• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's with the animus against so-called elites? I don't know, but I know it's absurd.

Xelor

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive.
-- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
​


Definitional framework
There are several kinds of elites but they all have one thing in common: within their sphere of influence, they lead and everyone else follows. The scope and scale of their leadership capacity may increase or decrease based on the dis-/approbation of the community -- physical or conceptual -- in which they are a leader. Some elites are leaders "here" but not "there" or in some circumstances and not in others, whereas others are leaders of some stripe everywhere they go.
  • Social elites: Leaders of vulgar culture --> Entertainment, style, art, food/drink, and literature. These folks become elite as a result of something they did or something they are and that comes to the attention of the citizenry. This elite status is necessarily a function of fame, whereas fame may or may not accompany much fame.
    • Politics --> A subset of the social elite. They differ from the rest of the social elite insofar as they have official/formal leadership role. These folks obtain their formal leadership via election or specific appointment.
  • Business elites: Senior (executive/corporate vice presidents and higher) of business and other private entities.
  • Economic elites: Wealthy people, high income earners or both. Fame isn't a requirement to achieve this type of elite status; indeed, one can, unbeknownst to almost everyone, have this status. These people may be famous for being economically elite, but, generally, their economically elite status is unaffected by the nature and extent of their fame. Similarly, others' approbation may not affect one's obtaining/retaining this status.
  • Intellectual elites: People who're demonstrably smarter and/or more educated than are most other people in a given community.
Any given elite individual may be, but need not be, multidimensionally elite. For instance, an economically elite person may or may not be accepted as an intellectually elite member of any or certain communities. Elite statuses are sometimes additively complimentary and other times they may not be so. For instance, an elite musician at a physics symposium may be elite as the talent for the evening social, but at, say, the "Muons, Gluons, Quarks and Bosons" paper presentations and discussions, s/he's almost certainly not going to lead anything.

NOTE:
You don't have to agree with the above framework -- it's not a declaration of existentiality -- but for this thread's discussion, use it. It's point is so we're conversing with a common understanding of terminology. The framework isn't the topic of discussion for this thread.​


Thread Discussion Rubric:
For the past lustrum, perhaps longer, there's been in the US increasing animus regarding elites. Almost weekly, someone's griping about them in some context or another. Even so, elite folks, other than Donald Trump, don't express umbrage or append unto themselves victim status; elites besides Trump can, do and will quietly endure the recriminations.

Elites have no beef with the buffeting because they know that societies always have only two main classes of people -- leaders and the led -- thus there will always be elites, unless the society successfully implements political and economic communism. Even if every current elite were to lose their status thus, others would take their places and there'd still be elites. Insofar as, aside from the one circumstance in which theoretically no elites exist, there will always be elites, the griping against elites is just absurd. Insofar as it's absurd, there's no point in doing it. Yet people do it.

Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion - thus:
​

Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds; Therefore-
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a post-hole in one second.​

This may be called syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary​
 
Xelor said:
One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive.
-- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
​


Definitional framework
There are several kinds of elites but they all have one thing in common: within their sphere of influence, they lead and everyone else follows. The scope and scale of their leadership capacity may increase or decrease based on the dis-/approbation of the community -- physical or conceptual -- in which they are a leader. Some elites are leaders "here" but not "there" or in some circumstances and not in others, whereas others are leaders of some stripe everywhere they go.
  • Social elites: Leaders of vulgar culture --> Entertainment, style, art, food/drink, and literature. These folks become elite as a result of something they did or something they are and that comes to the attention of the citizenry. This elite status is necessarily a function of fame, whereas fame may or may not accompany much fame.
    • Politics --> A subset of the social elite. They differ from the rest of the social elite insofar as they have official/formal leadership role. These folks obtain their formal leadership via election or specific appointment.
  • Business elites: Senior (executive/corporate vice presidents and higher) of business and other private entities.
  • Economic elites: Wealthy people, high income earners or both. Fame isn't a requirement to achieve this type of elite status; indeed, one can, unbeknownst to almost everyone, have this status. These people may be famous for being economically elite, but, generally, their economically elite status is unaffected by the nature and extent of their fame. Similarly, others' approbation may not affect one's obtaining/retaining this status.
  • Intellectual elites: People who're demonstrably smarter and/or more educated than are most other people in a given community.
Any given elite individual may be, but need not be, multidimensionally elite. For instance, an economically elite person may or may not be accepted as an intellectually elite member of any or certain communities. Elite statuses are sometimes additively complimentary and other times they may not be so. For instance, an elite musician at a physics symposium may be elite as the talent for the evening social, but at, say, the "Muons, Gluons, Quarks and Bosons" paper presentations and discussions, s/he's almost certainly not going to lead anything.

NOTE:
You don't have to agree with the above framework -- it's not a declaration of existentiality -- but for this thread's discussion, use it. It's point is so we're conversing with a common understanding of terminology. The framework isn't the topic of discussion for this thread.​


Thread Discussion Rubric:
For the past lustrum, perhaps longer, there's been in the US increasing animus regarding elites. Almost weekly, someone's griping about them in some context or another. Even so, elite folks, other than Donald Trump, don't express umbrage or append unto themselves victim status; elites besides Trump can, do and will quietly endure the recriminations.

Elites have no beef with the buffeting because they know that societies always have only two main classes of people -- leaders and the led -- thus there will always be elites, unless the society successfully implements political and economic communism. Even if every current elite were to lose their status thus, others would take their places and there'd still be elites. Insofar as, aside from the one circumstance in which theoretically no elites exist, there will always be elites, the griping against elites is just absurd. Insofar as it's absurd, there's no point in doing it. Yet people do it.
Click to expand...

Since you consider yourself a member of the intellectual elite, let me, a mere commoner, educate you. And I will do it in a single sentence. The animus that so worries you is directed mainly at the social, political and intellectual elite because they are largely one in the same--snotty, arrogant leftists who believe they know how best for others to live their lives lives and are willing to substitute and ultimately impose their their superior will upon those they see as beneath them or too inferior to make such decisions for themselves.

And now you know.
 
First rule of management : Everything is your faughlt.

You hit the nail on the head. Elites, be it economically successful, politically successful, or intellectually successful, lead. They are our leaders.

If we, the led, don't like where we arrive, who's fault is it but the ones who led us there?

And look at where we have arrived...the word "triggered" is a household phrase, being commonly used now, the income gap is going to exceed that experienced prior to the great depression by the time this decade ends, median salary has remained flat pretty much for as long as I've had a job, cost of living has increased several times over in that time period, David Bowie died, multiple huge companies have gotten away with murder (in BPs case, literally), encountering people that live here but don't speak a lick of English is common now, etc etc etc.

For the common man, the country is in a bad place, and no one person got us here. Democrats, republicans, uber wealthy, self described intellectuals...they all have had a hand in this.

So....yeah. **** all of them.
 
[


Definitional framework
There are several kinds of elites but they all have one thing in common: within their sphere of influence, they lead and everyone else follows. The scope and scale of their leadership capacity may increase or decrease based on the dis-/approbation of the community -- physical or conceptual -- in which they are a leader. Some elites are leaders "here" but not "there" or in some circumstances and not in others, whereas others are leaders of some stripe everywhere they go.
  • Social elites: Leaders of vulgar culture --> Entertainment, style, art, food/drink, and literature. These folks become elite as a result of something they did or something they are and that comes to the attention of the citizenry. This elite status is necessarily a function of fame, whereas fame may or may not accompany much fame.
    • Politics --> A subset of the social elite. They differ from the rest of the social elite insofar as they have official/formal leadership role. These folks obtain their formal leadership via election or specific appointment.
  • Business elites: Senior (executive/corporate vice presidents and higher) of business and other private entities.
  • Economic elites: Wealthy people, high income earners or both. Fame isn't a requirement to achieve this type of elite status; indeed, one can, unbeknownst to almost everyone, have this status. These people may be famous for being economically elite, but, generally, their economically elite status is unaffected by the nature and extent of their fame. Similarly, others' approbation may not affect one's obtaining/retaining this status.
  • Intellectual elites: People who're demonstrably smarter and/or more educated than are most other people in a given community.
Any given elite individual may be, but need not be, multidimensionally elite. For instance, an economically elite person may or may not be accepted as an intellectually elite member of any or certain communities. Elite statuses are sometimes additively complimentary and other times they may not be so. For instance, an elite musician at a physics symposium may be elite as the talent for the evening social, but at, say, the "Muons, Gluons, Quarks and Bosons" paper presentations and discussions, s/he's almost certainly not going to lead anything.

NOTE:
You don't have to agree with the above framework -- it's not a declaration of existentiality -- but for this thread's discussion, use it. It's point is so we're conversing with a common understanding of terminology. The framework isn't the topic of discussion for this thread.​


Thread Discussion Rubric:
For the past lustrum, perhaps longer, there's been in the US increasing animus regarding elites. Almost weekly, someone's griping about them in some context or another. Even so, elite folks, other than Donald Trump, don't express umbrage or append unto themselves victim status; elites besides Trump can, do and will quietly endure the recriminations.

Elites have no beef with the buffeting because they know that societies always have only two main classes of people -- leaders and the led -- thus there will always be elites, unless the society successfully implements political and economic communism. Even if every current elite were to lose their status thus, others would take their places and there'd still be elites. Insofar as, aside from the one circumstance in which theoretically no elites exist, there will always be elites, the griping against elites is just absurd. Insofar as it's absurd, there's no point in doing it. Yet people do it.

Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion - thus:
​

Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds; Therefore-
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a post-hole in one second.​

This may be called syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary​
[/QUOTE]

The ebb and flow of policy follows Corporate, Banking, and Economic power. We could have addressed Global Warming in 1969 when it became a popular issue and become a renewable energy World but Corporate money power circumvented human progress to promote growth of income and power to the Petro energy structure. Common sense, logic, reason were all superceded by economic power. Money runs the World. For good or for bad. Usually for bad.
/
 
Fletch said:
Since you consider yourself a member of the intellectual elite, let me, a mere commoner, educate you. And I will do it in a single sentence. The animus that so worries you is directed mainly at the social, political and intellectual elite because they are largely one in the same--snotty, arrogant leftists who believe they know how best for others to live their lives lives and are willing to substitute and ultimately impose their their superior will upon those they see as beneath them or too inferior to make such decisions for themselves.

And now you know.
Click to expand...

Ouch, so defensive lol:lamo
 
Fletch said:
Since you consider yourself a member of the intellectual elite, let me, a mere commoner, educate you. And I will do it in a single sentence. The animus that so worries you is directed mainly at the social, political and intellectual elite because they are largely one in the same--snotty, arrogant leftists who believe they know how best for others to live their lives lives and are willing to substitute and ultimately impose their their superior will upon those they see as beneath them or too inferior to make such decisions for themselves.

And now you know.
Click to expand...

This assumes that Donald Trump and his band of ne'er do wells down at Mar-A Lago are not "elites". That the Christian right is not led by "elites". That "elites" exist on only one side of the aisle.
 
There's a special kind of idiocy, when it's based on 'a little knowledge' - you see big, complicated ideologies built around warped, small points - that is things like Libertarianis and Objectivism, oblivious to the real issues but simple, appealing answers to the ignorant (simple ideas, complicated details).

I think that describes the OP. Immature, evil, worship of 'elites' without any clue of morals or human values or practical governance or justice. The 'little people' who LOVE their 'masters' and think they're better by siding with the 'elites'. I can't remember one who could actually grow out of their errors by listening to anyone. They just keep adding to their Ayn Rand collection.
 
Xelor said:
One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive.
-- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
​


Definitional framework
There are several kinds of elites but they all have one thing in common: within their sphere of influence, they lead and everyone else follows. The scope and scale of their leadership capacity may increase or decrease based on the dis-/approbation of the community -- physical or conceptual -- in which they are a leader. Some elites are leaders "here" but not "there" or in some circumstances and not in others, whereas others are leaders of some stripe everywhere they go.
  • Social elites: Leaders of vulgar culture --> Entertainment, style, art, food/drink, and literature. These folks become elite as a result of something they did or something they are and that comes to the attention of the citizenry. This elite status is necessarily a function of fame, whereas fame may or may not accompany much fame.
    • Politics --> A subset of the social elite. They differ from the rest of the social elite insofar as they have official/formal leadership role. These folks obtain their formal leadership via election or specific appointment.
  • Business elites: Senior (executive/corporate vice presidents and higher) of business and other private entities.
  • Economic elites: Wealthy people, high income earners or both. Fame isn't a requirement to achieve this type of elite status; indeed, one can, unbeknownst to almost everyone, have this status. These people may be famous for being economically elite, but, generally, their economically elite status is unaffected by the nature and extent of their fame. Similarly, others' approbation may not affect one's obtaining/retaining this status.
  • Intellectual elites: People who're demonstrably smarter and/or more educated than are most other people in a given community.
Any given elite individual may be, but need not be, multidimensionally elite. For instance, an economically elite person may or may not be accepted as an intellectually elite member of any or certain communities. Elite statuses are sometimes additively complimentary and other times they may not be so. For instance, an elite musician at a physics symposium may be elite as the talent for the evening social, but at, say, the "Muons, Gluons, Quarks and Bosons" paper presentations and discussions, s/he's almost certainly not going to lead anything.

NOTE:
You don't have to agree with the above framework -- it's not a declaration of existentiality -- but for this thread's discussion, use it. It's point is so we're conversing with a common understanding of terminology. The framework isn't the topic of discussion for this thread.​


Thread Discussion Rubric:
For the past lustrum, perhaps longer, there's been in the US increasing animus regarding elites. Almost weekly, someone's griping about them in some context or another. Even so, elite folks, other than Donald Trump, don't express umbrage or append unto themselves victim status; elites besides Trump can, do and will quietly endure the recriminations.

Elites have no beef with the buffeting because they know that societies always have only two main classes of people -- leaders and the led -- thus there will always be elites, unless the society successfully implements political and economic communism. Even if every current elite were to lose their status thus, others would take their places and there'd still be elites. Insofar as, aside from the one circumstance in which theoretically no elites exist, there will always be elites, the griping against elites is just absurd. Insofar as it's absurd, there's no point in doing it. Yet people do it.

Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion - thus:
​

Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds; Therefore-
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a post-hole in one second.​

This may be called syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary​
Click to expand...


hey economically elite...

you do realize that if you are part of the elite by those definitions, you are akin to Donald Trump.
 
Xelor said:
For the past lustrum, perhaps longer, there's been in the US increasing animus regarding elites.
Click to expand...
• Populism is not new. It comes in waves in Western societies.

• "Elites" is usually a hermeneutic or dog-whistle for "people we don't like." I'm fairly confident that most of the people who complain about the "elites" are not selecting the targets of their ire based on a careful analysis based on objective criteria, it's just a shorthand for "those rich snobs in Washington" and so forth.

• Complaining about "elites" isn't about expertise, it's about the perceived loss of control and trust. The rationality of this varies, depending on the circumstances. E.g. if I was living in rural Appalachia, and my town has declined for a few decades, while elected officials do nothing, and big pharma companies supply tons of opiates while regulators look the other way, I'd probably complain about the "elites" too. Complaining about a socioeconomic system that privileges "elites" is still a mental shortcut, but it's not always irrational.


Elites have no beef with the buffeting because they know that societies always have only two main classes of people -- leaders and the led -- thus there will always be elites, unless the society successfully implements political and economic communism.
Click to expand...
Reminder: Communism (in actual practice) still produces an elite, namely party members.
 
For all our talk about Donald Trump, and how supremely evil he is...he doesn't affect my life. Not physically, not economically. You could say his tariffs do...but ultimately, you'd have a hard time providing definitive proof of that.

Know what affected me more? AIG and Fanny Mae executives. Know what affects me more? The executives running our 3 credit burrues. Know what affects me more? Berkshire Hathaway, when they sit on a house on short sale while it rots, devaluing my property that's next door. Know what affects me more? Nestle Foods, when they export all the spring water, causing droughts.

You want animus? Try, having our lives dictated to us by those we never elected.

There IS such a thing as too much wealth, if money equals power. And make no mistake, money is power.
 
Xelor said:
One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive.
-- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
​


Definitional framework
There are several kinds of elites but they all have one thing in common: within their sphere of influence, they lead and everyone else follows. The scope and scale of their leadership capacity may increase or decrease based on the dis-/approbation of the community -- physical or conceptual -- in which they are a leader. Some elites are leaders "here" but not "there" or in some circumstances and not in others, whereas others are leaders of some stripe everywhere they go.
  • Social elites: Leaders of vulgar culture --> Entertainment, style, art, food/drink, and literature. These folks become elite as a result of something they did or something they are and that comes to the attention of the citizenry. This elite status is necessarily a function of fame, whereas fame may or may not accompany much fame.
    • Politics --> A subset of the social elite. They differ from the rest of the social elite insofar as they have official/formal leadership role. These folks obtain their formal leadership via election or specific appointment.
  • Business elites: Senior (executive/corporate vice presidents and higher) of business and other private entities.
  • Economic elites: Wealthy people, high income earners or both. Fame isn't a requirement to achieve this type of elite status; indeed, one can, unbeknownst to almost everyone, have this status. These people may be famous for being economically elite, but, generally, their economically elite status is unaffected by the nature and extent of their fame. Similarly, others' approbation may not affect one's obtaining/retaining this status.
  • Intellectual elites: People who're demonstrably smarter and/or more educated than are most other people in a given community.
Any given elite individual may be, but need not be, multidimensionally elite. For instance, an economically elite person may or may not be accepted as an intellectually elite member of any or certain communities. Elite statuses are sometimes additively complimentary and other times they may not be so. For instance, an elite musician at a physics symposium may be elite as the talent for the evening social, but at, say, the "Muons, Gluons, Quarks and Bosons" paper presentations and discussions, s/he's almost certainly not going to lead anything.

NOTE:
You don't have to agree with the above framework -- it's not a declaration of existentiality -- but for this thread's discussion, use it. It's point is so we're conversing with a common understanding of terminology. The framework isn't the topic of discussion for this thread.​


Thread Discussion Rubric:
For the past lustrum, perhaps longer, there's been in the US increasing animus regarding elites. Almost weekly, someone's griping about them in some context or another. Even so, elite folks, other than Donald Trump, don't express umbrage or append unto themselves victim status; elites besides Trump can, do and will quietly endure the recriminations.

Elites have no beef with the buffeting because they know that societies always have only two main classes of people -- leaders and the led -- thus there will always be elites, unless the society successfully implements political and economic communism. Even if every current elite were to lose their status thus, others would take their places and there'd still be elites. Insofar as, aside from the one circumstance in which theoretically no elites exist, there will always be elites, the griping against elites is just absurd. Insofar as it's absurd, there's no point in doing it. Yet people do it.

Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion - thus:
​

Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds; Therefore-
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a post-hole in one second.​

This may be called syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary​
Click to expand...

Ordinary people have contempt for the current elites because the current elites have contempt for them.

It's not very complicated.
 
KevinKohler said:
For all our talk about Donald Trump, and how supremely evil he is...he doesn't affect my life. Not physically, not economically. You could say his tariffs do...but ultimately, you'd have a hard time providing definitive proof of that.

Know what affected me more? AIG and Fanny Mae executives. Know what affects me more? The executives running our 3 credit burrues. Know what affects me more? Berkshire Hathaway, when they sit on a house on short sale while it rots, devaluing my property that's next door. Know what affects me more? Nestle Foods, when they export all the spring water, causing droughts.

You want animus? Try, having our lives dictated to us by those we never elected.

There IS such a thing as too much wealth, if money equals power. And make no mistake, money is power.
Click to expand...

Red:


Blue:
  • Do you not pay federal income taxes? If you do, Trump has affected your life. The only question is the extent of that particular impact, not whether the impact on you transpired/exists.
  • Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The fundamental theme of that remark applies to tangible and intangible actions. What differs is our ability to measure the nature and extent of the impact/reaction, not our ability to identify the reaction's manifestation.

Pink:
Whether an action affects you more than any other action is a very different thing from whether an action affects you. Your assertion is that Trump does not affect you. You wrote: "he doesn't affect my life. Not physically, not economically." You are wrong. You may not know he affects you, but he does.
 
AmNat said:
Ordinary people have contempt for the current elites because the current elites have contempt for them.

It's not very complicated.
Click to expand...
Red:
You may be right, but to the extent you are, such behavior is benightedly irrational.

I doubt elites hold non-elites in contempt. I'm fairly certain, however, that elites of varying stripes hold in contempt some of the behaviors non-elites and other elites exhibit.
 
Last edited:
Fletch said:
Since you consider yourself a member of the intellectual elite, let me, a mere commoner, educate you. And I will do it in a single sentence. The animus that so worries you is directed mainly at the social, political and intellectual elite because they are largely one in the same--snotty, arrogant leftists who believe they know how best for others to live their lives lives and are willing to substitute and ultimately impose their their superior will upon those they see as beneath them or too inferior to make such decisions for themselves.

And now you know.
Click to expand...

The problem is the least educated have chosen someone just ever so slightly smarter than they to lead them. Remember when they were going to elect that moron Sarah Palin? Jesus Christ, I couldn't believe how lucky America was to dodge that bullet.

Then Republicans decided to double down on ignorant, and they go and elect Trump. Now I honestly don't believe Trump is stupid per se, but he I think he is incredibly lazy, too lazy to put in the hard work learning about the government, so he doesn't have a clue what he's doing, which becomes evident when he comes up against someone like Kim Jong Un.

Seriously, how long did it take Kim Jong Un to make Trump his bitch? 10 minutes? Because the first thing we see after their meeting is Trump carrying Kim's water, telling the world NK isn't a threat any more.

And Putin appears to have made Trump his bitch before Trump even got elected. We watched Trump stand on stage in Helsinki united with Russia, against America. And Republicans defend this.

Maybe it's time to realize that if you really love your country, having morons and idiots like Trump running it, does not bode well for the future. If, on the other hand, you don't really give a **** about your country, and just want to hurt "the elites" because your feewings are hurt, then you're going about it the right way.
 
AmNat said:
Ordinary people have contempt for the current elites because the current elites have contempt for them.

It's not very complicated.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I don't consider myself elite, but I think they're probably like me, and I don't hold people in contempt. I do hold behaviours in contempt. Behaviours such as racism, bigotry, and indulgent ignorance.
 
JustHanging said:
The problem is the least educated have chosen someone just ever so slightly smarter than they to lead them. Remember when they were going to elect that moron Sarah Palin? Jesus Christ, I couldn't believe how lucky America was to dodge that bullet.

Then Republicans decided to double down on ignorant, and they go and elect Trump. Now I honestly don't believe Trump is stupid per se, but he I think he is incredibly lazy, too lazy to put in the hard work learning about the government, so he doesn't have a clue what he's doing, which becomes evident when he comes up against someone like Kim Jong Un.

Seriously, how long did it take Kim Jong Un to make Trump his bitch? 10 minutes? Because the first thing we see after their meeting is Trump carrying Kim's water, telling the world NK isn't a threat any more.

And Putin appears to have made Trump his bitch before Trump even got elected. We watched Trump stand on stage in Helsinki united with Russia, against America. And Republicans defend this.

Maybe it's time to realize that if you really love your country, having morons and idiots like Trump running it, does not bode well for the future. If, on the other hand, you don't really give a **** about your country, and just want to hurt "the elites" because your feewings are hurt, then you're going about it the right way.
Click to expand...

This issue has nothing to do with Trump
 
Fletch said:
Since you consider yourself a member of the intellectual elite, let me, a mere commoner, educate you. And I will do it in a single sentence. The animus that so worries you is directed mainly at the social, political and intellectual elite because they are largely one in the same--snotty, arrogant leftists who believe they know how best for others to live their lives lives and are willing to substitute and ultimately impose their their superior will upon those they see as beneath them or too inferior to make such decisions for themselves.

And now you know.
Click to expand...

Says person who votes for anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, War on Drug, etc etc etc politicians, who absolutely do arrogantly seek to impose their religiously-derived beliefs on others.

But hey...it's not like you were looking to actually discuss something, is it? After all, the first stop would be having the - and I'm setting the bar extremely high here - basic humility to be able to admit that maybe other people know more about certain things than a most humble commoner.
 
KevinKohler said:
For all our talk about Donald Trump, and how supremely evil he is...he doesn't affect my life. Not physically, not economically. You could say his tariffs do...but ultimately, you'd have a hard time providing definitive proof of that.

Know what affected me more? AIG and Fanny Mae executives. Know what affects me more? The executives running our 3 credit burrues. Know what affects me more? Berkshire Hathaway, when they sit on a house on short sale while it rots, devaluing my property that's next door. Know what affects me more? Nestle Foods, when they export all the spring water, causing droughts.

You want animus? Try, having our lives dictated to us by those we never elected.

There IS such a thing as too much wealth, if money equals power. And make no mistake, money is power.
Click to expand...

In a sense, you're right, and that's why we're supposed to have democracy, and as Louis Brandeis said, you can have great concentration of wealth, or democracy, but not both. trump, as a phony populist con man who serves the powerful, denies the people a government that represents them in critical areas, denying them wealth and power.

I think people forget how lucky they are to have the right to elect leaders - it's understandable they don't value that as much when the process is corrupted, by needing such great sums to win usually that most politicians get from a few powerful interests they serve. And why we need to undo the Republican corruption of our elections and adopt public financing.
 
Greger said:
This assumes that Donald Trump and his band of ne'er do wells down at Mar-A Lago are not "elites". That the Christian right is not led by "elites". That "elites" exist on only one side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

Are any of you liberals capable of having a conversation that doesnt revolve around Trump? Give it a try for Christs sake.
 
Mr Person said:
Says person who votes for anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, War on Drug, etc etc etc politicians, who absolutely do arrogantly seek to impose their religiously-derived beliefs on others.
Click to expand...
I am pro abortion up to a certain point, I dont have a problem with gay marriage, I dont really have a position on the war on drugs and I am an atheist. So, so much for your point.

But hey...it's not like you were looking to actually discuss something, is it? After all, the first stop would be having the - and I'm setting the bar extremely high here - basic humility to be able to admit that maybe other people know more about certain things than a most humble commoner.
Click to expand...
Ive never claimed to know everything and I just dont find liberals to be half as smart as they think they are. And I dont tell anyone how to live their lives so I dont fit the A-hole elitist definition. Do you?
 
Craig234 said:
In a sense, you're right, and that's why we're supposed to have democracy, and as Louis Brandeis said, you can have great concentration of wealth, or democracy, but not both. trump, as a phony populist con man who serves the powerful, denies the people a government that represents them in critical areas, denying them wealth and power.
Click to expand...
We have a great concentration of wealth today and our democracy is just fine.

I think people forget how lucky they are to have the right to elect leaders - it's understandable they don't value that as much when the process is corrupted, by needing such great sums to win usually that most politicians get from a few powerful interests they serve. And why we need to undo the Republican corruption of our elections and adopt public financing.
Click to expand...
Our elections are not corrupt, nor does the one who spends the most win. Just ask Hillary and Jeb.
 
Fletch said:
This issue has nothing to do with Trump
Click to expand...

Of course it does, it has everything to do with Trump. He's the embodiment of current American conservative values and principles. It's why American conservatives defend him so loyally, no matter what he does. They're defending their own principles and values.

The one thing Trump is an expert at, amazingly good at, is knowing what other people want to hear. And he's telling the world exactly what he thinks of conservative Americans, by his behavior every day. Not a very pretty picture, is it?

And every single day American conservatives prove him correct, by defending and justifying his behavior.
 
Last edited:
Xelor said:
Red:


Blue:
  • Do you not pay federal income taxes? If you do, Trump has affected your life. The only question is the extent of that particular impact, not whether the impact on you transpired/exists.
  • Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The fundamental theme of that remark applies to tangible and intangible actions. What differs is our ability to measure the nature and extent of the impact/reaction, not our ability to identify the reaction's manifestation.

Pink:
Whether an action affects you more than any other action is a very different thing from whether an action affects you. Your assertion is that Trump does not affect you. You wrote: "he doesn't affect my life. Not physically, not economically." You are wrong. You may not know he affects you, but he does.
Click to expand...

Ok, fine, he has FAR less impact on my life than any of the others I mentioned.
 
Craig234 said:
In a sense, you're right, and that's why we're supposed to have democracy, and as Louis Brandeis said, you can have great concentration of wealth, or democracy, but not both. trump, as a phony populist con man who serves the powerful, denies the people a government that represents them in critical areas, denying them wealth and power.

I think people forget how lucky they are to have the right to elect leaders - it's understandable they don't value that as much when the process is corrupted, by needing such great sums to win usually that most politicians get from a few powerful interests they serve. And why we need to undo the Republican corruption of our elections and adopt public financing.
Click to expand...

its a democrat problem, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom