(01-07-2017 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 08:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you didn't actually listen to the podcast but somehow felt you understood all of the speeches well enough to draw a conclusion about what it was about?

Nope, not even remotely close. Read what I wrote.

Then why did you say you implicitly got the message without listening to the audio?

Lad and Barrett, you probably are both entitled to a bit more clarification than I gave in my original responses, so I will try to respond more fully here. As a generic point, I was not describing my reaction but rather trying to explain the reaction that the left is getting but doesn't seem to be able to understand.

(01-06-2017 10:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If that's all you got out of that Ted Radio Hour, you either didn't listen to it or you tried hard to miss what is probably the biggest message - that those who are different or have different views than us almost always aren't the caricature that we think they are.

And my point is that that message is going to be totally lost when you start your message with the "racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe, homophobe," caricaturization. Or if you don't start but drop it in the middle, then you are going to get tuned out. So if you believe that those with whom you disagree aren't the caricature that you think they are, why would you (meaning the people in the audio, not you personally) choose to repeat the "racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe, homophobe," caricature?

(01-07-2017 09:44 AM)Barrett Wrote:  69, is it fair to say that liberal condescension (perceived and/or real) was one of the biggest logs in your campfire? You are beating that drum pretty loudly in this thread.
Put another way, let me ask you this: if liberals were not condescending to you, and the policy differences between Hillary and Trump were what they were, would you have favored Trump over Hillary? Or Hillary over Trump? (Before you say Trump wasn't your first choice among Republicans, a modern presidential election, for all practical purposes, is zero-sum: a vote against one person operates as a vote for the other.)

It's not a big log in MY campfire, but it is a big log in the campfire of many who voted for Trump. Fred and Ethel in Kalamazoo are being told how great the economic recovery is under Obama, except they're worse off than they were ten years ago, and they're being told how great it is that Obamacare has brought health insurance to millions, but their own health care costs have skyrocketed. So they decided they had enough and pulled the lever for Trump. You can't keep talking down to them and expect to win them back. If Trump can bring jobs back to the midwest, you're not going to win them back ever.

As for your hypothetical, most liberals who know me aren't condescending to me, because they know I will chew it up and spit it back at them. So your premise is faulty. As far as the question, I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump, and would not under any circumstances vote for either. Trump's best ideas are better than Hillary's, but his worst ideas are worse than hers. I don't have great optimism about where we are headed, but I do acknowledge the possibility that it could work, as well as the possibility that it could be an unmitigated disaster. Going in, my preferred outcome of the election would probably have been Hillary with republicans maintaining control of the house and senate. That was probably the outcome that would dictate the least happening, and therefore would have the least potential for screw-ups. I'm very concerned that no party has had control of all three without screwing it up badly for some time, and I fear that is going to recur.

I will admit, I did take some pleasure in seeing the smug, arrogant, condescending elites get their asses handed to them, but I truly wish it had been somebody other than Donald Trump doing it. And yes, I know Hillary won the popular vote, but she lost the election.

(01-07-2017 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Lad and Barrett, you probably are both entitled to a bit more clarification than I gave in my original responses, so I will try to respond more fully here.

(01-06-2017 10:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If that's all you got out of that Ted Radio Hour, you either didn't listen to it or you tried hard to miss what is probably the biggest message - that those who are different or have different views than us almost always aren't the caricature that we think they are.

And my point is that that message is going to be totally lost when you start your message with the "racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe, homophobe," caricaturization. Or if you don't start but drop it in the middle, then you are going to get tuned out. So if you believe that those with whom you disagree aren't the caricature that you think they are, why would you (meaning the people in the audio, not you personally) choose to repeat the "racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe, homophobe," caricature?

(01-07-2017 09:44 AM)Barrett Wrote:  69, is it fair to say that liberal condescension (perceived and/or real) was one of the biggest logs in your campfire? You are beating that drum pretty loudly in this thread.
Put another way, let me ask you this: if liberals were not condescending to you, and the policy differences between Hillary and Trump were what they were, would you have favored Trump over Hillary? Or Hillary over Trump? (Before you say Trump wasn't your first choice among Republicans, a modern presidential election, for all practical purposes, is zero-sum: a vote against one person operates as a vote for the other.)

It's not a big log in MY campfire, but it is a big log in the campfire of many who voted for Trump. Fred and Ethel in Kalamazoo are being told how great the economic recovery is under Obama, except they're worse off than they were ten years ago, and they're being told how great it is that Obamacare has brought health insurance to millions, but their own health care costs have skyrocketed. So they decided they had enough and pulled the lever for Trump. You can't keep talking down to them and expect to win them back. If Trump can bring jobs back to the midwest, you're not going to win them back ever.

As for your hypothetical, most liberals who know me aren't condescending to me, because they know I will chew it up and spit it back at them. So your premise is faulty. As far as the question, I didn't vote for Hillary or Trump, and would not under any circumstances vote for either. Trump's best ideas are better than Hillary's, but his worst ideas are worse than hers. I don't have great optimism about where we are headed, but I do acknowledge the possibility that it could work, as well as the possibility that it could be an unmitigated disaster. Going in, my preferred outcome of the election would probably have been Hillary with republicans maintaining control of the house and senate. That was probably the outcome that would dictate the least happening, and therefore would have the least potential for screw-ups. I'm very concerned that no party has had control of all three without screwing it up badly for some time, and I fear that is going to recur.

Owl - but did anyone in the audio do that? It's composed of multiple story tellers with a diverse background, from a negotiations expert to a Muslim nurse. I get the point you are trying to make, which actually mimics what many of the speakers touched on, but I don't remember the speakers themselves doing what you're suggesting they did...

(01-07-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Owl - but did anyone in the audio do that? It's composed of multiple story tellers with a diverse background, from a negotiations expert to a Muslim nurse. I get the point you are trying to make, which actually mimics what many of the speakers touched on, but I don't remember the speakers themselves doing what you're suggesting they did...

There was a passage where someone was stating that he tried to deal with the situation by getting information from as many sources as possible including going to conservative blogs, that was met with a response about how do you deal with the racism, misogyny, etc. I actually listened to a couple of the Ted audios while I was at the site, because I did find the discussion interesting, and this might have been on another audio, but I thought it was the same one.

Anyway, my point is the same. The longer the, "racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe, homophobe," hateful rhetoric (and yes, it is hateful rhetoric) continues, directly or subtly, the more it is going to drive a wedge between the people on each side of the issues.

If people are not willing to engage in respectful discussions with people with whom they disagree, we aren't going to get very far.

To be clear: you'll get no argument from me that Democrats need to rethink how they convey/message their policies. And even more deeply, they need to actually empathize with and have some care/concern/advocacy for those Americans outside of the big cities.

That said, and to RiceLad's point, I do think it goes both ways. Americans living in big cities are people, too. And they are Americans, too. It's pretty vexing to hear Ted Cruz and other Republicans employ the rhetorical device of talking about Fred/Ethel in Kalamazoo as part of "real America," as if implying that Jose/Alma in Queens, NY are not. Those Americans' experiences are worthy of care/concern/advocacy by Republicans as well.

(01-07-2017 10:25 AM)Barrett Wrote:  To be clear: you'll get no argument from me that Democrats need to rethink how they convey/message their policies. And even more deeply, they need to actually empathize with and have some care/concern/advocacy for those Americans outside of the big cities.
That said, and to RiceLad's point, I do think it goes both ways. Americans living in big cities are people, too. And they are Americans, too. It's pretty vexing to hear Ted Cruz and other Republicans employ the rhetorical device of talking about Fred/Ethel in Kalamazoo as part of "real America," as if implying that Jose/Alma in Queens, NY are not. Those Americans' experiences are worthy of care/concern/advocacy by Republicans as well.

So, do you also find it vexing when democrats use the, "racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobe, xenophobe," rhetoric?

(01-07-2017 10:25 AM)Barrett Wrote:  To be clear: you'll get no argument from me that Democrats need to rethink how they convey/message their policies. And even more deeply, they need to actually empathize with and have some care/concern/advocacy for those Americans outside of the big cities.

One point, I don't think the democrat leaders actually have any care/concern/advocacy for anyone, except getting their votes so they can stay in power. Let me clarify, I think there are any number of good people who align with democrats because they genuinely do care, and I know many people that I would put into that category. I would put both you and Lad in that category from what I have seen on here.

But as for the Obamas, Reids, Pelosis, Schumers of the world, I really don't think they give a rat's ass about anything but grabbing power every way that they can. And keeping people on handouts is a good way to buy their votes. If they really gave a damn about the little people, they wouldn't advocate programs that cause them so much harm. I'm sorry, I sincerely believe that their whole MO is, "Keep 'em dumb. keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat." I wish I could find a way to think more highly of those folks, but I think they are basically despicable human beings. I'm sorry, but to me it's not merely a messaging issue, it's a fundamental issue of intent.

I realize that this, at least potentially in the eyes of some, may put me in the same boat of demonizing those with whom I disagree. But those are sincere, deeply held feelings that I don't quite know how to suppress. So that's why I try to distinguish between heartfelt rank and file and less honest leadership. In that context, I think the kind of reaching across to the other side that is needed can take place with the folks that I discussed in the first paragraph. But I don't know how that conversation can be had between the leaders on either side (and while I don't quite put the likes of McConnell on the same low level as I do democrat leaders, he's not far above them).

To this I will add that it is the people unfairly labeled on both sides who feel the most resentment - the Freds and Joses, the Ethels and Almas. I am not racist, sexist, et all, but the basket of deplorables comment angered me, because it was so unfair. Tell me, did her audience cheer when she said that? Someone here once said I should not have been insulted if I knew she wasn't talking about me - but even though the label was inaccurate, she was, and I was.

(01-06-2017 10:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 07:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 07:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't think there is anything in it to sway you (and I'm not sure what I would be trying to sway you from). It was just very topical and thought you would be interested in what the various speakers talked about.

I did listen.

In a way, I think it's kind of a microcosm of the problem. Those who lean left will hear it and think, "What a compelling narrative." Those who voted for Trump will listen to it and think, "What a crock of s***." We're that far apart.

We need some kind of leader who can bridge that gap. Blasting those who support Trump with a steady barrage of "xenophobe, homophobe, racist, misogynist" rhetoric is not going to bridge any gaps.

As I have said repeatedly, Hillary lost the electoral vote because, in too many key states, middle America got tired of smug, arrogant, condescending elites pissing on their legs and telling them it was raining. More smug, arrogant condescension is not the way for those elites to bridge the gap with middle America.

Exchanges like (and I'm paraphrasing here), "I try to visit conservative blogs" followed by "How do you get past the racism and misogyny and xenophobia" make the problem worse not better. I'm surprised that those on the left are too tone deaf to realize just how off-putting the sort of stuff is.

If that's all you got out of that Ted Radio Hour, you either didn't listen to it or you tried hard to miss what is probably the biggest message - that those who are different or have different views than us almost always aren't the caricature that we think they are.

I didn't listen, but that's exactly right. That was one of the subtle points of the two movie scenes (involving Gene Hackman, but in very different roles) I related in earlier in this thread.

Even the people we think are the worst.

As a nation, we've moved from making a caricature of those with the worst behaviors or those most different than us, to applying caricature to almost everyone.

It's easy to do. All we have to embrace is the sarcastic, snide and caustic side of our nature.

It's funny to mock others, it's humorous, and it's fun.

It's especially fun if it's mocking the caricature and not our next door neighbor, who technically fits what the 'world' defines as the 'caricature', but because we actually know them don't see as the caricature.

Because it's on TV, and it's funny we don't see it as bullying. We get upset and offended when a story about individual cyber-bullying makes national news, and we should.

But when it's dressed up as political commentary and directed at a faceless group, or a group of public figures who we don't know personally, but hey, they're public figures and they signed up for it, it's hilarious.

It's all justified because, after all, we're on the 'correct' side, and it's hyperbole to make a point . . . . . . unless it's hyperbole used by the 'other side' about our guys.

(01-07-2017 09:44 AM)Barrett Wrote:  69, is it fair to say that liberal condescension (perceived and/or real) was one of the biggest logs in your campfire? You are beating that drum pretty loudly in this thread.

Put another way, let me ask you this: if liberals were not condescending to you, and the policy differences between Hillary and Trump were what they were, would you have favored Trump over Hillary? Or Hillary over Trump? (Before you say Trump wasn't your first choice among Republicans, a modern presidential election, for all practical purposes, is zero-sum: a vote against one person operates as a vote for the other.)

What was frustrating for me, is to vote my conscience, and then find out that:

a. slightly less than 1,000 (non-early) voters in Harris County also voted a write-in (read ANY write-in here please, not just mine) they actually believed stood for what they wanted to see in the Oval Office,

b. most everyone else thinks I either wasted my vote, or worse, is mad because I didn't vote to 'stop' the worse of the two evils.

That's frustrating.

(01-07-2017 11:57 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 09:44 AM)Barrett Wrote:  69, is it fair to say that liberal condescension (perceived and/or real) was one of the biggest logs in your campfire? You are beating that drum pretty loudly in this thread.

Put another way, let me ask you this: if liberals were not condescending to you, and the policy differences between Hillary and Trump were what they were, would you have favored Trump over Hillary? Or Hillary over Trump? (Before you say Trump wasn't your first choice among Republicans, a modern presidential election, for all practical purposes, is zero-sum: a vote against one person operates as a vote for the other.)

What was frustrating for me, is to vote my conscience, and then find out that:

a. slightly less than 1,000 (non-early) voters in Harris County also voted a write-in (read ANY write-in here please, not just mine) they actually believed stood for what they wanted to see in the Oval Office,

b. most everyone else thinks I either wasted my vote, or worse, is mad because I didn't vote to 'stop' the worse of the two evils.

That's frustrating.

I am not mad at you, Rick, and I think your vote expressed YOUR stance on the matter, as it should.

This election really tested my theory about voting for the lesser evil.

(01-07-2017 09:44 AM)Barrett Wrote:  69, is it fair to say that liberal condescension (perceived and/or real) was one of the biggest logs in your campfire? You are beating that drum pretty loudly in this thread.
Put another way, let me ask you this: if liberals were not condescending to you, and the policy differences between Hillary and Trump were what they were, would you have favored Trump over Hillary? Or Hillary over Trump? (Before you say Trump wasn't your first choice among Republicans, a modern presidential election, for all practical purposes, is zero-sum: a vote against one person operates as a vote for the other.)

Just thought of something that may be relevant here. During the run up to the election, there were a number of online, "Which candidate do you agree with?" polls. I took two or three, questions were slightly different, for one you weighted the questions, for anther you didn't, so results varied slightly. Overall, my level of agreement with both Trump and Hillary ranged from 8% to 20%. So my answer to your question is that I didn't agree with either one on enough policies to matter. Trump probably has slightly more policy positions with which I agree, but the level of disagreement is probably greater for Trump than for Hillary on policies where we disagree, and the ones where I disagree with Trump (immigration, free trade) are probably bigger issues for him than the ones where I disagree with Hillary are for her.

(01-07-2017 10:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 10:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Owl - but did anyone in the audio do that? It's composed of multiple story tellers with a diverse background, from a negotiations expert to a Muslim nurse. I get the point you are trying to make, which actually mimics what many of the speakers touched on, but I don't remember the speakers themselves doing what you're suggesting they did...

There was a passage where someone was stating that he tried to deal with the situation by getting information from as many sources as possible including going to conservative blogs, that was met with a response about how do you deal with the racism, misogyny, etc. I actually listened to a couple of the Ted audios while I was at the site, because I did find the discussion interesting, and this might have been on another audio, but I thought it was the same one.

Anyway, my point is the same. The longer the, "racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe, homophobe," hateful rhetoric (and yes, it is hateful rhetoric) continues, directly or subtly, the more it is going to drive a wedge between the people on each side of the issues.

If people are not willing to engage in respectful discussions with people with whom they disagree, we aren't going to get very far.

Funny enough, that was the same talk where the guy said that sports message boards were some of the best places for real discourse because we let our guard down as we have something in common, like the Owls.

The Ted radio hour is made up of multiple talks, so you likely listened to some of the ones from this podcast, but perhaps not all of them.

(01-09-2017 04:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Funny enough, that was the same talk where the guy said that sports message boards were some of the best places for real discourse because we let our guard down as we have something in common, like the Owls.
The Ted radio hour is made up of multiple talks, so you likely listened to some of the ones from this podcast, but perhaps not all of them.

Yes, I thought the comment about sports boards was interesting, too.