This is why I hate social media.  Videos (not from responsible news sources) targets those who make decisions only from emotions (ie charisma).  Rather than providing (demanding) facts.  They spend sa first seven minutes only discussing emotional issues (ie the elevators).  I have no time nor care what is only emotional (humorous) commentary.  It tells me nothing relevant.  But targets brains of adults who make decisions only from 'how they feel'.  Same type people also knew Saddam had WMDs.  That Americans were righteous in Vietnam.  That smoking cigarettes increased health.  Or that Putin did not try to manipulate American electricians.

Latest spin comes from China.  That data centers will destroy our neighborhoods.  Even that obvious lie works.

He does eventually move on to a reality.  Without stated a first fact.  Existing are patriotic Israelis.  Completely different from 'Nazi like' Israelis who support genocide, ethnic cleansing, and Netanyahu.  As well as massacres of Palestinians that was ongoing for more than 40 years.  Peter Jennings, that long ago, was among the first and fewer who actually reported this reality.

Did he discuss the war that would end in 3 days?  How long is 3 days?

Same applies to Palestinians.  Hamas (an evil organization brought to power by wacko extremists Israelis) is maybe 10% of Gaza.  So the lives and homes of other peaceful and patriotic Palestinians are massacred, attacked, and destroyed.  By Israel.  With the permission and munitions provided by wacko extremists now running the American government.

None is politically correct.  Just a reality.  So he dances around that reality.  But at least he does admit what anti-American extremists in the Republican party openly deny.  They even endorse attacks on Ukraine and Zelensky.   Since soundbite (tweets that lie using spin and emotion) are what the least educated (the greatest anti-American citizens) want to hear and believe.  

Video target emotions.  Hard text means one learn everything relevant but a few minutes.  That was 34 minutes of mostly emotional spin.  What works on maybe 60% of voters.

I'm on the fence about him.  But I will be voting for him, given the alternative.  My main reservations are (1) related to evidence of his sexism.  When faced with smart female opponents he has a tendency to resort to sexist arguments.  He may not realize he does it, but..... that's how we're still where we are (2) his apparent inability to present his arguments to a less educated audience -he is super smart but I think a lot of what he says flies over the heads of many and he doesn't seem to know how to talk to people with sub college-level education.  If he can't figure that out campaigning, how is he going to represent us all when he wins?

But Mike Rogers is sexist, racist, homophobic, and couldn't give a flying fuck about anyone but himself.  He lives in a bland affluent white enclave, his ads center around his high school football career.....which was for the high school of a city infamous for its racism and known to be the Michigan base for the KKK.  To the point where Black public employees will boycott conferences held there.  And in those ads. he claims that Abdul's comments about racism and sexism in football are unfounded and he knows nothing about football.  Abdul was captain of his High School  football team.  I'd suspect he knows a thing or two about it.

However Mike's team know how to play to the people he is going to screw even more.  The people who do not truly understand how his policies will affect them.  His campaign ads are outrageous, just... just... staying on the legal side of islamophobia line, oozing and celebrating masculine toxicity.  Now that is dangerous.  and not in a good way.

Last edited by monster (Yesterday 6:42 pm)

I mean, by that argument he's also an unlicensed doula and an unlicensed tattoo artist.  As am I.  Don't vote for me.

Last edited by monster (Yesterday 6:32 pm)

tw wrote:

This is why I hate social media.  Videos (not from responsible news sources) targets those who make decisions only from emotions (ie charisma).

Adults with a functional reasoning capacity are able to make observations of the real world and deduce salient facts, e.g. charisma--the ability to connect with people--is a useful tool to have in your toolkit within the profession of politics. Nixon lost because he was sweating on TV. Is that right or wrong? Who cares-- I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm making an intellectually rigorous assessment based on cold, hard logic. 

Charisma is an asset in politics, arguably the most important asset considering that no administrator will ever have an opportunity to enact the mechanics of social/economic theory unless they pass through the gauntlet which our democratic system of elections sets before every candidate-- literally a popularity contest. 

A period of relative stability within our civilization is teetering on the brink of collapse. I believe it is necessary to elect politicians who will champion the objectives which I believe are correct, e.g. "tax billionaire wealth"  --but it doesn't matter if they believe these things if they don't have the C H A R I S M A to get elected.

I'd be interested to hear an opposing viewpoint, wherein charisma isn't important in politics. How will any idea ever have a chance to take root if it's proponent lacks the charisma to get elected?