Post New

Charlie mows our grass once a week during the summer. We have 2 acres and at our age- that’s just a bit much for us.

When Charlie finishes, we sit on the porch and shoot the shit for 20 minutes or so. Over the past year or two, it became evident that Charlie was going to vote for Trump. “He’s gonna take care of the little guy” said Charlie.

So after the election, we dropped politics as a subject of conversation with him.


Yesterday’s conversation on the porch with Charlie lasted more than 30 minutes. Charlie began it by saying, “Well, you were right about Trump. I should have listened to you.” (Those were the exact words he used).

My wife spoke for both of us when she said, “I’m really sorry we were right, CJ. It’s not going to be easy for any of us.”

Six months into his term, Trump has disabused Charlie of the notion that campaign promises made in November would survive past the following summer.

Charlie was not MAGA. He’s what some would call a “low information voter”. He works hard, picks up some extra cash playing keyboard in a band that plays in local bars, collects and sells junk metal, works another job as a part time night janitor in a local school. And he has his yards to mow in the summer, snowplowing in the winter. He gets by. Owns his own house. But he has no time for politics.

He believed Trump’s promises. And now he doesn’t.

How many Charlies are out there?

How many Charlies are out there?

A lot less than MAGA. I hope you treat your mower well giving him a generous tip.
Thanks to President Trump he doesn’t have to pay taxes on his tips.

valid, but empathy likely irrelevant.

how much effort will these 'hardworking' people do to fix the damage?
none...at best they may stop liking rightwing facebook posts.

what prevents them from believing the next gop shill, when nothing in trump's entire history prevented a second vote?
nothing. there is no 'low information' transition underway. and call me skeptical regarding another trump vote from them if ever possible.

A lot less than MAGA. I hope you treat your mower well giving him a generous tip.
Thanks to President Trump he doesn’t have to pay taxes on his tips.

On many occasions, we refuse to accept his bill- for being too low. We give him extra work and pay him well. He probably wouldn’t accept a regular tip. But at Christmas, we try to be very generous with a gift.

And he really likes our porch time. Judy and I consider Charlie to be one of those people God put in our lives for a reason. We appreciate him. He appreciates us.


And that tip exclusion will go the way of all Trump promises in a couple of years.

How many Charlies are out there?

Hopefully enough to swing the next few elections away from MAGA, and folks like the Felon and Vance and Johnson.

My wife spoke for both of us when she said, “I’m really sorry we were right, CJ. It’s not going to be easy for any of us.”

I always thought you were a pretty smart guy. This just confirms that. Excellent choice in a life partner.

The only remaining question is why did she pick you??? :-)

--Peter

How many Charlies are out there? - Bill

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

Apparently not as many as you have to think there are, since the Dems continue to drop in the polls.

The Hill

https://thehill.com › homenews › campaign › 5406294-democrats-lowest-favorability-in-decades-poll
New poll shows Democratic Party with lowest favorability rating in decades

Jul 17, 2025The CNN poll, released early Thursday, found Democrats garnering just 28 percent favorability — a slight decline from March's record low of 29 percent.

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

You guys continue to think if your just hate Trump hard enough, that will be enough. You can't understand why so many reject your ideas about trans kids, men invading women's sports, parental rights, absurd levels of criminal leniency, cash bail, defund police, disband ICE, etc.

Yep. Trump is awful and that is the end of your argument. No mention of who you suggest
should be his replacement (that is except for the predicable and boring answer, Who? Anyone not a pedophile grifter oligarch.)

Trump is ruining out democracy you scream. You never say what your policies would be. I guess your policy is "Not Ruin It". Hard to argue with that. Perhaps some suggested legislation would do more to attract support than banging on a pot with a big spoon. You could drag out the well worn tax the evil rich guys and we will spend our way into utopia.

There you have it. Why is MAGA support so impermeable? We know all about his odious character being Hitler and all, but his governance is excellent. But you guys just keep hammering character not realizing you are not providing any alternative governance ideas that could possible attract some interest. Meanwhile your polls continue fall.

Apparently not as many as you have to think there are, since the Dems continue to drop in the polls.

I’ve seen this poll referenced a few times.

I have to honest. If CNN called me right now and asked me if I had a favorable view of the Democrats right now, my answer would be “Hell no!”

I think the last Republican I voted for was Jacob Javits. Sure, I’m pissed at the Dems but I’m even more pissed at the Republicans.

I’m so pissed at the Republicans, I’d even vote for Chuck Schumer (YIKES!!!) before I voted for any Republican (although I might vote for Liz Cheney if she moves to NY).

I think you shouldn’t let this poll ease your mind too much.

Excellent choice in a life partner.

The only remaining question is why did she pick you??? :-)

That’s a damned good question. I’m at a loss.

And every night as I slip into bed, I whisper “I’m the luckiest guy in the world.”

And if she’s still awake, she whispers back, “and don’t forget it.”


One of life’s little rituals.

One of life’s little rituals.

Enjoy them while you can.

—Peter

How many Charlies are out there?

Trump: "There are billions of Charlies out there in America. I've heard from many of them." 😆

BHM: <<You can't understand why so many reject your ideas about trans kids, men invading women's sports, parental rights, absurd levels of criminal leniency, cash bail, defund police, disband ICE, etc. ...Trump is ruining out democracy you scream. You never say what your policies would be. ...We know all about his odious character being Hitler and all, but his governance is excellent.>>

If you're satisfied with PR stunts that air on Fox regarding "trans kids, men invading women's sports," etc., there's really not much to say to you. Those are culture-war memes that resonate with an impermeable minority of Americans, such as yourself, but not with the vast majority of us.

Trump was elected to, in your past words, secure peace and prosperity. But after only 6 month's in office, he is wrecking both of those. He is alienating our core allies and sending them into the arms of our enemies. His administration's ruinous tax, tariff, and immigration policies will add trillions to the national debt, raise costs for ordinary Americans, and strip health insurance from millions of U.S. citizen households. And he's undermining our justice system relentlessly and ruthlessly. These are hard facts.

But Trump doesn't care about any of that. He can and does change his "policy" pronouncements on a dime (other than his core racist and misogynist ones). For decades, his MO has been to disrespect and disregard the justice system. As his actions to date demonstrate beyond any doubt, his sole concern is how to extract as much personal wealth from his position of power as he can in the time he has left. His lifelong heroes are literally mobsters, and he "governs" as a mob boss.

If you call that "excellent governance," there's really not much anyone can say or do to get you to open your eyes ... until, like Charlie, MAGA "governance" finally bites you directly in your big hairy ass. You think he gives a shit about you or his MAGA base? Get real. You're simply marks for his next grift. Go buy some Trump boots or meme coins or whatever.

You're right about one thing, though: you can't beat something with nothing, and so far the establishment Dems haven't offered much. Part of the reason may be that they're allowing MAGAs to grab enough rope with which to hang themselves. But I suspect it runs deeper than that. Too many establishment Dems have lost touch with ordinary middle-class Americans. That's fixable, but they need to do a better job of fixing it than they have so far. It's not about "messaging" better. It's about listening better, and then responding accordingly. And the clock is ticking.

When Charlie finishes, we sit on the porch and shoot the shit for 20 minutes or so.

Yes, exactly....full of $hit....more Trump derangement syndrome.
🫢
What a miserable life wrapping oneself up with TDS.

Too many establishment Dems have lost touch with ordinary middle-class Americans. That's fixable, but they need to do a better job of fixing it than they have so far. It's not about "messaging" better. It's about listening better, and then responding accordingly. And the clock is ticking.

Agreed.

And I don't give them enough credit to think your hypothesis about giving them enough rope is true. That would require strategic thinking, and we haven't seen that since Obama (coincidentally, the best POTUS of my lifetime, despite some blemishes).

The Dems have been mostly silent, and the few times Schumer opens his mouth are cringe-worthy. If he has outrage, he's really bad at vocalizing it. We can hope they are getting their act together, but I'm not optimistic at the moment. "Not-MAGA" will only get you so far, and only for a cycle or two until people forget how bad MAGA was.

You're right about one thing, though: you can't beat something with nothing, and so far the establishment Dems haven't offered much. Part of the reason may be that they're allowing MAGAs to grab enough rope with which to hang themselves. But I suspect it runs deeper than that. Too many establishment Dems have lost touch with ordinary middle-class Americans. That's fixable, but they need to do a better job of fixing it than they have so far. It's not about "messaging" better. It's about listening better, and then responding accordingly. And the clock is ticking.

Mmmmm hmmm!

We know all about his odious character being Hitler and all, but his governance is excellent.

His governance is excellent?! Who are you kidding! The man who tried to subvert a free and fair election, incited an insurrection, is a criminal, a misogynist, a racist, a narcissistic fool who can't effectively manage ANYTHING but his own GD grifting.

YOU live in an alternate reality created by a lying right wing media.

It's about listening better, and then responding accordingly. And the clock is ticking.

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

Its about actually changing, actually adopting values of most ordinary middle class Americans, not simply telling us you have.

There you have it. Why is MAGA support so impermeable? We know all about his odious character being Hitler and all, but his governance is excellent.

If by "governance" you mean grifting, grievance and gaslighting, then you are correct.

Its about actually changing, actually adopting values of most ordinary middle class Americans, not simply telling us you have.

But hey. They're showing themselves lifting weights, so they're totally down with the whitesupremacistdeplora-, uhhh, male voters!

What a miserable life wrapping oneself up with TDS.

Step *away* from the mirrors....

BHM: Its about actually changing, actually adopting values of most ordinary middle class Americans...

And those values are at odds with MAGA. Look at the poll data. Whether it's tax policy, immigration/deportation, health care, wars, due process, abortion, tariffs, etc., etc., MAGA is not most ordinary middle-class Americans.

"You can't understand why so many reject your ideas about trans kids, men invading women's sports, parental rights, absurd levels of criminal leniency, cash bail, defund police, disband ICE, etc." - BHM

This just shows you get your information from sources that consistently make you look like an idiot.

I would bet thousands of dollars that you could not accurately describe the position of a vast majority of Democrats on any of those topics. You just regurgitate what you are fed because it feeds your racist proclivities.

Idiocy like eating dogs and cats. It doesn't even occur to you just how utterly stupid the stuff that is fed to you is and how much it makes you look like a joke except you are allowed to vote to destroy the country.

"Trump is ruining out democracy you scream. You never say what your policies would be. " - BHM

This is even dumber. You are directly demonstrating my point. Democrats have clearly stated what their polices are. You just don't use sources of information that would allow you to hear them. You use sources of information that lie to you. Do better.

"We know all about his odious character being Hitler and all, but his governance is excellent." - BHM

There we have it. BHM telling us Hitler had the trains running on time.

We know all about his odious character being Hitler and all, but his governance is excellent. ~MAGABot

Americas credibility is shot, planes are falling from the skies, the price of everything is going up,
the dollar is sinking like a rock, the measles are making a comeback,
and Trumps BB Bill just ended the Great American empire. (See Fergusons limit*)

*Fergusons limit—is reached when a nation's outlays for debt service surpass its military spending,
when this occurs a country's ability to project power and defend itself erodes,
often leading to geopolitical decline.
Thanks Trump!

https://www.hoover.org/research/fergusons-law-debt...

You guys continue to think if your just hate Trump hard enough, that will be enough. You can't understand why so many reject your ideas about trans kids, men invading women's sports, parental rights, absurd levels of criminal leniency, cash bail, defund police, disband ICE, etc.

Nothing to do with hate, it has to do with love of country - our country.

As for rejecting your ideas about trans kids and invading women's sports. When I first asked about trans in women's sports, there was silence here, including you. Inherently I felt there was something wrong about letting trans compete in some sports with women, and wanted to get ideas about it. Touchy subject. You didn't speak up, but now you want to lecture me. My ideas have evolved to, there are sports we all can agree, such as pool, where there should be no male advantage. In which case, why do we have a women's pool? Did we think there was an advantage at one point? But - we should let them compete there. The rest? Don't let them compete. There aren't that many, methinks, and we can always change our minds. But we want the decision to be based on fairness to women, not hatred of trans, capiche? If a decision is a wobbler, fall on the side of being fair to women.

I'm actually very much for trans kids getting treatment. I looked and it's cheap enough. I'm sympathetic to trans and the whole LBGTQ thing. Life's tough enough when you're straight, give them a break and stop your hatred. Yes, you can have it's icky when you're young and hormones kick in, but when you become a man, realize it isn't any skin off of your nose.

You want to cut costs? Empty the prisons. Don't want to empty the prisons? Tax the rich.

What's your complaint with cash bail? Is that somehow liberal? And remember, you passed up the bill to fund the due process system that would've assisted Ice, and helped with the border. Doing that created the inhumane system that people don't like. Deport criminals is just buzzwords for votes, covering up the inhumanity to come. Now that you have money, will you continue to be inhumane?

Yes, exactly....full of $hit....more Trump derangement syndrome.
🫢
What a miserable life wrapping oneself up with TDS.

You weren’t there, and your characterization of our conversation is a fiction.

You weren’t there, and your characterization of our conversation is a fiction.

lol! 99 9/10% of your posts are of bashing President Trump. You said the conversation was bad mouthing Trump.
I didn’t need to be there to know the conversation was just more of your TDS.

There we have it. BHM telling us Hitler had the trains running on time.

That was Mussolini in Italy, but whatever.

It’s getting harder and harder to keep the internet corrected all the time. I barely have time to brush my teeth anymore.

lol! 99 9/10% of your posts are of bashing President Trump. You said the conversation was bad mouthing Trump.
I didn’t need to be there to know the conversation was just more of your TDS.

Your first response two or three days ago was actually civil.

But after marinating for a couple of days, you couldn’t resist coming back and telling me what was REALLY GOING ON with our conversation, could you?

Your words are still a fiction, LM. Again, you weren’t there.

The dialogue I relayed? That was about it- all quietly spoken. He said we were right about Trump and we agreed. And that’s about it, other than the rest of the conversation that was about lawnmowers, the issues he has controlling his diabetes, the ordeal he went through having a skin cancer removed and the really great sandwiches served at the small Macon Country Store across the street.

Time spent talking about Trump- 1 minute.

Let’s just say Charlie’s a talker. He talks, and mostly, we listen. At one point, we validated his perception.

What a miserable life wrapping oneself up with TDS.

You weren’t there, and your characterization of our conversation is a fiction.

Once, between apartments, I alighted in a hotel in SoCal and stayed there for a few months. I dated a few of the women there. Once, a few of the more plain and folksy ladies confided in me that they believed one of the ladies I was dating was Stevie Nicks. They were agog and it turned out a friend of hers had started the rumor. She isn't Stevie Nicks, I told them and they asked me how I knew that. Just look at her, she doesn't look like Stevie Nicks, I replied.

This did nothing to abate the rumor which passed around the hotel. People would point her out and whisper. She didn't look like Stevie Nicks, but that didn't stop the rumors. I imagine that core MAGA is similar, they disregard their own senses and go with it...

Your yard guy is one up on them.

Great story, Lambo.

Now I can honestly say that I’ve met a guy online who once dated a woman who didn’t look like Stevie Nicks.

Stevie Nicks- the “good witch”.

Never thought I’d ever meet a guy who denies he dated her.

Now there was one messed up woman. Like many of that era, I think she finally got her act together. But back in the day, she crashed and burned in the most glorious fashion.

But you say you never dated her, huh? (Wink)

Now I can honestly say that I’ve met a guy online who once dated a woman who didn’t look like Stevie Nicks.

Hey! I can top that - I married a woman who doesn't look like Stevie Nicks.

And those values are at odds with MAGA. Look at the poll data. Whether it's tax policy, immigration/deportation, health care, wars, due process, abortion, tariffs, etc., etc., MAGA is not most ordinary middle-class Americans.

That is for certain. Americans, in general, are not cruel, and don't like injustice. We get a lot of that from this current government.

But the Dems are also culpable. "Not-Trump" is only a beginning. You actually have to have more to say than "Trump is terrible" (which he most definitely is). And, so far, they mostly don't. The few times Schumer says anything, it's more embarrassing than it is a "zinger" or "sharp retort". If he's the leader of the party, Dems are doomed. Obama would be a good leader, but he's showing little interest in returning to the fray (and I can't blame him). Who else do we have? The Dems are mostly quiet, which is -frankly- pathetic.

Hey! I can top that - I married a woman who doesn't look like Stevie Nicks.

I post among giants!

I really want to rec your post, but I can't. I make it a policy not to rec anything that calls someone an idiot (or similar), even if I agree with the rest of the post (or, occasionally, the ad-hom used).

In this case, all I think BHM needs to do is read what is written on this board to get a feel for Dem positions. I think many posters here reflect them pretty well. If that disconnects from his source(s) of information, he should then consider those sources suspect because they are not reflecting the reality he experiences every time he visits this board.

There we have it. BHM telling us Hitler had the trains running on time.

And he's wrong about his governance being "excellent". Tariffs, injunctions on his orders, foreign relations...he's screwing up all of that.

albaby1: Hey! I can top that - I married a woman who doesn't look like Stevie Nicks.

Okay. So this made me go look at some photos of a young Stevie Nicks and my wife has the same shape face and the same lips, but her eyes aren't set as far apart as Stevie Nicks'. My wife has an upturned, pointy little Emma Watsonish nose that isn't as wide as Stevie Nicks', plus sky blue eyes unlike Stevie Nicks -- whose eyes are brown. And unlike Stevie Nicks, my wife is a natural strawberry blond.

But certainly very unlike Stevie Nicks, my wife couldn't carry a tune in a paper bag.

All things considered, I definitely married up.

All things considered, I definitely married up.

… and don’t forget it!

The dialogue I relayed? That was about it- all quietly spoken. He said we were right about Trump and we agreed. And that’s about it,

Go back and reread your OP.

SNIP
“Yesterday’s conversation on the porch with Charlie lasted more than 30 minutes. Charlie began it by saying, “Well, you were right about Trump. I should have listened to you.” (Those were the exact words he used).

My wife spoke for both of us when she said, “I’m really sorry we were right, CJ. It’s not going to be easy for any of us.”

Six months into his term, Trump has disabused Charlie of the notion that campaign promises made in November would survive past the following summer.”

Plus a couple more lines bashing President Trump.

You’re definitely among a couple others here with a severe case of TDS,
which though keeps me laughing.

Hey! I can top that - I married a woman who doesn't look like Stevie Nicks.


As I recall, she's Cuban. So...looks like Gloria Estefan?

The dialogue I relayed? That was about it- all quietly spoken. He said we were right about Trump and we agreed. And that’s about it,

Go back and reread your OP.

I did re-read it. Several times. Please indicate where in our conversation with Charlie you see us bashing Trump.


Let me put this delicately- you won’t fit it because it’s not there.


The TDS in the dialogue that you imagine between Charlie, my wife and I exists only in your imagination, not in anything Charlie said, I said, or my wife said.


Do I criticize Trump here? Absolutely. There’s a lot to criticize there.

With my friends? Quite often.

When I’m speaking to a Trumper?. Sometimes- depends on the circumstances.

With Charlie, also- sometimes.

But Charlie was confessing that he’d changed his mind about Trump. He’d already made that determination. There was no need for either my wife or I to pile on, other than for her to say what she did. I think my part in that part of the conversation was simply to nod my head.

I’m really curious. Do you go running around bashing Democrats to everyone? I doubt it.

Then why do you think I do?


This is a political board. This is the appropriate venue for the words we post here. So why do you think I would bash anyone when a guy comes to our home and makes a confession that was probably difficult for him to speak? When he confesses that he’s come to believe that the warnings we gave him over the past few years are coming true in his own life?

Let me give you a clue that might even help you out………

Whenever someone comes to you and says “You’re right about what you told me (doesn’t matter what the subject is).

That’s not the time to say “I told you so!

That’s the time to bite your tongue and offer understanding and encouragement. More than anything, it’s a time for listening……which explains why neither my wife or I said much at all, except for what I wrote here.

When someone is angry at being lied to, and embarrassed for having believed those lies, that’s the time to allow that person to come to their own conclusions. It’s not a time for bombast.

And that advice goes for most areas of life and interactions with others.


Another free bit of advice: listen to what people actually say, not to what you imagine they really mean. If you have any confusion over what they mean, then ask them what they mean rather than relying on your own imagination…… which is something you have seemed to do quite a bit in this particular thread.

Hey! I can top that - I married a woman who doesn't look like Stevie Nicks.

But, I say, how are you so sure she isn't Stevie Nicks?

This is a political board. This is the appropriate venue for the words we post here. So why do you think I would bash anyone when a guy comes to our home and makes a confession that was probably difficult for him to speak? When he confesses that he’s come to believe that the warnings we gave him over the past few years are coming true in his own life?

Well fine, it started out to be a nice friendly conversation but then drowned on with the same TDS.

Sorry though, I have to laugh at you and a couple others on this Board repeating, repeating,
repeating the same phrases as if right leaning posters care. You are merely singing to the Choir.

"I really want to rec your post, but I can't. I make it a policy not to rec anything that calls someone an idiot (or similar), even if I agree with the rest of the post (or, occasionally, the ad-hom used)." - 1PG

Is calling Shaq "tall" an ad-hom? Not if it is true.

Here we have a poster who consistently uses sources of information that lie and deceive him. Over and over and over he comes to the board and posts false information or false narratives that was fed to him by these sources. He was given links clearly showing where his sources of information admitted to deceiving him. Internal memos saying they had to lie, or the consumers would just find other information sources that would lie to them. In a moment of clarity, he understood these things and admitted they were pretty damning.

Yet he then continued to use the same sources, and those sources continue to deceive him over and over again.

The infamous philosopher, Forrest Gump's mama said "Stupid is as stupid does" meaning a person should be judged by their actions and behavior rather than their appearance or perceived intelligence. Everyone does something stupid/idiotic/moronic on occasion. Intelligent people learn from the experience and therefore do better going forward. Unintelligent people keep doing the same stupid/idiotic/moronic thing over and over and over. They never learn. An intelligent person touches a hot stove once and learns. A stupid person never learns.

So I would never call a person stupid if they touch a hot stove once. However, if they do it over and over and over and never learn, at some point "Stupid is as stupid does" comes into play.

How many times does someone have to touch the hot stove before it is ok to call them stupid?

As you know, in science it is impossible to prove something true. There are an infinite number of alternative explanations that need to be tested and proven false. However science operates such that after an overwhelming amount of evidence builds up and is failed to be disproven, scientists start to generally accept certain theories as true (with the caveat that things can always change later if new evidence is presented). Right now there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that using certain sources of information is stupid if a person's goal is to be better informed. What do you call someone who continues to use those sources, over and over?

It ain't an Ad-hom to call Shaq "tall" if it is true.

"I really want to rec your post, but I can't. I make it a policy not to rec anything that calls someone an idiot (or similar), even if I agree with the rest of the post (or, occasionally, the ad-hom used)."

I want to tell a few quick stories that will seem random but I will try my hardest to tie together at the end:

1.) The major theme of Issac Anisimov's "I, Robot" is the primary laws governing the programming of robots. The laws are there to protect humans from robots. However these laws can be caried out to absurd extremes to show a world where Robots enslave and lock up humans in order to protect humans from themselves. It is about robots and programming, but the lessons can be used in any governance model. Take any set of governing belief systems or rules and push the boundaries to absurd extremes and that governance model will break down and be ineffectual. Oftentimes to the point where it can be distorted to give results which are directly contrary to the purpose of the governance model.

For example, reputable media sources have been going through a bit of an existential crisis. The goal of reputable media sources is to inform its consumers about what is happening in the world. To do this, reputable media uses a governance model that tries to remove as much personal bias from the content created. This is easy when dealing with facts ("Just the facts, ma'am"), but when presenting opinions, the governance model directs reputable media to give equal time to alternative opinions. People like Trump take advantage of this type of governance model by blurring the difference between a fact and opinion. For example, in scientific circles it is pretty much a given fact that the actions of mankind have affected the climate of earth. However, all someone has to do is pretend that this isn't a scientific fact, and that there is some controversy and it is instead an opinion. Therefore according to the governance model of reputable media sources, these nutty alternative theories (which have zero basis in science) deserve equal coverage.

This renders media sources that try to be reputable to become ineffectual. It gets caught up trying to figure out what is fact, what is opinion, and most media is not qualified to tell the difference, so it defaults to presenting "both sides". As a result, most media sources that try to be reputable when covering mankind's effect on climate end up being near useless and ineffectual. They do not inform their consumers about the world. They confuse it. The governance model that reputable media tries to follow has been pushed beyond its limits.

2.) In my undergraduate years, I was a computer science major. I flirted with getting a minor in philosophy. As a computer science major, I was drawn to the logical argument aspects of philosophy. My favorite class was a logic course. During that course we would build more and more logical arguments (If A exists, then B. A Exists so therefore B exists as well). We also learned various logical fallacies and when they applied and when they didn't, etc. I learned a lot. However, one of the biggest things I learned about that material happened outside of the classroom. Both I and the Professor that taught the class played volleyball. So we would often see each other at various tournaments. When we were at these tournaments, we would have lots of time to discuss various things when waiting to pay in the games. Given that I had taken his class, I always tried to inject "logic" into our discussions by using phrases and keywords that I learned in the class.

One day he called me out on it. He correctly pointed out that there were severe limitations to the philosophical logic when applied to the real world. Basically the two biggest problems are that such discussions either end up getting lost in the details of the given logic (i.e. how many angels can dance on the head of a pin), or it runs into the same problem that science has; you cannot prove something true, only false. There is always alternative logic.

3.) I understand what you mean and why you are saying what you are saying in the part I quoted of your post above. I even agree with it in most situations. Ad hom arguments are not logically sound arguments, therefore they shouldn't be recognized or given any type of credit. When I am making logical arguments in order to convince someone of my viewpoint, I would never use an ad him type of argument. I have had disagreements with Albaby1, Mungofitch, and a host of other luminaries on this board as well as the old Fool boards. Never used ad homs in those situations.

What you fail to realize is that I wasn't intending to make a logical argument in the post you replied to. The poster and I are beyond that. There are some posters who are immune to logical arguments (i.e. teaching pigs to sing). I was pointing out repeated stupid behavior (touching the hot stove for the 999th time and wondering why they got burned, using poor sources of information that regularly misinform them). Stupid is as stupid does.

4.) As a logical scientist, I know you want arguments to be decided by logic, reason, and evidence. You like to think that the most supported, logically sounds argument should win. So your governance model drives to you only accept and credit logically sound, evidence supported views. That is fine in academic settings, but I think there are some areas where that is rendering you (and others like you) ineffectual.

The U.S. (and therefore the world) is in a crisis. As a metaphor, as a nation we are in a wooden boat that has taken on some water. There is discussion on what to be done about it. Some people (let's call them the MAGAdrillers) think it would be a good idea to drill holes in the bottom of the hull and let the water drain down into the ocean. Numerous people have explained why that is a bad idea. That the weight of everyone on the boat would just push the hull deeper into the water and the drilled holes would no longer allow the hull to provide buoyancy and keep us afloat. Instead it would accelerate the rate that we sank. People have tried explaining the physics of the forces involved. Others have demonstrated what happens with miniature model boats. Others have explained why alternative options are better (bailing the water out with buckets). Nothing is getting through. They just keep saying that putting holes in the bottom of the hull will drain the boat. They start drilling holes and the boat starts sinking faster with each hole drilled. Finally people try and move the discussion beyond drilling holes in the bottom of the hull by calling the idea stupid, dismissing those who advocate doing it, and moving on.

Point is the U.S. and what made it such a great country is being destroyed by idiots who still can't figure out why they burn their hands when they touch a hot stove. Due process has gone by the wayside, corruption is become the norm. Rule of Law means nothing. Debt is exploding. Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Americans are directly being made poorer by those in charge (look at the dollar). People are literally dying unnecessarily due to the administration in charge.

I think one of the reasons this is happening is that the governance systems of the institutions that protect the country have been rendered ineffectual. The majority of the country that disagree with what is being done is ineffectual because they keep getting hung up on trying to reason and not show bias to the people who disagree with them despite the fact that those concepts are meaningless to them.

There are many reasons non-MAGA people have a problem getting their views through to the populace. However I think one of the major reasons is that they allow themselves to get tripped up by their governance systems and follow concepts that might be a good idea in normal times but are ineffectual now.

Sometimes it is better to call a stupid idea stupid and move on rather than explain to the non-capable, stupid person for the 82349829 time why their view is not logical and doesn't work.

Interesting post. Your assessment of the media environment we are in now seems correct. It is an asymmetric media landscape. Mainstream media strives to be unbiased, while the right wing media is flagrantly biased. Often this leads to the mainstream media sane-washing Trump by 'summarizing' what he has said instead of just publishing his nonsense spew.

This renders media sources that try to be reputable to become ineffectual. It gets caught up trying to figure out what is fact, what is opinion, and most media is not qualified to tell the difference, so it defaults to presenting "both sides". As a result, most media sources that try to be reputable when covering mankind's effect on climate end up being near useless and ineffectual. They do not inform their consumers about the world. They confuse it. The governance model that reputable media tries to follow has been pushed beyond its limits.

Umm, great post ! For me personally, it cleared up why I get frustrated trying to talk
to hard core MAGA. There is no reasoning with them. That is why I ignore them, as life is
too short for me to interact with them. But I appreciate posters that do call them out, as
I get to see their replies. Funny part is that I can seemingly always deduce who the MAGA is that they're replying to, even if they are not yet ID'd in the reply.

I am going to have to get the "I Robot" book or watch the movie, sounds quite interesting.

Mainstream media strives to be unbiased,

Not anymore.

Mainstream media strives to remain un-sued.

It ain't an Ad-hom to call Shaq "tall" if it is true.

I also make an effort to differentiate between the person and their actions.

So instead of saying “You are stupid” I try to say “What you are doing is stupid.”

Take the emphasis off of the person and put it into their actions. It’s easier to change your actions than to change who you are.

—Peter

Calling someone "tall" is not an ad-hom anyway. I get what you're saying, but that's not a great example.

For me, I draw a distinction between saying a person uses idiotic sources and calling the person an idiot. Similar, they may have an idiotic position on something. I try not to have idiotic positions, but I'm sure I'm not immune to have one (or more). I try to self-correct when it is revealed.

It's just me. I think it fosters a bit more conversation if one makes that distinction.

I agree that BHM uses very bad sources, in general. And there may be some of "the worst Rep is better than the best Dem" at work here, also. Which is not true for either party, and it's somewhat sad people on either side can think that way. (e.g. Liz Cheney is better than Menendez, even though Menendez is a Dem)

I am going to have to get the "I Robot" book or watch the movie, sounds quite interesting.

Do both. The movie is pretty good. The book gets into a bit more detail, of course.

Most MAGA I don't really pay much attention. They are firmly entrenched, and I would just be banging my head against a wall. Same with arguing with religious people. Their minds are closed, and they just repeat thoroughly debunked talking points. No point.

I am sure you are correct in describing hard core MAGA. Can you please apply the same criteria to the extreme liberals and highlight your observations. Unless of course you think that population is totally logically in their views?

Thanks.

Can you please apply the same criteria to the extreme liberals and highlight your observations.

Here’s one observation.

In 2020 when the MAGA preferred candidate lost, MAGA conducted a violent riot in Washington DC that interrupted the work of Congress.

In 2024 when the extreme liberal preferred candidate lost, there was gnashing of teeth, but no riots that interrupted the work of elected representatives.

It appears that MAGA is more willing to use violence to express their political opinions than extreme liberals.

—Peter

Can you please apply the same criteria to the extreme liberals and highlight your observations.

Here’s one observation.

In 2020 when the MAGA preferred candidate lost, MAGA conducted a violent riot in Washington DC that interrupted the work of Congress.

In 2024 when the extreme liberal preferred candidate lost, there was gnashing of teeth, but no riots that interrupted the work of elected representatives.

It appears that MAGA is more willing to use violence to express their political opinions than extreme liberals.

I think this is a poor example for 2 reasons.

a) Not everyone, including myself see the 2000 event as a riot or planned government takeover. I think that is a narrative created by the liberals. More importantly most of the people they charged and jailed were not aggressive in any way. They had no weapons and were basically attending a festival atmosphere and their whole life was disrupted. I think the prosecution by the Biden team was horrible. Worse than the ICE activity towards immigrants today!

b) There has been extensively more "riots" and destruction caused by member of the Democratic party over the past 8 years than republicans. It is not even close IMO.

I likely see the landscape different from you:

There are all kinds of human behaviors or responses to life events. Extremists sit on both sides (which I am not convinced that you see, which makes me question your biases). But their behavior is similar regardless of which team they play on.

My big issue is both sides have lost the vision that they play first for Team USA and secondarily for the individual parties.

I also want to point out that someone is not stupid or uninformed if they don't see world events the same way that you do. They are just different.

However I can confidently say that the USA is way better off with Trump than Harris or Biden. Unfortunately those were the choices at hand. We can only vote for the choices offered up.

FWIW, I voted for Obama and view Clinton very favorably.

Unless of course you think that population is totally logically in their views?

Its a distinction in quantity, both in the amount of nonsense believed, and the number of people who believe the nonsense.

I’d get into “quality” as well, but that’s a more subjective measure, and there’s no sense getting bogged down in that. There are still large numbers of people who believe that Obama was born in Kenya, Trump won the 2020 election, Democrats run a pedophilia ring, and Ray Epps was an FBI plant on J6, and that’s some high quality nonsense right there, and Democrats can’t come close to that level of self-delusion.

Yes, there are Democrats who believe nonsense as well. But that brings us back to that “quantity” thing. There are fewer delusions and fewer Democrats who believe them.


For all of their faults, most Democrats have a keener appreciation for facts in the real world.

They had no weapons

So firearms, tasers, and knives are not considered weapons? And I know whenever I go on a tour of the Capitol, I always bring a baseball bat. You never know when a game will break out.

and were basically attending a festival atmosphere

Which festival? Altamont?

and their whole life was disrupted.

Cry me a river.

I think the prosecution by the Biden team was horrible.

I agree. It was too slow and several of the traitors should have been hanged.

It appears that MAGA is more willing to use violence to express their political opinions than extreme liberals.

Whether it’s a MAGA supporter assassinating a Minnesota state senator or a MAGA supporter attempting to assassinate Trump, or a MAGA supporter beating Paul Pelosi with a hammer
or MAGA supporters assaulting cops and trying to overthrow the Gov't on Jan 6th or Democrats demanding to see the Epstein Files, both sides are really courting controversy!

"Are MAGA Republicans more likely than others to endorse political violence? Studies say yes."

https://cvp.ucdavis.edu/insights/difference-betwee...

a) Not everyone, including myself see the 2000 event as a riot or planned government takeover. I think that is a narrative created by the liberals. More importantly most of the people they charged and jailed were not aggressive in any way. They had no weapons and were basically attending a festival atmosphere and their whole life was disrupted. I think the prosecution by the Biden team was horrible. Worse than the ICE activity towards immigrants today!

Have you stopped to consider that you might be wrong? And not just the 2000 typo? There were people there with the definite intent to completely stop the counting of the electoral votes. Cause it not to happen. Zip tie guys, remember? And with that, throw the election into such a question that the resolution would be each state gets one vote. Plausible? I don't know, we didn't get there. We finished the count late - no one quibbled, so I'm happy. I watched some of the tapes of the night before - that's no festival atmosphere - you are lying to yourself. Do you remember that Trump wanted the people with the guns to be let in to the rabble rouser area? They're not after me, he said. Trump and Co., were encouraging violence to disrupt the electoral college in an attempt to steal the election - just because it didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't attempted.

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," Trump said. Balloons were released, confetti fired into the air, flags unfurled, Dolly Parton sang God Bless America - then everyone packed up and went home smiling. What a festival!

There are still large numbers of people who believe that Obama was born in Kenya - Bill

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

You know I never think about that until one of you guys drags it out. That whole issue was resolved, in Obama's favor which I agree with. Same with John McCain, there remains some ambiguity that people so inclined can build a conspiracy on but in the real world that question was answered and life goes on. Same with Obama.

BTW, how do you know that "large numbers..."? I think most of the MAGA have rationally concluded that Obama is a citizen. It certainly isn't a topic of conversation until one of you guys brings it up.

There are a large number of people who believe that Trump is a syphilitic, pedophile.

The difference is that Obama is an American citizen born in Hawaii.

BTW, how do you know that "large numbers..."? I think most of the MAGA have rationally concluded that Obama is a citizen. It certainly isn't a topic of conversation until one of you guys brings it up.

Trump rode that lie to victory in 2016. And the only reason folks stopped believing it was that Trump finally fessed up that it was a lie. Of course!

How bout the other real whoppers being told by Trump that he still maintains are true, even though they are false as a three dollar bill?

As recently as a couple of months ago, you were still believing Ray Epps was an FBI plant.

Did the COVID vaccine kill so many people that taking your chances with the virus was a smart choice?

During the pandemic, was ivermectin a better instrument than the vaccine to keep you alive?

Is Dan Bongino a great choice to fill his position at the FBI?

Was January 6 just a picnic that got a little out of hand?

Is Ashley Babbitt a hero and martyr? Was she murdered in cold blood? And if you answer yes, was George Floyd murdered in cold blood? Contrast and compare.

Do top Democrats run a pedophile ring?

It's not just you who believes some of the above were true. It's still millions of people.

Every day (no exaggeration) sees one or two real whoppers being generated by the Right Wing Sound Machine. There's almost no point in trying to argue against them, because the stream of whoppers comes out of a fire hose (Flood the zone with shit).

Do tariffs cause inflation? Who actually pays the tariffs?

Yesterday's beauty was Trump's Truth Social post that called for the firing of the BLS chair. Maybe you believe it, maybe you don't...... but enough people will believe it to continue propping up a president who is stark, barking mad.

Here's another that comes straight from another poster here....

Do we really need to demolish the East Wing of the White House and build an event center that will be twice as big as the current White House, because..... get this..... State Dinners are now relegated to tents on the White House lawn?

BigMike... I'm not wasting my time quibbling about this or that particular detail in the above. Nor should you. You know that there are lots of people who believe many of the instances I've cited...tons of people. And collectively, that adds up to a political party fueled by "mad", and not "reason"

God knows we all have better things to do than waste time arguing about this nonsense, but the nonsense keeps coming in a never ending stream of bullshit.

Unless of course you think that population is totally logically in their views?

No, they aren't. The extreme left is almost as bad as the extreme right. I suspect that's where the anarchists reside. Defund the police, open borders. Near that group would be totalitarians (both extremes have those).

There are also a few anti-vaxxers among the liberals who clearly don't use logic or science. The right has far more anti-vaxxers than the left does, but the left has some.

However, most liberals are not extreme. They accept science, they expect the Constitution and other laws (and due process) to be obeyed (and will throw one of their own in prison if he/she doesn't), they generally don't believe in discrimination, and so forth.

If you think that I think "extreme liberals" are without flaw, you're not paying attention (to this board, at least). "Extreme" anything is almost always bad.

a) Not everyone, including myself see the 2000 event as a riot or planned government takeover. I think that is a narrative created by the liberals.

See...liberals don't generally make stuff up to excuse "their side". The video footage, including much of it being live-streamed by the participants, is irrefutable. Over 1000 convictions obtained with jury trials (do you think the "liberals" packed the jury, and that defense counsel didn't have the opportunity to approve jurors??).

I also want to point out that someone is not stupid or uninformed if they don't see world events the same way that you do. They are just different.

That is a false dichotomy. And they kind of are, actually. World events are facts. Facts are facts. We can differ about how to deal with those facts (e.g. approaches to address the fact of illegal immigration). MAGA tends to deny the facts entirely, which -IMHO- is either stupid or uninformed (or misinformed, given the sources MAGA consumes). I try to give a little benefit of the doubt and assume they simply are misinformed. That can happen to anyone.

I note an inconsistency in your statement. You say the USA is better off with the Felon, but you also say you voted for Obama and view Clinton favorably. You think the Felon is closer to Obama or Clinton than Harris is/was? That's a disconnect. The Felon is diametrically opposed to pretty much everything they did or stood for.

You know I never think about that until one of you guys drags it out. That whole issue was resolved, in Obama's favor which I agree with.

BHM

Did you always agree? The reason I ask is that if you always agreed then it does not add much to what MAGA people think now for those that originally thought he was not born in the USA. My guess is that very few of those that originally thought he wasn't eligible now believe that he was eligible.

Aussi

Pardon my language, but this statement is FUCKING DELUSIONAL.

a) Not everyone, including myself see the 2000 event as a riot or planned government takeover. I think that is a narrative created by the liberals. More importantly most of the people they charged and jailed were not aggressive in any way. They had no weapons and were basically attending a festival atmosphere and their whole life was disrupted. I think the prosecution by the Biden team was horrible. Worse than the ICE activity towards immigrants today!

“ I agree. It was too slow and several of the traitors should have been hanged”

Starting with the orange instigator?

Hey! I can top that - I married a woman who doesn't look like Stevie Nicks.

I post among giants!

One day... at band camp....
We were dining with friends at a nice restaurant, politically popular ski resort... some people at a nearby table thought my wife was Sarah Palin. (Brunette, same eyeglass frames, chopstick holding up her hair....

I was amused. The wife, not so much.

Post New

Baxter International FAQ

---

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