Fear is a biological tool that keeps us alive, but when used as a political tool it can be used to persuade even the firmest opposition to consider another view, even when that view isn’t supported by substance. The emotional bias we have toward self-protection can cloud our judgment. "They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," Benjamin Franklin proclaimed.

An appeal to emotion is so embedded in political strategies, it would be strange to hear a politician run for office without it. President Donald Trump used it extensively in his campaign for his presidency. We all remember the famous quote, “When Mexico sends its people, ... They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

The question of whether immigrants bring crime to American cities is an ongoing debate and is hard to study, but the University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Sciences’ Department of Criminology had this to say, “ ... while it is right for Americans to be concerned about the equality of the immigrants we attract, there is simply no evidence to support that Mexican immigration should be a cause for concern. If anything, there is quite a bit of evidence that the immigrants we attract from Mexico serve to make us safer than we otherwise would be.”

Another example: “We’re broke, we’re broke,” Trump said in 2016. “We owe $19 trillion going quickly to $21 trillion. Our infrastructure is a disaster. Our schools are failing. Crime is rising. People are scared.”

What Trump is doing here is baiting you into focusing on that last sentence, so that what he says before is more believable, when what he says, is, for the most part, false.

Concerning schools, the poll Phi Delta Kappa points out, “ ... parents rate their own children’s schools quite highly — 70 percent give them an A or B grade … The nation’s schools as a whole receive much lower ratings still, 19 percent A’s or B’s.” People are satisfied with the schools of their children, but not the schools of the nation as a whole.

Concerning crime, Pew Research shows us it is down across the board, but our perception of it doesn’t follow suit. Could it be fear mongering like the kind our politicians espouse is in part the cause of that perception gap? Perhaps people are only scared because those above them tell them to be. Perhaps that is why 49 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Democrats are afraid — yes, afraid — of all members of the other party.

Politics is scary. We can’t know our future nor every outcome, and neither can our elected officials. The unknown is frightening, the future is uncharted, the more time ticks the more we are exposed to the unexplored. Scare-politics feeds on this. Baseless statements made to frighten and control are combated with eternal informed vigilance. While we like the spooky nature of this time of year, the scariest thing we could do is allow that in our politics.


https://www.thevermilion.com/allons/fear-tactics-impact-voters-citizens-to-further-political-gains/article_56ebba5a-dbf6-11e8-af64-b3cb9b85c154.html

"“We’re broke, we’re broke,” Trump said in 2016. “We owe $19 trillion going quickly to $21 trillion. "

And *he* has increased the debt even more since that comment, while he has done jack s*** to fx anything with our infrastructure.

Our national debt is a problem, our infrastructure needs significant improvement, and our schools are a disaster. Crime may be falling or rising depending on how you view the statistics. Some people are fearful and rightly so while most hold fears that are unrealistic. Depends on who, where, and of what.

So who has EVER paid attention to those problems? Who doesn't use fear? I clicked thinking there were FINALLY some answers...

Actually, I disagree a bit.

What I've been seeing, particularly from the Trump administration, isn't fear mongering.

It's more like "anger herding."

Trump appealed to as many angry people as he could find, and did present them with a pretend fear for them to use as a cover story.

Almost no one is ACTUALLY afraid of Mexicans rushing across the border like an invading hoard, and assaulting Americans at random. But plenty of Americans are ANGRY (and have been told for years that what they are angry about, can be blamed on foreigners), and are eager to use "fear of Mexicans" as an excuse to vent that anger.

So I agree that Trump and others are appealing to emotions rather than logic, I just think the emotion in question is anger, not fear.

You are all being manipulated thru the media.

Most of the time, when someone is under stress they don't think rationally.
The media wants the public stressed so they don't think rationally.
They want you to REact and y'all are doing a great job at giving them what they want.

Perhaps people see different things than I have, but someone using fear has got the general populace screaming and in hysterics for over 2 years now. Those people are full of fear and hatred, I guess. They chase people out of restaurants, shopping malls, and even surround the houses of people while screaming "YOU ARE NOT SAFE FROM US." They need safe spaces, therapy dogs and Play-Doh.

Someone saw something different than that? Interesting.

Voters are souring on 'Medicare for all'

If somebody offered you a sandwich for free, you’d probably take it. $10? You might take it, if it was really good. $30? No thanks.

Voters are beginning to do similar cost-benefit analysis on Medicare for all, the Democratic plan for universal health care that’s sure to be a top campaign issue in 2020. In a January Morning Consult poll, 56% of respondents said they support Medicare for all, while 29% opposed it. Less than a month later, support fell to 50% while opposition rose to 38%.

The only thing that changed? People began to get a better understanding of what Medicare for all actually is—including the need to eliminate the private insurance system.

Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris, who’s running for president, triggered this deeper level of analysis on January 29, when CNN’s Jake Tapper asked her if she favored getting rid of private insurance. “Let’s eliminate all that,” Harris said. “We need to have Medicare for all.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/voters-are-souring-on-medicare-for-all-180225270.html

------------------

Please remember the promise of ObamaCare: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’

History has proven that anytime the federal government is involved efficiency takes a nose dive. Medicare, as it stands, is not better than regular insurance. I'm retired and on medicare.

1. Medicare pays 80% of hospital costs and medical procedures. An MRI where I live costs $2500. With just medicare that leaves the patient paying $500.
2. Medicare Plan D drug coverage is a joke compared to private insurance. All of the cheap medications come with a copay of $5 to $15. You need an expensive medication and you run into a Tier system. I use Silverscript which is run by CVS Caremark. I've checked out most popular systems and they all cover about the same. All quotes below are if you use their preferred pharmacies:
Tier 1 (varies slightly by state): typically $1 to $10
Tier 2 (varies slightly by state): typically $5 to $20
Tier 3 (varies slightly by state): typically $20 to $47
Tier 4 (varies slightly by state): typically 34% to 50%

Of the 1200 drugs Silverscript covers take a guess where 50% of them end up????
Tier 4. You pay 34% to 50% of the drugs retail and most of them are very high. This is why medicare recipients have to decide which medications to get and which to do without, even if they need it.
3. One can obtain Medicare Plan F to have added hospital and procedure coverage but it costs and added $150 (here in Indiana). By the way all of this is per month, not per year.

Medicare is anything but wonderful and free. Placing everyone on medicare would increase the workload by 44 times. Unlike private insurance medicare only seriously checks less than 5% of claims. Serious area of abuse.vAnd this is where the new breed of democrat's want us to go??? Like the Beatles old song: Back To The USSR.

Step back 10,000 miles, and we begin to see some shadows of answers

Debt The World is taking US National Debt seriously. It’s from a realization that if Antarctica melts the world would be flooded. A sign of this melt is gold making a comeback vis-à-vis the dollar.

In comparison of what can be, 2008 was a smaller melt when European banks took some of the brunt and had to be bailed out; Greece bailout and the Chinese subsequently devaluing their Yuan.

Solution in 2008 In 2008, Greenfield technology companies, Apple, Facebook, Google and many others revived the economy through sheer export to Europe, China, India ... just like Cloud revived Microsoft and MS pushed Win 10. I should know because Indian software services is what keeps the economy going here.

Now there are no more Greenfield technologies in the horizon. In his MAGA effort Trump has constrained India to buy 300 Boeing aircraft that our failing national carrier does not need. It was like either we did or Boeing would fold. My point is if US takes back all the manufacturing jobs world export to US falls. The Chinese economy is already in deep trouble.

Solution by example US is looking into developing Mag Lev technology as part of infra build-up. I see this as an example of the level of investment US needs to make if the world economy has to keep going.

Trump enjoys one advantage, the drive towards STEM education during Obama years and specific research grants during those hard times. So large under employed talent pool is already in place for new technologies.

Immigration Honduras has been the killing fields for quite some time and the Hondurans have been living in desperation. The unstated problem is allowing 5000 Hondurans sets a precedent. If the flow multiplies to 50000 (with other S.A. nationalities), then 500,000; the Law is constrained to allow them in.

Solution 2 by example Among all the Presidents, Trump is the only guy who traveled in South America (before presidency). He knows the need for investment and how to deal with them. Going by patterns, an oil pipeline from Venezuela in the near future should not surprise.

Trump is a Businessman President - is how the world sees

Trump is a businessman born into wealth who still underwent five bankruptcies on companies associated with him


and where did you get this information that NO other president visited south america before their presidency? That sounds straight up like Trump truthful hyperbole, without the truth.

He who controls the money controls the world,he who controls the media controls the mind.... welcome to the matrix.

The only thing we have to Fear is Fear its self.

Spent time over the biographies of US Presidents but you are right, I could have avoided mentioning. thanks

voters are beggars

Aha Michael,
No need to be mournful. I checked your profile, normally do before
responding and it says you are in Dubai so you may appreciate if
I add that more than politics, and political systems; it is the money trail
that people should focus on. Generally leads to the truer picture.

1. So when OP says Mr Trump has been associated with 5 bankruptcies
It is an absolutely stunning point.
Q. Why didn't Clinton bring it up during her campaign?

2. When Indiana Dave explains Medicare in dollars on the long term
and apparently Kamala Harris dismisses this kind of analyses / projections
Q. Is she qualified to run the worlds largest economy?

3. So it is when Trump declares National Emergency for a pithy wall
He does not explain why it cold not have been spread over next 2 years
and that leaves the bigger concern on how legislation would move on other economy areas (infra) over next 2 years.
Q. Did Trump walk into a gridlock?

So while accounting figures are common platform for all sides; I think the attention and transparency this Administration is getting is influencing the World. I can see a rethink happening in Indian media.

and yeah,
Welcome to Mingle2!

1. She did, multiple times.

2. Need more information, but generally US doesnt have dictators that 'run' anything. We have a government of checks and balances that COLLECTIVELY make decisions.

3. With his staunch supporters, no. They are fairly convinced we need a wall and need it NOW.

On 2 - It's a matter of interpretation like 'the buck stops here'.

Still if that's the general feeling then 2020 is around the corner and now with the hour closing in, Democrats need a person of Bill's caliber as an alternative to Trump. I don't see how the ballyhoo by the media is going to change anything at all. One doesn't need an opinion poll. It's all there in Fox and CNN ratings.

Not that I want to get into politics, but even from this distance, Kamala, Tulsi, Andrew; all first generation Americans. What do they know more than I?

Bertie, Hillary? Do you seriously think they can rally up to previous numbers?

I'm stopping here since I don't want this to turn to Indian Interference

Respectfully, I say again that this is just not how Government works in the USA. The POTUS must know their roles, responsibilities, and limits. and beyond that there are several departments and other people that are in place for different 'expertise', whether it be about the economy, national security, general welfare, or whatever. The job does not require expertise in any of these because it is still a role for ONE Individual expected to work with hundreds of others and the collective experience and knowledge that comes with that collaboration.


It is a bonus perhaps to have a Veteran as POTUS, because of their job as commander in chief. It is a bonus to have a constitutional lawyer, because of their knowledge in the constitution. It is a bonus perhaps to have an accountant, because of their knowledge of budgets. But none of these things are on their own particularly powerful because the office of POTUS itself does not hold singular authority or power in those areas, due to our constitutional structure of checks and balances.

Post about REAL fear tactics and the "1984" mentality of people and your post will disappear! There must be a snowflake filter on the comments.

Is this a contribution of some sort?

Could you make the point a bit more relevant?