The Most Active Threads Over the Weekend

The most active thread over the weekend was titled, "John Oliver slams Democrats who think transgender people lost them the election" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Immediately after the election, Democrats began looking for scapegoats on whom to place blame for Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat. Many centrist Democrats immediately focused on support for transgender rights. During the campaign, President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump spent hundreds of millions of dollars highlighting old statements Harris made regarding gender-affirming care for prisoners and claiming that while Trump was for "you", Harris was for "they/them". Many found these ads to be effective, and they were never countered by the Harris campaign. Centrist Democrats were generally predisposed to blame the transgender issue because many of them have been vocally opposing pro-trans positions all along. The topic came to a head when Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi criticized Democrats for support for trans girls playing in girls' sports. Another Democrat, Congressman Seth Moulton, made similar remarks. The original poster of this thread highlighted a portion of John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight" show in which Oliver slammed Democrats such as Suozzi and Moulton for "jumping to predetermined conclusions that don't match the campaign that just wrapped up." As Oliver pointed out, Suozzi and Moulton blame "pandering to the left" on trans issues for the loss and urge a move to the center. But Harris' entire campaign strategy involved moving to the center. She never brought up trans issues other than when pushed on the topic in a Fox News interview. Her response was a reluctant commitment to "follow the law", hardly a ringing endorsement. Harris talked more about her Glock handgun than she did about trans rights. She campaigned with Liz Cheney, took a hard line on immigration, and refused to make the slightest compromise to Arab and Muslim Americans regarding her complete support for Israel in its wars in Gaza and Lebanon. As Oliver says, centrist Democrats got the campaign that they wanted and lost. Rather than questioning their strategy, they are blaming support for trans people. Some argue that even though Harris did not campaign as a trans-supporter, the Democratic brand is tarnished because of "woke" issues, especially trans rights. This would be a more persuasive argument if Democratic Senate candidates had not been successful in swing states that Harris lost. In Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, Democratic candidates prevailed despite Harris losing their states. While Pennsylvania appears to be going to the Republicans, it is by a hair's breadth. This is hardly the sign of a damaged Democratic brand. Rather, it indicates that Harris had problems that the Senate candidates didn't, and that wasn't simply support for trans people. Oliver suggested a strategy to counter the Republican attacks on trans rights, especially trans youth in sports, based on a factual recital of data showing how marginal this issue is in reality. Few trans kids are actually involved in sports. I disagree with Oliver on this. I think the issue is emotional and a rational response, while correct, would not have been effective. Rather, I think Harris should have turned Trump's attacks around by reminding voters that trans people are our neighbors, our friends, and our family members. When Trump attacks "they/them", he is really attacking "us". While Trump is campaigning against "us" and causing division, Harris was working for "us" with policies that encourage new factories in the U.S., accessible healthcare, reproductive rights, and controlling inflation. Trump is working for himself and his billionaire friends. Harris works for "us" because we are all in this together.

Next were two threads that I've already covered and will skip today. After those was another thread that was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Mass Deportation: this is going to be expensive", the original poster linked to an article detailing President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump's plans to initiate the mass deportation of immigrants once he takes office. Of all the issues on which Trump campaigned, I don't think any has provoked such polarizing opinions — not about whether the plan is good or bad, but whether Trump actually plans to do it. Liberals and MAGAs alike have claimed that Trump was campaigning on the issue but had no plans to actually implement such an idea. Those who warned about camps and mass roundups were denounced as alarmist fear-mongers. Similarly, there were both liberals and MAGAs who were certain that Trump would do exactly what he said he was going to do. While the liberals meant this as a warning, the MAGAs were excited and eager for it to begin. The article to which the original poster linked shows that planning is underway and has been quite detailed, suggesting that Trump sees mass deportation as more than simple campaign rhetoric. However, as the original poster points out, the plans won't be cheap. One reason that previous administrations have paroled immigration detainees into the U.S. while they await their court dates is that there is a lack of facilities in which to house them. Trump plans to build new detention facilities. Moreover, this effort will be privatized. As such, the private prison industry was a strong backer of Trump during the election. The original poster notes that there is an emphasis on privatization that will line the pockets of private contractors at great expense to U.S. taxpayers. She wonders if, instead, some version of the current parole process that would allow migrants to work while requiring better tracking would be cheaper. Few of those responding seem to share the original poster's concern about the cost, or at least that is not a primary worry that they have. Instead, deportation supporters believe the cost is worth it to remove undocumented residents. They believe that these individuals are costing the country significant sums of money due to medical care and other expenses. They ignore the point the original poster is making that detainees will need to be housed, fed, and provided medical care. One question is over the length of detention. The original poster seems to believe that migrants will be detained until their cases are adjudicated. This could be a lengthy period of time. Other posters, perhaps with some justification given Trump's statements, believe that detainees will have very little legal recourse and will be deported quickly. This is a crucial issue because it impacts the cost of detention as well as the required number of facilities. Those who acknowledge the cost suggest that the expense will prevent Trump from fulfilling his plans. Some suggest that nothing more than a performative example, which won't cost much, will be conducted. Others think that something much worse than mass detention is planned. For instance, they suspect that there might be mass roundups followed by quick deportations with little more than cursory legal review. Other posters pointed out that additional costs, perhaps even greater than the deportation expenses, would be downstream from mass deportations. Those would include higher food prices, fewer available employees, and towns emptying of residents.

Next was a thread titled, "Is this how conservatives felt when Obama was president?" and, like the previous two threads, posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The original poster reports feeling depressed, hopeless, and angry about the election of President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and wants to know if this is how conservatives felt when Obama was elected. Several posters respond saying that they were Republicans at the time Obama was elected and they did not feel anything like Democrats feel today. Many attribute this to Obama's message of unity which is the opposite of Trump's calls for revenge and apparent hatred of opponents. Other posters suggest that Clinton was a better example than Obama. But, in response, others point out that Clinton was one of the most popular Presidents in history. Whenever someone shows any emotion regarding the elections, there are always posters who respond by suggesting such a reaction is unnecessary. In this thread, a poster quickly arrived to tell the original poster that the policies of a president don't affect "real people" much anyway. The posters who have blamed President Joe Biden for the price of eggs would be surprised to hear that and I would be curious about that poster's definition of "real people". But another poster responded saying that her husband is a federal worker and her child has an IEP. Since Trump has said that he would fire large numbers of federal employees and eliminate the Department of Education — which oversees IEPs — the second poster is fairly certain that she will feel the effects of Trump's policies. I didn't read every post in this thread, but I didn't see a single poster saying that they felt like the original poster does now when Obama was elected. Instead, a very clear pattern emerges. Many former Republicans agree with earlier posters that they didn't feel anything near what they feel now. Other Republicans don't really say how they felt when Obama was elected, but instead, fixate on criticizing Obama and explaining why he was a terrible person. In not-so-many words, they seem to be saying that they were very angry and upset by Obama's election, but those emotions were justified because he was a terrible president. Other posters note that Trump supporters never explain what Trump will do to make their lives better. Rather, they concentrate on what Trump will do to make others' lives worse. To a great extent, this explains why many feel worse about Trump's election than Obama's opponents felt about his. Posters might not have agreed with Obama and been disappointed by his election, but they didn't think he would be planning to hurt them personally. In Trump's case, several posters — like the one above — believe that they might not only be collateral damage of Trump's policies, but the direct target of them. But again, other posters refuse to concede that Trump might have an actual impact on someone's life. They have a number of different recommendations from therapy to disconnecting from the Internet for posters who are depressed. I personally think that Trump will have a damaging impact on almost everyone's lives, including those who are currently recommending therapy. It will be interesting, if I turn out to be correct, whether those posters will take their own advice when this happens.

Taking a break from the political forum, the final thread that I will review today was posted in the "General Parenting Discussion" forum. Titled, "Dad in our friend group had a mental break and threatened to kill another child in the friend group, advice needed", the original poster tells a disturbing story. She lives in a tight-knit neighborhood (not in the DC Metropolitan area) in which about 15 families have a close friend group. All have pre-teen children who mostly attend the same school. One father in the group has always had intense political opinions. The weekend before last, he got in an argument with some other fathers about politics during a text discussion. Becoming extremely angry, he threatened to kill those who disagreed with him and texted a photo of him holding a gun. The dad was home with his three daughters while his wife was out of town. Neighbors called the police, and they came to his house but didn't do anything. The original poster provides lots of other details that are too plentiful for me to repeat here, but the upshot is that neighbors, including the original poster, consider the dad to be a threat, don't think his wife takes the threat seriously, and they don't want their kids to be around the family. However, they are concerned about the three daughters and don't want them to be ostracized because of their father. The original poster wants to know what others would do in this situation. Posters see the poster as having three choices: 1) continuing as if nothing happened; 2) continuing to socialize with the children but not the adults; and 3) ending relations with the entire family. I think everyone sees the first option as a non-starter. The dad is obviously unstable and potentially dangerous. Most posters wouldn't want their kids visiting his home. A number of posters are in favor of the second option and continuing to maintain relationships with the three girls. However, this raises concerns about engaging in friendships while not visiting the other family's home. There is even some concern about having the girls visit the original poster's home since that might give their dad a reason to come there and present a danger. Posters feel that the girls deserve support and, possibly offered a sanctuary in case their father endangers them, but others want to weigh that against the risks involved. Many posters are in favor of variations of the third option. There are suggestions to stop socializing with the entire family immediately, change schools, or even move. Moving might solve the original poster's problem, but doesn't help the other neighbors. As the original poster points out, it is not reasonable for 15 families to move. Because the kids take the bus together, some posters urged the original poster to drive her kids to school herself in order to avoid the other family. Other recommendations included contacting the police again, contacting CPS, or reaching out to relatives of the family such as the girls' grandparents to see if they can intervene. Some suggested giving the family a very wide berth for the time being, but re-evaluating over time.