child labor and another adds the right to choose. This is another thread in which Trump supporters really make a reasonable discussion impossible. Several Trump supporters post simply to promote Trump policies with which they agree and that have nothing to do with rights being taken away. By the second page, this thread was completely off-topic and simply a debate about Trump. There is even a debate about Project 2025. Since the first day that Trump ever showed interest in his presidency, I have noticed a phenomenon among pro-Trump posters who think of themselves as reasonable people. They will either ignore or brush off Trump's most controversial statements or actions. They talk a lot about Democrats being "brainwashed" by the media. And, in threads like this, they deny any threat that Trump is accused of presenting. At the same time, the exact same posters actually support most of those policies. For instance, these posters claim that Trump does not favor an abortion ban and, during his previous term, did nothing to ban abortion. Factually, Trump nominated three U.S. Supreme Court justices who strongly oppose abortion. This led to the reversal of the Roe versus Wade court opinion. As a result of Trump's actions, women lost the federal right to an abortion. Regardless, there are posters in this thread who will straight up deny that Trump did anything to end abortion rights. In their minds, the Supreme Court decision simply returned abortion to the states and any restrictions on abortion enacted by states are completely unrelated. Subsequent abortion bans that could only happen thanks to Trump's court appointees, according to these posters, have nothing to do with Trump. Similarly, with regard to other issues, Trump supporters do their best to deny or obfuscate any Trump threat to rights. Trump recently disassociated himself from Project 2025 which he realized had become a political albatross. Trump previously praised Heritage for its work that led to Project 2025 and many close Trump associates were involved in drafting the recommendations. But, perhaps more importantly, independent of Project 2025, Trump has announced several broad goals that align with Project 2025. It is reasonable to expect that in an effort to achieve those goals, Trump will rely on the same people who drafted Project 2025 and are prepared to implement such plans. As a result, a second Trump presidency would likely lead to Project 2025 being implemented but simply described as something else.

The final thread that I will discuss today is another one posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh assassinated in Tehran", the thread was started soon after word filtered out that Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader, had been killed. Haniyeh had been living in exile for decades, mostly in Qatar, where he has been involved in hostage exchange negotiations. Haniyeh had gone to Iran to attend the new President's inauguration and was apparently killed by an Israeli bombing while spending the night in a compound associated with Iran's Republican Guard. This was one of several high-profile assassinations conducted by Israel lately. Supporters of Israel in the thread were for the most part pleased by the killing which they view as bringing to justice someone with Israeli blood on his hands. Nobody in the thread, not even supporters of Palestinians, was really sad to see Haniyeh go. He has lived in comfort abroad while Gazans suffered. But, plenty of posters feared for the implications his killing might portend. Most obvious was the impact on hostage negotiations. While releasing the hostages has been a top priority of U.S. President Joe Biden and has motivated a large protest movement in Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has seemed to have little interest in a hostage deal. Each time negotiations have appeared near to success, Netanyahu has taken steps to derail the process. Many posters see this as simply another example of Netanyahu interfering with a possible hostage exchange. In addition, there are concerns that Iran may retaliate and that a wider regional war could commence. Israel is currently struggling in Gaza. The Israeli port of Eilat is bankrupt as a result of a Houthi embargo on shipping in the Red Sea. Hizbollah has caused the north of Israel to be turned into a no-man's land and the recent assassination of a top Hizballah official threatens greater violence on that front. Israel has routinely attacked targets in Syria and increased Iranian hostility from Israel's east could result in Israel being literally surrounded by attackers. It is hard to see how Israel could go it alone against ao many enemies and U.S. involvement is almost guaranteed. One school of thought is that this series of assassinations could provide Netanyahu cover to declare victory and accept an agreement concerning Gaza. Much more likely is the second school of thought that Netanyahu, who knows that his time in power will end with the war, simply doesn't want the war to end and actually is seeking a wider war. The question of the U.S. position is interesting given that Netanyahu was just in the U.S where he spoke to Congress, met with President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, and travelled to Florida to meet former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. There is little evidence that Netanyahu encountered anything other than full-throated support while in the U.S. and seems to have returned to Israel confident that regardless of his actions, the U.S. will stand behind him. As such, it is difficult to be optimistic that a wider war will be avoided.