I get it. You think the so-called "liberal elite" looks down on you. You call it arrogance, elitism, even “libtard” ignorance. But here’s the thing, it’s not that we don’t understand your viewpoint. It’s that we see a bigger picture. Your perspective isn’t wrong, it’s just partial. It’s like looking at a chessboard and thinking only one move ahead while others are seeing five. You’re not dumb, you’re just working with a narrower frame of reference. Libertarians, you think everything should be solved by the free market, that the government is inherently the problem. But history is full of unregulated markets creating disasters, monopolies, poisoned food, child labor, leaded gasoline. We’re not rejecting liberty, we just see the patterns that repeat when ideology ignores reality. Trump supporters, you think he’s a fighter against the establishment, a man of the people. But we see the long con, a billionaire selling you victimhood while enriching himself and laughing at your loyalty. We’re not “brainwashed by the media”, we just remember what happened the last hundred times a strongman played this game. It’s not elitism. It’s pattern recognition. You’re not stupid, but you’re being played by people who count on you not seeing beyond your first instinct. The real question is: Do you want to see more? Or are you comfortable staying in the game as someone else’s pawn? To feel safe because he has made you feel especially unsafe?
First, I gotta applaud you. This is the first time I've ever seen you actually make an attempt at finding middle ground through discussion and not snark. I'll say that claiming you're not elite while at the same time telling people you can "see things they can't" and suggesting that they lack that ability is rather...well, elitism. But that aside. As someone who can see the bigger picture, you should be able to accept that there's a lot of subjectivity in politics. And the whole "this is good, that is bad" argument doesn't float with people who value principles differently. For example, your argument (at least those in your group on this forum) regarding biological males in female sports (just to pick a random topic) is to say "it's not that big of a deal, there are more important things to worry about". I've not seen anyone on this forum actually defend men in women's sports, they just always say "its not a big deal". But you don't get the right to tell others what is a big deal to them. Even if you say things like "but Trump's worse!" because all they hear is that you haven't accepted that what they find important, is a big deal to them, even if it isn't to you. Until both sides (and this problem occurs on both sides) accept that things that others feel are important ARE important to them, and that particular side stops trying to say the issue isn't important, there will never be agreement. On anything.
Fair point, I framed it as a bigger-picture perspective knowing it would narrow eyes, but I agree that priorities are subjective. Saying "this isn’t important" only makes people dig in further. On sports, I actually wouldn’t allow biological males in women’s athletics, even if my daughter weren’t involved. Male muscle fiber density matters, we recognize weight classes in several male sports for a reason. I acknowledge that chimerism, mosaicism, intersex, Klinefelter syndrome and a few other conditions are real but are a tiny fraction of a percent, so that it doesn’t justify upending competitive fairness. Few on the right have ever asked what my actual views are. They inferr from "leftist" and they’d rather argue against a version of me they’ve invented, like Clint Eastwood debating an empty chair instead of Obama, asking and answering. But I’d argue there’s a difference between respecting what people care about and recognizing when they’re being manipulated into prioritizing things that don’t actually serve them. A grifter can make people feel something is their biggest concern even when it’s a distraction. If you're being fed outrage that doesn’t improve your life, maybe ask who benefits from keeping you focused on it.
Sorry @Tsing Tao need to add a paragraph to above. Knowing you won't see it until tomorrow I took my time and ran out the clock. I am watching the new season of Daredevil in parallel.. I can write this somewhat less typically opinionated but I'm tired tonight. Continued... And this is where the divide becomes unbridgeable. The claim that one is voting for the policies, not the man, may sound pragmatic to those narrowly focused on their own interests. But to anyone with a broader view, who understands history, institutions, and the long-term consequences of power, it’s an abdication of responsibility. Leadership isn’t just policies on paper, it’s the man behind them. And if the man is a corrupt, unstable con artist, then no policy is worth the price of enabling him.
We’re actually possibly making progress here, ipatent. When we all talk about anything other than politics, things are fine, nobody is an asshole. I can’t accept what you just said, but I also have the choice not to engage with it. It’s a pity more people don’t talk about other interests and hobbies beyond health and fitness sometimes. OK trading but everybody has a way different style.
This is fairly long and really just a consolidation of things I have believed for years. Ever notice how some people can smell a scam a mile away, while others walk straight into it? It is not about intelligence, it is about pattern recognition. The ability to spot the same old tricks. The same con, just with a different salesman. Most Trump supporters I know pride themselves on being street-smart. You do not trust politicians. You do not trust the media. You know when someone is selling you a load of crap. But what if the real scam is not coming from the people you have been told to hate, but from the man who told you to hate others? That is where the real con happens. The classic tricks are all there. The grand promises that never come true but keep people waiting for "the plan." The constant shifting of blame, always someone else's fault. The endless loyalty tests, because the moment you question him, you are the enemy now. The grift disguised as a movement, donate, buy the merch, send money to fight the deep state. Sound familiar? I always knew about narcissists, you learn about the Greek take of Narcissis, in love with his own reflection as a kid. And into my twenties I believed narcissism was just about physical beauty. But I truly learned what they are when I saw how pedophile narcissists operate. They do not care about consequences. They do not care about threats. They just see what they want, and keep pushing, convinced they will never pay for it. When I told a social worker about the way they acted, they said something I never forgot: "While not all narcissists are pedophiles, all pedophiles are narcissists." Because at the core, it is the same psychology. No empathy. No rules. No accountability. Just taking what they can and getting away with it Getting away with it they believe because their lack of empathy is a lack of weakness. Now tell me, what happens when you take a man like that and give him real power? This is not a theoretical question. Trump was described by Jeffrey Epstein as his best friend for ten years. In 1994, he was accused of raping a 13-year-old at Epstein’s home, and many find the allegation credible, especially given his conviction for predatory sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll. But it does not stop there. There are over twenty public accusations of sexual misconduct against him. In interviews with Howard Stern, Trump bragged about entering the dressing rooms of Miss Teen America contestants, girls as young as fifteen, because, as the owner, he could. And this is not just compulsion. It is practice. Abusers refine their methods over time. The US public needs to understand that these moments are not impulsive. They are calculated. It is a practiced skill. This is how abusers test boundaries, how they push limits, how they prepare victims and observers for what comes next. In 1993, moments after arriving at Trump Tower, a woman named Juliette Williams, dating Epstein, described being groped by Trump in front of Epstein. He put his hands all over her breasts, waist, and buttocks. She froze, confused. At the same time, she saw Trump and Epstein smiling at each other. After they left, Epstein was furious at her. He did not blame Trump. He blamed her for “letting him do it.” She described it as a twisted game. And that is exactly what it was. How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice. Some of you will say Trump’s election victories prove he is right, that "the people" have spoken. But tell me this. If a man runs a scam for decades, does he become innocent just because enough people fall for it? Bernie Madoff’s victims fought for him until the bitter end. Charles Ponzi still had people sending him money from prison. A con artist does not need to fool everyone, just enough to keep the game going. Trump is no different. His biggest trick was not just scamming people but making them believe he is the real victim. Every grifter plays the same game. When the lies fall apart, they say the system is rigged against them. And when they get caught, they make their followers believe they are being attacked too. So ask yourself. At what point does pattern recognition kick in?
We're all being fed outrage, daily, in copious quantities and on both sides of the aisle. Only some of us are able to disengage from it and/or compartmentalize it. The rest of us build mind prisons of our own, lock ourselves inside them and fret over the happenings of the world. We sign into the tribe, and anything not a part of our tribe is immediately and categorically classified as the enemy, and the enemy must die. I almost fell into that pit back in 2012 (a post you kindly resurfaced) and was able to claw my way out of it. Now I see friends doing it to themselves, and I try to help, but it only results in them digging in deeper. I've got extreme righties and lefties in my friend group. For the past four years, the righties have been "its the end of the world". Now the lefties are starting to do the same thing. It's completely ridiculous. I only brought up the men in women's sports thing to point out how something almost relatively universally agreed upon (you and I, for example sharing the same view is unprecedented, as I bet anyone on this forum would agree with if they answered honestly, and not tribally) is brought out and paraded around. The Left, willing to die on this hill, is just flat out dumb. The right, willing to die to take this hill, is also flat out dumb. But there you have it. So when you have such polarizingly stupid views of the world being pushed, why is it surprising that you get polarizing candidates that win elections?
I think there is something to your point about voting for character. I can point you to multiple posts on this forum where I have flat out stated that I do not like Trump. But when you give me a choice between Kamala and Trump, what would you expect me to do? I mean, honestly. Is it more likely I'm going to throw all of my political ideologies out the window and vote Kamala simply because I don't personally like Trump? Is it so hard to see that, given a choice between someone I dislike personally, but who agrees with most of my principles, is going to be a better choice that a candidate I might find more "pleasant" (and that's a stretch) who is doing her best to go against everything I believe in? I mean, I don't think I aligned with one policy Kamala had. Not. One. I'm reminded of when my mom complained about her doctor. Guy was an asshole, she said. No bedside manner, always a jerk. But he was a great surgeon and fixed her up well and she raved about him. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer the great skilled doctor who was an asshole. It's kinda like they way I currently see Trump. We're sending someone in there who is clearly out outsider to do battle with decades of filth and corruption. What better guy to send than the asshole who took part, understands the rules and is a scrapper, ready to throw down at a moment's notice to fight? Is he likely to break the fine china as he runs around the shop? Probably. Are there going to be moments of "oh, God, you've gotta be kidding me"? Yep. I'm OK with all of that, so long as we finally put an end to the status quo, which is slowly killing the country. And by the way, I've benefitted greatly from the status quo.