Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Spin Off - Do a Kids’ Parents Political Views Impact You Allowing A Friendship?" and posted in the "Private & Independent Schools" forum. With the election two weeks away and this website being based in Washington, DC, a lot of our users' minds are on politics. While we have two political forums — one for local politics and one for the rest — politics is finding its way into almost every forum. It's been a bit of whack-a-mole trying to keep up with them. That was the case with this thread which I didn't know about until earlier this morning when it was reported to me. Admittedly, the original poster has a nice story to discuss, dare I say heartwarming even. As the original poster explains, her daughter, who is Black, made friends at her public elementary school with another girl who is White. The other girl's parents supported a political candidate who the original poster could not stand. Because of these political differences, the original poster did not pursue a relationship with the other mother and hoped that the girls' friendship would die down. However, despite her hopes, the girls became best friends. Moreover, she discovered that the other girl and her mom were literally the nicest people she had ever met. The other family eventually moved away but after the George Floyd murder, the other mother wrote to the original poster describing how that had impacted her and asking if they could talk about it. The original poster never talked about politics with the other mother and the point of this post seems to be that close friendships are possible despite political differences. Fair enough, but I am not sure what this has to do with private and independent schools. Not surprisingly given DCUM's audience, most of those responding are Democrats. Therefore, the families who have different political views are mostly Republicans. What becomes clear almost immediately is that many of the posters make distinctions between traditional Republicans and supporters of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. The liberal posters don't seem to have much of an issue with those who are Republican because they support lower taxes, fewer business regulations, smaller government, and tough on crime public safety measures. But they have real problems with MAGAs. Most of the posters would be fine socializing with families whose political views are of the first category, but many would do their best to avoid those in the second. The posters who would avoid either Republicans generally or Trump supporters specifically are criticized for being intolerant and narrow-minded. But many of them offer no apologies for avoiding those who they claim are tolerant of racism, sexism, homophobia, and who support Trump despite his felony convictions and liability for sexual assault. I will say to my fellow liberals, particularly those who refuse to tolerate MAGAs, that you might consider opening your mind a bit. On a personal level, most MAGAs with whom I associate are very nice. Contrary to what you may believe, they don't have horns spouting from their heads. Generally they are not eager to bring up politics and, when they do, it is very gingerly. There is really no reason to be concerned about your kids making friends with their kids. As for this thread, it eventually turned into a general political debate that had no connection to the original topic, let alone private school issues. As a result, as soon as it was reported to me this morning I locked it.

Following a political thread that wasn't posted in the political forum was one that was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. That thread was titled, "Trump. ‘It doesn't cost 60,000 bucks to bury a f###ing Mexican!’" The original poster quoted from and linked to an article in "The Atlantic" that discusses former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's relationship with the U.S. military and his views towards the military in general. The opening of the article, which was written by The Atlantic's editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, describes Trump's reaction to the murder of Vanessa Guillén, an Army private killed while serving at Fort Hood, Texas. Trump met with the family, expressing condolences, and offered to pay for the funeral. Months later, Trump is alleged to have inquired about whether the family had provided a bill for the funeral and was told that they had and that the cost was $60,000. Trump became angry and was reported as saying that "It doesn't cost 60,000 bucks to bury a [expletive deleted] Mexican!" Trump is then alleged to have told his chief of staff Mark Meadows not to pay the bill. Goldberg attributes this version of the story to "attendees" and "contemporaneous notes of the meeting taken by a participant". However, Goldberg also quoted several meeting participants on the record and by name as denying that Trump said such a thing. Regardless of what Trump may have said, a Guillén family lawyer confirmed that a bill had been sent to the White House but no money had been received from Trump. Later in the same article, Goldberg also quoted another former Trump Chief of Staff, General John Kelly, as saying that Trump praised Hitler's generals and said that he needed generals like that. Kelly also noted that Trump was not acquainted with German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel. For many of those responding, this was simply further evidence of Trump being a terrible person. For a few posters, this was the final straw and what finally pushed them into the anti-Trump camp. However, a number of posters defended Trump. They quoted the statements from meeting participants that denied Goldberg's claims, including a supportive statement from a Guillén family member. However, that statement said nothing about financial support that Trump may have or not have provided. The veracity of a story like this is difficult to establish. On the one hand, Goldberg has a fairly good reputation as a journalist, though admittedly I have my own issues with him. The Atlantic is generally considered the gold standard for fact-checking. Therefore, there is little reason to question whether the unnamed sources quoted by Goldberg exist. They most certainly do. On the other hand are the on-the-record statements by named individuals. However, they, for the most part, are Trump lackeys who have histories of lying. The one obvious exception is the Guillén family member. However, she would not have been in the room when Trump allegedly made the statement in question and, therefore, cannot confirm or deny whether Trump said such a thing. Moreover, it is particularly notable given the topic at hand that she is silent on the issue of Trump providing a payment for the funeral. The family's lawyer's statement that no payment was received is not disputed. Those responding in this thread are deeply divided between those who believe that "liberals" are falsely accusing Trump of something he didn't do and exploiting the Guillén family because of political motivations and those who trust Goldberg's reporting and assume that the story is true and in line with Trump's character.

The next three most active threads were ones that I've already discussed and will therefore skip today. One of those was the thread about APE which I wrote about yesterday. That thread continues to be drama-filled and is notable for the fact that the original poster that I outed as a sock puppet not only admitted it, but defended sock puppeting. After those was a thread titled, "I am a great husband and father, AMA." and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that he is the opposite of the type of men about whom he reads in the forum. He says that he has "fantastic relationships" with his kids and is a "great partner". He goes on to list more of his positive qualities, though he says nothing about his humility which is probably wise because I might question that. He encourages posters to ask him anything. Most of the first responses were not very serious and asked nonsensical questions such as how far he could kick a football or whether suede shoes should be worn with a cocktail dress. When asked about his faults, the original poster admitted to anxiety about medical issues and occasionally speaking too bluntly. I was a bit confused by something the original poster wrote. In one post he said that he got married young and was very immature. His wife created a "life plan" that they are still following today. However, he almost immediately followed up to say that his first wife died and after five years, he remarried. I am not sure whether he and his new wife are following his first's wife's life plan or if his second wife created the plan. While some posters take the original poster at face value and ask reasonable questions, a number are very suspicious of him. They either ask pointed questions or outright accuse him of being a troll. One poster is certain that the orignal poster is also the author of a thread that I discussed in this blog last week which was also an "ask me anything" thread. That one was from an allegedly "high value man". The poster making this claim pointed out that both posters used very similar language when describing their flaws. I can't identify a connection between the authors of the two threads and, based on what I can see, the original poster of this thread is probably not the author of high value man thread. But anything is possible. The original poster said that he was motivated to start this thread because fathers are normally depicted very poorly on DCUM and he wanted to provided an alternative perspective. Several posters agreed that the fathers they know don't normally fit the picture of those described on DCUM. It is not surprising that there are more threads about bad husbands than good. Posters are more likely to post about things that are going poorly than things that are going well and threads bragging about great husbands would probably not be well received in any case. Towards the most recent pages, things really got weird with posters posting things that are completely disconnected from the thread. For example, one poster suggested that the original poster was of "Advanced Maternity Age", something that would be very strange for a father. I have no idea what might have provoked that post, but it led to a discusion of whether the original poster was a lesbian or transgender. He obviously doesn't appear to be either. Generally, while the original poster probably meant well, this is a forgettable thread that I can't wait to forget.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Family Relationships" forum and titled, "Elder care from afar". The original poster says that her 79-year-old mother recently fell and broke a rib. She lives in a remote area thousands of miles from the original poster who lives in the midwest. The original poster has a sister who lives in the mountain west and who has proposed having their mother live near her. The original poster's sister has asked her to contribute financially with the expenses their mother would incur. Even though the original poster has a higher income than her sister, she is reluctant to provide financial support, suggesting that her husband would never agree to it. They are planning for their own retirement and the original poster has recently been diagnosed with cancer. The original poster says that she plans to retire next year and would have more time to visit her mother as long as her health allows it. She wants to know how others navigate situations like this. For the most part, those responding don't see this as a very complicated situation. They say that if the original poster hopes to maintain a good relationship with her sister, she needs to be prepared to provide either financially or through her time. They note that travel expenses might end up being quite a bit and that it might end up being cheaper to simply offer financial support. The original poster feels strongly that her husband wouldn't agree to that and, therefore, her agreeing to financial support would result in divorce. She is really looking for a unicorn solution. This situation is complicated by the original poster's mother's domestic situation. She has apparently lived with a man who is fairly wealthy for over 30 years. Despite several promises, the mom's partner has never put any of his assets in her name. Currently the partner has dementia and the original poster's mom is caring for him. Posters, including the original poster, fear that the partner's children are taking advantage of her mother to care for her partner, but will not provide for her after his death. Posters argue that the real issue here the failure of the original poster's mother to get her financial affairs in order and begin planning for life without her partner. Unless the original poster and her sister have a realistic picture of their mother's financial situation, it is impossible for them to do their own serious planning. One poster in the thread identified a previous thread started by the original poster — which the original poster confirmed was hers — that suggests that there are some complicated family dynamics involved. Where things leave off, the original poster plans to have a phone conversation with her mother to address a number of the issues raised in the thread. However, as things stand, the original poster, her sister, and their mother all have a combination of desires and limitations that don't lend themselves to being accommodated without significant compromise by someone. This thread highlights the importance of planning and not leaving things to the last minute. As noted, the original poster's mother has been repeatedly promised by her partner that he would put some assets in her name. Now that he has dementia, it may be too late. It's easy to say in hindsight, but that is something that should have been resolved some time ago. The challenge for the original poster is to avoid additional measures being delayed until it is too late.