The influence of TV on politics

Having been the first nationally televised presidential debate in history, this event is still seen as a memory worth remembering. Furthermore, what made it even more extraordinary was the fact that both political figures who participated in the debate would later become Presidents. An important take-away refers to the fact that, especially during a public event, one should take care of how she or he looks like.

The most important lesson that one can learn from this debate refers to the fact that you should pay extra attention when making statements during a public debate. The consequences can be quite disturbing, even after some good years.

The first televised presidential debate in U.S. history may be the most consequential.

Political mythology holds that Americans who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon was better, while those who watched it on television thought Kennedy was better.

A moment that may have impacted the final result was when Ford stumbled over a question during their second debate regarding Poland, which he insisted was not under "Soviet domination." It was, and Ford had to retract his statement, contributing to the view that he was in over his head.

• Andrew Jackson won the popular vote by less than 39,000 ballots and took 99 Electoral College votes. John Quincy Adams secured 84, William Crawford won 41, and Henry Clay had 37.
• Clay, with the least votes, got the boot, and his supporters shifted their support to Adams, who would go on to win the majority of the House vote.

After his inauguration, Adams selected Clay as his secretary of state. Jackson accused Adams and Clay of a "corrupt bargain."

The 1860 election was notable because it ripped the long-dominant Party (and nation) in half.

• The Democrats were unable at their 1860 convention to establish an official party line on slavery.
• At a second convention that year, the Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas, but many Southerners in the party selected Breckinridge as their man. Both would claim to be the official Democratic candidate.
• Lincoln snared 40% of the popular vote but took most of the North in the Electoral College.
• Douglas was second in the popular vote but took only Missouri.
• Breckenridge took most of the South.
• Bell's middle of the road policies earned him the middle of the road.

In 1861, delegates from South Carolina, and six of the Southern states formed the Confederate States of America and selected Jefferson Davis as their president.

At present, presidential hopefuls are battling for their party's nomination in caucuses and primary elections across the country.

State governments run primary elections the same way as a general election.

If a candidate wins a primary election, they win either all or a proportion of the state's delegates. These delegates will then vote for them at the party convention, where the presidential nominee is named.

A handful of states have caucuses instead of primaries. The parties run caucuses in precincts across the state.

Caucuses give parties more flexibility in determining the rules. In Democratic caucuses, votes are determined by standing in groups around a room.

In the world of investing, having gone through a traumatic experience first-hand makes the difference between a cautious investor and a blind one. The scarred investor cannot think in the way the fresher, who hasn’t experienced the turmoil can. 

Our unique experiences impact our vision in ways we cannot comprehend on the surface.

Different generations have different investment risk appetites, with the younger generation wanting to take bigger risks and going into uncharted waters without any experience.

The New Generation, who hasn’t experienced turmoil and loss, are good at getting rich. However, the older, scarred generation is good at staying rich due to their general pessimism and conservatism. There is a need to balance the two aspects while taking an investment decision. People with different experiences aren’t necessarily smarter than others but just have a different worldview.

Humor and status have always been tightly linked: good leaders seem to often use humor in order to motivate their team members' actions. As individuals, we tend to prefer, researchers claim, jokes that make us laugh while feeling slightly uncomfortable.

Furthermore, we perceive the joke teller as a self-confident person, who could easily become a leader due to his or her courage to make such a joke. The key point here is that the joke should be appropriate and match the context.

Making inside jokes usually shows how bounded a team or a group is: their jokes can understood the best by themselves.

However, the moment an outsider integrates the group, it is better to avoid the inside jokes, as this will most probably make him or her feel out of place.

Find your center, perhaps with a breathing exercise or five minutes of meditation to calm the inner storm, and prepare.

When there's an intense underlying emotion beneath the desire to communicate something, we tend to hyper-express a messy tangle of words that fail to capture what we're really trying to say. 

You don't want to give the impression that you're acting. 

People will figure out when you're trying to be someone that you're not.

Augustine (354-430) was one of the first to define a lie explicitly as the intent to deceive.

Augustine argues that lying is not permissible regardless of the circumstances that provoked the lie.

Kant defines a lie as an “intentionally untruthful declaration”.

Kant identifies truthfulness as an utterance that accurately represents one’s thoughts (including one’s beliefs), regardless of whether those thoughts are themselves accurate.
Kant argues that lying is not permissible, but he allows for engaging in deception through careful word choice or evasion.