Thursday's Most Active Threads

The most active threads yesterday continued to be related to the election. The most active thread of the day was titled, "Time for reflection as a dem?" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster asks whether, as a result of the resounding Republican victory in the election, Democrats should have a moment of reflection and stop pushing so hard to the left. This thread is 37 pages long, and I don't have time to read much of it, so I am just going to give my own thoughts on this topic. From what I've seen in DCUM discussions, "The Left" normally refers to those who have certain views on social issues rather than economic policies. Those on the left are identified by a commitment to "woke" issues and, especially, support for the rights of trans people. From what I've read in this thread, this is how the term is used in the discussion. In this thread, as well as many other recent threads, posters are eager to attack support for transgender people and blame "the left's" support of trans rights for the election loss. Let me be as clear as possible with regard to this point. For me, trans rights is a moral issue and, as such, not something that I will abandon for political expediency. Moreover, I have no plans to open DCUM to additional anti-trans discussion. If not being able to attack trans rights is a deal-breaker for you, my only response is, "see you". I am sure you will find a website more accommodating to your views elsewhere. The millions of dollars that President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump spent demonizing trans people during the campaign is really the epitome of bullying. He went after a small, marginalized community that is basically harmless. Let's accept the anti-trans narrative for a second and assume that occasionally a trans girl or woman competing in sports deprives a non-trans woman of an award or maybe a scholarship. That is concerning, true, but do you know what is worse? Trump's party's support for anti-abortion laws that are literally killing women. If you are withholding your support for the Democratic Party because your opposition to trans rights is stronger than your concern about women dying, I am skeptical that your true concern is women's rights. Beyond social issues of this sort, Democrats may want to reflect, but could logically come to the opposite conclusion of the original poster. Almost all analysis of voting behavior in this election suggests that inflation was the number one concern. If that is true, Vice President Kamala Harris should have spent more time addressing that issue rather than campaigning with Liz Cheney and Mark Cuban. Harris clearly moved her campaign to the right and ran as a centrist. Perhaps she would have been better served by running on a message closer to what Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders might propose? Imagine that she had spent the bulk of the campaign criticizing the high price of groceries and promising to punish corporate price gouging? Imagine her standing in front of the headquarters of State Farm and demanding that they get car insurance rates under control? Maybe she could have said that one issue on which she differed from President Joe Biden was his deference to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who kept interest rates too high and waited too long to lower them? Wouldn't this have appealed more to the blue-collar workers who abandoned her for Trump than the billionaire Cuban criticizing Harris' own proposal to tax unrealized capital gains? Yes, Democrats should have some self-reflection. Do they want to be nothing more than a warmed-over version of the Republican Party, or do they want to fight for the votes of those they lost in this election? Or, do they simply want to scapegoat transgender people and call it a day?

Yesterday's next most active thread was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Let them reap what they sow", the original poster is clearly disgusted by the outcome of the election. She provides a rant that might reveal the inner psyche of many of DCUM's relatively wealthy liberals. This group supported programs that were meant to benefit exactly those who voted against Vice President Kamala Harris. If the policies that President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump has promised come to pass, Trump's own voters will likely be harmed much more than those like the original poster. DCUM liberals, by and large, will survive Trump. It won't be fun, and certainly some among us will suffer, but in general, DCUM's liberals will get by just fine. But, as the original poster says, those less well-off may lose their healthcare, welfare benefits likely will be slashed, and the Hispanics who voted for Trump may see themselves or family members being deported. These voters will bear the consequences of government services being neglected and they will lose the most if social security and Medicare are cut. They will also be hurt the most by the price increases certain to follow Trump's tariffs. The original poster relishes these voters experiencing the "find out" stage of FAFO, and she is far from alone based on the responses. On the other hand, a large number of posters in this thread seem to be in denial. They simply don't believe that anything harmful will result from a Trump presidency and they accuse the original poster of fear-mongering. Other posters can't take pleasure in the suffering of others, even if those others voted to bring it on themselves. Moreover, several posters remind us, the original poster's certainty that she will survive, or even prosper, under Trump reflects a certain amount of privilege. It is the privilege of not being a member of the LGBTQ community and worrying about your rights being taken away. It is the privilege of not being a woman of child-bearing age and worrying about being denied life-saving medical interventions because of draconian abortion laws. It is the privilege of not being a federal employee worried about being replaced by a Trump sycophant or having their job moved to South Dakota or some other far-away state. Not all of the DCUM liberals share the original poster's privilege, but certainly many do. Many of those privileged posters in this thread have the emotional intelligence not to take pleasure in the suffering of others, but they are no longer willing to go to bat for those who voted against their own interests. Whereas they might have once put their own interests to the side in favor of policies that would favor wider society, they are now motivated to look out for Number 1 first and foremost. As one poster writes, "I will bank my money and give my child the best of the best. I’m done fighting for the less advantaged ... I’m finished spending money in LCOL areas and I will not canvass one more time for any Democrats. I’ll be banking and using the tax laws in my favor. I’m done." These are certainly understandable sentiments, but self-defeating in the long run. Trump and the authoritarians with whom he surrounds himself long for divisions such as these. Divide and conquer is as old as human civilization. Spend a few days, weeks, or months — whatever it takes — dealing with your anger and disappointment. But ultimately, unless you have the resources to join the billionaires planning to flee to Mars, you too will be impacted by Trump's failures. We will have to work together to confront him and try to prevent the worst.

Next was a thread titled, "Why did Arab majority Deerborn, Michigan go for Trump?", and, like the previous two threads, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster doesn't understand why the Arab-Americans who are the majority of Dearborn, Michigan's residents voted for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. She understands their anger about President Joe Biden's support for Israel, but she argues that Trump will be just as pro-Israel. Moreover, there are probably more Democrats who oppose the administration's strong support for Israel than there are Republicans. The original poster is perplexed by this and would like it explained. As I posted in the thread, Dearborn's Arab-Americans have historically been strongly Democratic with 80% of them voting for Biden in 2020. However, in this election, Trump won a majority of Dearborn's votes. While many of Dearborn's residents have been upset by Biden's complete backing for Israel during its genocide in Gaza, what really influenced this group was Israel's invasion of Lebanon. A huge number of Dearborn's residents have ties to southern Lebanon, exactly where Israel has invaded. With regard to Israel's actions in Lebanon, the Biden administration has not even bothered with its hollow platitudes about seeking a ceasefire. The administration seems content to support the fighting indefinitely. Moreover, despite the strong Democratic ties of Dearborn's politicians, Vice President Kamala Harris has been reluctant to pay them anything beyond minimal lip service. In contrast, Trump's daughter Tiffany is married to a man of Lebanese heritage. Her father-in-law has been campaigning among Michigan's Arabs and Muslims and promising them that Trump would end the fighting. A majority of Dearborn's residents were clearly more comfortable with the candidate who was extending a hand rather than the candidate who was turning her back. Some posters in this thread attributed Trump's support to alleged social conservatism among the Arab and Muslim residents, especially when it comes to LGBTQ rights. While that is true in some parts of Michigan — for instance, in nearby Hamtramck, the city council banned the Pride flag from public property — it is not true in Dearborn. Dearborn's Mayor — who is of Shia Muslim Lebanese heritage — is a Democrat aligned with Bernie Sanders. The area is represented in the U.S. Congress by Rashida Tlaib, a founding member of "The Squad". It was not social issues that motivated many of Dearborn's Arabs to vote for Trump, but rather the situation in the Middle East. Otherwise, they remain liberal. Tlaib was re-elected with nearly twice as many votes in Dearborn as Harris received. Much as in the previous thread, there are a number of posters eager to see the Arab and Muslim Trump voters get what these posters believe they deserve. Trump has suggested that he would restore the "Muslim ban" from his first administration and has given strong support to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. These posters advise Arabs and Muslims not to expect support from them. Some posters were, frankly, glad to see the backs of the Arabs and Muslims whom they don't seem to want in the party in any case. If nothing else, the thread demonstrates that Islamophobia and anti-Arab bigotry still have a place among Democrats.

The final thread was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum and titled, "How can we combat deep misogyny?". While the original poster didn't mention the election and asked that politics be kept out of the thread, Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat was never far from the discussion. The original poster argues that misogyny runs deep in the U.S., creating a double standard for women. While misogyny also exists in other countries, the original poster concedes, she wants to discuss how to combat it here. It only takes one post before politics is brought up, against the original poster's desire, and misogyny is downplayed. "Put up a better female candidate next time and stop blaming it on this", says the first poster to respond. Throughout the thread, there are efforts to not only minimize the existence of misogyny but to actually suggest that it is men and boys who are treated unfairly. Several of those posting suggest that misogyny can only be addressed by raising better sons. There are suggestions that role models who demonstrate treating women equally are necessary. Few posters believe that much can be done about any males who have grown beyond childhood. A number of posters accept that misogyny, like racism and other prejudices, is inherent in society and will never be eliminated. They reluctantly accept it. Posters find a myriad of ways to brush off misogyny. One argument is that women can also be misogynistic. Another is that other countries have even more misogyny. Some posters essentially say that misogyny only exists in women's heads and that, in reality, there is gender equality. Just as the first poster argued, many posters insist that misogyny had nothing to do with the election losses of Harris or, before her, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. These posters pointed out that Harris and Clinton have flaws. True, like all humans, Harris and Clinton have flaws. But compare those flaws to those of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. Does anyone think that a woman who had been married three times, given birth to children with three different fathers, and been convicted of 34 felonies could get elected to anything, let alone President? It takes willful ignorance to ignore the clear misogyny that exists in our society. However, one thing that is apparent in this discussion is that both male and female posters are willing to make allowances when it is politically expedient. One poster listed countries that have had female leaders and suggested that the U.S. is more misogynistic than those countries. However, the countries on the list all have fewer protections for women than those that exist in our country. Had that poster listed Iceland, Norway, Finland, or Denmark, her argument might have been stronger. For the most part, this thread didn't address the issues that the original poster seemed to be hoping would be discussed. There were a few efforts to draw attention to more mundane examples of misogyny. For example, one poster suggested that prejudice against stay-at-home moms is a form of misogyny. There were a number of examples of posters' children dealing with misogyny and descriptions of how they were teaching their kids to address it.