Comment: Except if the people of the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: This point is well made, but (see in situ)

Except if the people of the

Except if the people of the nation are easily manipulated through emotion, no matter what method you use things could very easily lead to violence. To be clear, I'm not saying that the manipulation would be conscious and purposeful. It just seems to me to be a fallen state of mind. In any case, this could explain his "be careful what you tread" caution.

Hell, we've gotten ourselves into how many unnecessary wars over false arguments based on nothing but an emotion covered by a thin veneer of reason? Those reasons are based on logical fallacies, which are false arguments a.k.a. assumptions taken as fact without irrefutable evidence. Politicians often tell one group of people whatever they want to hear, and then tell other people something else entirely, and the majority of them seem to just choose whatever doesn't harm their preconceived notions of said politician. Logical fallacies are an easy way to separate oneself from reality.

I think we vastly overestimate our nations current ability to think critically in all instances. I'm the type of person who will calmly, rationally, and publicly stand up for reason when I see someone in the wrong. I've been threatened by overt violence on occasion, and probably implied violence on the rest. If the guy in this video is cautioning us about that, then I'm with him. When this guy said "We have to have a constitution, but a plan to get back to it" it is possible that the plan he was referring to was one that would focus on educating the public. I'd be with him on that. If his plan is to vote against his conscious in order to possibly gain influence, then I would *not* be with him. Which plan is he referring to, or is he referring to an unnamed plan? I don't know, but I need to see the rest of the video. Possibly more since the panel didn't give him a chance to explain what he *necessarily* meant.