Post New

I'm sure many Democrats - both Congresscritters and generally - regard RFK, Jr. as a really poor pick for HHS Secretary.

On the other hand, when was the last time a Republican President named a pro-choice nominee for that position?

You can't fight every cabinet nominee, and you have to acknowledge that even if you win any particular fight (hi, Matt Gaetz!) the job will always end up going to someone that the Democrats wouldn't choose for that position (hi, Pam Bondi!). Trump is the President, and his Cabinet will 100% be filled with people he chooses.

So....RFK, Jr.? He's got some really nutso opinions on some public health issues. But he's pro-choice. He doesn't personally appear to have any desire to limit women's reproductive options. That seems to be where Trump lands as well.

If he is the HHS secretary, it's kind of unlikely that there would be any significant federal effort to get creative in fighting abortion access. It's not his issue. He'll be fighting a bunch of other battles. But if his nomination fails, and Trump goes for a more "conventional" pick, there's a very good chance that this other Secretary might prioritize getting the agency to restrict abortion access in a way that RFK, Jr. is very unlikely to do.

So, do Democrats possibly take the "win" here? Women's reproductive freedom is their signature public health issue - and they've got a nominee who is on their side on that point. Do you maybe kind of let him alone a bit, rather than aim your resources at him too?

So, do Democrats possibly take the "win" here? Women's reproductive freedom is their signature public health issue - and they've got a nominee who is on their side on that point. Do you maybe kind of let him alone a bit, rather than aim your resources at him too?

LOL. The democrats don't have any notion of merely taking a win. They have to destroy, at all times, and for all things. The key to understanding the democrats' behavior is to know that they don't really believe 90% of what they say about the other side in public. Trump has always been more on the pro-choice side. There was never a possibility of a "national abortion ban" (especially in light of Dobbs). Still, the truth of that didn't matter...what mattered was rallying the base in support of an ultimately doomed Presidential campaign.

But, as you point out, they only have so many resources in the form of television cameras to deploy so as take down a nominee - [Mr. or Ms. X] is a Trump pick. Trump is the OrangePutinHitlerMao. Therefore, [Mr. or Ms. X] will be destroyed. You can almost write a universal logical tautology based on that.

But which one? They won't be able to get them all, so they must pick 1 or 2. So far they've been focusing on Gaetz, Hegseth and Gabbard. They really screwed up by going nuts on Gaetz too early: from the dems' point of view, a true reformer sitting on top of the DOJ does them the most harm. They should have waited until Gaetz's Senate hearing to blow him but instead...they got a near-bulletproof pick in Bondi instead. That was a big-time screw-up on their part.

Hegseth is the next most logical one.

For the sake of argument let's say they decide it's RFK they want to take out. In that case they're going to paint him as somebody who
1. Wants women to have coat hanger abortions in back alleys
2. Wants teenagers to kill themselves rather than receive "Gender affirming care"
3. Believes that all vaccines are harmful and that no one should be vaccinated for measles, mumps, rubella, etc.

...and go from there.

Oops. Forgot about Kash Patel. To protect their Praetorian Guard they're going to have to get him, but that's a tall order.

So far they've been focusing on Gaetz, Hegseth and Gabbard. They really screwed up by going nuts on Gaetz too early: from the dems' point of view, a true reformer sitting on top of the DOJ does them the most harm. They should have waited until Gaetz's Senate hearing to blow him but instead...they got a near-bulletproof pick in Bondi instead. That was a big-time screw-up on their part.

Hegseth is the next most logical one.

I'm not sure this is the result of any Democratic strategizing. People have been focusing on those nominations because they're the ones that show the least accommodation to Republican positions.

Gaetz' nomination didn't fall apart because of the Democrats. Republicans killed his nom. He had no business being selected in the first place - disliked by most members of his party, burdened with a personal scandal, and lacking any of the experience necessary to run a large organization. No matter Gaetz' philosophy of how DoJ should be run or affinity for Trump, he wasn't going to be able to convince all he GOP Senators that he could do that job.

The same thing will likely happen to Hegseth. Senators in the GOP care deeply about the military, and they want it to be run by someone qualified to run it. Again, I don't think those Senators have any objection to a SecDef being very loyal to the President and running the DoD a different way - but they're not going to put someone in charge of a million-plus employee department critical to our national security if they don't think he can do the job. Plus, I don't see how he sits in a room with Joni Ernst (a combat veteran) and explains to her why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat roles.

Gabbard's problem is that she's a lifelong Democrat with a handful of very unorthodox positions on a few foreign governments - positions that are unpopular in the GOP caucus. There's quite a few Republican Senators that don't trust her. Party-switchers are very useful as symbols, but they usually don't generate a lot of love within their new party.

How hard do they NEED to fight the RFK appointment? IOW, how popular is he among Republican Senators? While the MAGA crowd is growing in Congress, it’s a bit slower in the Senate. Are there 3 GOP Senators who will oppose him based on his anti vax or other fringe positions?

Secondly, is he really pro-choice? Or simply not a rabid anti-abortionist who might not care that much one way or the other?

It might also be wise to switch efforts on abortion to the state and local level for now. Trump himself might be a sufficient impediment to the worst of the anti-abortionists. This might be the time to refocus efforts where small successes are more likely and keep away from major public losses.

Home runs are loud and flashy. But you win more games with singles and small ball.
—Peter

How hard do they NEED to fight the RFK appointment? IOW, how popular is he among Republican Senators? While the MAGA crowd is growing in Congress, it’s a bit slower in the Senate. Are there 3 GOP Senators who will oppose him based on his anti vax or other fringe positions?

He's probably not especially popular - or unpopular - among Republican Senators. I'm sure many of them don't really care all that much - unlike the Defense Department or the national security and intelligence apparatus, HHS isn't a government agency that is as high on the caucus' priority list as others.

However, part of how "unpopular" a pick will be can be affected by how hard the Democrats are planning to go after them and whether there are any issues that might cause the Senator some political heartburn. It ups the political cost they pay for confirming the nominee. So, for example, Democrats went all-in in marshalling opposition to Betsy De Vos for Education in 2017, but mostly didn't press much against Ben Carson for HUD - and that probably swayed some votes.

Secondly, is he really pro-choice? Or simply not a rabid anti-abortionist who might not care that much one way or the other?

I think he's really pro-choice, though I don't think it matters. Trump doesn't seem to care about abortion, which means that if his HHS Secretary doesn't care about abortion one way or another, there won't be a strong effort to restrict abortion coming out of HHS. Which is probably the best-case scenario for Democrats in a Republican Administration, at least for that agency.

On the other hand, when was the last time a Republican President named a pro-choice nominee for that position?

Pardon me for being blunt, but...

The junkie's personal pro-choice belief ain't worth spit in the MAGA admin. He'll follow orders.

The same thing will likely happen to Hegseth. Senators in the GOP care deeply about the military, and they want it to be run by someone qualified to run it. Again, I don't think those Senators have any objection to a SecDef being very loyal to the President and running the DoD a different way - but they're not going to put someone in charge of a million-plus employee department critical to our national security if they don't think he can do the job. Plus, I don't see how he sits in a room with Joni Ernst (a combat veteran) and explains to her why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat roles.

Hegseth will likely clarify his position on women in combat to be not lowering any standard for any job just to accommodate someone. Women make excellent pilots; however, not every woman can carry a 200lb load around the battlefield.

They're already floating names to replace him - I've seen Ernst and Ron DeSantis mentioned. Ron would be a home run.

The junkie's personal pro-choice belief ain't worth spit in the MAGA admin. He'll follow orders.

I don't think he'll get orders, though.

I don't think Trump cares about HHS. I don't think he has a health agenda, and I certainly don't think he cares at all whether HHS takes any action to restrict abortion. His HHS secretary is going to pretty much be able to do what they want. Within limits, of course - Trump doesn't want anyone making problems for him on things he doesn't care about. But on an issue that Trump won't be paying much attention to if it stays under the radar, personnel is policy.

His HHS secretary is going to pretty much be able to do what they want. Within limits, of course - Trump doesn't want anyone making problems for him on things he doesn't care about. But on an issue that Trump won't be paying much attention to if it stays under the radar, personnel is policy.

This. The selection of RFK was a win/win - RFK endorsed Trump and now he gets to work on something he's passionate about.
Trump has bigger fish to fry in the Pentagon, intel agencies and the DOJ.

HHS isn't a government agency that is as high on the caucus' priority list as others.

Like a lock picker, Avian Flue is patiently clicking the tumblers one by one. Human to human transmission is only a matter of time. Could be this winter. Could be five years from now. God help us if an anti-vaxxer in in charge of HHS when it hits.

Like a lock picker, Avian Flue is patiently clicking the tumblers one by one. Human to human transmission is only a matter of time. Could be this winter. Could be five years from now. God help us if an anti-vaxxer in in charge of HHS when it hits.

At least this time we would be dealing with a disease that evolved naturally, as opposed to something that obviously leaked from a lab.

Hegseth will likely clarify his position on women in combat to be not lowering any standard for any job just to accommodate someone. Women make excellent pilots; however, not every woman can carry a 200lb load around the battlefield.

He can try. I don't think it will work. His past statements against women in combat roles have been categorical, and the military doesn't lower standards for jobs to accommodate women. If the job requires carrying a 200 lb load around the battlefield, then you have to be able to carry that load - man or woman. I think someone like Ernst will eat him alive if he tries to tell her otherwise.

They're already floating names to replace him - I've seen Ernst and Ron DeSantis mentioned. Ron would be a home run.

I'm not sure DeSantis would be a home run. He's got one of the same problems Hegseth has - a very thin resume on defense and national security issues. Like Hegseth, he's got some military experience serving as a member of the armed forces - but he has very little familiarity with the military as an institution and an organization. The GOP Senators who care about the military, and who care that the DoD is going to be well run, may be concerned about that. It's hard job to step into if you're a relative newbie about the armed services and all the myriad issues that it faces.

I think Ernst would be a better choice substantively (and for ease of confirmation), but she's got to be aware that being SecDef under Trump is a poisoned chalice not worth trading a safe Senate seat for.

Ron would be a home run. - Dope

----------------

That would be a good path forward for DeSantis since Vance most likely closes off any presidential aspirations in 2028.

I'm not sure DeSantis would be a home run. He's got one of the same problems Hegseth has - a very thin resume on defense and national security issues. Like Hegseth, he's got some military experience serving as a member of the armed forces - but he has very little familiarity with the military as an institution and an organization. The GOP Senators who care about the military, and who care that the DoD is going to be well run, may be concerned about that. It's hard job to step into if you're a relative newbie about the armed services and all the myriad issues that it faces.

DeSantis would be fine. If Senators are concerned about things being 'well-run', one needs only look at the improvements made in Florida's disaster preparedness under RD.

I think Ernst would be a better choice substantively

Why? She's never run as large an organization as Ron DeS has.

And btw the Pentagon has 5 major challenges ahead of it:

*Re-creating the ability to supply large forces across the Pacific to face a threat from China
*Getting control of its budget
*Fixing the recruiting mess
*Re-doing the procurement process to get more stuff faster and cheaper, especially Navy ships
*Re-arming at a fast enough rate to replace what's being expended in the Ukraine

Those are the major challenges the new SecDef and administration have to face.

If Senators are concerned about things being 'well-run', one needs only look at the improvements made in Florida's disaster preparedness under RD.

Florida's consistently had good disaster preparedness. It's one of the things that even Democrats would praise about Jeb and Rick Scott.

Why? She's never run as large an organization as Ron DeS has.

True, but she has more substantive familiarity with the Defense Department than DeSantis. It's been one of her main areas of focus, and she's been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for about a decade now. She deals with DoD all the time; governors have minimal exposure (if any) to the department.

Perhaps DeSantis would have an easy appointment process. But it is somewhat unusual for a SecDef pick not to have any recent or high-level experience with the defense department at all, either from the civilian or military side. Unlike some of the other agencies, I think there are more than a few Republican Senators who genuinely want Trump to pick someone that he thinks is very qualified to run the military, rather than being chosen for other political considerations (like, say, making sure the "right" person is chosen to fill Rubio's senate seat....)

So, do Democrats possibly take the "win" here?

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

Jesus Christ, here’s a clue for everyone.

The Republicans will control the Senate in 2024 with 53 seats.

The Democrats have 45 seats with an additional 2 independents that caucus with the Democrats.

There is no “fight” and there is no “take the win” here.

The Republicans own the Senate and the Republicans own who gets approved or rejected for Trump’s cabinet, screw ups and all.

The Republicans own the cabinet. Period. Full stop. EOM.

You can’t fix stupid.

The Republicans own the Senate and the Republicans own who gets approved or rejected for Trump’s cabinet, screw ups and all.

The Republicans own the cabinet. Period. Full stop. EOM.

Of course. That's the point.

Democrats can't control who gets approved or rejected. The most they can do is influence their Republican colleagues by ratcheting up the pressure and political heat on any given nominee. But that can be somewhat effective, particularly since two of the four votes they would need to defeat a nominee (Collins and Murkowski) have been quite willing to vote against Trump picks in the past - and almost certainly gave the signal that they were a hard "no" on Gaetz.

There are probably more than a few Senators that don't want to confirm RJK, Jr. for exactly the reasons I gave in the top of the thread - he's a pro-choice former Democrat. He's also got some....unorthodox views on things that affect modern agriculture, like pesticide use and GMO's.

If Democrats really turn up the temperature on RFK, Jr., those squishy supporters might break against him and try to get a nominee that lines up more with where they are on those issues. But if he's not the main focus of Democratic opposition? I don't know - it gets harder to turn down the President on anything other than a flashpoint pick.

The GOP will own every pick in the cabinet. The question is whether Democrats try to get them to own a different pick in the HHS slot.

Twump's pik 4 NASA director to be an Astro-not, a SpaceX investor who paid for 2 rides in Space X toys.

"If confirmed as NASA administrator, Isaacman would oversee billions of dollars in contracts that the government has awarded to SpaceX. He would also be in a position to funnel more money to Musk's company."

The grift just gets better and better.

Isaacman is a friend of Musk, and his online payment company, Shift 4, has extensive financial ties to SpaceX. According to financial disclosure documents, Shift 4 had invested $27.5 million dollars in SpaceX as of 2021. That same year, Shift4 announced a five-year partnership that would make it the payment platform for Starlink, the satellite internet service run by SpaceX.

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/04/nx-s1-5215889/trump...

At least this time we would be dealing with a disease that evolved naturally, as opposed to something that obviously leaked from a lab.

How do you know there isn't gain of function being done on Avian Flu?

There is no "obviously leaked from a lab". That it originated in animals is still very highly likely.

How do you know there isn't gain of function being done on Avian Flu?

Why, is Anthony Fauci still handing out money to EcoHealth Alliance?

There is no "obviously leaked from a lab". That it originated in animals is still very highly likely.

I guess there are a few COVID diehards left after all. You don't need to wear a mask by yourself in your car anymore, btw.

I guess there are a few COVID diehards left after all.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a Covid die hard. And there are lots of sane rational people.

And there are lots of sane rational people.

They don't wear masks by themselves riding along in a car.

Speaking as an unappointed representative for the medical community, RFKjr would be an unmitigated disaster as sed HHS. His head has barely a rational thought and zero training or understanding of human physiology, natural course of disease, nor how the health system works.

We can expect active obstruction of vaccine development, crackpot remedies being funded, and a worse death rate than the million lost with the next epidemic.

In an earlier era, snake oil salesmen like him were run out of town on a rail.

They don't wear masks by themselves riding along in a car.

And sane and rational people can have real and rational conversations.

You don't need to wear a mask by yourself in your car anymore, btw.

I've had a couple times where I simply forgot to take a mask off when I didn't need to wear it any more, and that includes driving in my car by myself. Others have told me the same thing. It wasn't because I felt I needed protection. I was simply thinking of other things and forgot. Have you ever done a stupid or embarrassing thing because you were thinking of something else at the time? Maybe you haven't. But most of us have.

Also: let's say you're on the way to pick up a friend of yours who has a compromised immune system and is at high risk. You're going to be giving them a ride somewhere, and droplets from your breathing prior to the person entering the car could still be in the air when they enter your car, and could infect them. Would you wear a mask even when driving by yourself in order to play it safe and protect your friend from that danger? Many people would. It's not just about protecting yourself. It's also about protecting others.

It's not just about protecting yourself. It's also about protecting others.

Come on now. That's just rational sanity talking, which is a non-starter in MAGAnistan.

I've had a couple times where I simply forgot to take a mask off when I didn't need to wear it any more,

Similarly here. But I also knew enough that outside in the sunlight and breeze I didn't need it, especially if you are away from people. So between stores I'd walk away from people and take the mask off. This would bother my wife, to whom not wearing the mask was improper. She would wear an N95 with a K95 over it. Then the Philippine movie stars started wearing a copper mesh mask, so she wore that over both of them for that look. And I'd have my mask in my shirt pocket.

" let's say you're on the way to pick up a friend of yours who has a compromised immune system and is at high risk. You're going to be giving them a ride somewhere, and droplets from your breathing prior to the person entering the car could still be in the air when they enter your car, and could infect them. Would you wear a mask even when driving by yourself in order to play it safe and protect your friend from that danger?"

-------------------------------------

You're a good friend/person if you do that. I'd do the same thing.

Keeping my fingers crossed we don't experience another pandemic under the Trump/RFK
"leadership". Gonna need a whole lot more portable morgues than the last time Trump
incompetently bungled up the response.

Keeping my fingers crossed we don't experience another pandemic under the Trump/RFK "leadership". Gonna need a whole lot more portable morgues than the last time Trump incompetently bungled up the response.

Isn't that die already cast?

Not to say that the federal government doesn't matter - it obviously does - but a massive part of pandemic response requires action at the state level. In the earliest parts of the Covid pandemic, nearly all state governments were doing a lot. Even the red ones. Even most of the reddest ones had some stringent NPI measures in place, at least through about April/May 2020.

That changed, though, as divisions emerged over the main policy questions involved in the pandemic response:

1) What balance should we strike between illness/death prevention and the costs of that prevention?
2) Who should decide question #1?
3) What processes should be followed in deciding question #1?

The parties basically split over those questions. Oversimplifying and trying to take out some of the knee-jerk politics out of it, Democrats mostly decided that the answers were: 1) Maximally try to prevent illness; 2) scientists and doctors; and 3) regulations and emergency orders. Republicans decided that the answers were: 1) Less illness prevention and more minimizing other costs; 2) elected officials and legislators; and 3) legislation and other non-emergency democratic processes. And the big divergence in state-level policies reflected that.

I don't think we're going back on that. I think even if Harris had won, and appointed Anthony Fauci to be HHS secretary, the state-level response to a new pandemic would reflect the above split. I don't think we're ever getting back to that Spring 2020 level of nearly everyone being on board with the "we have to do everything to stop a pandemic" response. I think the federal government has lost most of its ability to materially influence state-level pandemic response, and it's hard to see how federal pandemic response can be effective with that being the case.

Speaking as an unappointed representative for the medical community, RFKjr would be an unmitigated disaster as sec HHS.

The following link discusses the efficacy of oncologic drugs, highlighting the importance of our FDA. One can reasonably assume that poor quality generics and deregulation will impact many other fields.

A person does not need be a physician to appreciate the benefits of FDA, CDC, EPA, OSHA, etc to the health and welfare of U.S. residents.

It's hard to imagine the damage about to unfold as Trump's assemblage of science-deniers and incompetents zealously slash budgets of agencies that have protected our food and drug supplies, air, water, workplace safety, etc.

I've begun a misery index; investments on healthcare companies whose volumes will soar within 2 yrs as the incoming idiots fuck over the health of America.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2024/1...

The parties basically split over those questions. Oversimplifying and trying to take out some of the knee-jerk politics out of it, Democrats mostly decided that the answers were: 1) Maximally try to prevent illness; 2) scientists and doctors; and 3) regulations and emergency orders. Republicans decided that the answers were: 1) Less illness prevention and more minimizing other costs; 2) elected officials and legislators; and 3) legislation and other non-emergency democratic processes. And the big divergence in state-level policies reflected that.

This isn’t how it went. Republicans actually looked at data on transmission rates and on the rates of infection in schools in places like Europe and on the quarantined cruise ship and said… hold on a sec. We’re doing a lot of damage for little benefit ESPECIALLY after the vaccines came out.

"Gonna need a whole lot more portable morgues than the last time Trump
incompetently bungled up the response."

Remembering that Trump decimated our CDC staff in 2018 China ....

I heard Trump on TV say at the time that we didn't need them, that if there was a disease outbreak, he could hire them back. Horse/left barn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll8bOV4znyo

This isn’t how it went. Republicans actually looked at data on transmission rates and on the rates of infection in schools in places like Europe and on the quarantined cruise ship and said… hold on a sec. We’re doing a lot of damage for little benefit ESPECIALLY after the vaccines came out.

That's exactly what I said. The Democrats and Republicans reached different conclusions on how to balance avoided illness vs. the damage caused by NPI measures. A complicated and difficult question under any circumstances, made especially so by the fact that there was massive uncertainty about both sides of that equation. To an approximation, Democrats generally leaned towards landing on the side of trying to avoid illness spread as much as possible - to use your formulation, that even "little benefit" is worth a great deal of cost when death is on the line. Republicans landed differently, believing that the "lot of damage" was not worth the "little benefit."

They also disagreed on the empirical questions of how much avoided illness you got with any particular NPI protocol - and how much damage was caused by those NPI measures. But fundamentally, they also disagreed on where to strike the balance as well.

My point still stands - those positions are now very much baked into the political philosophies of the parties, which vastly reduces the ability of the federal government to steer pandemic response. Blue states are going to go hardcore fighting disease spread regardless of what RFK Jr. might want to do; red states are going to minimize NPI restrictions even if there's a Democrat in the WH and a fervent pandemic fighter heading the HHS.

"Not to say that the federal government doesn't matter - it obviously does - but a massive part of pandemic response requires action at the state level."

So Trump and the powers that be had no responsibility to help ?

Did Trump have Jared Kushner head the Covid response from the Federal Government, at
least as far as getting PPE available to the States ?
Do you think that was a savvy appointment by Trump ? I could be wrong, but I don't think
Jared had a whole lot of experience, lol.

Odd how you seem to often try to absolve Trump of any responsibility for anything, lol.

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/4/21208122/ppe-distribu...
"How the Trump administration has stood in the way of PPE distribution
States are competing for supplies, and manufacturers aren’t sure who to ship PPE to first"

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/01/jared-kus...
"Behind the scenes, Kushner takes charge of coronavirus response"

So Trump and the powers that be had no responsibility to help ?

Not at all. As I said, the federal government still matters a lot. And it mattered a lot more in the early days of the Covid pandemic, when we didn't have this politicized split over pandemic response. IOW, the federal government had more ability to shape state responses in March 2020 than it will in March 2025. Trump is 100% responsible for all his failures during the pandemic. He will be 100% responsible for any failures that happen should a pandemic occur in the next four years as well.

But now, a lot of the pandemic response is simply going to be out of the federal government's control. Federal government effectiveness is now a necessary but not sufficient condition to an effective pandemic response. Because the states aren't going to follow CDC (or other agency) recommendations in the next pandemic the way they did in the early days of Covid. They still matter, of course - but you're not going to see a state like Kansas or Idaho issuing stay-at-home orders or lockdowns or workplace closures for months during the next pandemic. Because of the way our country's government is structured, the federal government can't directly control pandemic response very effectively - and the indirect measures for influencing and co-ordinating state actions are now broken.

"Trump is 100% responsible for all his failures during the pandemic. He will be 100% responsible for any failures that happen should a pandemic occur in the next four years as well."

Ah, got it, I misinterpreted what you meant.

What would change the split you described is something no one wants to see happen. A pandemic that kills people across all age groups and kills more than this last one. After that one we may get some cooperation between the two.

Ongoing research validates mask benefits:

"Reinstating masking for healthcare workers alone during a respiratory viral surge resulted in a 33% decrease in hospital-acquired respiratory infections, underscoring its targeted effectiveness."

Study findings

Analysis of 100 hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 cases post-policy changes revealed that 89% had new respiratory symptoms, while 27% had confirmed exposure, affirming the classification of these cases as hospital-acquired.

Discontinuing universal masking and SARS-CoV-2 testing was associated with a significant rise in hospital-acquired respiratory viral infections, whereas reinstating masking for healthcare workers significantly reduced these infections.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20241201/Reinsta...

One need only look at the covid rates in Japan where wearing a mask is the norm.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.