Liberal Condescendtion

[Bush92]

Why are liberals the most arrogant, condescending, people in America? They believe, in their world, that they have a moral high ground. They are smarter than everyone else and they are trying to save the world. "If only all those stupid people who disagree with me would just see the light." I find them to be dangerous automoton's who march in lockstep to a one world view. Conservatives challenge the status quo. No Hillary cult here. No Lizzie Warren glow on the face whenever she speaks from her stage that is far from the mainstream of reality for the average working American. I think this arrogance helps Donald Trump with independent voters. Hillary does not talk to people...she is a robot that talks down to them. I think she hates campaigning and views voters as a trade nuisance. Will Hillary's arrogance turn voters off voters and hurt her in swing states?

 

[Disir]

Actually, there are a few conservatives that challenge the status quo but.................hey, WTF is
Condescendtion?

 

[Bush92]

Actually, there are a few conservatives that challenge the status quo but.................hey, WTF is
Condescendtion?

Hey I fucked up the spelling. Point remains the same.

 

[Disir]

Actually, there are a few conservatives that challenge the status quo but.................hey, WTF is
Condescendtion?

Hey I fucked up the spelling. Point remains the same.

OK. I am running that sucker through Dictionary.com going....is it me?

There are probably just as many conservatives that challenge the status quo as there are liberals.

 

[Bush92]

Actually, there are a few conservatives that challenge the status quo but.................hey, WTF is
Condescendtion?

Hey I fucked up the spelling. Point remains the same.

OK. I am running that sucker through Dictionary.com going....is it me?

There are probably just as many conservatives that challenge the status quo as there are liberals.

iPad auto spell bar zapped my title in place. Bernie people challenge status quo. Hillary people do not. Trump people do. GOP insiders hate Trump. Hence I am for him.

 

[Tehon]

Why are liberals the most arrogant, condescending, people in America? They believe, in their world, that they have a moral high ground. They are smarter than everyone else and they are trying to save the world. "If only all those stupid people who disagree with me would just see the light." I find them to be dangerous automoton's who march in lockstep to a one world view. Conservatives challenge the status quo. No Hillary cult here. No Lizzie Warren glow on the face whenever she speaks from her stage that is far from the mainstream of reality for the average working American. I think this arrogance helps Donald Trump with independent voters. Hillary does not talk to people...she is a robot that talks down to them. I think she hates campaigning and views voters as a trade nuisance. Will Hillary's arrogance turn voters off voters and hurt her in swing states?

I find them to be dangerous automoton's who march in lockstep to a one world view. Conservatives challenge the status quo.

Conservatives marched in lockstep with Reagan toward a one world economic order and continue to place him on a pedestal to this day. Seemingly oblivious to the fact that he is directly responsible for the status quo (neoliberalism) you now challenge. What gives?

 

[Bush92]

Why are liberals the most arrogant, condescending, people in America? They believe, in their world, that they have a moral high ground. They are smarter than everyone else and they are trying to save the world. "If only all those stupid people who disagree with me would just see the light." I find them to be dangerous automoton's who march in lockstep to a one world view. Conservatives challenge the status quo. No Hillary cult here. No Lizzie Warren glow on the face whenever she speaks from her stage that is far from the mainstream of reality for the average working American. I think this arrogance helps Donald Trump with independent voters. Hillary does not talk to people...she is a robot that talks down to them. I think she hates campaigning and views voters as a trade nuisance. Will Hillary's arrogance turn voters off voters and hurt her in swing states?

I find them to be dangerous automoton's who march in lockstep to a one world view. Conservatives challenge the status quo.

Conservatives marched in lockstep with Reagan toward a one world economic order and continue to place him on a pedestal to this day. Seemingly oblivious to the fact that he is directly responsible for the status quo (neoliberalism) you now challenge. What gives?

What gives is Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Dodd,Hart, and they rest of the neo- liberal Democrats who sold out the old FDR coalition of working class Democrats. Reagan was wrong with his trust of Wall Street vs. protection of Main Street. Most of Reagans support was cultural backlash to extremism of 1960's.

 

[mdk]

Trump is the salt of the earth. His humility is bringing more voters to the party fold.

 

[MACAULAY]

Actually, there are a few conservatives that challenge the status quo but.................hey, WTF is
Condescendtion?

Hey I fucked up the spelling. Point remains the same.

_____________________

But, when you are a Liberal Dumb-Ass; and don't know shit...don't like the post but are powerless to refute it....you throw up some spelling smack.

Its what Liberals Dumb-Asses do.

 

[Disir]

Actually, there are a few conservatives that challenge the status quo but.................hey, WTF is
Condescendtion?

Hey I fucked up the spelling. Point remains the same.

_____________________

But, when you are a Liberal Dumb-Ass; and don't know shit...don't like the post but are powerless to refute it....you throw up some spelling smack.

Its what Liberals Dumb-Asses do.

Problem, bitch?

 

[Moonglow]

Actually, there are a few conservatives that challenge the status quo but.................hey, WTF is
Condescendtion?

About a pint...

 

[Hossfly]

Actually, there are a few conservatives that challenge the status quo but.................hey, WTF is
Condescendtion?

Hey I fucked up the spelling. Point remains the same.

_____________________

But, when you are a Liberal Dumb-Ass; and don't know shit...don't like the post but are powerless to refute it....you throw up some spelling smack.

Its what Liberals Dumb-Asses do.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why are liberals the most arrogant, condescending, people in America?

Though I don't have a rigorously developed and comprehensive answer to that question, I posit the answer is because conservatives are so damnably sanctimonious with their unquestioning tone of infallibility that they express in terms that belie the abject inanity of their root premises such that to their ignorant minds liberals' responses seem condescending when in fact liberals are doing everything short of "drawing blood from turnips" to help conservatives see the error of their ways.

You see, Liberals readily recognize that conservatives aren't so much fatuous as philistine. It's just that conservatives don't know that about themselves; they they also do nothing about altering that state within themselves.

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
-- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene II, 78-80​

They believe, in their world, that they have a moral high ground.

It might it be they do; thus explaining why they believe they do.

Conservatives challenge the status quo.

That statement pales in oxymoronic nature only to the phrases "military intelligence," "larger half," and my favorite, "unbiased opinion."

No Lizzie Warren glow on the face whenever she speaks from her stage that is far from the mainstream of reality for the average working American.

I think it's escaped you that the "mainstream reality for the average working American is doing just fine. It's the non-average American -- regardless of at which end of the spectrum one looks -- for whom her rhetoric does not "hold water." Thankfully, there aren't enough folks in the "tails" to matter, even though the folks in one of those tails make their views matter.

You may wonder how I can say that. This is how. (click on the graphic to access the source and narrative)

​

According to the conservative American Enterprise Institute (click either image above to access the article):

Yes, America’s middle class has been disappearing….into higher income groups​

It is true that Pew’s analysis shows that the number of households that fit within their categorization of middle class has shrunk by 11 percentage points since 1971 [from 61% to 50%]. It is true that the proportion of households that are classified as lower class has increased from 25% to 29%. But it is also true that the proportion of households that are classified as upper class has increased from 14% to 21%.

That is to say, part of the reason that the middle class is disappearing is that they are succeeding and jumping to the next bracket. And a greater number of them are moving up than moving down. Be wary of the assumption that the drop in the middle class is a sign of a crisis.​

It is so that a lot of people think the middle class is shrinking. The reason why it is shrinking is the best reason one could ask for! ​

The share of American households earning $100,000 or more per year (in 2014 dollars) increased more than three-fold from 8.1% in 1967 to 24.7% in 2014. If the 8.1% share of households in 1967 earning $100,000 or more hadn’t increased over time to 24.7%, there would only be about 10 million US households today (out of 123.2 million) earning $100,000 or more, instead of the actual number of more than 30 million American households in that high income category.​

Yes, people think "the sky is falling." Why? Well, seeing as middle class people are moving into higher economic classes, the only answer that makes sense is that their leaders are telling them "the sky is falling," and like utter nitwits, they begin to believe what they are told and after having heard it often enough and being unwilling to go find out whether what they are being told is so.

They are smarter than everyone else and they are trying to save the world.

Continuing from the preceding remarks....

Have you not noticed that the most extreme candidates from the two major parties are, as goes top level macroeconomic gripes, are singing the same song? Does that not tell you that maybe they are both right or both wrong? In light of that curious congruity of campaign carols, what would a smart person do?

If they aren't familiar with the "textbook basics" on the topic, they'd check that first. Next, they'd go looking at input from neutral sources to find out what they have to say. They'd also check some seriously credible (i.e., compliant with the requirements of the scientific method) research to see what it has to say. They'd then go to see what both conservative and liberal outlets have to say on the same topic. At the end of the process, they'd then know who's "putting them on the program" and who isn't.

In looking at the content I posted from the AEI, which is a conservative think tank, you'll notice that the information they use comes from Pew Research, which is a non-partisan think tank. There's a reason for that: the AEI know they are biased, and they know people know they are, but on the topic of middle class incomes and the state of the middle class' financial fortunes, they don't have to present their own research, which would be seen as partisan because even non-partisans are arriving at the same conclusions the AEI would.

Does that make liberals smarter than conservatives? No, not at all. But liberal or conservative, if one only follows the "confirmation bias" approach to information gathering, one isn't being very smart at all.

I think this arrogance helps Donald Trump with independent voters.

It is not arrogance on the part of liberals, but the greater public's cognitive insouciance and a lack of intellectual rectitude that helps Donald Trump with voters period, be they Independents, Democrats, Republicans, or something else.

 

[Hossfly]

Why are liberals the most arrogant, condescending, people in America?

Though I don't have a rigorously developed and comprehensive answer to that question, I posit the answer is because conservatives are so damnably sanctimonious with their unquestioning tone of infallibility that they express in terms that belie the abject inanity of their root premises such that to their ignorant minds liberals' responses seem condescending when in fact liberals are doing everything short of "drawing blood from turnips" to help conservatives see the error of their ways.

You see, Liberals readily recognize that conservatives aren't so much fatuous as philistine. It's just that conservatives don't know that about themselves; they they also do nothing about altering that state within themselves.

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
-- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene II, 78-80​

They believe, in their world, that they have a moral high ground.

It might it be they do; thus explaining why they believe they do.

Conservatives challenge the status quo.

That statement pales in oxymoronic nature only to the phrases "military intelligence," "larger half," and my favorite, "unbiased opinion."

No Lizzie Warren glow on the face whenever she speaks from her stage that is far from the mainstream of reality for the average working American.

I think it's escaped you that the "mainstream reality for the average working American is doing just fine. It's the non-average American -- regardless of at which end of the spectrum one looks -- for whom her rhetoric does not "hold water." Thankfully, there aren't enough folks in the "tails" to matter, even though the folks in one of those tails make their views matter.

You may wonder how I can say that. This is how. (click on the graphic to access the source and narrative)

​

According to the conservative American Enterprise Institute (click either image above to access the article):

Yes, America’s middle class has been disappearing….into higher income groups​

It is true that Pew’s analysis shows that the number of households that fit within their categorization of middle class has shrunk by 11 percentage points since 1971 [from 61% to 50%]. It is true that the proportion of households that are classified as lower class has increased from 25% to 29%. But it is also true that the proportion of households that are classified as upper class has increased from 14% to 21%.

That is to say, part of the reason that the middle class is disappearing is that they are succeeding and jumping to the next bracket. And a greater number of them are moving up than moving down. Be wary of the assumption that the drop in the middle class is a sign of a crisis.​

It is so that a lot of people think the middle class is shrinking. The reason why it is shrinking is the best reason one could ask for! ​

The share of American households earning $100,000 or more per year (in 2014 dollars) increased more than three-fold from 8.1% in 1967 to 24.7% in 2014. If the 8.1% share of households in 1967 earning $100,000 or more hadn’t increased over time to 24.7%, there would only be about 10 million US households today (out of 123.2 million) earning $100,000 or more, instead of the actual number of more than 30 million American households in that high income category.​

Yes, people think "the sky is falling." Why? Well, seeing as middle class people are moving into higher economic classes, the only answer that makes sense is that their leaders are telling them "the sky is falling," and like utter nitwits, they begin to believe what they are told and after having heard it often enough and being unwilling to go find out whether what they are being told is so.

They are smarter than everyone else and they are trying to save the world.

Continuing from the preceding remarks....

Have you not noticed that the most extreme candidates from the two major parties are, as goes top level macroeconomic gripes, are singing the same song? Does that not tell you that maybe they are both right or both wrong? In light of that curious congruity of campaign carols, what would a smart person do?

If they aren't familiar with the "textbook basics" on the topic, they'd check that first. Next, they'd go looking at input from neutral sources to find out what they have to say. They'd also check some seriously credible (i.e., compliant with the requirements of the scientific method) research to see what it has to say. They'd then go to see what both conservative and liberal outlets have to say on the same topic. At the end of the process, they'd then know who's "putting them on the program" and who isn't.

In looking at the content I posted from the AEI, which is a conservative think tank, you'll notice that the information they use comes from Pew Research, which is a non-partisan think tank. There's a reason for that: the AEI know they are biased, and they know people know they are, but on the topic of middle class incomes and the state of the middle class' financial fortunes, they don't have to present their own research, which would be seen as partisan because even non-partisans are arriving at the same conclusions the AEI would.

Does that make liberals smarter than conservatives? No, not at all. But liberal or conservative, if one only follows the "confirmation bias" approach to information gathering, one isn't being very smart at all.

I think this arrogance helps Donald Trump with independent voters.

It is not arrogance on the part of liberals, but the greater public's cognitive insouciance and a lack of intellectual rectitude that helps Donald Trump with voters period, be they Independents, Democrats, Republicans, or something else.

"What we have here ...is failure to communicate."
~~Captain

 

[320 Years of History]

Why are liberals the most arrogant, condescending, people in America?

Though I don't have a rigorously developed and comprehensive answer to that question, I posit the answer is because conservatives are so damnably sanctimonious with their unquestioning tone of infallibility that they express in terms that belie the abject inanity of their root premises such that to their ignorant minds liberals' responses seem condescending when in fact liberals are doing everything short of "drawing blood from turnips" to help conservatives see the error of their ways.

You see, Liberals readily recognize that conservatives aren't so much fatuous as philistine. It's just that conservatives don't know that about themselves; they they also do nothing about altering that state within themselves.

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
-- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene II, 78-80​

They believe, in their world, that they have a moral high ground.

It might it be they do; thus explaining why they believe they do.

Conservatives challenge the status quo.

That statement pales in oxymoronic nature only to the phrases "military intelligence," "larger half," and my favorite, "unbiased opinion."

No Lizzie Warren glow on the face whenever she speaks from her stage that is far from the mainstream of reality for the average working American.

I think it's escaped you that the "mainstream reality for the average working American is doing just fine. It's the non-average American -- regardless of at which end of the spectrum one looks -- for whom her rhetoric does not "hold water." Thankfully, there aren't enough folks in the "tails" to matter, even though the folks in one of those tails make their views matter.

You may wonder how I can say that. This is how. (click on the graphic to access the source and narrative)

​

According to the conservative American Enterprise Institute (click either image above to access the article):

Yes, America’s middle class has been disappearing….into higher income groups​

It is true that Pew’s analysis shows that the number of households that fit within their categorization of middle class has shrunk by 11 percentage points since 1971 [from 61% to 50%]. It is true that the proportion of households that are classified as lower class has increased from 25% to 29%. But it is also true that the proportion of households that are classified as upper class has increased from 14% to 21%.

That is to say, part of the reason that the middle class is disappearing is that they are succeeding and jumping to the next bracket. And a greater number of them are moving up than moving down. Be wary of the assumption that the drop in the middle class is a sign of a crisis.​

It is so that a lot of people think the middle class is shrinking. The reason why it is shrinking is the best reason one could ask for! ​

The share of American households earning $100,000 or more per year (in 2014 dollars) increased more than three-fold from 8.1% in 1967 to 24.7% in 2014. If the 8.1% share of households in 1967 earning $100,000 or more hadn’t increased over time to 24.7%, there would only be about 10 million US households today (out of 123.2 million) earning $100,000 or more, instead of the actual number of more than 30 million American households in that high income category.​

Yes, people think "the sky is falling." Why? Well, seeing as middle class people are moving into higher economic classes, the only answer that makes sense is that their leaders are telling them "the sky is falling," and like utter nitwits, they begin to believe what they are told and after having heard it often enough and being unwilling to go find out whether what they are being told is so.

They are smarter than everyone else and they are trying to save the world.

Continuing from the preceding remarks....

Have you not noticed that the most extreme candidates from the two major parties are, as goes top level macroeconomic gripes, are singing the same song? Does that not tell you that maybe they are both right or both wrong? In light of that curious congruity of campaign carols, what would a smart person do?

If they aren't familiar with the "textbook basics" on the topic, they'd check that first. Next, they'd go looking at input from neutral sources to find out what they have to say. They'd also check some seriously credible (i.e., compliant with the requirements of the scientific method) research to see what it has to say. They'd then go to see what both conservative and liberal outlets have to say on the same topic. At the end of the process, they'd then know who's "putting them on the program" and who isn't.

In looking at the content I posted from the AEI, which is a conservative think tank, you'll notice that the information they use comes from Pew Research, which is a non-partisan think tank. There's a reason for that: the AEI know they are biased, and they know people know they are, but on the topic of middle class incomes and the state of the middle class' financial fortunes, they don't have to present their own research, which would be seen as partisan because even non-partisans are arriving at the same conclusions the AEI would.

Does that make liberals smarter than conservatives? No, not at all. But liberal or conservative, if one only follows the "confirmation bias" approach to information gathering, one isn't being very smart at all.

I think this arrogance helps Donald Trump with independent voters.

It is not arrogance on the part of liberals, but the greater public's cognitive insouciance and a lack of intellectual rectitude that helps Donald Trump with voters period, be they Independents, Democrats, Republicans, or something else.

"What we have here ...is failure to communicate."
~~Captain

Only insofar as you have had nothing to say in topically direct reply to my comments.

Perhaps your idea of communication is telling me I'm mistaken and expecting I believe you based solely on your having said so? If that's the case, I'd say you fail to communicate but aptly pontificate.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Liberal Condescendtion

The irony of this title is hilarious. That title is everything the U.S. and the world needs to know about Drumpf supporters.

 

[Hossfly]

Liberal Condescendtion

The irony of this title is hilarious. That title is everything the U.S. and the world needs to know about Drumpf supporters.

Say good night Gracie.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Liberal Condescendtion

The irony of this title is hilarious. That title is everything the U.S. and the world needs to know about Drumpf supporters.

Say good night Gracie.

Are you trying to be condescendtioning?

 

[Hossfly]

Why are liberals the most arrogant, condescending, people in America?

Though I don't have a rigorously developed and comprehensive answer to that question, I posit the answer is because conservatives are so damnably sanctimonious with their unquestioning tone of infallibility that they express in terms that belie the abject inanity of their root premises such that to their ignorant minds liberals' responses seem condescending when in fact liberals are doing everything short of "drawing blood from turnips" to help conservatives see the error of their ways.

You see, Liberals readily recognize that conservatives aren't so much fatuous as philistine. It's just that conservatives don't know that about themselves; they they also do nothing about altering that state within themselves.

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
-- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene II, 78-80​

They believe, in their world, that they have a moral high ground.

It might it be they do; thus explaining why they believe they do.

Conservatives challenge the status quo.

That statement pales in oxymoronic nature only to the phrases "military intelligence," "larger half," and my favorite, "unbiased opinion."

No Lizzie Warren glow on the face whenever she speaks from her stage that is far from the mainstream of reality for the average working American.

I think it's escaped you that the "mainstream reality for the average working American is doing just fine. It's the non-average American -- regardless of at which end of the spectrum one looks -- for whom her rhetoric does not "hold water." Thankfully, there aren't enough folks in the "tails" to matter, even though the folks in one of those tails make their views matter.

You may wonder how I can say that. This is how. (click on the graphic to access the source and narrative)

​

According to the conservative American Enterprise Institute (click either image above to access the article):

Yes, America’s middle class has been disappearing….into higher income groups​

It is true that Pew’s analysis shows that the number of households that fit within their categorization of middle class has shrunk by 11 percentage points since 1971 [from 61% to 50%]. It is true that the proportion of households that are classified as lower class has increased from 25% to 29%. But it is also true that the proportion of households that are classified as upper class has increased from 14% to 21%.

That is to say, part of the reason that the middle class is disappearing is that they are succeeding and jumping to the next bracket. And a greater number of them are moving up than moving down. Be wary of the assumption that the drop in the middle class is a sign of a crisis.​

It is so that a lot of people think the middle class is shrinking. The reason why it is shrinking is the best reason one could ask for! ​

The share of American households earning $100,000 or more per year (in 2014 dollars) increased more than three-fold from 8.1% in 1967 to 24.7% in 2014. If the 8.1% share of households in 1967 earning $100,000 or more hadn’t increased over time to 24.7%, there would only be about 10 million US households today (out of 123.2 million) earning $100,000 or more, instead of the actual number of more than 30 million American households in that high income category.​

Yes, people think "the sky is falling." Why? Well, seeing as middle class people are moving into higher economic classes, the only answer that makes sense is that their leaders are telling them "the sky is falling," and like utter nitwits, they begin to believe what they are told and after having heard it often enough and being unwilling to go find out whether what they are being told is so.

They are smarter than everyone else and they are trying to save the world.

Continuing from the preceding remarks....

Have you not noticed that the most extreme candidates from the two major parties are, as goes top level macroeconomic gripes, are singing the same song? Does that not tell you that maybe they are both right or both wrong? In light of that curious congruity of campaign carols, what would a smart person do?

If they aren't familiar with the "textbook basics" on the topic, they'd check that first. Next, they'd go looking at input from neutral sources to find out what they have to say. They'd also check some seriously credible (i.e., compliant with the requirements of the scientific method) research to see what it has to say. They'd then go to see what both conservative and liberal outlets have to say on the same topic. At the end of the process, they'd then know who's "putting them on the program" and who isn't.

In looking at the content I posted from the AEI, which is a conservative think tank, you'll notice that the information they use comes from Pew Research, which is a non-partisan think tank. There's a reason for that: the AEI know they are biased, and they know people know they are, but on the topic of middle class incomes and the state of the middle class' financial fortunes, they don't have to present their own research, which would be seen as partisan because even non-partisans are arriving at the same conclusions the AEI would.

Does that make liberals smarter than conservatives? No, not at all. But liberal or conservative, if one only follows the "confirmation bias" approach to information gathering, one isn't being very smart at all.

I think this arrogance helps Donald Trump with independent voters.

It is not arrogance on the part of liberals, but the greater public's cognitive insouciance and a lack of intellectual rectitude that helps Donald Trump with voters period, be they Independents, Democrats, Republicans, or something else.

"What we have here ...is failure to communicate."
~~Captain

Only insofar as you have had nothing to say in topically direct reply to my comments.

Perhaps your idea of communication is telling me I'm mistaken and expecting I believe you based solely on your having said so? If that's the case, I'd say you fail to communicate but aptly pontificate.

I resemble that remark! Take it back.

 

[320 Years of History]

Why are liberals the most arrogant, condescending, people in America?

Though I don't have a rigorously developed and comprehensive answer to that question, I posit the answer is because conservatives are so damnably sanctimonious with their unquestioning tone of infallibility that they express in terms that belie the abject inanity of their root premises such that to their ignorant minds liberals' responses seem condescending when in fact liberals are doing everything short of "drawing blood from turnips" to help conservatives see the error of their ways.

You see, Liberals readily recognize that conservatives aren't so much fatuous as philistine. It's just that conservatives don't know that about themselves; they they also do nothing about altering that state within themselves.

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
-- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene II, 78-80​

They believe, in their world, that they have a moral high ground.

It might it be they do; thus explaining why they believe they do.

Conservatives challenge the status quo.

That statement pales in oxymoronic nature only to the phrases "military intelligence," "larger half," and my favorite, "unbiased opinion."

No Lizzie Warren glow on the face whenever she speaks from her stage that is far from the mainstream of reality for the average working American.

I think it's escaped you that the "mainstream reality for the average working American is doing just fine. It's the non-average American -- regardless of at which end of the spectrum one looks -- for whom her rhetoric does not "hold water." Thankfully, there aren't enough folks in the "tails" to matter, even though the folks in one of those tails make their views matter.

You may wonder how I can say that. This is how. (click on the graphic to access the source and narrative)

​

According to the conservative American Enterprise Institute (click either image above to access the article):

Yes, America’s middle class has been disappearing….into higher income groups​

It is true that Pew’s analysis shows that the number of households that fit within their categorization of middle class has shrunk by 11 percentage points since 1971 [from 61% to 50%]. It is true that the proportion of households that are classified as lower class has increased from 25% to 29%. But it is also true that the proportion of households that are classified as upper class has increased from 14% to 21%.

That is to say, part of the reason that the middle class is disappearing is that they are succeeding and jumping to the next bracket. And a greater number of them are moving up than moving down. Be wary of the assumption that the drop in the middle class is a sign of a crisis.​

It is so that a lot of people think the middle class is shrinking. The reason why it is shrinking is the best reason one could ask for! ​

The share of American households earning $100,000 or more per year (in 2014 dollars) increased more than three-fold from 8.1% in 1967 to 24.7% in 2014. If the 8.1% share of households in 1967 earning $100,000 or more hadn’t increased over time to 24.7%, there would only be about 10 million US households today (out of 123.2 million) earning $100,000 or more, instead of the actual number of more than 30 million American households in that high income category.​

Yes, people think "the sky is falling." Why? Well, seeing as middle class people are moving into higher economic classes, the only answer that makes sense is that their leaders are telling them "the sky is falling," and like utter nitwits, they begin to believe what they are told and after having heard it often enough and being unwilling to go find out whether what they are being told is so.

They are smarter than everyone else and they are trying to save the world.

Continuing from the preceding remarks....

Have you not noticed that the most extreme candidates from the two major parties are, as goes top level macroeconomic gripes, are singing the same song? Does that not tell you that maybe they are both right or both wrong? In light of that curious congruity of campaign carols, what would a smart person do?

If they aren't familiar with the "textbook basics" on the topic, they'd check that first. Next, they'd go looking at input from neutral sources to find out what they have to say. They'd also check some seriously credible (i.e., compliant with the requirements of the scientific method) research to see what it has to say. They'd then go to see what both conservative and liberal outlets have to say on the same topic. At the end of the process, they'd then know who's "putting them on the program" and who isn't.

In looking at the content I posted from the AEI, which is a conservative think tank, you'll notice that the information they use comes from Pew Research, which is a non-partisan think tank. There's a reason for that: the AEI know they are biased, and they know people know they are, but on the topic of middle class incomes and the state of the middle class' financial fortunes, they don't have to present their own research, which would be seen as partisan because even non-partisans are arriving at the same conclusions the AEI would.

Does that make liberals smarter than conservatives? No, not at all. But liberal or conservative, if one only follows the "confirmation bias" approach to information gathering, one isn't being very smart at all.

I think this arrogance helps Donald Trump with independent voters.

It is not arrogance on the part of liberals, but the greater public's cognitive insouciance and a lack of intellectual rectitude that helps Donald Trump with voters period, be they Independents, Democrats, Republicans, or something else.

"What we have here ...is failure to communicate."
~~Captain

Only insofar as you have had nothing to say in topically direct reply to my comments.

Perhaps your idea of communication is telling me I'm mistaken and expecting I believe you based solely on your having said so? If that's the case, I'd say you fail to communicate but aptly pontificate.

I resemble that remark! Take it back.

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk!

I always said your face scares people. Why don't you throw it away?

​