Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wouldn't it normatively be more in keeping with a proper distinction between public and private to say lobby your congressman to stop the ceaseless funding and weapon deployments to countries in the ME that don't share our values? If an individual lobbying the government wouldn't be overpowered by monied corporate interest in the government, maybe. Sadly that's not the case, at least in the US. > The NSA has all yo…
The Iran war is unpopular because of prices at the pump. Prior interventions in Iran (and elsewhere) that also violated rights did not garner the same reaction because to the average American they incurred no cost. If for some reason the war had caused prices to go lower the war would be popular. The fact you think otherwise would lead me to simply conclude you are in denial re the psyche of the American electorate.…
That billions in lobbying into political campaigns, advertising, etc have no effect on how people think or vote?
Your entire argument seems to be "if people can be influenced, why democracy?" That's such a simplistic view of the world and human psychology.
I can guarantee you too are influenced by propaganda in ways you're not aware, I'm sure I am, we all are. Humans are influenced by culture, propaganda, family, religion, etc. To think we're all perfectly rational actors who have pure agency is nieve at best and disingenuous at worst.
My argument is that we should do what we can to combat the influence of corporate interests in our elections. I backed up why I think this is the case. I've made my points as clearly as I care to.
Yours is, what? Individual voters want everything that's happening? That because Trump won the popular vote, everyone who voted for him wanted every thing that's is happening (e.g. invading Iran despite him being the "anti-war candidate")?
If your entire argument is "people asked for this" than there is not much more to discuss...