The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What are YOUR ideas on Tax Reform?

Simplify!!!!!!!!!

That a cottage industry has evolved to serve no purpose other than to help people "do their taxes" should be evidence enough that we need simplification.  I have never used a service, or software, to "do" my taxes, but I am constantly reminded that many (most?) people do.  Just the other day I was in the club working out with a colleague who asked me about my taxes and I mentioned that I didn't quite finish because I was printing PA40 form UE and my printer quit.  (Oh, it was a fine printer.  It is three years older than my son and has been faithfully printing since 2001, but it started to make a noise a few months ago so I knew it was coming.)  Anyway, he immediately said, "printed out forms?  You mean, you do it on forms with a pencil?  old school, man.  I use TurboTax."   

?!  This particular individual has a PhD in political science and he has to use software to "do" his taxes?!

I've been chastized and hounded by the feds.  Sometimes it's good.  Once they wrote, "We owe you one thousand dollars.  Please call this number if you dispute this."  Who would dispute that?  Of course I didn't call the number.  I awaited my one-thousand dollar check and was glad to receive it.  More often it's like this, "We have determined that you owe us six thousand, seven hundred, thirty-three dollars and forty-seven cents.  If you pay in the next two weeks there will be no additional interest or penalties..."  Or something like that.  Once they pissed me off so bad that I called them and had to go through about 20 minutes of menus, only to get "Our call volume is unusually busy at the moment.  Please call back at another time."  WTF??!  I wrote them a harshly-worded letter and disputed the amount that they claimed, as well as the interest rate they charged, and offered them about a third of what they wanted (I was being generous).  About a month later I got a letter that stated that my amount would be acceptable.

Mostly I don't make mistakes, but I have to set aside at least an entire weekend to do it.  It's insane. 

DECIDE HOW MUCH YOU NEED AND TAKE IT!  JUST FUCKING TAKE IT.  DON'T MAKE IT SO COMPLICATED.

That's all I'd suggest. 

AMEN!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Please stop harassing Dave.  He is on a glorious quest in the mythical lands of Mapia, where the sunsets are an exquisite blend of Republican blue and Democratic red.  The lands are full of bloom and bountiful with many maps.  Even the stars light up with constellations of municipal level elections and alternative gerrymanders.  We're all urgently awaiting his return, and each second that you bother him with frivolous codswallop and flapdoodle emails just puts the holy grail of maps further and further out of his reach.

[RFayette]

I'm still laughing at "Marginal Counterrevolution." His ban deprives the forum of an amusing character and a distinctive point of view, that much is clear.

He was overly aggressive toward certain people and that needed to stop, but I can't help but acknowledge his passing with an un-ironic cry of "So much for the tolerant uselectionatlas.org!"

I get that most posters here with whom I am usually like-minded disagree, but I say this in complete sincerity: Trump's election has encouraged a lot of liberals, a lot of leftists, and even many people in the center to crawl even further into bubbles of epistemic closure and intolerance for disagreement. This isn't healthy, and it's harmful to ability to understand politics and political arguments.

Note that unlike some, I don't think that we need to define hate speech downward to reflect post-Trump realities or w/e - I'm just saying that getting more restrictive is a mistake, and, increasingly, that is what I see people doing.

and

A bit of modding advice to a group that probably wouldn't be able to handle a small-town topix forum:

1. Don't pussyfoot around decisions as that will make all sides pissed off at you. This shows a lack of a unified front among the mod team.

2. Tempbans are mostly stupid sh**t. If they offended enough to be banned, ban them. If not, then don't. This doesn't apply for some serious offenses that don't warrant a permaban but one longer-term (imo sock-making should be 6 months to a year depending on severity.) What does banning someone for a week actually accomplish besides causing controversy!?

3. When announcing controversial decisions, have different moderators around to announce then defend. This at least makes it appear as if it's not a vendetta by a moderator run amok, and again makes it seem like the moderator team is unified. Users opposed to your actions then don't have one clear enemy to attack. Ofc this doesn't apply if the modteam wants a scapegoat for an unpopular decision that they will quickly de-mod.

[they don't love you like i love you]

A huge HP. Even setting aside all the Pro 3rd Reich horrificness, his brand of trad-Catholic romantic nationalism and economic protectionism did decades worth of huge damage to the Irish economy and society. WG Cosgrave is the real hero of the early Irish independence. Fortunately over the last 3 decades most of the problems he contributed to have been dramatically alleviated, with some titianic effort from the post FitzGerald governments and the Irish people themselves.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Well, there's plenty of evidence that the establishment hates progressives. David Brock's Shareblue is still bashing Bernie on a regular basis, and Hillary hacks like Whitehouse are spouting their batsh**t crazy conspiracy theories.

My comment really had nothing to do with the validity of your statement. It was just that you brought it up in the first place. It's the same reason you had that "but Hillary" label in 2016. Your commentary is often blatantly fixated on a single subject, and you are largely oblivious to that (or don't care either way). If I had to guess, the overall focus of your political thoughts is around the impure nature of the politicians that represent the views closest to your own - aka Democrats. Not that you have any obligation to focus on anything in particular, but you're practically like the IID of a police department. Your entire focus is inwards.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Well, there's plenty of evidence that the establishment hates progressives. David Brock's Shareblue is still bashing Bernie on a regular basis, and Hillary hacks like Whitehouse are spouting their batsh**t crazy conspiracy theories.

My comment really had nothing to do with the validity of your statement. It was just that you brought it up in the first place. It's the same reason you had that "but Hillary" label in 2016. Your commentary is often blatantly fixated on a single subject, and you are largely oblivious to that (or don't care either way). If I had to guess, the overall focus of your political thoughts is around the impure nature of the politicians that represent the views closest to your own - aka Democrats. Not that you have any obligation to focus on anything in particular, but you're practically like the IID of a police department. Your entire focus is inwards.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Great effortpost

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was one of the craziest experience I've had, yet also one of the best and most memorable ones.

A program which only exists because its deranged boss (TWPITW, a real-life mix of Regina George, Mona-Lisa Sapertsein and Lady Mary Crawley), one of the more fascinating and terrible persons I've met, fucked some PRI politician and she makes tens of thousands of dollars off of PRI local governments. TWPITW's ex-husband is a PRI state politician, apparently 'on the run' since the PAN-PRD won state elections last summer, who was leading a massive corruption scheme in the PRI government of governor Roberto Borge, who is nowhere to be found since leaving office and whose government was extremely corrupt even by PRI standards.
 
The crazy-WTF: Nobody was there to pick me up at the airport on the first night and eventually got there 3 hours late, the first sign TWPITW can't be bothered to put her sh**t together for things which don't involve her personally. My two initial housemates got fired or quit within 3 weeks, one being fired for doing cocaine on the dinner table in the house, the other quitting have being dragged down in a crazy drunken stupor with TWPITW, with TWPITW claiming to this day that my roommate tried to "lesbian rape" her. Living alone in a tiny house without internet (promised on the contract) for nearly 2 months, in a low-income Mexican suburban colonia located 45 minutes from downtown. Long weekend without electricity at home because TWPITW forgot to pay the bill.  Dumped, without any training, at a school I knew nothing about with no idea of what to do or expect, facing a similarly confused crowd of 30+ unruly first graders who thought that I was a weirdo speaking incomprehensible gibberish. Moments of despair after handling misbehaving students, sometimes to the point where I had no choice but to storm out of classrooms (of all interns, I had the most grade 1 classes - 5 out of 12, or 150 students). On one occasion, the Mexican teacher forced his unruly grade 1 class to copy "I must not disrespect the English teacher" 100 times.

The crazy-dammit Mexico: Working 22 days in a school without electricity. Getting swindled out of 30 pesos Mexico's richest man/gangster Carlos Slim and his cellphone empire Telcel, because I didn't use up my 'AMIGO PLAN' in 2 days or something. Attending weekly Mexican flag ceremonies with the unsettling ZOGIST salute and 'Roman salute' and goosestepping 10 year olds. Mexican teachers and their union reps heckling one another over a car which had been won in a raffle by somebody from another part of the same municipality. Mexico's federal English language program is plagiarized from the EU's framework and is completely unadapted to realities of Mexican public schools, with ridiculous and nonsensical objectives and projects.

The crazy-lol: Since TWPITW is not a normal person, at the final group dinner, she asked when we lost our virginity and how many times we considered quitting. TWPITW was initially wary, skeptical and suspicious of me - she admitted as much on my very first night, pondering out loud "I hope I made the right choice" when I told her I was in ESL until grade 3 myself. She expressed it in being uninterested towards my general welfare during the first months, although she is rude, unprofessional and uninterested towards most people. She never visited my classes once in the five months. Yet, at the idea, she told me that I was the best of all the interns and 'her biggest surprise'. She gave me basically the only positive superlative at the final group dinner, 'most proactive', mostly because I badgered her to get internet and got it fixed myself without nagging her. She reimbursed me 1000 pesos for the money I lost on the first night. She told me that, if I had not gone off to do my MA, she was going to appoint me program director.

The good: The work I did was extremely rewarding to me personally, and I have a genuine feeling that the work I did contributed to make a positive difference in over 400 young kids' lives, even if just in a tiny way. It was tough, challenging and required perseverance (and also patience [and caffeine] to deal with 350 grade 1-4 students). The bad moments fade away, the fun times last forever -- fun times like seeing a class full of young kids get so happy at singing "head and shoulders knees and toes" time and time again. I will never forget my students. So many cute moments which really touched me. Grade 1 kids swarming to hug me at the end of class, blocking the doorway so that I didn't leave, giving me doodles or handwritten secret admirer notes ("I love you ticher"). Grade 2 kids who made 50+ goodbye cards on my last day ("I/we love you", "the best teacher in the world", "I will never forget you", "you make life better", "you are a great teacher of life", "thank you for teaching us English", "forgive us for our sins", "have a good trip to Canada", "I want to visit your house" or, more deeply, "I want to tell you that your house is here" and, tellingly, "thank you for coming on time to classes"). Grade 3-4 kids who, on the last day, distressed at the news that it was their last class, swarmed up to me at the end of the class and frantically waved their notebooks in my face, demanding my autograph. Grade 5 girls who, after playing 'too old for this' 'I'm the big kid here' (or were too shy and blushing) for five months (the boys tried, somewhat embarrassingly, to act all kewl big kid around me), all hugged me. Or all those times when my students saw me outside of school (quote Mean Girls here) all yelled 'TICHER' or came up to me. It's unforgettable and hit me right in the feels - I broke down crying more than once in my last week of classes. In sum, it was an incredible experience and I will never forget it.

A final note: Mexico's public education system is catastrophically bad. I could go on further, but it's a whole other story.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Ugh. We need to make high school more relevant rather than keep pushing the problem further down the road. Ugh ugh ugh. This is gross. High school shouldn't be about preparing for college. It should be about developing critical thinking skills (applicable to all parts of life) and have life skills sprinkled in.

I went to an extremely rural school. We didn't have AP classes, but we had classes that incorporated filling out taxes, learning how to handle a checking account, learning about cars (and car loans), learning how to make basic meals (there was literally a class called Independent Living, and it was one of the most popular classes because it was so "easy," but it taught folks how to read recipes and cook, plus iron shirts etc etc). We also had mandatory shop classes in middle school, so everyone learned some hands-on stuff. We had required Civics in 8th grade and required Government class in high school, so we learned that stuff. Most people who graduated from my school came out as generally well-rounded individuals who were ready for life when they graduated. We also had folks who did extremely well on the ACTs and were accepted to good colleges. That's what high school should be about. Developing well-rounded individuals who are ready for life.

UGH.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Governor Baker is not losing in 2018. Honestly Massachusetts' gubernatorial race doesn't matter one lick for Democrats. Baker is so moderate I'd nearly consider him a moderate Democrat. Democrat's control our state legislatures by massive super majority, and all nine of our congressional districts are controlled by Democrats, so it isn't like he can actually affect our redistricting in any way. Only way this seat could become competitive is if Kerry runs and I doubt he will.

Sentences like this infuriate me, LOL.  There is no objective point where you "become" the other party because you have passed some ideological threshold.  It SAYS SOMETHING about Charlie Baker that he CHOSE to run as a member of the Republican Party no matter what his views are.  There would still be a fundamental difference between a Republican whose views were literally all left-of-center and a Democrat whose views were literally all right-of-center, and the former - at least in some way - would be effectively to the right of the latter, at least in the sense that he/she would believe in a basic enough principle of the GOP that he/she chose to use it as the mechanism to achieve his/her views, and vice versa for the Democrat.  Joe Manchin would have several views to the right of Charlie Baker, but Charlie Baker shares the basic worldview of a Republican - he rejects the tenant of being a Democrat (that society should actively be shaped to help the less fortunate, even at the expense of more fortunate people), and Joe Manchin resoundingly accepts that tenant.

Charlie Baker is a standard New England Republican, which, yes, does place him to the left of most Republicans.  However, it doesn't change the fact that he's a Republican and likely always will be.  He's moderate, of course, but he represents the basic interests and motives of every Republican.

[Santander]

Starting a trade war, especially with one of our closest allies and largest trade partners, isn't very smart policy. But Canada was subsidizing their logging and likely their dairy industry as well, thereby giving them an unfair advantage over American logging and dairy industries. That's the kind of free trade that has negatively affected American workers and industries for decades now. If they want to enjoy tariff free trade with us, then our industries should be on equal footing and thereby able to compete. Canada was given a 90 day notice in advance of this action to address the issues, but they refused.

Virtually everything is wrong here.    Softwood lumber and dairy are two separate issues but they have one thing in common in that neither is covered by the NAFTA agreement.

1.Softwood lumber.
Canada and the U.S have different rules and history on forestry.  In the United States, many forests are privately owned, and those that are owned by the government are essentially sold for long periods of time to logging companies by auction at public auctions.  In Canada, provincial governments lease out logging rights to companies and the companies pay a tax called a stumpage fee for each logged tree.  

The United States logging companies have decided that these stumpage fees are an unfair trade subsidy in comparison to either the auction costs when the lands are auctioned off, or, when the company owns the lands outright, for the roads and other improvements they have to pay for themselves in order to access and ship out the timber.  In Canada, since the government continues to own the land, the governments pay for the roads.

Although this is not part of the NAFTA agreement, since both Canada and the U.S are members of the WTO, Canada has sued U.S governments  who have placed duties on Canadian lumber over this alleged unfair trade subsidy under the WTO provisions and auspices.  Canada has won every single time as the various courts have ruled that the stumpage fees charged provide the governments a fair return.  However, as the saying goes "how many divisions does the WTO have?"

Every time Canada wins the case, the U.S and the American lumber companies simply proceed to another court.  

This is protectionism pure and simple and the U.S lumber interests form a very powerful lobby who have been very successful at what economists refer to as 'rent seeking.'

Those who gain from the tariffs are the owners of the lumber/logging companies, pure and simple.  The tariff is a direct tax from people who buy goods with more expensive lumber (whether Canadian or American) that goes straight into the pockets of the company owners.  In virtually all cases where the government has imposed this tariff, the rules even stipulate that the money from the tariff goes to the so-called aggrieved party: the U.S lumber company.

2.The situation in dairy (and poultry) is that both Canada and the United States provide enormous subsidies to their farmers.  In the U.S, this subsidy is direct, in Canada it is in the form of so-called 'supply management' which is, in reality, a monopoly cartel.

Ideally both the subsidies and the cartel should be eliminated, but, while Trump decries the Canadian system, I suspect he'll be less interested in taking on American dairy farming interests.

I don't think there is any connection between the softwood lumber duty and reopening NAFTA. Canada and the U.S negotiated a 10 years softwood lumber agreement over all of those issues in 2006 (it limited the amount of softwood lumber that could come into the U.S from Canada),and that deal expired last year.  President Obama was apparently unwilling to have the U.S negotiate a new deal that would bind the hands of his successor.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So true

Liberal smugness personified, continuing in The Daily Show's established tradition of detached center-left political commentary in which most of the attempts at humor comprise lazy vulgarity or pointless pop culture references. ("Hahaha! They're referencing things I know!")

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Girl: Uh hey Sparky, are you just waiting around outside my class?
Sparky: N-n-no. I have been meaning to tel--
Girl: ...okay. Um. Well I have to go. I'm, er, busy.
Sparky: O-o-okay. *fidgets* Uh... I will follow you!
Girl:
Sparky: H-hey. Look at this bench. Why do you think someone would *cough* leave a flower there?
Girl:
Sparky (sweating profusely): Uhhh. W-will you marry me?
Girl: wtf no, get away from me you creep
Spark: Y-you match my... criteria for a suitable interest.
Girl: *running screaming for campus security*

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The best post I've seen since apex Vander Blubb.

[Türkisblau]

Dude, I'm sure it's a joke in your mind or whatever, but comparing someone who lost family members in the Holocaust to the Nazis in any context is about as low as it gets (almost every other branch of the paternal side of my family except for my grandfather's ended up dying in Nazi death camps, if by great-grandfather hadn't come to the U.S., he'd have been gassed too).  I'm not going to use the sorts of words that are appropriate for describing someone like you b/c frankly, you're not worth the energy it'd take to hate you.  I'll just say that your post was disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself, not that I expect you to possess the level of empathy that'd require.  Now kindly stop pissing on the memory of my dead relatives.

It's terrible that your relatives died in the holocaust but it's also terrible that you're using those relatives as a prop to find an easy way out of the argument by playing that "card". He's not making that connection in any way and I think that's transparently obvious. One image was Stalin and another image was the Iraqi propaganda minister guy. I understand the appeal of jumping at the opportunity to play the victim in an opportunity like this but I think everyone can agree our discussion is not nearly so serious as to warrant your complaints! In the context he's obviously calling you out for being a hackish mouthpiece for Kalwejt and other moderators, which it's transparently clear you are doing so. You're making senseless appeals-to-authority arguments and it's frankly disgusting that you're tarnishing the memories of Holocaust victims by using their memories to shield yourself in a barely even tangentially related internet argument.

Kal did something wrong and your defenses of him have no merit, that's all there is to it. There is no reason to bring victims of genocide into this argument at all. I think it would be a good idea if we all took a step back and relaxed for a moment.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Dude, I'm sure it's a joke in your mind or whatever, but comparing someone who lost family members in the Holocaust to the Nazis in any context is about as low as it gets (almost every other branch of the paternal side of my family except for my grandfather's ended up dying in Nazi death camps, if by great-grandfather hadn't come to the U.S., he'd have been gassed too).  I'm not going to use the sorts of words that are appropriate for describing someone like you b/c frankly, you're not worth the energy it'd take to hate you.  I'll just say that your post was disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself, not that I expect you to possess the level of empathy that'd require.  Now kindly stop pissing on the memory of my dead relatives.

It's terrible that your relatives died in the holocaust but it's also terrible that you're using those relatives as a prop to find an easy way out of the argument by playing that "card". He's not making that connection in any way and I think that's transparently obvious. One image was Stalin and another image was the Iraqi propaganda minister guy. I understand the appeal of jumping at the opportunity to play the victim in an opportunity like this but I think everyone can agree our discussion is not nearly so serious as to warrant your complaints! In the context he's obviously calling you out for being a hackish mouthpiece for Kalwejt and other moderators, which it's transparently clear you are doing so. You're making senseless appeals-to-authority arguments and it's frankly disgusting that you're tarnishing the memories of Holocaust victims by using their memories to shield yourself in a barely even tangentially related internet argument.

Kal did something wrong and your defenses of him have no merit, that's all there is to it. There is no reason to bring victims of genocide into this argument at all. I think it would be a good idea if we all took a step back and relaxed for a moment.

Comparing a relative of many holocaust victims to Nazis over opinions on moderation is completely unnacceptable, regardless of context.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Dude, I'm sure it's a joke in your mind or whatever, but comparing someone who lost family members in the Holocaust to the Nazis in any context is about as low as it gets (almost every other branch of the paternal side of my family except for my grandfather's ended up dying in Nazi death camps, if by great-grandfather hadn't come to the U.S., he'd have been gassed too).  I'm not going to use the sorts of words that are appropriate for describing someone like you b/c frankly, you're not worth the energy it'd take to hate you.  I'll just say that your post was disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself, not that I expect you to possess the level of empathy that'd require.  Now kindly stop pissing on the memory of my dead relatives.

It's terrible that your relatives died in the holocaust but it's also terrible that you're using those relatives as a prop to find an easy way out of the argument by playing that "card". He's not making that connection in any way and I think that's transparently obvious. One image was Stalin and another image was the Iraqi propaganda minister guy. I understand the appeal of jumping at the opportunity to play the victim in an opportunity like this but I think everyone can agree our discussion is not nearly so serious as to warrant your complaints! In the context he's obviously calling you out for being a hackish mouthpiece for Kalwejt and other moderators, which it's transparently clear you are doing so. You're making senseless appeals-to-authority arguments and it's frankly disgusting that you're tarnishing the memories of Holocaust victims by using their memories to shield yourself in a barely even tangentially related internet argument.

Kal did something wrong and your defenses of him have no merit, that's all there is to it. There is no reason to bring victims of genocide into this argument at all. I think it would be a good idea if we all took a step back and relaxed for a moment.

Comparing a relative of many holocaust victims to Nazis over opinions on moderation is completely unnacceptable, regardless of context.

For me context matters. My maternal great grandparents suffered through the Holocaust and they made Nazi jokes even in their elderly years. I have blonde hair and blue eyes so I would occasionally get the aryan joke thrown at me growing up.

My attitude is that if it's a joke or being facetious then no harm no foul and I'll even play along. But if they're actually serious about it then I get upset.

[Edu]

Heh, interesting that some people believe I peruse every post made by every member of this forum and then meticulously write every piece of information on a secret dossier. I mean, that's the implication here since apparently you can't not know, or forget after several years, something that was written on some internet forum

[Türkisblau]

Context Matters™

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The core problem here is that you're a bad person who doesn't deserve to be with anyone. Most normal women will quickly sense this and thus not want to be with you. If you insist on demanding love from people who are better than you it will make you an increasingly bad person and compound the problem. As someone already noted you should start by fixing yourself to be a decent human being.

Bad people often hide behind an idea of social ineptness or whatever but it usually isn't the thing and it certainly isn't in this case. Seek help and stop harassing this poor woman who has been raised by society to be polite to creeps and thus feels uncomfortable telling you to leave her alone.

This is a really good post in the context of the thread, but it also points out something that's rarely acknowledged: we live in a society that's more concerned about the comfort of terrible people and creeps than about the victims that have to endure them each day.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio's comment is best read as a chaser after plowing through Gustaf's tendentiousness.

I'm more than happy with this role.

That said, please use the proper thread.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Positively disgusting. I wouldn't walk out on Bloomberg, who is just as despicable a person. Very poor behavior. You sit respectfully! The liberals are positively out of control at this point. Savages.

[JerryArkansas]

...

That is honestly one of the most pathetic pieces of inappropriate self-indulgent whinging I've seen during the frankly far too many years that I've posted here. Children have died but it's all about your RIGHT to slaver with anticipation at the potential electoral consequences! Get out.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is a pretty interesting theory. The evidence isn't in and won't be for a while, but this seems like an increasingly credible possibility.

My theory ahead and biased thinking so spoilers ahead so you can skip this if you want.

The honest truth is that I begin to think the real scandal is that Trump received financial and political benefits from Russia during his presidential campaign in return for undertaking a softer line on Moscow. Russia may have outright manipulated the campaign and the campaign went along with it to damage Clinton. That's collusion in a sense but I don't believe intentionally. Had Trump thought he would win I don't think he would've done any of this.

I really think it was incompetence and greed that propelled the communications not a conscious desire to betray the United States. The campaign may have justified itself by thinking that they could later contain Russia if need be, in the event they won. They may have even concluded they were using Russia.

Remember nobody thought Trump would win. Russia probably wanted to damage the incoming Clinton administration and they had several ins with the Trump campaign. They likely used Donald Trump's desire for business ties with Russia, bribed Flynn and Kushner, and then tried to sow chaos with Wikileaks. Trump figured he would go back to the private sector and make millions more.

The mistake may be that they won. I don't think Putin anticipated that or the subsequent investigation. But the chaos right now benefits him too. So he won either way.

It fits with what we know about Russia's interference with other elections. They may in fact be damaging Trump now to sow even more chaos.

[Mr. Smith]

One of the more unfortunate developments in American politics is the belief that people who perhaps aren't as "book smart" or university-educated have political opinions that should be weighed less than people are are educated at a univeristy/have high iq/etc.

This criticism goes both ways, btw. Conservatives often depict the inner cities in this manner, and liberals are increasingly treating rural/small town areas like this, as well.

I believe it is against the very spirit of democracy to make raw "intelligence" an issue when choosing how to view voters. It opens up a can of worms that at one point justified limited suffrage and lack of voting rights.

But I also believe this issue goes even deeper and is profoundly dangerous on a moral level, as well. Intelligence, at least measured by IQ, is a characteristic beyond the control of someone. Choosing to measure their worth by it is an example of bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance. It assumes that because you may not be great at academic matters, you have nothing interesting to say or add to a conversation, or that your experiences, and reactions to those experiences, do not matter. It's an example of that erasing the value of a soul, using materialistic foundations. History tells us that judging people based on physical or mental characterists can lead to nasty outcomes.

I am reminded of CS Lewis' marvelous work "The Abolition of Man". Using raw materialistic measures, such as skin color, race, gender, and Cognitive capacity, to explain man actually explains him away. His kindness, his morality, his skills, his capabilities, the invisible light inside of him, is forgotten.

Rural trump voters and inner city democrats have souls, and those souls are beautiful, and they  are some of the most valuable things society can have.

I am reminded of another CS lewis work, "The Pilgrim's Regress". John, a young boy, is captured by a giant, who when he stares at you, sees through you , and turns you into what your insides look like- terrible skeletons and hideous organs, tubes, and spongy tissue. John was put in a dungeon with many of these monstrous skeletons who were the giants' victims.

A woman, lady reason, eventually rescues John from the dungeon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Phony Moderate]

After FL was called and the OH early vote came in and only showed a narrow Clinton win, my gut told me that it was over. I had a "dark night of the soul" after this (yes, I cried, one of my parents is a Mexican immigrant, would you expect me to act differently?), though it was a cakewalk in comparison with the following month, where I might as well have been the walking dead. That night broke my heart and will forever be etched in stone as a point in my life when I stopped believing in the inherent goodness of people.

Interestingly, I'm far less unhinged than most liberals at this point and don't feel much personal animus towards Trump these days. This, I think, is the part of me that died. I have no expectations of our political class or, more specifically, the right. I see them as depraved locusts and expect them to act accordingly. It's hard to feel angry at a locust for behaving like a locust. It's part of their nature.

It's quite easy to be on the right and read a post like mine and scoff "snowflake" but, at some level, my tears related to the demise of my belief in the idea that norms of civility, respect for others and rules of decorum meant anything to anyone. There's nothing edifying about our political context. It's disgusting, nasty, toxic and abhorrent to anyone who isn't a manchild. Even the "victors" haven't won anything. You've won paranoia and a siege mentality that mirrors the paranoia and siege mentality of liberals/the left. We all lost on November 8th. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.