And so when we brand their views as illegitimate, "when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good."

Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain has an idea of who to blame for Donald Trump's presidential victory: people like him. "The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now," he says in a new interview with Reason.

Read more: http://b100wobb.iheart.com/articles/nati...z4Uosv4800

The Democrats need to change their attitude toward Middle america: no more "bitter clingers", "deplorables", or "we just need to explain it better".

(01-04-2017 01:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And so when we brand their views as illegitimate, "when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good."

Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain has an idea of who to blame for Donald Trump's presidential victory: people like him. "The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now," he says in a new interview with Reason.

Read more: http://b100wobb.iheart.com/articles/nati...z4Uosv4800

The Democrats need to change their attitude toward Middle america: no more "bitter clingers", "deplorables", or "we just need to explain it better".

I agree with Bourdain's criticism of many on the left, but there are just as many on the right who hold inaccurate and just as judgmental views as those on the right. I mean, how often does painting with a broad brush actually work?

How about both parties change their attitudes towards the other? The creation of the "others" is the biggest problem and is not an issue associated with just one of the major political parties. We hold the views of those "other" people in contempt far too often and far too regularly we assume what the "other" is thinking and or doing, and forget that they are complex creatures who have nuanced opinions that don't always fit inside of a nice box.

There was a great TED Radio Hour with segments that focused on this topic and reconciliation: http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-ho...2016-12-16

OO, since you seem interested in this idea of reconciling with the other side, give it a listen and let me know what you think.

(01-04-2017 01:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And so when we brand their views as illegitimate, "when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good."

Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain has an idea of who to blame for Donald Trump's presidential victory: people like him. "The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now," he says in a new interview with Reason.

Read more: http://b100wobb.iheart.com/articles/nati...z4Uosv4800

The Democrats need to change their attitude toward Middle america: no more "bitter clingers", "deplorables", or "we just need to explain it better".

The Republicans nominated Trump, the Republicans elected Trump. Enjoy having your guy in office for the next four years.

(01-04-2017 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And so when we brand their views as illegitimate, "when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good."

Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain has an idea of who to blame for Donald Trump's presidential victory: people like him. "The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now," he says in a new interview with Reason.

Read more: http://b100wobb.iheart.com/articles/nati...z4Uosv4800

The Democrats need to change their attitude toward Middle america: no more "bitter clingers", "deplorables", or "we just need to explain it better".

I agree with Bourdain's criticism of many on the left, but there are just as many on the right who hold inaccurate and just as judgmental views as those on the right. I mean, how often does painting with a broad brush actually work?

How about both parties change their attitudes towards the other? The creation of the "others" is the biggest problem and is not an issue associated with just one of the major political parties. We hold the views of those "other" people in contempt far too often and far too regularly we assume what the "other" is thinking and or doing, and forget that they are complex creatures who have nuanced opinions that don't always fit inside of a nice box.

There was a great TED Radio Hour with segments that focused on this topic and reconciliation: http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-ho...2016-12-16

OO, since you seem interested in this idea of reconciling with the other side, give it a listen and let me know what you think.

Couldn't listen yet, but...


I would like to get back to bipartisanship, with the party in power working with the loyal opposition. But simce December 2000 at leadt, maybe before, it has turned in a tit for tat spiral. Neither side thinks highly of the other [i] as people[/].

The right thinks of the left as ivory tower dreamers who think they know it all, the left think ofthe right as boorish racists who are polluting the gene pool. something's got to give, or we will polarize further, perhaps into the Eloi and Morlocks.

when I am in a place to listen to the link, I will.

(01-04-2017 04:59 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And so when we brand their views as illegitimate, "when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good."

Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain has an idea of who to blame for Donald Trump's presidential victory: people like him. "The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now," he says in a new interview with Reason.

Read more: http://b100wobb.iheart.com/articles/nati...z4Uosv4800

The Democrats need to change their attitude toward Middle america: no more "bitter clingers", "deplorables", or "we just need to explain it better".

The Republicans nominated Trump, the Republicans elected Trump. Enjoy having your guy in office for the next four years.

well, I was not for nominating Trump, and I didn't vote for him, but I would have if the only choices were him and Hillary. But thanks for the sentiment, anyway. Ie xpect the next couple of years to be very interesting.

(01-04-2017 05:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And so when we brand their views as illegitimate, "when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good."

Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain has an idea of who to blame for Donald Trump's presidential victory: people like him. "The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now," he says in a new interview with Reason.

Read more: http://b100wobb.iheart.com/articles/nati...z4Uosv4800

The Democrats need to change their attitude toward Middle america: no more "bitter clingers", "deplorables", or "we just need to explain it better".

I agree with Bourdain's criticism of many on the left, but there are just as many on the right who hold inaccurate and just as judgmental views as those on the right. I mean, how often does painting with a broad brush actually work?

How about both parties change their attitudes towards the other? The creation of the "others" is the biggest problem and is not an issue associated with just one of the major political parties. We hold the views of those "other" people in contempt far too often and far too regularly we assume what the "other" is thinking and or doing, and forget that they are complex creatures who have nuanced opinions that don't always fit inside of a nice box.

There was a great TED Radio Hour with segments that focused on this topic and reconciliation: http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-ho...2016-12-16

OO, since you seem interested in this idea of reconciling with the other side, give it a listen and let me know what you think.

Couldn't listen yet, but...


I would like to get back to bipartisanship, with the party in power working with the loyal opposition. But simce December 2000 at leadt, maybe before, it has turned in a tit for tat spiral. Neither side thinks highly of the other [i] as people[/].

The right thinks of the left as ivory tower dreamers who think they know it all, the left think ofthe right as boorish racists who are polluting the gene pool. something's got to give, or we will polarize further, perhaps into the Eloi and Morlocks.

when I am in a place to listen to the link, I will.

Tip and the Gipper by Chris Matthews is an excellent book on how both sides once worked together in the days of Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill (a Democrat from Boston).

(01-04-2017 05:21 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And so when we brand their views as illegitimate, "when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good."

Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain has an idea of who to blame for Donald Trump's presidential victory: people like him. "The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now," he says in a new interview with Reason.

Read more: http://b100wobb.iheart.com/articles/nati...z4Uosv4800

The Democrats need to change their attitude toward Middle america: no more "bitter clingers", "deplorables", or "we just need to explain it better".

I agree with Bourdain's criticism of many on the left, but there are just as many on the right who hold inaccurate and just as judgmental views as those on the right. I mean, how often does painting with a broad brush actually work?

How about both parties change their attitudes towards the other? The creation of the "others" is the biggest problem and is not an issue associated with just one of the major political parties. We hold the views of those "other" people in contempt far too often and far too regularly we assume what the "other" is thinking and or doing, and forget that they are complex creatures who have nuanced opinions that don't always fit inside of a nice box.

There was a great TED Radio Hour with segments that focused on this topic and reconciliation: http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-ho...2016-12-16

OO, since you seem interested in this idea of reconciling with the other side, give it a listen and let me know what you think.

Couldn't listen yet, but...


I would like to get back to bipartisanship, with the party in power working with the loyal opposition. But simce December 2000 at leadt, maybe before, it has turned in a tit for tat spiral. Neither side thinks highly of the other [i] as people[/].

The right thinks of the left as ivory tower dreamers who think they know it all, the left think ofthe right as boorish racists who are polluting the gene pool. something's got to give, or we will polarize further, perhaps into the Eloi and Morlocks.

when I am in a place to listen to the link, I will.

Tip and the Gipper by Chris Matthews is an excellent book on how both sides once worked together in the days of Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill (a Democrat from Boston).

Yeah, we used to pull together as a team, one on the left, one on the right. Now it is a tug of war, and I find myself little inclined to pull with the people who think so little of me and my friends.

(01-04-2017 05:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:21 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And so when we brand their views as illegitimate, "when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good."

Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain has an idea of who to blame for Donald Trump's presidential victory: people like him. "The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now," he says in a new interview with Reason.

Read more: http://b100wobb.iheart.com/articles/nati...z4Uosv4800

The Democrats need to change their attitude toward Middle america: no more "bitter clingers", "deplorables", or "we just need to explain it better".

I agree with Bourdain's criticism of many on the left, but there are just as many on the right who hold inaccurate and just as judgmental views as those on the right. I mean, how often does painting with a broad brush actually work?

How about both parties change their attitudes towards the other? The creation of the "others" is the biggest problem and is not an issue associated with just one of the major political parties. We hold the views of those "other" people in contempt far too often and far too regularly we assume what the "other" is thinking and or doing, and forget that they are complex creatures who have nuanced opinions that don't always fit inside of a nice box.

There was a great TED Radio Hour with segments that focused on this topic and reconciliation: http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-ho...2016-12-16

OO, since you seem interested in this idea of reconciling with the other side, give it a listen and let me know what you think.

Couldn't listen yet, but...


I would like to get back to bipartisanship, with the party in power working with the loyal opposition. But simce December 2000 at leadt, maybe before, it has turned in a tit for tat spiral. Neither side thinks highly of the other [i] as people[/].

The right thinks of the left as ivory tower dreamers who think they know it all, the left think ofthe right as boorish racists who are polluting the gene pool. something's got to give, or we will polarize further, perhaps into the Eloi and Morlocks.

when I am in a place to listen to the link, I will.

Tip and the Gipper by Chris Matthews is an excellent book on how both sides once worked together in the days of Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill (a Democrat from Boston).

Yeah, we used to pull together as a team, one on the left, one on the right. Now it is a tug of war, and I find myself little inclined to pull with the people who think so little of me and my friends.

It's a bit ironic that in pining for bipartisanship that has disappeared due to the labels with which each side labels the other, you use those same labels to label the other side, no?

(01-04-2017 05:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:21 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree with Bourdain's criticism of many on the left, but there are just as many on the right who hold inaccurate and just as judgmental views as those on the right. I mean, how often does painting with a broad brush actually work?

How about both parties change their attitudes towards the other? The creation of the "others" is the biggest problem and is not an issue associated with just one of the major political parties. We hold the views of those "other" people in contempt far too often and far too regularly we assume what the "other" is thinking and or doing, and forget that they are complex creatures who have nuanced opinions that don't always fit inside of a nice box.

There was a great TED Radio Hour with segments that focused on this topic and reconciliation: http://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-ho...2016-12-16

OO, since you seem interested in this idea of reconciling with the other side, give it a listen and let me know what you think.

Couldn't listen yet, but...


I would like to get back to bipartisanship, with the party in power working with the loyal opposition. But simce December 2000 at leadt, maybe before, it has turned in a tit for tat spiral. Neither side thinks highly of the other [i] as people[/].

The right thinks of the left as ivory tower dreamers who think they know it all, the left think ofthe right as boorish racists who are polluting the gene pool. something's got to give, or we will polarize further, perhaps into the Eloi and Morlocks.

when I am in a place to listen to the link, I will.

Tip and the Gipper by Chris Matthews is an excellent book on how both sides once worked together in the days of Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill (a Democrat from Boston).

Yeah, we used to pull together as a team, one on the left, one on the right. Now it is a tug of war, and I find myself little inclined to pull with the people who think so little of me and my friends.

It's a bit ironic that in pining for bipartisanship that has disappeared due to the labels with which each side labels the other, you use those same labels to label the other side, no?

i didn't in 1985. That was then, this is now. You got any ideas how to get back to then? I have one - stop treating half the country as if they are evil brutes, needing a firm hand from a wise counselor.

(01-04-2017 05:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:21 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Couldn't listen yet, but...


I would like to get back to bipartisanship, with the party in power working with the loyal opposition. But simce December 2000 at leadt, maybe before, it has turned in a tit for tat spiral. Neither side thinks highly of the other [i] as people[/].

The right thinks of the left as ivory tower dreamers who think they know it all, the left think ofthe right as boorish racists who are polluting the gene pool. something's got to give, or we will polarize further, perhaps into the Eloi and Morlocks.

when I am in a place to listen to the link, I will.

Tip and the Gipper by Chris Matthews is an excellent book on how both sides once worked together in the days of Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill (a Democrat from Boston).

Yeah, we used to pull together as a team, one on the left, one on the right. Now it is a tug of war, and I find myself little inclined to pull with the people who think so little of me and my friends.

It's a bit ironic that in pining for bipartisanship that has disappeared due to the labels with which each side labels the other, you use those same labels to label the other side, no?

i didn't in 1985. That was then, this is now. You got any ideas how to get back to then? I have one - stop treating half the country as if they are evil brutes, needing a firm hand from a wise counselor.

Once again, very ironic the way you phrase this. You're bemoaning the polarization of the country and then immediately laying all of the blame on one side by suggesting that they be the ones who must change first. In order to bridge the divide you're talking about, attacking language such as yours, which puts me, the "other" on the defensive, is what needs to stop. No side is of the aisle is fault free (generally each is inclined to believe that the other is at fault more), and the sooner that we all recognize that, the better.

Secondly, 1985 is a great year to pick on when the divide started, and I'm not sure you did it intentionally or unintentionally. In 1985 the Fairness Doctrine established by the FECC came under attack and was abolished a few years later, pretty much paving the way for the proliferation of partisan news shows and personalities. Something that I think has greatly influence the divide we see today because each side can happily hide in the bubble of their favorite talking head. I think PBS and NPR are the only two remaining TV/radio news outlets that pay a lot of attention to news reporting and pay less attention to individual talk shows and similar programming. If you just look at MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc. they are littered with shows that most people take for news shows, but in reality, they are entertainment shows based around people's opinions.

(01-04-2017 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:21 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Tip and the Gipper by Chris Matthews is an excellent book on how both sides once worked together in the days of Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill (a Democrat from Boston).

Yeah, we used to pull together as a team, one on the left, one on the right. Now it is a tug of war, and I find myself little inclined to pull with the people who think so little of me and my friends.

It's a bit ironic that in pining for bipartisanship that has disappeared due to the labels with which each side labels the other, you use those same labels to label the other side, no?

i didn't in 1985. That was then, this is now. You got any ideas how to get back to then? I have one - stop treating half the country as if they are evil brutes, needing a firm hand from a wise counselor.

Once again, very ironic the way you phrase this. You're bemoaning the polarization of the country and then immediately laying all of the blame on one side by suggesting that they be the ones who must change first. In order to bridge the divide you're talking about, attacking language such as yours, which puts me, the "other" on the defensive, is what needs to stop. No side is of the aisle is fault free (generally each is inclined to believe that the other is at fault more), and the sooner that we all recognize that, the better.

Secondly, 1985 is a great year to pick on when the divide started, and I'm not sure you did it intentionally or unintentionally. In 1985 the Fairness Doctrine established by the FECC came under attack and was abolished a few years later, pretty much paving the way for the proliferation of partisan news shows and personalities. Something that I think has greatly influence the divide we see today because each side can happily hide in the bubble of their favorite talking head. I think PBS and NPR are the only two remaining TV/radio news outlets that pay a lot of attention to news reporting and pay less attention to individual talk shows and similar programming. If you just look at MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc. they are littered with shows that most people take for news shows, but in reality, they are entertainment shows based around people's opinions.

Attacking language. such as racist, sexist, xenophobes? I mentioned a spiral - I don't know where it started, but my suspicion is it started with Bush as "selected, not elected". A spiral means one side does it, the other reacts. What did I say to you that put on the defensive? Did I call you racist, sexist, xenophobic, deplorable, a bitter clinger? Did I say you could understand if i only explained things to you better? I have been getting that crap from the left in general for decades, and I, and apparently millions of others, am damn tired of it. Stop insulting Middle America and they will eventually stop feeling like Coastal America feels superior. Listen to what the protesters are saying, to what the entertainment stars are saying, to what the Democratic leadership is saying. None of it is "I see your point, but i respectfully disagree." All of it is "I cannot be around these people". All of it is "the people who are against _____________ are mostly racists and sexist, and uneducated." Remember the woman at the Electoral College voting who said "You should not even be in america. This is MY America". Seems pretty clear to me she thinks us bad people should go away and let her run things correctly.

You don't even deserve to be in america

why should your side be the one to stop it? Because they want to win future elections, and they have alienated about all the people they can afford to.

or maybe they just need to explain it to us slowly, using small words, until we understand. That's Obama's plan.

The Fairness doctrine was inherently unfair. I don't mind the discussion panels on the major networks if they represent various sides. I don't watch the personality shows, like Hannity, et al.

(01-04-2017 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 04:59 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And so when we brand their views as illegitimate, "when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good."

Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain has an idea of who to blame for Donald Trump's presidential victory: people like him. "The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now," he says in a new interview with Reason.

Read more: http://b100wobb.iheart.com/articles/nati...z4Uosv4800

The Democrats need to change their attitude toward Middle america: no more "bitter clingers", "deplorables", or "we just need to explain it better".

The Republicans nominated Trump, the Republicans elected Trump. Enjoy having your guy in office for the next four years.

well, I was not for nominating Trump, and I didn't vote for him, but I would have if the only choices were him and Hillary. But thanks for the sentiment, anyway. Ie xpect the next couple of years to be very interesting.

You posted an article whose headline is "Blame Smug Liberals for Trump Election". That is, of course, counterfactual, and I just wanted to be clear that it's the Republicans who get 100% of the credit for electing Trump.

(01-05-2017 08:54 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 04:59 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And so when we brand their views as illegitimate, "when we mock them at every turn, and treat them with contempt, we do no one any good."

Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain has an idea of who to blame for Donald Trump's presidential victory: people like him. "The utter contempt with which privileged Eastern liberals such as myself discuss red-state, gun-country, working-class America as ridiculous and morons and rubes is largely responsible for the upswell of rage and contempt and desire to pull down the temple that we're seeing now," he says in a new interview with Reason.

Read more: http://b100wobb.iheart.com/articles/nati...z4Uosv4800

The Democrats need to change their attitude toward Middle america: no more "bitter clingers", "deplorables", or "we just need to explain it better".

The Republicans nominated Trump, the Republicans elected Trump. Enjoy having your guy in office for the next four years.

well, I was not for nominating Trump, and I didn't vote for him, but I would have if the only choices were him and Hillary. But thanks for the sentiment, anyway. Ie xpect the next couple of years to be very interesting.

You posted an article whose headline is "Blame Smug Liberals for Trump Election". That is, of course, counterfactual, and I just wanted to be clear that it's the Republicans who get 100% of the credit for electing Trump.

Well, that explains the "your guy". Somehow it sounded like you were blaming me. But the us v. them attitude is refreshing. Maybe that attitude had a little bit to do with trump's election, as the "thems" got tired of the same ol', same ol' and decided, as the movie said, "they were mad as hell and not going to take it anymore".

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

(01-05-2017 10:55 AM)JSA Wrote:  "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

Mitt Romney, when the Russians hacked his private speech and exposed the truth?

His percentage is way too high. But other than that, what part(s) of that statement do you find wrong?

(01-05-2017 12:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:55 AM)JSA Wrote:  "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That's an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

Mitt Romney, when the Russians hacked his private speech and exposed the truth?

His percentage is way too high. But other than that, what part(s) of that statement do you find wrong?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

It takes two to make someone feel embittered. I agree that many liberals take a dim, condescending view of certain swaths of the population. But I also feel that certain swaths of the population also take a dim, condescending view of liberals (effete, godless, ivory tower wimps who have no practical sense, so who are, in effect, stupid but in a different way).

It's also become apparent to me that many in red-state middle-America have a huge insecurity complex. The condescension from some liberals is absolutely real, but I truly believe it's also projected by the purported victims of the condescension, where the antennae are constantly up, looking for any hint of condescension to get p-ssed off about. (For purposes of equal time, I would say that exists as well on the liberal side, looking to be outraged over every perceived slight regarding race, gender, etc. But to the extent conservatives think that some component of liberal outrage is BS and silly, I think it's fair to say that some component of conservative outrage, even when it comes to this perceived condescension, is also silly.)

If my family member needed to have heart surgery, I really wouldn't care if the doctor were a know-it-all, condescending pr-ck to me, so long as I felt he knew what he was doing and cared about his craft. I mean, I wouldn't like it, obviously. But it wouldn't affect me so deeply for me to base any meaningful decisionmaking off of it. First of all, I have some degree of self-confidence, so if the guy (or woman) acted like they were much smarter than I, I'd (a) personally feel that the doctor was wrong in their assessment of me, (b) wouldn't really give a rat's @ss, or maybe even © acknowledge that this person likely is smarter than I am, and feel fine about it. I don't have an inherent entitlement to feel that all my opinions should be cherished by everyone.

Put another way:

If there were 100 people in a classroom, and the professor were to walk in the door and say, "I'm not going to say who, but one of you in this room is a complete idiot," my natural instinct (and I suspect the natural instinct of most of the people on this board) is to assume the professor is talking about someone not me. Call it arrogance if you want. I feel that if there were 100 "middle America" Trump supporters in a classroom, and the professor were to walk in the door and say one of them was a complete idiot, almost all of them would immediately assume the professor was talking about him individually, and then get furious for being singled out in such a condescending manner. And then they'd all vote to get a professor who has no expertise on the course material but who isn't such a snob.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/wh...li=BBnb7Kz

I don't agree with every point, but it does provide another viewpoint.

And it is the NY Times, so it must be the truth.

(01-05-2017 12:56 PM)Barrett Wrote:  It takes two to make someone feel embittered. I agree that many liberals take a dim, condescending view of certain swaths of the population. But I also feel that certain swaths of the population also take a dim, condescending view of liberals (effete, godless, ivory tower wimps who have no practical sense, so who are, in effect, stupid but in a different way).

It's also become apparent to me that many in red-state middle-America have a huge insecurity complex. The condescension from some liberals is absolutely real, but I truly believe it's also projected by the purported victims of the condescension, where the antennae are constantly up, looking for any hint of condescension to get p-ssed off about. (For purposes of equal time, I would say that exists as well on the liberal side, looking to be outraged over every perceived slight regarding race, gender, etc. But to the extent conservatives think that some component of liberal outrage is BS and silly, I think it's fair to say that some component of conservative outrage, even when it comes to this perceived condescension, is also silly.)

If my family member needed to have heart surgery, I really wouldn't care if the doctor were a know-it-all, condescending pr-ck to me, so long as I felt he knew what he was doing and cared about his craft. I mean, I wouldn't like it, obviously. But it wouldn't affect me so deeply for me to base any meaningful decisionmaking off of it. First of all, I have some degree of self-confidence, so if the guy (or woman) acted like they were much smarter than I, I'd (a) personally feel that the doctor was wrong in their assessment of me, (b) wouldn't really give a rat's @ss, or maybe even © acknowledge that this person likely is smarter than I am, and feel fine about it. I don't have an inherent entitlement to feel that all my opinions should be cherished by everyone.

Put another way:

If there were 100 people in a classroom, and the professor were to walk in the door and say, "I'm not going to say who, but one of you in this room is a complete idiot," my natural instinct (and I suspect the natural instinct of most of the people on this board) is to assume the professor is talking about someone not me. Call it arrogance if you want. I feel that if there were 100 "middle America" Trump supporters in a classroom, and the professor were to walk in the door and say one of them was a complete idiot, almost all of them would immediately assume the professor was talking about him individually, and then get furious for being singled out in such a condescending manner. And then they'd all vote to get a professor who has no expertise on the course material but who isn't such a snob.

when my sister and i would fight, my mother would say stop it, and if one or both of us tried to blame the other, she would say it takes two to make a fight. Still true.

So what if the classroom had 100 Hillary supporters and the prof walked in and said one of you is an idiot? Would they all assume he was talking about somebody else? That really is the heart of the matter - Clintonites/left assume they are right, so anybody who disagrees with them must be wrong. No respect for the opposing viewpoints, and none for the people who hold them.

personally, I respect Sanders, even thoughI think his followers would not respect me. I took him to be an honest man. But what would his followers say about me when they found I opposed the $15 minimum wage? Would it be respectful? or would they think they had identified the idiot the professor was referring to? Or would they just think I was looking to line my own pocket at the expense of the workers?

Your mother was, of course, right.

As to your question about 100 Hillary supporters in the classroom, you may be right that all 100 would assume the professor was talking about someone else. And 99 of them would actually be correct! Compare it to the 100 Trump supporters, where 99 would be wrong. But setting that game aside for the moment, the point I am making is that I perceive, in the aftermath of this election, a huge inferiority complex that apparently existed (and exists) among many Americans that, in all honesty, I did not much think about before. Politicians would be wise to be mindful of it, I suppose, if they want to be elected. But what makes me anxious about this phenomenon is the apparent growing popularity of the notion that governmental policies should simply follow the will of the common man--and play to his insecurities about whether his judgment regarding technical subjects is as valuable as those who have studied or who have experience in said subject.