The Most Active Threads Since Friday

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "Al Smith Dinner" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump was "hilarious" during his appearance at the "Al Smith Dinner", formally named the "Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner". The dinner is an annual white tie event that raises funds for Catholic charities in the Archdiocese of New York during which politicians exchange lighthearted jokes and are supposed to set aside differences for the night. While Trump attended the dinner this year, Vice President Harris chose to skip the event in order to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan. Harris did provide a video in which she spoke while being repeatedly interrupted by Molly Shannon in a reprise of her “Saturday Night Live” character Mary Katherine Gallagher, a Catholic schoolgirl. Trump's speech was quite pointed and, in several instances. off-color. Many of the posters responding in the thread agreed with the original poster that Trump was very funny. They did not seem concerned about whether or not Trump's jokes were appropriate for a ceremony hosted and attended by Catholic leaders. What this thread really demonstrates is the insatiable urge by conservatives to turn everything into a controversy. They immediately criticized Harris' absence, describing it as an insult to all Catholics and a personal snub of Cardinal Timothy Dolan. They also panned Harris' video which many seemed not to understand. Conservative posters made predictions that missing the dinner would harm Harris' election prospects and portrayed her absence as a huge political miscalculation. Trump's opponents were either critical of the former President or simply didn't care, even if they agreed that he was funny at times. It is doubtful that anyone attending the dinner or watching it remotely would change their vote as a result. Most voters have already made up their minds and the few who remain undecided have failed to have been swayed by a lot more important things than a fundraising dinner. Several critics of the Catholic Church in the thread were happy that Harris missed the dinner. One pointed out that just days earlier the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had agreed to a payment of $880 Million to settle sex abuse cases. These posters didn't think Harris should be doing anything to honor the Catholic Church. Moreover, many posters were not particularly impressed with Trump's speech. One poster described it as, "Poor delivery. Looking down and mumbling a bunch of someone else's dumb jokes." One of Trump's jokes that seemed to get lots of good reviews was based on a falsehood that appears to have been accepted as fact by many Trump supporters. Trump said that he didn't know men could get periods until he met Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. This seemed to allude to an accusation — subsequently proven to be false — that Walz was responsible for a law requiring that tampons be placed in high school boys bathrooms. In fact, Minnesota's schools did not do such a thing though Republicans widely believe that they did.

The weekend's next most active thread was the surrogacy thread that I've already discussed. After that was a thread posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum titled, "Easiest T25?" The original poster wants to know which of the top 25 universities has the easiest admissions. They say that there is no such thing as a stupid question, but if there were stupid questions, this would probably be one. There are so many variables involved in college admissions that there is not a single answer that applies to everyone and the original poster didn't provide any information about the applicant in question. The idea that there is an objective and authoritative ranking of the difficulty of admissions for the top universities completely betrays a near complete misunderstanding of admissions. The first poster to reply, to that poster's credit, provided what was probably the best possible answer given the circumstances. That poster pointed out that, depending on the state in which the applicant is a resident, there could be various answers. The poster also had a few suggestions if the applicant were applying for Early Decision at private universities. But more importantly, the poster advised the original poster to start from the bottom up and first identify safety schools at which the applicant would be happy. Then, "Pick the reach that’s the best fit, not the most likely. Because they are all unlikely." The responses are basically divided between those simply listing schools that the posters think are the easiest and those trying to explain various factors that are involved in admissions. Because of the reality of the second group of responses, all posts in the first group can be summarily discarded as useless. What could be a fairly easy admissions to a school for a student with one profile could be a near impossibility for a student with another profile and vice versa in the case of another college. Among the factors that posters suggest impact admissions are the major being pursued — some are easier to get into than others at the same university — and the high school from which the applicant graduated. Two universities, Emery University and Washington University, are identified as especially easy schools for admissions, but many posters argue that this is not true and that they are actually quite difficult. Many posts are devoted to arguing about various admissions statistics and debating what they indicate. Despite the near complete irrelevance to the topic, posters who are obsessed with the concept of "yield protection" seized this thread as another opportunity to obsess about it. While most posters would never admit it, the real secret to easy admissions at a top school — at least state flagships — is the community college route. In the DC region, two years of good grades at Montgomery College is an open invitation to the University of Maryland, College Park. Similarly, a successful stint at Northern Virginia Community College opens the door to the University of Virginia. At a huge cost savings to boot.

Next was a thread titled, "Trump today and MAGA still claiming Harris never worked at McDonald’s" and, like the first thread today, was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread developed out of a controversy surrounding Vice President Harris' claim to have worked at McDonald's during the summer of 1983. Former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump has accused Harris of lying about her work at the fast food restaurant. To draw attention to what he believes is Harris' lie, Trump scheduled a photo op at a McDonald's francise over the weekend. Trump, and his supporters in this thread, claimed that Trump was actually "working" at the restaurant. In reality, the restaurant was closed for Trump's appearance and the "customers" were Trump supporters who had been previously selected and who even rehearsed going through the drive-through lane before the cameras were turned on. Trump supporters in this thread were very excited by the appearance and claimed that it was a brilliant move. They agreed with Trump that Harris has been lying because she has presented no evidence of having had the summer job. As many posters noted, it would be very unususal to have evidence of a short summer stint so long ago. I myself spent the same summer of 1983 behind the grill at a college cafeteria and it would be practically impossible for me to provide any evidence. I don't remember anyone who worked there at the time and they probably don't remember me. I obviously don't have any tax records from that time and I never listed the job on resumes because it was completely irrelevent to the jobs that I pursued afterwards. Several posters reported similar experiences. But, claimed Trump supporters, certainly someone remembers Harris working at the McDonald's? For once, Trump supporters were correct. The New York Times reported on a childhood friend of Harris who remembers Harris working at the restaurant. But, that didn't slow down the criticism from Trump supporters as they quickly moved the goalposts. As in the case of the Al Smith dinner discussed above, this is really nothing more than manufactured outrage. Just an attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. There is no question that Trump lies multiple times a day. It is actually more surprising when he says something that is true than it is when he tells falsehoods. Even if Harris outright lied about working at McDonald's, it would be meaningless in comparison to Trump's slew of lies. But it appears that Harris is actually telling the truth. Of course, the McDonald's story is used by Harris to highlight her modest roots. Regardless of the veracity of her employment claims — which, again, appear to be true — there is no doubt that Harris was raised by a single mother who was an academic. The fact that she was raised middle class is not debatable. Trump on the other hand was raised in wealth and luxury, given millions of dollars by his father. He has obviously never worked in any restaurant, despite owning a few. Most tellingly about Trump's stunt at McDonald's was when he was asked if he would support increases to the minimum wage. In typical Trump fashion, he ignored the question. Trump viewed McDonald's as an opportunity to bash Harris, but has no interest in supporting those whose jobs he was imitating.

The next most active thread was the one I've already discussed about COVID shots for teens. After that was a thread posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and titled, "When can you call yourself a single mother?" The original poster has a friend who constantly identifies as being a single mom. While the friend in question is a mother and is divorced, her ex-husband has custody of the children several days a week. Therefore, contrary to the stereotypical single mother who is forced to burn the candle at both ends, the original poster's friend has more free time than the original poster. The original poster concludes by saying that this is just a rant. In a follow-up post, the original poster says that she was raised by a single mother who worked two jobs and went without a social life to care for her children. She is bothered by her friend playing the part of a single mom when she is not forced to make similar sacrifices. The original poster gets a mixture of support and criticism from responses. A number of posters suggest that "coparenting" would be a better term for the friend's situation. Even a poster who says that she has 80% custody of her kids says that she would not call herself a single mother and the friend is being obnoxious. Quite a few posters consider the involvement of another person being the key factor of determining single motherhood. As one poster puts it, "‘Single mother (parent)’ means you are the only parent bringing up your children. If there is another parent involved you might be single, and you might be a mother, but you are NOT a single mother." Others agree with variations of this, considering a "single mom" to be a mother who gets very little support, physically or financially, from a partner. For instance, in a case where a father may only see his kids a few weeks a year and does not provide child support. For others, the amount of involvement of a father doesn't matter. As long as the woman is single and a mom, she is a single mother. Some posters argued that if a mother who is single is not a "single mother" simply because she gets help raising her kids from their father, then another mother who is single but has a nanny should not be considered a "single mother" either since she also gets help raising her kids. Some posters took a completely different angle and focused on the original poster instead of the definition of "single mother". They suggest that the original poster is envious and should talk to her husband about helping out more so that she can get additional free time. They criticize her for thinking poorly of her friend when the real issue is her own unhappiness.