Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "What are the ways you'll resist?", and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster asks how others will "resist the current administration". I assume that the original poster is actually referring to the incoming administration of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump, which won't begin until early next year. The current administration is still that of President Joe Biden, and I don't think anyone would be making plans to resist Biden at this late date. When Trump was elected the first time, he was immediately met by the giant women's march. Protests soon became a feature of the early days of his administration. The later years of Trump's first term were characterized by Black Lives Matter protests, especially following the killing of George Floyd and ANTIFA-led protests in places like Seattle and Portland. The protests became a sort of wedge issue, with many who might otherwise support the causes growing tired of the disruption the protests caused and Trump using them as an excuse for increased militarization of the police. Add to this the slew of protests against Israel's war in Gaza, and mainstream Democrats are sick and tired of protests. As such, there is little interest in what many now see as an ineffectual tactic. In fact, while Democrats have been told, and many believe, that Trump is a unique threat to democracy, very little has been done to prepare to resist him. More common is a sense of resignation, often coupled with an expectation that Trump's administration will be a series of failures that often harm his supporters the most. MAGA posters are taking great pleasure in trash-talking Trump opponents and gloating over their victory. They search for any signs of "liberal tears" and make wild claims over what they expect to happen to the vanquished Democrats. The lack of any notable resistance actually is a disappointment to them. MAGAs want to point and laugh at the futile struggles of Democrats, but can't find anything worth the effort. As one poster wrote, referring to MAGA posters, "This board has been four years of them [MAGAs] whining about everything. And when they don't get the big freakout they've been waiting for, they whine about that." Some posters actually accused the original poster of being a MAGA troll trying to stir up drama that hasn't developed organically. As for the Democrats, they seem more interested in participating in a circular firing squad than resisting Trump. Centrist Democrats don't appear likely to be satisfied until every progressive has publicly renounced any use of pronouns and agreed that the subject of gender will henceforth never be mentioned again. As for progressives, they are too busy resisting other Democrats to worry about Trump. There actually seems to be more interest in resisting First Lady Elon Musk than there is in resisting Trump. People are cancelling X accounts left and right and refusing to allow Teslas to merge in front of them. Unrelated to the thread, but the saddest people on Earth right now must be liberal Tesla owners who bought the cars in order to help the environment and are now being tagged as Trump supporters.

Yesterday's next most active thread was also posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Pete Hedgseth (sic) for Secretary of Defense", the original poster only notes that President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's nomination for Secretary of Defense, Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth, has been divorced twice. While that is probably not the most important biographical element relative to the job, it is something Hegseth has in common with Trump. Trump's cabinet is quickly shaping up to be the MAGA version of the Star Wars bar, with every type of right-wing freak imaginable. In this regard, Hegseth is exhibit #1. Hegseth is the prototypical Trump pick. His appearance is directly out of central casting, he is an excellent media communicator, and he is likely to be intensely loyal to Trump. Those are the factors that Trump values. Experience or qualifications? Trump doesn't care about those. Hegseth has a long career in the Minnesota Army National Guard in which he is currently commissioned as a Major. He has been deployed abroad and served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been a Fox News commentator for a decade. Critics in this thread are skeptical that a part-time Army Major and political pundit has the skills necessary to run the entire Department of Defense. As one poster put it, "this loudmouth doofus is going to oversee an $800+ billion budget and 3 million personnel." Moreover, Hegseth has a history of being, let's say, controversial. In an appearance on Fox News, Hegseth said that he hasn't washed his hands in 10 years and that he does not believe that germs are a real thing. In his recent book, he appeared to support civil war within the U.S. and deploying the military against political opponents — an idea that Trump has also supported. Hegseth strongly opposes deploying women in combat. The MAGA posters in this thread are, of course, thrilled with the pick. Any move that they think "owns the libs" is good in their minds. In this case, military Generals are also classified as "libs". Therefore, the promotion of a Major over a slew of Generals is considered a plus. Not only does Hegseth provide an example of anti-elitism that MAGAs love, but he shares that attitude. One poster embedded a video in which Hegseth said that he has a rule that the more elite the university and the more advanced the student, the dumber they are. He attended Princeton and Harvard, so I guess, by his rule, that makes him pretty dumb. The main complaint from those posting is that Hegseth has absolutely no executive experience and is now expected to oversee the expansive Department of Defense. As one poster put it, "The SecDef’s job is to manage a massive bureaucracy, not to say stupid shit on tv." This is true generally, but clearly not in the Trump administration where being able to go on TV and defend Trump is a highly-valued skill.

Yesterday's next most active thread was titled, "My headspace for the next 4 years" and was, like the previous two threads, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she refuses to let the next four years of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and the chaos he causes affect her mentally the way that his first term did. Instead, she will focus on her friends, family, and local community and avoid other than occasional observations of what changes Trump is making. I believe that the original poster made a very similar post in the resistance thread that I discussed above. At any rate, there is some overlap between the two threads. As I noted when discussing that thread, a common reaction among Democrats is a sense of resignation. As the original poster shows, this is sometimes accompanied by a general feeling of apathy. Before getting to the responses, I have two comments about this post. First, I am skeptical that people easily make dramatic changes in their lives. If someone has always cared about and closely observed politics, they probably aren't going to stop doing that now. Maybe they will take a break and give themselves some space, but eventually they will return to watching and caring about politics just as much as they have been. Indeed, the original poster — who could be outside enjoying the fall leaves — is busy posting in DCUM's political forum. That does not sound like someone who will detach themselves from politics. My second comment is that being able to detach from Trump's politics is a privileged position. If the original poster were a federal employee worried about losing her job, having it moved to some faraway place, or having a new department head who is a MAGA troglodyte, detaching wouldn't be an option. Similarly, if she were an undocumented immigrant or the friend or family of one, she would not have such privilege. If she had friends or family who are transgender, or were transgender herself, concern about her or their future would likely not allow her to detach. Nevertheless, many of those responding, like the original poster, plan to check out. I have written repeatedly over the past week that DCUM's generally affluent user base does not have to fear the worst of Trump's actions. However, this is a little naive. Trump is likely to make changes that affect us all. This is especially true for those of us who are residents of the District of Columbia. Who knows what changes Trump will implement in DC that will directly impact us? Simply in the interest of self-preservation, it would probably be wise to pay attention in order to prepare for the changes. In this regard, it seems that the plan of many of those responding is not to begin ignoring politics, but rather to observe but not let it bother them. In their opinion, Trump voters have f'd around, and now will find out. Those responding have no intention of softening the finding out. To the contrary, several are looking forward to it. But among those who plan to, mentally at least, sit out the next four years, are a number of posters who are not giving up. As one poster says, "Marching is ineffective but working to build political power is not. Being upset is a waste of time but volunteering to keep VA blue or flip seats is not."

Like all previous threads discussed today, the last one that I will discuss was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread is titled, "Why is there so much opposition to ending birthright citizenship?". The original poster notes that many Western democracies do not have birthright citizenship. In addition, many recent immigrants have turned out to be conservative and voted for President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump. The original poster thinks that everyone should support commonsense immigration reform such as Trump is proposing. Before getting to the replies, I again have two comments. First, this poster makes the mistake of believing the right-wing propaganda that Democrats only support migrants because they are expected to become Democratic voters. In essence, the original poster believes that the Great Replacement Theory is true, only that it is not working out as planned. This is a complete misunderstanding of Democratic motivations, which lie in humanitarian rather than political motives. Second, while the original poster warns Democrats that largely conservative migrants from Latin America might vote for Republicans, any electoral advantage that the original poster sees is outweighed by his other motives for opposing birthright citizenship. In other words, he is not convinced by his own argument regarding voting patterns. Based on the responses, few posters have a strong attachment to birthright citizenship. Rather, because the right is based on the 14th Amendment, another amendment would be required to change it. Posters are skeptical that, given the hurdles, such an amendment could pass. Trump has said that he will issue an executive order prohibiting birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of parents who are not in the country legally or who are not U.S. citizens. Most legal scholars do not believe that such a change can be done by executive order. However, Trump has little interest in the law. He may well issue such an order and then try to deport as many individuals as possible before courts rule that he can't. Alternatively, he may hope that the U.S. Supreme Court, which is dominated by conservative judges, including three appointed by Trump, will rule in his favor. Generally, however, posters seem to agree that whether they support birthright citizenship or not, it is probably here to stay. There actually appears to be more concern about so-called birth tourism, which involves foreign citizens visiting the U.S. only to give birth to a child who is automatically a U.S. citizen and then returning home. While the children of undocumented immigrants will likely will grow up in the U.S. and have a stake in the country, the children of birth tourists generally have no connection to the U.S. other than citizenship. Trump has targeted this citizenship right as well. One motivation for birthright citizenship that is often overlooked is that it prevents children from becoming stateless. There otherwise would likely be cases where children born in the U.S. to parents who are not citizens will not be recognized as citizens of their parents' countries either. This could result in a class of stateless people living in the U.S.