Who's living in a bubble? "Coastal Elites" or "flyover country" "Real Americans"?

[credoconsolans]

Are you changing the question?

This seems to be a new question.

It's actually an attempt to make you as explicit as possible, which you are trying very hard to not do. In fact when I first asked you which people you were talking about, you replied to skepticalbip instead of me.

Which people are broken, be explicit. Don't dance around the issue. So far all I can tell is that you think anyone who didn't vote for Hillary is one of these broken people, but you said that isn't what you meant.

So, be more explicit.

My reply to skeptical covered your question as well.

 

[skepticalbip]

Sorry but that sounds like you are talking about HRC supporters who invested all their hopes and dreams in the election and are now incapable of accepting the fact that their candidate lost. I have to tell you that after every election this country has ever had about half the population are disappointed. They eventually get over it. Disappointment is just a part of life. If Clinton had won then there would still be about the same number of disappointed people - only the ones happy now would be the disappointed and the ones who are disappointed now would be happy.

Nope. Not even close. I spent a lot of time talking with rabid Trump supporters.

They were

1) incapable of accepting Trump was a bigger liar than Hillary when it was DEMONSTRABLY evident. I could prove it. They only had to look. They refused to believe it or even exert the effort to investigate for themselves.

2) Incapable of critical thought when it came to things like "we're going to force Mexico to build the wall", "we're going to deport ALL the illegals" and currently they think NAFTA is like an episode of The Apprentice where Trump is going to "fire" Mexico unless they build a wall. Without even considering the ramifications of the effect of this to our economy and the environment and our trade with the rest of the world. Trust me on this, I've been talking to them.

3) Incapable of separating fact from conspiracy rumor. The Clintons "are a cabal and they had people killed". They believe this. Period. No amount of putting out the MASSIVE amount of reasonable doubt will change their minds. One lady, when I explained that the police in Arkansas thinks the murder of those 2 boys on the railroad was similar to a crime committed in Oklahoma earlier and probably the work of drug dealers, she merely huffed and immediately extended the reach of the Clinton cabal to Oklahoma as well.

4) Incapable of clear thinking. I put out a fact about Trump's dealings and the guy I was talking to said my facts were not his facts. I was like,"No, a fact is a fact. Do you know what a fact is?" And I put the definition of the word 'fact' in the post. And his reply was "that's just your opinion." He had no clue that a fact was not an opinion. I ended the conversation telling him I hoped he never served on a jury.

Nope. These people are seriously broken and they need fixing.

I would suggest that your "scientific investigation" was seriously flawed. There are serious nut cases on both sides of the political divide. You chose to only examine the nut cases on the side you opposed apparently to "prove" to yourself that anyone who holds opposing views is incapable of thought. You appear to have made up your mind what truth was and then went about selecting subjects to prove to yourself that you were right.

I found that anyone on either political side who were seriously dedicated to their chosen candidate held absurd ideas about both candidates and were impervious to reason, refusing to critically examining what they believed about either their candidate or the opponent.

However the massive hissy fits being thrown by the dedicated HRC supporters is what made me think you were referring to them as the ones being incapable of accepting facts, the provable fact that she lost.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's actually an attempt to make you as explicit as possible, which you are trying very hard to not do. In fact when I first asked you which people you were talking about, you replied to skepticalbip instead of me.

Which people are broken, be explicit. Don't dance around the issue. So far all I can tell is that you think anyone who didn't vote for Hillary is one of these broken people, but you said that isn't what you meant.

So, be more explicit.

My reply to skeptical covered your question as well.

Ah, but then I asked you to elaborate. You didn't. Give us lots of detail as to who you are talking about. Don't just give some qualifications, give us examples. Tell us who you are actually talking about. Give us lots of detail. Elaborate. Don't just allude to the broken people that you need the government to fix, tell us who they are.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hillary represented money in politics, pay to play policies, and billionaire donors. Trump represented being self funded and talked about "Draining the swamp". Not rocket science to see why he won. Those in the bubble are those who want to push another establishment wall street backed candidate like Kaine into the DNC leadership.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

How many times? Half the marriages in the US end in divorce. And that's just two people.

I'm obviously talking about part of the country divorcing another part of the country, not individuals divorcing individuals.

Obviously. And I'm asking which parts, and how could that be done in a way that improve things. There is no way to make that split in a way that leaves rural areas as part of one country, and population centers as part of another country. I doubt it's realistic to think some states could make up one country, others another country, in the foreseeable future, but assuming that's doable, it has significant costs, and on top of that, the problem of the people who are alien to each other remains (see my previous post); do you have any suggestions as to how to proceed (and who could proceed in that matter) to make a split resulting in a better rather than worse or equally bad situation?

 

[TV and credit cards]

How many times? Half the marriages in the US end in divorce. And that's just two people.

I'm obviously talking about part of the country divorcing another part of the country, not individuals divorcing individuals.

My point is, split the US in two and how long would it be before those two groups found reason to split again within their group?
It's easy to hate. Getting along takes effort.

 

[credoconsolans]

My reply to skeptical covered your question as well.

Ah, but then I asked you to elaborate. You didn't. Give us lots of detail as to who you are talking about. Don't just give some qualifications, give us examples. Tell us who you are actually talking about. Give us lots of detail. Elaborate. Don't just allude to the broken people that you need the government to fix, tell us who they are.

You were asking a different question though. You made some sort of assumption that the people I considered broken simply 'disagreed' with me. They didn't. They disagreed with facts. Big difference.

 

[credoconsolans]

Hillary represented money in politics, pay to play policies, and billionaire donors. Trump represented being self funded and talked about "Draining the swamp". Not rocket science to see why he won. Those in the bubble are those who want to push another establishment wall street backed candidate like Kaine into the DNC leadership.

Talking something and actually proving his dedication to such things when Trump himself was a millionaire donor and certainly believed in money in politics is why he shouldn't have won.

So the people who voted for him for that reason were certainly blind despite being told over and over again that they were voting for the same thing they voted against Hillary for. The current picks for his cabinet picks are starting to bear that out.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm obviously talking about part of the country divorcing another part of the country, not individuals divorcing individuals.

My point is, split the US in two and how long would it be before those two groups found reason to split again within their group?
It's easy to hate. Getting along takes effort.

And further splits are not necessarily a bad thing, as there are approximately 8 major divisions within the country. South and West aren't the same. A Hollywood liberal isn't the same as a Massachusetts liberal.

Ah, but then I asked you to elaborate. You didn't. Give us lots of detail as to who you are talking about. Don't just give some qualifications, give us examples. Tell us who you are actually talking about. Give us lots of detail. Elaborate. Don't just allude to the broken people that you need the government to fix, tell us who they are.

You were asking a different question though. You made some sort of assumption that the people I considered broken simply 'disagreed' with me. They didn't. They disagreed with facts. Big difference.

My assumption was based on what you wrote. And you're still not being explicit.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm obviously talking about part of the country divorcing another part of the country, not individuals divorcing individuals.

My point is, split the US in two and how long would it be before those two groups found reason to split again within their group?
It's easy to hate. Getting along takes effort.

You make that sound like a bad thing. Your country is too big to fail and in danger of failing. Breaking it up into smaller parts lets each of those parts act as crazy as they want without needing to bother the rest of the world about it.

 

[skepticalbip]

My point is, split the US in two and how long would it be before those two groups found reason to split again within their group?
It's easy to hate. Getting along takes effort.

You make that sound like a bad thing. Your country is too big to fail and in danger of failing. Breaking it up into smaller parts lets each of those parts act as crazy as they want without needing to bother the rest of the world about it.

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to return to the original idea of the US. We could have fifty independent countries loosely joined by a common currency, trade agreement, and mutual defense pact. I doubt anyone would worry about Alabama or any other State deciding to get involved in that mess in Syria or any other shit hole wars going on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People incapable of learning. Incapable of critical thought. Incapable of accepting facts and the repercussions of their failure to do so.

That's my list for starters.

Which people are you talking about when you say they are incapable of learning and critical thought? I need you to be more specific. Say who exactly you are talking about.

That guy I met in the park when I was with my daughter. Had an Infowars.com t-shirt railing on socialism and a Make America Great Again hat. His daughter was adorable and my kid enjoyed playing with her, so I didn't even bother having a pointless conversation on chemtrails when he raised it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Which people are you talking about when you say they are incapable of learning and critical thought? I need you to be more specific. Say who exactly you are talking about.

That guy I met in the park when I was with my daughter. Had an Infowars.com t-shirt railing on socialism and a Make America Great Again hat. His daughter was adorable and my kid enjoyed playing with her, so I didn't even bother having a pointless conversation on chemtrails when he raised it.

Well damned. Howdy neighbor. So that was you.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Which people are you talking about when you say they are incapable of learning and critical thought? I need you to be more specific. Say who exactly you are talking about.

That guy I met in the park when I was with my daughter. Had an Infowars.com t-shirt railing on socialism and a Make America Great Again hat. His daughter was adorable and my kid enjoyed playing with her, so I didn't even bother having a pointless conversation on chemtrails when he raised it.

So...
1. people who support infowars
2. people who oppose socialism
3. people who support Trump
4. people who believe in chemtrails

Is this a "any item on the list qualifies" or "the more items one has the more likely they are to fit the category"?

And are there more traits that you want to add to this?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That guy I met in the park when I was with my daughter. Had an Infowars.com t-shirt railing on socialism and a Make America Great Again hat. His daughter was adorable and my kid enjoyed playing with her, so I didn't even bother having a pointless conversation on chemtrails when he raised it.

So...
1. people who support infowars
2. people who oppose socialism
3. people who support Trump
4. people who believe in chemtrails

Is this a "any item on the list qualifies" or "the more items one has the more likely they are to fit the category"?

And are there more traits that you want to add to this?

People that support Infowars. I'd also like to add trolls to the list.

 

[credoconsolans]

Ah, but then I asked you to elaborate. You didn't. Give us lots of detail as to who you are talking about. Don't just give some qualifications, give us examples. Tell us who you are actually talking about. Give us lots of detail. Elaborate. Don't just allude to the broken people that you need the government to fix, tell us who they are.

You were asking a different question though. You made some sort of assumption that the people I considered broken simply 'disagreed' with me. They didn't. They disagreed with facts. Big difference.

My assumption was based on what you wrote. And you're still not being explicit.

You didn't read my post carefully enough then, go back and read it. I was pretty specific.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You make that sound like a bad thing. Your country is too big to fail and in danger of failing. Breaking it up into smaller parts lets each of those parts act as crazy as they want without needing to bother the rest of the world about it.

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to return to the original idea of the US. We could have fifty independent countries loosely joined by a common currency, trade agreement, and mutual defense pact. I doubt anyone would worry about Alabama or any other State deciding to get involved in that mess in Syria or any other shit hole wars going on.

That would be fine too. If the statement "The President of the United States is an ignorant, misogynistic racist" was as relevant and important a statement as "The Queen of England is an ignorant, misogynistic racist", then there wouldn't be an issue. New shopping malls need someone to show up and cut the ribbon for them and it's nice to have someone with a regular slot to give a nice Christmas message that everyone in the country can then talk about for five minutes. It's when someone has the President's level of power and there's a system in place which lets Donald Trump wield that power that you've failed completely as a nation and as members of the human race and you need to find some way to go away. Nobody cares what that way is, just so long as it happens. You can break up into smaller countries, devolve power to the States, slaughter hundreds of millions of each other in another civil war - it's all good. Just find a way to make it happen.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

People that support Infowars. I'd also like to add trolls to the list.

Infowars is already on the list.

You didn't read my post carefully enough then, go back and read it. I was pretty specific.

No, Jimmy was explicit. You were still dancing. From your post, I can gather the definition is effectively "anyone who disagrees with credoconsolans" but you deny that is the definition.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hillary represented money in politics, pay to play policies, and billionaire donors. Trump represented being self funded and talked about "Draining the swamp". Not rocket science to see why he won. Those in the bubble are those who want to push another establishment wall street backed candidate like Kaine into the DNC leadership.

Talking something and actually proving his dedication to such things when Trump himself was a millionaire donor and certainly believed in money in politics is why he shouldn't have won.

So the people who voted for him for that reason were certainly blind despite being told over and over again that they were voting for the same thing they voted against Hillary for. The current picks for his cabinet picks are starting to bear that out.

Could very well be, but at least he played the role and gave lip service, so he won. She continued with her elitist and self-entitled "I'm with her" and "I'm an outsider because I am a woman (elect me because I have a vagina)" talk.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Hillary represented money in politics, pay to play policies, and billionaire donors. Trump represented being self funded and talked about "Draining the swamp". Not rocket science to see why he won. Those in the bubble are those who want to push another establishment wall street backed candidate like Kaine into the DNC leadership.

And who better to "drain the swamp" than the likes of Newt Gingrich, Reince Preibus and Rudy Giuliani, right?