Kevin and Charlie discuss ridiculous news out of Northwestern University, Michael Bloomberg’s presidential bid, and more.

You can access the full archive of Mad Dogs and Englishmen at NationalReview.com/podcasts, where you can listen to four episodes per month for free, or get the entire back catalogue with an NR Plus membership. Visit NationalReview.com/subscribe for details.

Subscribe to Mad Dogs and Englishmen in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 12 comments.

  1. FredGoodhue Coolidge

    May the Jutes rise again!

    • #1
    • November 13, 2019, at 5:12 AM PST
    • Like
  2. Jeff Hawkins Coolidge

    Charlie’s apoplectic “What?” cracked me up to the point that others in my office are wondering if I’m okay.

    • #2
    • November 13, 2019, at 8:07 AM PST
    • Like
  3. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge

    The chimpanzee or orangutan will have to win without my vote.

    • #3
    • November 13, 2019, at 9:21 AM PST
    • Like
  4. Taras Coolidge

    JuliaBlaschke (View Comment):

    The chimpanzee or orangutan will have to win without my vote.

    Orangutans are mellow libertarians. As Jane Goodall and her team have exhaustively documented over the years, chimpanzees are murderous fascists.

    Orangutans all the way!

    • #4
    • November 13, 2019, at 9:53 AM PST
    • Like
  5. Taras Coolidge

    Charlie and Kevin are guilty of a new logical fallacy pioneered by anti-Trumpers like Jonah Goldberg: the anonymous ad hominem.

    For example, to smear Trump supporters, Jonah tells us of some such — unnamed, of course — who confessed to him their total hypocrisy.

    Similarly, Charlie and Kevin accuse Trump supporters – unnamed, of course — of hypocrisy, for supporting Trump in the general election as the lesser of two evils, when they had supported him already when he was one of sixteen candidates in the primaries.

    Assuming these Trump supporters really exist, it would be nice to be able to find out what they actually said, as opposed to what Charlie and Kevin and Jonah claim they said.

    • #5
    • November 13, 2019, at 10:10 AM PST
    • Like
  6. WilliamDean Coolidge

    Taras (View Comment):

    Charlie and Kevin are guilty of a new logical fallacy pioneered by anti-Trumpers like Jonah Goldberg: the anonymous ad hominem.

    For example, to smear Trump supporters, Jonah tells us of some such — unnamed, of course — who confessed to him their total hypocrisy.

    Similarly, Charlie and Kevin accuse Trump supporters – unnamed, of course — of hypocrisy, for supporting Trump in the general election as the lesser of two evils, when they had supported him already when he was one of sixteen candidates in the primaries.

    Assuming these Trump supporters really exist, it would be nice to be able to find out what they actually said, as opposed to what Charlie and Kevin and Jonah claim they said.

    Having seen the behavior myself, I trust Charlie and Kevin are not lying about their observations.

    • #6
    • November 13, 2019, at 4:31 PM PST
    • 1 like
  7. Taras Coolidge

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Charlie and Kevin are guilty of a new logical fallacy pioneered by anti-Trumpers like Jonah Goldberg: the anonymous ad hominem.

    For example, to smear Trump supporters, Jonah tells us of some such — unnamed, of course — who confessed to him their total hypocrisy.

    Similarly, Charlie and Kevin accuse Trump supporters – unnamed, of course — of hypocrisy, for supporting Trump in the general election as the lesser of two evils, when they had supported him already when he was one of sixteen candidates in the primaries.

    Assuming these Trump supporters really exist, it would be nice to be able to find out what they actually said, as opposed to what Charlie and Kevin and Jonah claim they said.

    Having seen the behavior myself, I trust Charlie and Kevin are not lying about their observations.

    But, like the “witnesses” in the “impeachment investigation”, they are giving their (almost certainly biased) interpretations of their (almost certainly selective) recollections of what these (almost certainly unrepresentative) individuals said.

    Furthermore, in what way does it constitute hypocrisy to support Trump in the primaries because you prefer him to the other candidates, and then to support Trump in the election because you prefer him to — the other candidates!

     

    • #7
    • November 13, 2019, at 6:46 PM PST
    • Like
  8. WilliamDean Coolidge

    Taras (View Comment):

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Taras (View Comment):

    Charlie and Kevin are guilty of a new logical fallacy pioneered by anti-Trumpers like Jonah Goldberg: the anonymous ad hominem.

    For example, to smear Trump supporters, Jonah tells us of some such — unnamed, of course — who confessed to him their total hypocrisy.

    Similarly, Charlie and Kevin accuse Trump supporters – unnamed, of course — of hypocrisy, for supporting Trump in the general election as the lesser of two evils, when they had supported him already when he was one of sixteen candidates in the primaries.

    Assuming these Trump supporters really exist, it would be nice to be able to find out what they actually said, as opposed to what Charlie and Kevin and Jonah claim they said.

    Having seen the behavior myself, I trust Charlie and Kevin are not lying about their observations.

    But, like the “witnesses” in the “impeachment investigation”, they are giving their (almost certainly biased) interpretations of their (almost certainly selective) recollections of what these (almost certainly unrepresentative) individuals said.

    I really don’t see what Charles or Kevin have said or done in the past to cause you to just assume they are falsifying or misrepresenting folks, “almost certainly.” Do you hold everybody in similar suspicion?

    Furthermore, in what way does it constitute hypocrisy to support Trump in the primaries because you prefer him to the other candidates, and then to support Trump in the election because you prefer him to — the other candidates!

    That’s not what was said at all. It was not the support of Trump they were criticizing. They were criticizing the changing rationals, and how two rationals spoken at different times created a logical paradox.

    • #8
    • November 13, 2019, at 10:02 PM PST
    • Like
  9. Taras Coolidge

    @williamdean — Remember, I am not accusing Kevin and Charlie of intentional deception, but of confirmation bias: “the tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with one’s existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional … ” (Britannica.com).

    It gratifies them to interpret everything Donald Trump or his supporters do or say in a negative light. For example, in a previous podcast, when Trump had offered help to Mexico against the cartels, Kevin’s immediate reaction was, “Oh, I guess we’re sending troops to Mexico!” (Intelligence cooperation and drones are more likely.)

    This time around, confirmation bias rears its unlovely head when the guys accuse Trump supporters of logical inconsistency, because they offer different rationales for Trump versus the Republican field (a hard sell for me) and Trump versus Hillary (easy).

    My point is, there is no inconsistency in offering different arguments for different choices, except in the minds of people who are grasping at straws to justify their opposition to Trump.

     

     

    • #9
    • November 14, 2019, at 7:48 AM PST
    • Like
  10. kylez Member

    Why would there even need to be a rationale to vote for Trump in the general when one had supported him in the primary?

    • #10
    • November 15, 2019, at 9:59 PM PST
    • Like
  11. Taras Coolidge

    kylez (View Comment):

    Why would there even need to be a rationale to vote for Trump in the general when one had supported him in the primary?

    The question, “Why you should vote for Donald Trump instead of Ted Cruz” has a different (but overlapping) answer, than the question, “Why you should vote for Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton”.

    Different, but not inconsistent; and that’s where Kevin and Charlie, too eager to denigrate Trump supporters, get it wrong.

    • #11
    • November 16, 2019, at 9:21 AM PST
    • Like
  12. Unwoke Caveman Lawyer Coolidge

    I don’t want to get all effusive or maudlin about it, but I think their ending on this episode of the podcast was my favorite yet.

    • #12
    • November 30, 2019, at 2:21 PM PST
    • Like