Donald Trump

[threespires]

And lets be honest here. It was best part of 4 years ago. The inability to have held him to account for it by now is shameful really and has enabled him to put this peaceful protest narrative out there because the insurrection planning has never been prosecuted. This Jack Smith bloke has done an admirable job in the face of the hurdles that politically appointed partisan judges have put up, enabled by the daft system over there, but 4 years on is not the workings of any kind of effective checks and balances. As a result, the madness continues.

I think this is the part where if he's elected in Nov, the constitution will have been seen to fail the stress test he has imposed on it. Sometimes the wheels of justice do roll slowly but in this case its the politicsed nature of the judicial system that is screwing things over. I'm not suggesting that the judicial branch is the only issue in play here far from it, the executive obviously managed to create huge issues in what it did with SCOTUS amongst other things and significant chunks of the legislature are hardly innocent. Between them they've contrived a situation where a man who is clearly unfit to hold office again is both on the ballot and has a chance of winning. I might not have liked his first win but broadly speaking it was legitimate within the foibles of the electoral system; and to some degree l, despite the noise, he was held in check in that first term until it's latter days. But revisiting the madness now would be an absolute failure of the system.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Umm.

 

[SebastianBlue]

As a US immigrant can you please tell us what dogs or cats taste like?

Funny enough, nothing like chicken.

 

[SebastianBlue]

That's the bottom line. All the intellectuals on here telling us what should happen, but there was always a good chance, and there still is a good chance, that the opposite will happen purely because the vast majority of voters aren't intellectuals. And don't like intellectualisation of issues that are important to them.

Maybe we are in a transition from a "keep the population dumb" era to a "these fucking dumb people are getting organised" internet era.

That Trump even has a sniff of being President tells me the US is heading for problems, soon if not right now

You’ve hooked me.

Who are the “intellectuals” on here?

How do you define an “intellectual” voter?

What constitutes “intellectualisation of issues”?

 

[TinFoilHat]

Vance will be President within a month if Trump is elected.

Some random psychic claims Trump will croak November 4.

Wouldn't surprise me.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Some random psychic claims Trump will croak November 4.

Wouldn't surprise me.

I'd give it a few days if he wins then Republicans will start highlighting his rambling mad performances and starting to edge him out based on mental and of course rectal failings

 

[halfcenturyup]

You’ve hooked me.

Who are the “intellectuals” on here?

How do you define an “intellectual” voter?

What constitutes “intellectualisation of issues”?

That was easy :)

Anyway, to my mind:

i) An intellectual, in this context, would be anyone who takes a position based entirely on rational argument rather than more basic and, dare I say, more human reasoning. You can make your own mind up to whom I am referring :)

ii) I didn't refer to intellectual voters, I referred to voters who weren't intellectuals and so who don't take a position based entirely on rational argument and who value more basic and, dare I say, more human reasoning.

iii) So, intellectualisation of an issue would be taking a position based entirely on rational argument rather than more basic and, dare I say, more human reasoning.

As you can see, imho, it's kind of a circular process.

I suppose I could try an example to see if it gets us anywhere, if anybody is interested in so doing. I'm not sure I am, honestly.

 

[SebastianBlue]

That was easy :)

Anyway, to my mind:

i) An intellectual, in this context, would be anyone who takes a position based entirely on rational argument rather than more basic and, dare I say, more human reasoning. You can make your own mind up to whom I am referring :)

ii) I didn't refer to intellectual voters, I referred to voters who weren't intellectuals and so who don't take a position based entirely on rational argument and who value more basic and, dare I say, more human reasoning.

iii) So, intellectualisation of an issue would be taking a position based entirely on rational argument rather than more basic and, dare I say, more human reasoning.

As you can see, imho, it's kind of a circular process.

I suppose I could try an example to see if it gets us anywhere, if anybody is interested in so doing. I'm not sure I am, honestly.

How do you define “human reasoning” in this context?

 

[halfcenturyup]

How do you define “human reasoning” in this context?

More human in this context would be more emotional. Maybe that would be better, in fact.

I think we are in danger of over-intellectualising here :)

 

[threespires]

That was easy :)

Anyway, to my mind:

i) An intellectual, in this context, would be anyone who takes a position based entirely on rational argument rather than more basic and, dare I say, more human reasoning. You can make your own mind up to whom I am referring :)

ii) I didn't refer to intellectual voters, I referred to voters who weren't intellectuals and so who don't take a position based entirely on rational argument and who value more basic and, dare I say, more human reasoning.

iii) So, intellectualisation of an issue would be taking a position based entirely on rational argument rather than more basic and, dare I say, more human reasoning.

As you can see, imho, it's kind of a circular process.

I suppose I could try an example to see if it gets us anywhere, if anybody is interested in so doing. I'm not sure I am, honestly.

I tend look at it a bit differently. I'm not sure any of us are truly rational. There's more than 100 cognitive biases that humans display (notwithstanding arguments about whether some have a rationality to them). Neuroscience is only beginning to scratch the surface on what's happening but they are there.

It's then the case that some of these biases are easier to exploit than others and bad actors can and do seek to emphasise this.

At a simplistic level, it looks like neuroscience can show that ethnic identity can modulate the neural responses associated with empathy. In other words if you see some one of your own ethnic group in distress it seems to, at a neurological level, amplify your empathy relative to someone of a different ethnicity.

So the question becomes what do we do with that knowledge? Do we use it to understand biases and their impact on society and try to find ways to regulate it's impact?

Or do we use that information to sow division? Do we create advertising that repeatedly shows people of our own ethnicity in distress to emphasise our pain at the expense of others who rationally are in much worse straits?

We are all 'flawed' irrational creatures in one way or another, we can certainly try to improve our critical thinking etc but experiments show you can get 'intellectual' people to do all manner of irrational things if you put your mind to it. We need to do other things too like refuse to tolerate in the political arena and elsewhere those and their practices that would use our human flaws against us for their own benefit.