he thinks you're talking down to him

8/16/2017 3:04:02 PM

Haha

8/16/2017 3:07:49 PM

Quote :

"The unfortunate thing about this is that anytime someone smarter or more informed speaks it comes across as "talking down" almost always. It's why liberals are called "elitist" and is incredibly frustrating when it comes to getting political support to solve problems. It doesn't mean the speaker is wrong at all. It just means the person listening is grappling with the psychological problem related to challenging one's own beliefs, particularly when they are wrong."

QFT

8/16/2017 5:11:31 PM

^That quote is such a perfect example of the liberal mindset and why you will always lose elections. Some of yall need to learn to speak to your audience.

8/16/2017 8:34:26 PM

Always lose elections? Please, tell us more.

8/16/2017 9:48:30 PM

So tell me more about "liberals" always losing elections.

8/16/2017 9:48:58 PM

I mean...Republicans overwhelmingly control local and state government, and have for quite a while.

8/16/2017 11:46:35 PM

Yay gerrymandering!

Obviously I get that both sides do it, but Republicans are currently wayyyyy better at politics than Democrats. See: Neil Gorsuch, all the shit the NCGOP pulled after Cooper won, and all the voter ID/associated bullshit state GOP legislative bodies have been pulling (greatly fueled by gerrymandering). Democrats keep trying to be idealistic, and the GOP then beats them over the head with superior tactics. Democrats keep bringing a butter knife to a gun fight.

8/17/2017 1:08:19 AM

^ this. And that's not to say it isn't smart politically.

But people shouldn't act like the American people have overwhelmingly voted in force for conservative policy and ideals. Also, the GOP is way, way, way better at identity politics than the Dems, though I suspect that is because they play on majority (in other words, white) identity.

8/17/2017 7:42:07 AM

Y'all seriously dont have to argue every little thing. Democrats, generally, haven't been winning elections in years. This is not a controversial topic. And the only time you do win an election is when your candidate is able to speak to the electorate, not at them (Clinton, Obama when he's campaigning).

Quote :

"Yay gerrymandering!"

Gerrymandering does not explain 34 Republican governors. Terrible narrative, but keep it up instead of figuring out substantive ways to win elections.

8/17/2017 9:15:01 AM

Gerrymandering is only really useful around heavily populated metro centers. When you have places like the midwest that are sparsely populated and generally lack those centers of course you're going to get that many governors. But seriously...who really gives a shit about states like South Dakota where their entire population is about equal to the city of Charlotte.

But nice try.

8/17/2017 9:25:14 AM

So your explanation for Republican governorship in places like Georgia and Illinois, both with large metro areas, is gerrymandering.

Think this through before answering.

8/17/2017 9:47:57 AM

Quote :

"^That quote is such a perfect example of the liberal mindset and why you will always lose elections. Some of yall need to learn to speak to your audience."

That's like saying "This is why forest fires continue to burn. You keep talking down to us, telling us to use water and flame retardants to put them out and can't understand that we don't want your liberal solutions."

8/17/2017 10:14:56 AM

nah, HCH is right in this instance. that comment was pompous as hell.

8/17/2017 11:25:32 AM

Everyone, we now have a perfect display of a primary reason we have so much trouble getting things done.

For the record: Pompous - affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important.

Amazing how that doesn't imply that what was said was wrong, even if interpreted as arrogant.

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 11:44 AM. Reason : a]

8/17/2017 11:43:02 AM

no, what you implied is that liberals are automatically smarter than everyone else, and other people do not self-examine their beliefs. that is an irritatingly grand and self-important thing to say.

here's a quote from a book you should read, prometheus rising.

Quote :

"When we meet somebody whose separate tunnel-reality is obviously far different from ours, we are a bit frightened and always disoriented. We tend to think they are mad, or that they are crooks trying to con us in some way, or that they are hoaxers playing a joke. Yet it is neurologically obvious that no two brains have the same genetically-programmed hard wiring, the same imprints, the same conditioning, the same learning experiences. We are all living in separate realities. That is why communication fails so often, and misunderstandings and resentments are so common. I say "meow" and you say "Bow-wow," and each of us is convinced the other is a bit dumb. "

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

8/17/2017 11:46:33 AM

i might have misinterpreted what you said in your last post, but to elaborate:

when you talk down to someone with the pretense that you're smarter than them, is it really surprising that they may not think you're being genuine in listening to their beliefs and examining your own? and as such they may just cast your opinion off entirely?

8/17/2017 12:15:46 PM

TBF, I don't even understand how you can interpret Obama's speeches as being "talked down to"

8/17/2017 12:16:36 PM

Quote :

""The unfortunate thing about this is that anytime someone smarter or more informed speaks it comes across as "talking down" almost always. It's why liberals are called "elitist" and is incredibly frustrating when it comes to getting political support to solve problems. It doesn't mean the speaker is wrong at all. It just means the person listening is grappling with the psychological problem related to challenging one's own beliefs, particularly when they are wrong.""

Here is my quote. Where in there did I say liberals are smarter than everyone? Where in there did I say there were no conservative-minded individuals who are also intelligent and when speaking, can be interpreted as "talking down?"

The term "elitist" is primarily used for liberals, hence why I addressed that specifically. Your interpretation of my quote is the exact same thing I was talking about in my quote. You heard me say something, dismissed what was actually said (critical listening/reading) and decided it was an attempt of mine to denigrate the opposing viewpoint. And because of that, instead of addressing the scientific validity of what I said, you decided it was a worthless statement because your interpretation made you feel slighted.

============================

Quote :

"i might have misinterpreted what you said in your last post, but to elaborate: when you talk down to someone with the pretense that you're smarter than them, is it really surprising that they may not think you're being genuine in listening to their beliefs and examining your own? and as such they may just cast your opinion off entirely?"

Okay, I appreciate you saying that (my above response to your first post is me saying you did, in fact, misinterpret it).

But you have to start with "talking down to someone with the pretense that you're smarter than them."

Example (going off my previous one): There is a forest fire. People keep saying to put it out with water and flame retardants. The other side goes "no, we don't believe in those things."

How is suggesting the correct solution NOT being smarter than them? Being correct is not the same thing as talking down as if they know better, but don't really know better.

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 12:19 PM. Reason : just saw your second post, but left my original response to be fair]

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 12:20 PM. Reason : a]

8/17/2017 12:17:02 PM

Quote :

"The unfortunate thing about this is that anytime someone smarter or more informed speaks it comes across as "talking down" almost always. It's why liberals are called "elitist""

Maybe it's not what you meant, but that's what I gathered, and HCH read it the same way I did. So I apologize if I misinterpreted.

8/17/2017 12:20:30 PM

Quote :

"Everyone, we now have a perfect display of a primary reason we have so much trouble getting things done."

This isnt a political issue. Understanding your audience so you can better relate to them is a common communication skill that even the most successful sales people and executives continually work to improve. I dont understand why you are arguing against it?

8/17/2017 12:23:38 PM

^^There are definitely situations where it's much harder to objectively prove you are correct, particularly more morally troubling issues, like abortion and gun control. And certainly, people talking about those tend to come across as "talking down" far more in my opinion, largely out of a refusal to appreciate the views of the other side.

Quote :

"This isnt a political issue. Understanding your audience so you can better relate to them is a common communication skill that even the most successful sales people and executives continually work to improve. I dont understand why you are arguing against it?"

This goes back to a question someone previously just asked - what about those speeches makes you feel "talked down to?"

And for your last question, if you rolled into a hospital with a gunshot wound and Person A says "get him to triage, immediately" but Person B goes "no, let's just pray for them, God will take care of it," what about my communication approach am I supposed to change to convince Person B of how incredibly wrong they are? There is nothing that is going to change their mind. It isn't "talking down to them" - it's simply them being so incredibly incapable of rational thought that there is nothing I can say that they won't pivot their way around. Trump puts on outlandish displays of this type of sidestepping when he speaks.

That probably sounds like an extreme analogy, but the disparity between Person A's stance and Person B's stance is the type of disparity that exists in a large part of the debates about solving problems in Congress.

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 12:30 PM. Reason : a]

8/17/2017 12:24:00 PM

I tend to want people who hold the highest office in the world to be smarter than me, and am a fan of when they meet that goal/make our country look like we have some of the best that the world has to offer, given that the President is the spokesperson for the country

8/17/2017 12:25:49 PM

Quote :

"^^There are definitely situations where it's much harder to objectively prove you are correct, particularly more morally troubling issues, like abortion and gun control. And certainly, people talking about those tend to come across as "talking down" far more in my opinion, largely out of a refusal to appreciate the views of the other side."

yeah my whole line of argument came from misinterpreting your point, so we're on the same page now. my bad

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2017 12:33:39 PM

Quote :

"what about those speeches makes you feel "talked down to?"

Just to clarify, I didn't claim that Obama's speeches made me feel talked down to. I think he is generally a good communicator, especially when he is campaigning and speaking to the crowd. Although it is a common complaint I remember about Obama, he sounded more like a professor than a president. I was just responding to the statement I quoted above, which is a common complaint about the left.

I mean this election was a perfect example of that point. Through all of his worts and blemishes, Trump was able to connect with his electorate. Hillary isnt able to do that, unlike her husband and Obama were.

^^ We're talking about communication here, bud.

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 12:35 PM. Reason : 1]

8/17/2017 12:35:05 PM

Quote :

"Through all of his worts and blemishes, Trump was able to connect with his electorate. Hillary isnt able to do that, unlike her husband and Obama were."

This is spot on. But also where a line blurs. Trump's "connections" were all blatant lies and/or saying what people wanted to hear not what they needed to hear (example being lower cost, better and wider coverage healthcare was never going to happen).

What is better? Not to connect or to connect by conning? Politically it's fairly obvious being a fraud worked in 2016, but against a better opponent that wouldn't be the case.

[Edited on August 17, 2017 at 12:56 PM. Reason : It's the difference between governing for wins and governing for the people -- not to say HRC cared]

8/17/2017 12:55:51 PM

that's a false dichotomy, you can also connect and be honest

8/17/2017 12:59:15 PM

Quote :

"Just to clarify, I didn't claim that Obama's speeches made me feel talked down to."

Apologies-presumed you had thought that way since you were taking the counterargument to my point. See, I can be guilty of it too.

8/17/2017 1:01:23 PM

^^ that's true. I was talking more in the context of the 2016 general election.

I thought Bernie did a good job of not blowing smoke up asses but also having real solutions. That said I'm skeptical even that wins in certain areas over the confirmation bias of saying what people want to hear.

8/17/2017 1:10:03 PM

There's way too much maturity and apologizing going on here. This is TSB guys.

8/17/2017 3:46:31 PM

https://thefederalist.com/2017/12/18/obamas-iran-deal-makes-trumps-russia-collusion-look-like-childs-play/

12/18/2017 12:56:17 PM

what crime is being claimed?

12/18/2017 1:07:19 PM

The Federalist sucks. Really bad now.

Now that that is out of the way I’d encourage people to read the Politico article on this. Less collusion and more awful foreign policy and one-track mind.

12/18/2017 1:07:57 PM

I didn't realize that Obama worked with the enemy, Iranian intelligence, to steal from his campaign opponents and coerce Americans into voting for him.

Oh wait, he didn't. Nice deflection attempt.

Also, countermanding drug enforcement to eliminate nuclear weapons is a hell of a lot different than working with an enemy intelligence organization to become President and then immediately take actions to weaken the United States at the request and guidance of said enemy intelligence organization.

Now having said that, questioning and disagreeing with what happened is entirely reasonable. But to compare it with what occurred in the Russia investigation is ridiculous.

[Edited on December 18, 2017 at 1:20 PM. Reason : a]

12/18/2017 1:14:39 PM

How about politco, is that reputable enough for you liberal view?

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

12/18/2017 1:23:19 PM

Who are you responding to?

[Edited on December 18, 2017 at 1:25 PM. Reason : Because I literally said to read the Politico article in my post]

12/18/2017 1:24:46 PM

^

And I made my comments after reading Politico...

12/18/2017 1:34:07 PM

You can feel free to disagree with Obama's approach on this and other foreign policy initiatives, but it fits with the overall goals and worldview in his administration. This article from the summer pretty much lays that out,

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/18/12387600/susan-rice-vox

Quote :

"This results in a foreign policy focused — to a degree most people don’t appreciate — on protecting this system from threats. The long view causes them to focus on addressing long-term threats to the system’s stability, like climate change or a nuclear Iran. But the flip side is that they’re more wary about trying to solve immediate crises, like the Syrian civil war. These crises, while bad, don’t threaten the fundamental system. And ambitious schemes to solve them risk dragging the US into costly and counterproductive quagmires that could draw focus and resources away from graver dangers. "ISIS is not an existential threat to the United States," Obama once told the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. "Climate change is a potential existential threat to the entire world if we don’t do something about it.""

Obama doesn't consider drug trafficking or even terrorism as an existential threat to global stability, at least in and of themselves. If you look back, it's the reactions and overreactions from superpowers to terrorism and drugs that have caused instability. Nuclear weapons on the other hand, are an obvious existential threat and it makes sense that he would prioritize curbing their proliferation over anything else.

12/18/2017 1:58:10 PM

To be fair, Trump uses the same argument as it relates to Russia - that improving relations with Russia reduces an existential threat to the United States and allows us to focus on other, more important problems.

The difference here is the context. Obama was already President and was operating within the rules of our government. Trump allegedly and potentially was and is working with an enemy nation to gain power and then execute policies designed specifically to benefit Russia and Trump himself personally, not the United States collectively.

[Edited on December 18, 2017 at 2:06 PM. Reason : a]

12/18/2017 2:05:51 PM

Quote :

"To be fair, Trump uses the same argument as it relates to Russia - that improving relations with Russia reduces an existential threat to the United States and allows us to focus on other, more important problems."

Which existential threat? Not sure I agree that much in the middle east is one, not including nuclear weapons.

12/18/2017 9:52:39 PM

Removing existential threat - Russia by working with them and improving relations
Focus on other, more important problems - China, Middle East

12/18/2017 10:32:52 PM

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/19/republicans-call-house-intel-committee-to-releasethememo-on-fisa-fbi.html

hmm

1/20/2018 8:43:51 AM

The memo is nothing more than Nunes' ranting on paper.

1/20/2018 11:10:43 AM

^

1/21/2018 4:59:37 AM

You can make valid arguments in a rant hah

1/21/2018 5:05:16 AM

are the text messages searchable? what is the context of the latest text message the nuts are foaming about?

2/7/2018 3:48:43 PM

The day Comey testified in July 2016 regarding Hillary's probe Strzok and Page texted insults about Congress and praised Comey.

Oh and Obama wanted status updates on the Hillary investigation.

[Edited on February 7, 2018 at 4:21 PM. Reason : a]

2/7/2018 4:17:47 PM

^^

if you're talking about the Trump bombshell tweet, it's because Obama asked the FBI for a briefing on Russia election interference when he was President.

2/7/2018 4:22:51 PM

"“Potus wants to know everything we’re doing,” Ms. Page said, using the acronym for President of the United States. Mr. Johnson said the text raises questions about “the type and extent of President Obama’s personal involvement” in the Clinton investigation.

But associates of Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page said that exchange referred to the president’s wanting information on Russia election meddling, which the FBI was heavily involved in over that period. That exchange occurred just days before Mr. Obama met Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in China. Mr. Obama said in December 2016 that he had addressed the issue of tampering with the election process with Mr. Putin at that September meeting."


https://www.wsj.com/articles/texts-from-2016-show-fbi-employees-preparing-obama-briefing-on-russia-1518036629

2/7/2018 4:27:46 PM

Ah thanks, I replied without reading fully at work haha.

2/7/2018 4:46:55 PM