US Politics Megathread

[Goodspeed]

@Mr_Bramboy I enjoy the irony of you once being so mad about my trolling that you literally wanted me to die, and then you devolving in to a complete troll.

Interestingly, this time people seem perfectly able to ignore low quality posts rather than getting their panties all up in a bunch over them.

[deleted_user0]

@Mr_Bramboy I enjoy the irony of you once being so mad about my trolling that you literally wanted me to die, and then you devolving in to a complete troll.

Interestingly, this time people seem perfectly able to ignore low quality posts rather than getting their panties all up in a bunch over them.

Perhaps that has something to do with the frequency. Also bram posts his trolls on very selective topics.

[Horsemen]

Bram is in fact the master of trolls.

[Dolan]

You're no troll when it's obvious you're a troll.

[Mr_Bramboy]

Not sure why the trolling remarks are necessary. This thread needs a fresh voice from the socialist circlejerk that it is becoming. Listen to Trump during the SOTU: America will never be a socialist country! Look at what happened in Venezuela and you will understand why Trump has America's and its people's best interests in mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyCDK7E35yk

[Dolan]

I surely am not participating in any socialist circlejerk. And it's funny for me to watch people from Western countries tripping themselves over and swooning at the sight of socialist opium, when they never lived in an actual country that has been disfigured and maimed by socialism/communism.

[deleted_user0]

Lol.

[Dolan]

Also he likes to believe in hystorical falsehoods that have little basis in reality.

The only history worth knowing is the one you can invent.

[deleted_user0]

Yet, some inventions are better than others.

[spanky4ever]

She's the product of the age of Instagram and of social media celebrities. She's the equivalent of "the Kardashians" in politics with a touch of Obama-like charisma. A somewhat related phenomenon is taking place in Venezuela where the leader of the national assembly, Guaidó, claims the current president Maduro is not legitimate and wants to replace him as an interim president. But this guy hasn't achieved much of anything (professionally or in politics) either and yet he came out of nowhere and became the leader of the national assembly. Why is that? Because he's 35 and people from Venezuela want to have their own Obama. For no other reason. Just as Obama came out of nowhere and rose to power and then left without leaving much in his trail, I think a similar phenomenon will happen in Venezuela too.

It's something that we're witnessing right now in many countries. There are changes in perceptions and in how people relate to politics. Since the late 00s public political discourse has been appealing more and more to emotion rather than facts. What we hear right now about a "post-truth politics" era is just the endpoint of transformations that started ever since Obama got elected (Obama didn't bring about these changes, he was merely the product of these cultural changes). Politics don't happen in a vacuum, they take place amidst a certain culture and that culture has been shifting the focus from the primacy of reason and cognition (such as it was during most of the post-WW2 era of economic boom and disciplined, gradual social progress) to the primacy of emotions and affective impression ("emo" fads, emotional communication styles, dramatisation, the colourful > the sobre, EQ > IQ, image > reality, design > features, etc). In politics, what we've seen is that the era of party allegiance is over, you no longer see this idea of "our family has been conservative voters for generations". And people no longer actually read political platforms or reason about them, because they're "boring" and who cares about "their lies". No, what they care about is the impression that a political leader leaves on them. They care if he/she is trustable, relatable, "one of us" but also exceptional in some way (like charismatic, young etc). It's the politics of the limbic system, so to speak.

So right now people are electing their leaders and making political decisions to a great extent based on emotional illusions. This major shift in people's mindsets explains as seemingly unrelated phenomena as Brexit, Trump's election, Obama's election, neo-populism, rejecting the authority of experts, the resurgence of far-right movements and of nationalism, etc. If you can kick up a fuss about something, if you create some media stir, you're on the map, you create news. Even if there's no actual substance behind that event, it's enough if it stirs up emotions and makes people talk. And this is how Trump got elected, how Obama got elected, and it's why Ocasio-Something is being so hyped right now. Not because she came forward with some kind of reasoned and coherent plan for something and people went through it and decided "yes, these solutions could realistically and practically work, we should support her" (no matter what she looks like, how old/young she is etc). No, decision making right now doesn't originate in the frontal cortex anymore, it originates in the subcortical regions of the brain (the so-called lizard or emotional brain).

And this is yet another proof that the Age of Enlightenment is over, it's clear that reason and education are no longer interesting or effective in raising people's baseline. This was the new religion of the French revolution and it's what led to the emergence of modern democracies. But what we're seeing now is a complete mockery and corruption of those ideals that are proven to be nothing more than illusions. Once freed, people didn't turn to education or reason to lift themselves up, they turned to making decisions based on emotions and to electing leaders based on charisma, on emotional impression and on social media popularity. It's the age of Kardashian-style politics, of "Emperor Trump" dynasty fantasies and other political parodies. So why not Ocasio-Keyboard for president, heck, even Kanye West said he wants to run for president in 2020. Jay-Z is also seriously considering it. Who knows, maybe Eminem and DrDre will be on a popular ticket in 2020, on a platform of legalising weed. They know who Trump was before he got elected, just some New York born-to-riches real-estate buffoon with a reality show, so they think: if media popularity and emotion Trump-ed classical politics, arguments, facts, experience and "experts", we got a real shot, yo.

I read your post carefully now And have some comments I want to make.

You write as if ppl nowadays have abandoned reason (the cortex) and are using emotions, (lizard brain/limbic system) when they make decisions about what politicians or politics they want to support. You seem to forget that emotions have always been a big factor when ppl make decisions, in all times past, and the present - and will continue to do so in all future. I really cannot see a dramatic change in the way ppl make decisions. That would take an evolutionary big leap to happen, - take a very long time for such a big impact on mankind's way of reviewing things and their decision-making. The difference is that the pieces of information about candidates, are so much more easy to come across, and we a faced with a constant stream of information, and also "alternative facts". Is that new? I mean "alternative news" or propaganda is nothing new under the sky.

"charisma" in a leader, in business or politics, have always been one of the major factors for electability or moving up in rank. On the other hand, we have Bernie Sanders, who is not very charismatic, but what he lacked in looks, he certainly gains in talking about the issue that the American ppl are facing.
So here is two totally different set of personality traits, you might say. But then again, I would say that AOC is speaking about the issues in a similar manner that Sanders is, only she has the freshness of youth, big charm, and beauty in addition To say that she is charming, and for that reason, draw the conclusion that what she says must be of no importance, is really far out @Dolan (if that is what you are saying?)

If you are right, that ppl are more prone to make decisions with their Lizard brain nowadays, and that enlightenment is mostly gone, what could be the reason for that you think?

The lizard brain is regulating your action, in a flight or fight mode, when you are facing danger. It's like an evolutionary set of behavioral systems, many would call instincts, that will instantly regulate your behavior and emotions, in a situation where you could be harmed, attacked, real or imagined. If the danger is clearly exaggerated, its classified as Anxiety. Could it be that more ppl live lives that are on the brink of collapse if they should get sick, or if they get fired and cannot pay the mortgage the next month? You know, that more than 50% of US households are one paycheck away from disaster?
You could say that US ppl have lost their faith in politicians over time, because whoever they elect, they get more of the same. For a very long time, Democrats have implemented Republican politics - only at a slower pace, and without the racism.
In UK, the austerity politics since Thatcher has left the vast majority with less and less money in their pocket, and yeah, in an even bigger degree than in the USA.
Are you surprised that ppl get desperate for a real change? and that their lizard brain could be triggered?

[spanky4ever]

I surely am not participating in any socialist circlejerk. And it's funny for me to watch people from Western countries tripping themselves over and swooning at the sight of socialist opium, when they never lived in an actual country that has been disfigured and maimed by socialism/communism.

Again, you are making the mistake of mixing your Communist past experiences, with a social democratic way of regulation societies - like the Nordic countries.
It's like you make the mistake to think in dichotomy; black or white, without all the 1000 shades of grey in between.
I think we all agree that society is to complex, for a "party" to regulate everything as they tried in Sovjetunion. We could talk a lot of bad things that happened there, but it's not very relevant to this discussion, and a more modern way of looking at socialism.

[spanky4ever]

So this is a good example of the the reason that Trump is going to get reelected.

The middle-class ppl who voted for Trump are handing in their Tax returns these days. Many of them realize that it was not the middle class who where the beneficiaries of those Gigantic tax cuts Very many of them have to face that they have gotten the worst tax hike in their life. Guess they won't be voting Trump come 2020
https://youtu.be/2Q7ud7ESQXc

[n0el]

Socialism is an idea as a critique of capitalism. At this point, I am not sure how anyone can argue that capitalism is perfect, so name calling and finger pointing at "socialism" as if that means everyone becomes Communist USSR or Venezuela is ridiculous and misinformed. Socialism doesn't mean that the government runs and controls everything, that is an that some socialized believe in but doesn't apply across the board. I personally believe in a variation of socialism where government basically doesn't exist, similar to what libertarians believe...but whatever.

[deleted_user0]

Socialism is an idea as a critique of capitalism. At this point, I am not sure how anyone can argue that capitalism is perfect, so name calling and finger pointing at "socialism" as if that means everyone becomes Communist USSR or Venezuela is ridiculous and misinformed. Socialism doesn't mean that the government runs and controls everything, that is an that some socialized believe in but doesn't apply across the board. I personally believe in a variation of socialism where government basically doesn't exist, similar to what libertarians believe...but whatever.

You are literally worse than Stalin now.

[Horsemen]

The UK is a textbook study on the dangers of socialism:

1) Lack of competitive multinational companies - manufacturing, transport, utilities and natural resources sectors destroyed by aggressive nationalisation and subsequent privatisation

2) Lack of a robust third sector - limited involvement of charitable institutions, churches, universities etc. in public life and in guiding public debate since the state has crowded out all activity in this area

3) Lack of wage growth - widespread public sector employment and an open immigration policy keeps wages depressed and results in a brain drain as skilled workers look to obtain higher salaries elsewhere

4) Lack of productivity growth - high state subsidies and overbearing involvement in R&D obliterated any culture of privately-funded and voluntary innovation; existing state R&D spending was seen to be wasteful and generating fewer productivity returns than among peers; state R&D was subsequently withdrawn, at which point no private sector institution had the strength to fill the gap

5) Lack of housing - strict regulations governing the construction of new homes has resulted in the country having some of the highest rents in the world as a proportion of median income; contributes to low (real) wage and productivity growth as capitalists benefit more from the extraction of rents through property ownership than through investment in innovation

6) High public deficit - thanks to generous social welfare subsidies (i.e. an excessive tax burden on productive workers) and open immigration policies, more low-income workers have entered the country; meanwhile, thanks to 3), 4) and 5), more high-income workers have left. This has placed increasing burdens on public services and exacerbated all the problems above.

[Dolan]

I read your post carefully now

You should always do that, tbh.

You write as if ppl nowadays have abandoned reason (the cortex) and are using emotions, (lizard brain/limbic system) when they make decisions about what politicians or politics they want to support. You seem to forget that emotions have always been a big factor when ppl make decisions, in all times past, and the present - and will continue to do so in all future. I really cannot see a dramatic change in the way ppl make decisions. That would take an evolutionary big leap to happen, - take a very long time for such a big impact on mankind's way of reviewing things and their decision-making. The difference is that the pieces of information about candidates, are so much more easy to come across, and we a faced with a constant stream of information, and also "alternative facts". Is that new? I mean "alternative news" or propaganda is nothing new under the sky.

That's probably the case, that until now we've been under the illusion that we are able to make political decisions (or any kind of decisions) by first using reason. And recent brainscanning evidence has been revealing a much different perspective: emotional response always comes first, then after the mind evaluates the emotional salience of a stimulus, it sends its evaluation to relevant areas of the cortex (the brain regions that we associate with rational reasoning).
But how can we reconcile this new evidence with the perception that people living during the 1930s made their decision to vote for the Nazi party in a different way than people living in more stable times, when they voted based on whether the economy was doing well or not? If you vote for a party based on a criterion which is impersonal and can give you direct benefits (such as the economy), it could be considered a decision that is closer to rational than if you vote for a party because it's led by a charismatic figure which promises lots of fanciful things.

Short note on the possibility of purely rational political decisions:
I think it's possible to make decisions that are almost free of emotional primacy. Scientists do this all the time when they test hypotheses and discover that facts don't support their favoured hypothesis. So they have to accept that even if they worked for years to prove an idea that they were attached to, facts simply do not support their idea. Something similar could work in politics too, though admittedly not every choice in politics is about whether a policy would work. Some choices are about values, about whether certain categories of people deserve something.

So, while I don't contest the notion that throughout history most people did make political choices and decisions based on emotions, that doesn't mean that the weight of emotion of each of their decisions was the same at any given time. So, electing the Nazis to the Reichstag might be a decision in which emotional salience is of higher intensity than if you were an American in the 1990s who was voting for a second mandate for the current president, based on how the economy is doing. Of course, the economy doing OK would also give you enough motive to vote based on emotion, but it also helps you meet your real-life goals (which is how rational behaviour has been defined until now in economic terms).

On the other hand, we have Bernie Sanders, who is not very charismatic, but what he lacked in looks, he certainly gains in talking about the issue that the American ppl are facing.

Charisma doesn't necessarily entail someone being young or good-looking. For example, one of the most charismatic presidents of Romania in the post-communist era was this guy:
[spoiler=Get spooked][/spoiler]
I think charisma is not a binary measure: either you have it or not. I think it's a graded measure, it's a question of how much you have of it. And probably, on some people, Sanders' understated composure exerts some kind of charismatic effect.

So here is two totally different set of personality traits, you might say. But then again, I would say that AOC is speaking about the issues in a similar manner that Sanders is, only she has the freshness of youth, big charm, and beauty in addition To say that she is charming, and for that reason, draw the conclusion that what she says must be of no importance, is really far out @Dolan (if that is what you are saying?)

Definitely, Ocasio-Keyboard has more charisma than Sanders and she looks better , but that doesn't and shouldn't matter in politics. Sanders obviously has a more articulated discourse on what kind of policies he would support than Ocasio, who only produces tweets and leftist memes like "we should tax the rich by 70%", without ever explaining in detail how could this work and what economic effect that would have. Maybe this is on purpose, who knows, maybe it's meant to bait Republicans to attack her and look bad for being "mean" to someone "likeable".

If you are right, that ppl are more prone to make decisions with their Lizard brain nowadays, and that enlightenment is mostly gone, what could be the reason for that you think?

This is a very long story to tell here in a post and I don't completely understand why and how this is happening, I'm still trying to piece things together to have a proper explanation that can stand on some factual feet.
My perception is that people have a certain image of themselves, of what they actually are, and this self-perception is affected by what is happening in culture, by their education, by trends, by events etc. So a kid who grew up in the 60s and then went through a certain sequence of social and political experiences will develop a kind of self-perception that is typical for that period of time and different from that of a kid growing up in the '00s. What I noticed is that this kind of self-perception grows in synchronisation with that of others. It's probably one component over which people compete on a social level, they compete over whether each of them has the most accurate representation of things and whether they are most able to respond to their environment in an optimal way, which gives them the best chances at social advancement. If someone realises that a certain social norm is no longer effective and doesn't give you any advantage in the social competition scene, they are likely to drop it and others are likely to follow.

All this probably sounds very abstract and nebulous, but it's based on real events, like Obama's election. Obama got elected on a campaign of "change", a very emotionally charged word, that could mean anything. Especially when people accumulated lots of frustration with leadership over the years and some guy who claims he can deliver "change" comes at the forefront of politics, even though he doesn't clearly say what that means beyond just a few policy proposals like Obamacare. We have to remember that Obama rose to public notoriety during a heated cultural war in the USA, when the issue of whether same-sex marriage should be allowed was debated across many states. And here comes this baby-faced, skinny, bi-racial guy, with an always upbeat demeanour (if he lived in the 19th century, this always-smiling always-positive disposition would have probably been called "gay", because that's what the primary connotation of the word was back then, but we have a different connotation for it today), who keeps saying "there's something wrong in Washington", as if he was metaphorically speaking of the brain of the country. It was right about when scientific research on sexual orientation was starting to produce more and more evidence on how certain differences in brain structures are associated with different kinds of sexual orientations. This was picked up by the media who spread these news all over the world, projecting the idea that sexual orientation is simply explained by brain differences. This provided ammunition to those arguing in favour of same-sex marriage in the USA. They were now arguing this is clear evidence that sexual orientation is unchangeable, it's fixed, it's all just down to brain differences. On the other side of the debate, there were right-wing advocates who claimed that this doesn't prove anything, that people can change their orientation and all this is just part of LGBT propaganda and their agenda to destroy the traditional family etc.

And then Obama gets elected, much to everyone's surprise. This created like a seismic shockwave all over the world: the babyfaced, biracial guy got elected in the highest office of the most powerful country in the world. It also happened that this guy, who was once called "the biggest fairytale" by Bill Clinton, was both pro-LGBT issues, so in favour of same-sex marriage, and a family man. So I think people got this perception that Obama's "change" message had some ominous ambiguity to it: it could mean many things that were related to the cultural wars and to their perception of whether sexual orientation was inborn, or fixed or whether it could change too. It may have provided people with the illusion that whatever inner, psychological conflicts they had over the subject of sexual orientation, Obama's own, personal example stood as evidence of change. He was promising people change because he was offering himself as the evidence of change.

It may sound paradoxical, because Obama was a Democrat, so using such subliminal messages related to the possibility of sexual orientation change wasn't really part of Democrats' agenda, on the contrary. And yet, this ambiguity over his message of change won him the elections. It was enough to hypnotise people and make them believe in him. His message actually ironically discounted this: "Change you can believe in." He wasn't promising "change you will get" after he gets elected, no, he was promising you a feeling of confidence in your own power to change.

The impact of Obama's election was so great, that it influenced how people were looking to identify the next leader in their own countries. Even in Romania, there was one politician who used to be just a 2nd tier figure until then and who suddenly came to be perceived as "our Obama", just because he was babyfaced and prominent enough to be publicly known. He actually got in a political duo with another leader, a guy from another party, and they both campaigned together, sometimes joking about their political "marriage".

So, you see how a change in culture can lead to changes in perception that spread across the world like wildfire. And it changes how people perceive themselves and how they make political choices, based on those changed perceptions.

The lizard brain is regulating your action, in a flight or fight mode, when you are facing danger. It's like an evolutionary set of behavioral systems, many would call instincts, that will instantly regulate your behavior and emotions, in a situation where you could be harmed, attacked, real or imagined. If the danger is clearly exaggerated, its classified as Anxiety. Could it be that more ppl live lives that are on the brink of collapse if they should get sick, or if they get fired and cannot pay the mortgage the next month? You know, that more than 50% of US households are one paycheck away from disaster?

Yeah, that's a basic description of how it could work, even in the case of political themes like healthcare concerns.

You could say that US ppl have lost their faith in politicians over time, because whoever they elect, they get more of the same. For a very long time, Democrats have implemented Republican politics - only at a slower pace, and without the racism.
In UK, the austerity politics since Thatcher has left the vast majority with less and less money in their pocket, and yeah, in an even bigger degree than in the USA.
Are you surprised that ppl get desperate for a real change? and that their lizard brain could be triggered?

Now that I understand more about how the brain makes decisions, no, I'm not surprised. I guess, the issue is whether there is a change in cognitive style, in how people make political decisions today compared to other periods in time. And my perception is that it's not always the same, that how much emotion people invest in political choices may have varied a lot across different historical periods.

[spanky4ever]

@Dolan You made an essay here, and I will take my time responding to it, some other day. I am not sure if we should have this discussion here, or in another thread, cos its pretty derailing imo.
For now, I will agree that many ppl voted for Hitler in the 1930s, but he was never elected by the majority of German ppl- he came to power, helped by the "establishment" and conservatives.

The Nazi Party lost 35 seats in the November 1932 election, but remained the Reichstag's largest party, with 196 seats (33.1%). The Social Democrats (SPD) won 121 seats (20.4%) and the Communists (KPD) won 100 (16.9%).

He was helped into office by the conservatives, who feard the socialists and the communists more.
Neither did Mao or Lenin come in to power by the majority vote. They all came to power in a coup. But there was enough unrest, starvation, perceived unjust to pave the way for them. One reflection I have made, not sure if it is correct, but I feel that the more ppl have experienced tyranny, the bloodier the revolution becomes.
A populist upset is also based on the perception that the establishment is not working for most people. You could say that populism is the modern way of revolution?
You think ppl suddenly change the way they review things and make decisions accordingly, that is just not true.
You might want ppl to act rationally? And be rational? I say that if ppl use their emotions when they make a choice, in addition to reasoning, its a good way of making decisions. To only use cold calculation, cost-benefit, and self-serving choices, would be a nightmare imo. This is how psychopaths reason btw, Imagine the world looking like that. It is also how Trump won the election - he lied all the way to the White House, picking words to match what many ppl actually want. But like the psychopath he is, he used these promises to get what HE wanted. But as I said, I will read your post more carefully, and respond to "all" of your points, another day, when I have the energy for going deeper into the matter.

Im tempted to make an example where the emotional and the rational "brain" - work together to make perfect sense:

I do think AOC speaks rationally, from a perspective of lesser cost, and empathy with the lesser fortunate. The other candidates that do not support medicate for all, are all aiming too low, or being more true to their donors, than the ppl - I will say this once more; 70% of US populations actually want it.
There is no "rational" reason why the wealthiest country in the world, who use double than most western countries - and receive less than them, should not go for a cheaper, fairer system, that covers every citizen. You might call this emotional @Dolan ? I would say its emotional in the sense that I feel sorry for the ppl who will be kicked out on the street when one of the family members get sick (and they find out that their shitty insurance to not cover the expenses). What is the rationale in that?
https://youtu.be/EtK-Su719Js

There is every reason in the world, that US ppl should make the "reasonable" choice, to go for a candidate that is looking out for their best interests.

[spanky4ever]

you might be familiar that AOC launched the "Green new deal" 2 days ago? Is that irrational? to try to save our planed for the next generations? or is the cost-benefit, self-serving interest to not care, cos you will not suffer the consequences of the choices our political systems are making today? This young lady has managed to accomplish what Sanders could not: being talked about, interviewed by mainstream media all the time. They get more "clicks" when she is on (geesus). Fox news cannot get enough of her

[Goodspeed]

And it's funny for me to watch people from Western countries tripping themselves over and swooning at the sight of socialist opium, when they never lived in an actual country that has been disfigured and maimed by socialism/communism.

Yes, nuance only exists on the "side" people identify with, and the other side is all extremism. Good to know you fell into that trap as well.

Because there's nothing to talk about, it's someone who just got elected to the Congress for the first time. So that's why all this media hype about her is ridiculous.

You're quick to form an opinion on her when a few pages ago you didn't know who she was. Has that changed?
Because I think there is something to talk about. Maybe you're not interested because you don't agree with her, but she has some serious talent, and is likely to go places within the democratic party if not play a central role in reforming it.

In the below clip she identifies serious problems in a way that a 5 year old could understand, asking simple, unloaded questions. And by doing so she is speaking to the democratic base without giving anyone else any excuses to attack or even disagree with her.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4778922/ ... thics-game

[spanky4ever]

@Dolan I have read through your essay above, and my responses (above) are the same, with no adds. The other issues you bring forth are your philosophical thoughts on other things, that is not on topic imo. So I will not make comment on them here. super nice clip from AOC @Goodspeed - thx

[spanky4ever]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4778922/ ... thics-game
so how does this affect you?

https://youtu.be/LzhehtyTsJw?t=287
she is making big waves in the Congress, and everywhere else, and I love it

[Dolan]

@Dolan You made an essay here, and I will take my time responding to it, some other day. I am not sure if we should have this discussion here, or in another thread, cos its pretty derailing imo.
For now, I will agree that many ppl voted for Hitler in the 1930s, but he was never elected by the majority of German ppl- he came to power, helped by the "establishment" and conservatives.

The point I was making is that the people who voted for the Nazis did so more for emotional reasons rather than rational reasons. They had other more "reasonable" alternatives, but they prefered the Nazis because the 1930s were a time of dire crisis and people reacted more emotionally to political issues than someone living in more stable times.

A populist upset is also based on the perception that the establishment is not working for most people. You could say that populism is the modern way of revolution?

Define "not working". If you compare current living standards with other historical periods, "people" didn't have it better in the 1930s or other times when the establishment was rejected. Again, I think we are going in circles with these arguments. People will always complain things aren't working out for them, simply because it's human nature to be upset by relative differences in wealth. I agree with you that there are abuses of power both in public institutions and in private companies and that there are excesses on both sides, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't mean that a market-based economic system doesn't work. The problem is with unaccountability in both the public and private sector. And as I previously said, I think the workforce does need to be able to negotiate their wages based on the economic value of their work, not just based on a salary.
What I disagree with is this fairytale idea that we need a system that eliminates any source of economic inequality because inequality in itself is the devil. As I explained before, this is the definition of utopia, you are revolting against human nature, not just a particular politico-economic system.

You think ppl suddenly change the way they review things and make decisions accordingly, that is just not true.

No, I never said that, they do it gradually, but some events may accelerate the rate of these changes. As I explained with the Obama's election example.

You might want ppl to act rationally? And be rational? I say that if ppl use their emotions when they make a choice, in addition to reasoning, its a good way of making decisions. To only use cold calculation, cost-benefit, and self-serving choices, would be a nightmare imo. This is how psychopaths reason btw, Imagine the world looking like that. It is also how Trump won the election - he lied all the way to the White House, picking words to match what many ppl actually want. But like the psychopath he is, he used these promises to get what HE wanted.

On the contrary, a lot more human destruction has been brought about by unchecked human emotions: Wall Street greed, Stalinist hunger for power, monarchs' revenge on their own subjects who were executed for disobeyance. Communism in itself, as an idea, was built around this pathos of "solidarity with the common man" and it led to totalitarian regimes, economic and human destruction in Eastern Europe and elsewhere (Cuba, North Korea). They also tried to eradicate "inequality" and they ended up with one-party rule, human rights abuses, execution and persecution of dissenters, censorship, destruction of traditional cultural heritage and so on. It all started from good intentions and the idea of equality and it ended up in complete failure and destruction. That is historical evidence.
Trump didn't win the elections because his voters were too rational, he won them because he stirred the flames of populism. Why do you think his critics were comparing his election to Hitler's rise to power? Because both of them got voters that were "too rational"?

Im tempted to make an example where the emotional and the rational "brain" - work together to make perfect sense:

I do think AOC speaks rationally, from a perspective of lesser cost, and empathy with the lesser fortunate. The other candidates that do not support medicate for all, are all aiming too low, or being more true to their donors, than the ppl - I will say this once more; 70% of US populations actually want it.
There is no "rational" reason why the wealthiest country in the world, who use double than most western countries - and receive less than them, should not go for a cheaper, fairer system, that covers every citizen. You might call this emotional @Dolan ? I would say its emotional in the sense that I feel sorry for the ppl who will be kicked out on the street when one of the family members get sick (and they find out that their shitty insurance to not cover the expenses). What is the rationale in that?
https://youtu.be/EtK-Su719Js

There is every reason in the world, that US ppl should make the "reasonable" choice, to go for a candidate that is looking out for their best interests.

I agree that a basic public healthcare system would be the best rational choice for having baseline healthcare services. That should cover emergency cases and maybe some very serious kinds of illness, for which someone is unable to pay, such as cancers, neurodegenerative diseases etc. However, such a basic healthcare system should not cover stuff like: having your regular blood tests and health checks if you're not ill, straightening your teeth, making your boobs bigger, getting flu medication for free, etc.

And no, I believe that policy decisions shouldn't be made based on tears and bawing, because that's not a solid and stable foundation for a system that works in predictable and accountable ways. You don't decide whether to treat a patient based on how many tears that patient is able to draw from you, you decide based on a set of rules. That's how institutions work, they don't work like pet charities.

[Dolan]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4778922/alexandrio-ocasio-cortez-ethics-game
so how does this affect you?

she is making big waves in the Congress, and everywhere else, and I love it

It's ironic that the guy in this video implies that politics in the USA works for an economic oligarchy, when Trump got elected on a platform of promises that included staving off illegal migration and building a wall on the border with Mexico. You know, stuff that usually leftists from the USA complain about.

And again, I'm saying this as someone who was never a Trump supporter or a supporter of Republicans (or Democrats) for that matter. And neither am I a supporter of the way the American economy works and how it's structured. I can't help but notice the inconsistencies in these people's reasoning, that's all.

Leftists only like democracy when the majority vote is with them, when it's not, then the much-beloved "people" must have been tricked. It's not possible for "the people" to be stupid or ill-intentioned. No, the people are always good and mythically innocent and worthy of commiserating with and of head patting. And they need a nanny state for constant temperature checking and nose wiping.

@Goodspeed Looks like she just discovered how politics in the USA works. And yeah, those arguments could be understood by a 5-year old, because that's the level of understanding she's catering to.
I'd be interested to know who are those people in the video, who are doing nothing but agreeing with her. Maybe people that already share the same points of view? Because that makes the whole thing a simulacrum of a debate. "Is it true that life is hard and bad people are evil?" "Yes, yes, absolutely true, much brilliant insight".
Also, big news, presidents in most political systems have something called immunity from prosecution while they're carrying out their mandate. This is nothing new under the sun and there's a reason why that exists. After they leave the office, they're just as prosecutable as any other person.

[Goodspeed]

Define "not working".

I think for me a good definition is that in an "improving" economy, as ours is, the general population doesn't see an increase in purchasing power or an improvement in public services. Stocks are higher than ever, but our parents were much richer than us given they worked similar jobs.

What I disagree with is this fairytale idea that we need a system that eliminates any source of economic inequality because inequality in itself is the devil. As I explained before, this is the definition of utopia, you are revolting against human nature, not just a particular politico-economic system.

The problem isn't inequality itself, it's the degree of it, and the fact that it's increasing. You haven't been paying attention if you think any of us want to get rid of inequality altogether. As I said, nuance only exists on the side you agree with...

Looks like she just discovered how politics in the USA works.

Yes, and she's very good at it. So no, this isn't "just some person who got elected to congress".

I'd be interested to know who are those people in the video, who are doing nothing but agreeing with her.

There was nothing to disagree with. That's one of the reasons why it was so well done.

Because that makes the whole thing a simulacrum of a debate

It's not supposed to be a debate, it's a congressional hearing by some committee about ethics rules in the executive branch. Those people are witnesses.

Also, big news, presidents in most political systems have something called immunity from prosecution while they're carrying out their mandate.

Yes, and you don't see how that could possibly lead to problems if a criminal is elected? You don't think that, while it makes sense for a president to be immune to prosecution to an extent, there should be a variety of exceptions to this rule? One example being if his campaign colluded with a foreign power. You don't think it makes sense to have rules to prevent blatant abuses of power?

[Dolan]

I think for me a good definition is that in an "improving" economy, as ours is, the general population doesn't see an increase in purchasing power or an improvement in public services. Stocks are higher than ever, but our parents were much richer than us given they worked similar jobs.

Economies are barely growing since the great campaign of stabilisation conducted by most governments and central banks in the post-2008 period was concluded. Yeah, stocks have been occasionally reaching sky-high valuations, but those don't have much impact on the real economy. It's just investment funds' money getting parked here and there in search of a bigger rate of return. The system has been saved from financial collapse, but nothing substantial has changed in the way it works. We are seeing the return of risky behaviour in mortgage financing, in leveraging, in trading risky securities like CDOs (collateralized debt obligations). But the real economy is not growing that much. And the risks of seeing a mighty return of the 2008 crisis are still there. If that happens, then people are going to have a lot more to complain about than just stagnating purchasing power or perceived level of inequality.
There can be many reasons why someone can afford less than their parents. If we're talking about housing, it could be that the price of housing has increased way more than people's income, simply because of speculation.

The problem isn't inequality itself, it's the degree of it, and the fact that it's increasing. You haven't been paying attention if you think any of us want to get rid of inequality altogether. As I said, nuance only exists on the side you agree with...

But that shouldn't even be a problem, it's none of anyone's business what private people do with their private money.

There was nothing to disagree with. That's one of the reasons why it was so well done.
It's not supposed to be a debate, it's a congressional hearing by some committee about ethics rules in the executive branch. Those people are witnesses.

My impression is that those people were called there because they already shared similar views, as at least one of them says he already wrote an article along the same lines. So it's like calling people from green NGOs at a committee hearing on the theme of climate change and asking them "is it true that climate change is bad and companies are bad guys trying to shirk their responsibilities?". Of course they will say "yes, absolutely true". That's what strikes me about this kind of "debates".

Yes, and you don't see how that could possibly lead to problems if a criminal is elected? You don't think that, while it makes sense for a president to be immune to prosecution to an extent, there should be a variety of exceptions to this rule? One example being if his campaign colluded with a foreign power. You don't think it makes sense to have rules to prevent blatant abuses of power?

Someone who committed a crime shouldn't get in that position in the first place, if law enforcement and courts actually did their job. If the crime was proven later, then there is a possibility of using a procedure of impeachment, as it has already happened before with Bill Clinton.
Political immunity should exist and typically exists only to preclude harassment for political reasons. And that actually happens, there are lots of more or less sane people who tend to want to sue politicians just because they have some kind of interest in doing so. In most parliamentary democracies there is a procedure of lifting someone's immunity from prosecution if there are good legal reasons to do so. And lots of countries don't even offer such immunity if the crime is of a penal nature (not civil). Finally, political immunity is time-limited, so it's not like anyone who obviously broke the law will get away with it, just because they happened to get elected in a public office.