Sunday, February 7, 2016

Political Blood Sport

After watching a few minutes of the GOP debate, I have to wonder if the parties do more damage than good with these debates.  I mean they spend so much time attacking each other and bashing America, I just don't get it...

I mean on the Democrat side you have Sanders complaining how terrible our country is and that only a revolution will make this country livable... And you have the GOP folks who seem to think we are living in the WORST of times. No wonder we have polarization, both sides do nothing about complain and vilify the other.

I vote that they all move to a different better country that is in better shape than America.  Thoughts?

CNN GOP Debate Takeaways
CNN GOP Debate Attacks
CNN Sanders Continues Attack
CNN Clinton Speaking Fees $153 MILLION


Laurie said...

In the state of the union Obama had a long list of things that are going pretty well. As a moderate you should probably vote for Hillary so we can continue the gridlocked status quo.

John said...

It was the upside of the speech. Of course he is not running for office. And being a bit of a narcissist like Trump, I think Obama was trying very hard to market and defend his legacy.

jerrye92002 said...

Yes. Too bad that the guy yelling out "You lie" at a previous SOTU was gagged and stuffed in a closet. It is unfortunate that our politics has become so sensitive to media hype, and the media so prone to blowing up every bit of destructive minutiae, that the winning candidate is the one with the best-armored ego. My rule for candidates has always been: do NOT tell me what terrible things the other guy is thinking or going to do; you cannot possibly know. Tell me what YOU plan to do.

John said...

For better or worse, the media reports on what keeps us tuning in to their station.

And politicians keep saying what they think will encourage people to vote for them. Whether they believe there is any chance of them accomplishing their promises or not.

And unfortunately one of the best ways to secure a vote and get your voter to the polls is to convince the voters that the other candidate will destroy the citizen's life...

It seems us voters demand in-fighting, doom & gloom, and unrealistic promises from the candidates. I am not sure we would listen or take action if some good positive speaking realistic politician ran for office. I mean look at Busch, Kasich and Clinton for that matter, 3 pretty solid and positive people who are being buried by the negative folks on either extreme.

Laurie said...

You forgot to include Hillary in your list of good positive speaking realistic politicians.

John said...

Look again..
" Busch, Kasich and Clinton."

Laurie said...

at a glance I thought it said Bush, Kasich and Christie.

about Obama the Narcissist - that didn't seem true to me so of course I googled it and found this:

"Put it this way: the data are in and have been for years now, courtesy especially of my pals at Language Log. Scientific analysis demonstrates not a whit of linguistic narcissism in Barack Obama. Anybody who listens to our president and thinks he’s saying “I” too much is, quite simply, deeply biased against the man."

Why the Right Thinks Obama’s a Narcissist—and Why They’re Wrong

John said...

First of all... I think many politicians are "a bit of a narcissist", who else would want the job? And yes I think that Obama and Trump share many of the symptoms.

Mayo Clinic Narcisstic Symptoms

Laurie said...

you make very strange (and offensive) comparisons.

Therapists Confirm Trump's Narcissistic Personality Disorder

don't bother posting some lame right wing source as proof that Obama is a narcissist

my google of a psychological profile of Obama turned up this:

Who Is Barack Obama?
Assessing his personality in the New York Times

John said...

I have no intention of trying to convince you with any Conservative sources. I only provided you the list of symptoms according to Mayo Clinic.

And please note I did not say that Obama or Trump had a disorder. I said they were both "a bit of a narcissist". I personally see many of the following in both of them.

"DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance

Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it

Exaggerating your achievements and talents

Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate

Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people

Requiring constant admiration

Having a sense of entitlement

Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations

Taking advantage of others to get what you want

Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others

Being envious of others and believing others envy you

Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner

Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal and value yourself more than you value others."

John said...

I like this one from Psychology Today, or is that too Conservative?

"Although the press has focused on the suit that the Indian Prime Minister wore when shaking the hand of President Obama, psychological research suggests the US President may give the Indian Prime Minister a close run for his money on narcissism scores."

Here is an interesting discussion on the view.

jerrye92002 said...

I'm curious, Laurie. What difference, at this point, does it make? If the charge that Obama is a narcissist is true, then it would explain many of his speech patterns, including the excessive use of the word "I." And analyzing those speech patterns would also be strong evidence that it IS true. On the other hand, if it is objectively false, which none of us can know, including trained psychiatrists, then it is just political mudslinging meaning nothing. If it is objectively true but unproven, then it points to a character flaw, which is not grounds for impeachment and removal from office, were such a thing even politically possible.

In short, the best thing for conservatives is just to ignore the guy and let him take credit for all of the fantasyland achievements he thinks he has as his legacy, then work quickly and diligently to undo all the very real damage he has done while pumping up his over-inflated ego.

John said...

Back to the topic. CNN The Insults Fly

No wonder some folks from over seas think us Americans are crazy...

Anonymous said...

I do think a country where a third rate reality tv show host is taken seriously for election as it's leader is arguably crazy. And scary. The Donald Trump phenomenon is evidence of the decline of America. In terms of of 11th grade history class, he is proof that America's Mandate from Heaven is just about used up.


jerrye92002 said...

Interesting that Minnesota crossed that Rubicon years ago, with Gov. Jesse., who had far less experience as a chief executive. For that matter, the last President we elected had far less executive experience than either, and has proven far less competent.

What is crazy, I think, is that we treat it as a 2-year-long beauty pageant, rather than a process for determining who would be best to lead the US in the right direction. (that's two questions, not one). And the one thing I like about Europe's political system is that they say (OK, we're having an election in 6 weeks. GO!)

Anonymous said...

In terms of process, our system of choosing a president has never worked very well. When the founders created this system, they were doing something that had never been done before, and they messed it up. But short of junking the whole thing, there really isn't anything that can be done about that now. But we must avoid what I think of as the error of blaming substance issues on process. Donald Trump isn't taken seriously because of mistakes made in 1787, his popularity is the result of a decline in our values and a political system that is decaying for substantive reasons.


Anonymous said...

"...Gov. Jesse., who had far less experience as a chief executive."

But he HAD run for and won a race for an elected office, something The Donald has never done, AFAIK.


jerrye92002 said...

All I would point out there is that high intelligence has never been a requirement (or even a factor) for high office.

Hiram-- I would agree that the anger fueling Trump's campaign is warranted, but I'm not sure the "substantive reasons" for that answer are because of process, or values, or something else. I'm inclined to thing it's something else.

Anonymous said...

We have problems with our presidential selection system. In this respect, I often wonder why the DFL isn't called on it's own rampant and inexcusable hypocrisy. We go on and on about voters's rights and about how important it is to be inclusive in our electoral system, yet where the presidential nomination is concerned, I doubt if it's possible to design a system which more effectively discourages voter participation. What is wrong with us?


jerrye92002 said...

I worry far less about who votes than about why they vote as they do. From where I stand, I cannot imagine how anyone with two brain cells to rub together could ever vote for a Democrat. I used to believe that I should vote for the "best person for the job," and I did, for what I considered good reasons. Then I noticed that I never voted for a Democrat, and started to see why, in every contest. But it is a convenient short-cut to a decision if you haven't done your homework.

Besides having given this government too much to do that they are incompetent at doing well-- no one can be-- we keep believing that a simple vote will solve all our problems, and that's just wrong. Worse yet, if we DID believe an election was that important, shouldn't we take some care in our voting? I've been saying that about 30% of voters always vote Republican, about 40% always vote Democrat, about 20% make a decision based on a candidate's good looks or, more likely, against an opponent that has had massive money spent on negative ads against them. And about 10% walk into the polling place reasonably informed, and I think that's being generous.

Perhaps the discouragement that keeps half of us from the polls and the anger fueling Trump and Sanders and Cruz have the same source. The endless negative campaigning convinces us that neither of the nominees are worth spit, and the winner's subsequent under-performance to unreasonable expectations only confirms it.