Thursday, August 4, 2016

- The Wages Of Ego Investment

The emotional projection of liberals (and women) is well documented. But I have a theory about their ego investment in politics. I think it springs from their awareness that they would be likely to be failures in life, absent political advantage. For all their talk about the 'level playing field', making it as unequal as possible and stacking the deck for themselves, is the whole point.

It's a thought anyway.


chess said...

You could write a thousand thesis's on that 2 minutes. The thing I take away from it is the democratic machine is far more complicated complex intrusive? than the repubs which basically dont have one. The troops on the ground is a science to the dems and God bless them for recognizing that we as human beings are really a set of o' and x'.The repubs have never wanted to go to that level and it shows. My father once said you dont fight to be pretty so use whatever you got. It is a fight to the dems. To Mitch and John-John and Orin it is a duel with honor... Well boys that went out of style bout 250 years ago.

chess said...

To try to be a little more clear I just think the dems have recognized their core and have organized with that in mind. They know that core "swarms" and can get agitated and become a collective very easy. I think it is wrong for the dems to use that but thats why at the community organization level they kick ass.
And my thesis would have ended in my death when the first person spit on me.

Muzzlethemuz said...

In an age where perceptions count for more than facts there is a party and an attendant outlook that encourages such thinking. It is a corollary to Tom's contention that a leftist worldview is dependent on emotional rather than volitional thinking.

Should Hillary win, and I am increasingly thinking that this will be the case, it will indicate a tendency begun in 2008, that at least as far as this national office, we are no longer a center-right country.

The President is the only elected official in the federal government to be selected though a national rather than local mechanism i.e. the Electoral College. Senate and congressional races are in effect local elections and reflective of local concerns and issues, though the winners of such local contests assume a position of national relevance.

Every other election in these United States is state or local event, from the Congress and governor down to county supervisor and the town mayor. The presidency is a position that reflects simultaneously, a national will manifest through localized sentiment. Subject to a sort of Utilitarian calculus, the winner of the Presidency is decided by a majority of electoral votes - the greatest good by the greatest number.

The presidency is among other things a numbers game and the greatest numbers reside in the cities. Democratic sentiment is therefore a largely an urban phenomenon and the red/blue maps largely support this. Rural areas, even in blue states like NY and CA, are largely red - but they don't have the numbers.

I would suggest that the ascent of the Left crystallized in the late 1980's. Since the Clintons' arrival in '92 the Dems have continued to pour fuel on the fire by agitating, haranguing and pining for "diversity," their euphemism for the removal of a largely WASP status quo with replacement by and for aggrieved minorities be they undocumented aliens, women, Hispanics, blacks, LGBT, Islamists, etc. An interesting mosaic, to say the least.

I don't care if people are culturally WASP or recent gay arrivals from the Middle East. They can all be Americans if they take the time to understand and follow the laws and agree to put the hyphen away and become Americans. Being American has traditionally meant honoring and defending the US Constitution up to and including laying down one's life to that end.

Seeing how this same Constitution is increasingly viewed as an impediment to "progress" by the Left, Hillary's ascension to the throne will likely result in more of the behavior seen in the video, exercised by none other than Hillary herself.

At this juncture I will likely blame Trump for it. His heart is in the right place, I think the bombast and pomposity are made for TV but more importantly, the crucible that is this race is proving something else I had to see to believe: He's a world class dumbass. Trump needs to STFU and let Hillary just be Hillary. Unfortunately Hillary, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is using this exact tactic against Trump and the fact that Hillary can figure this out and Trump can't... kinda says it all.

chess said...

Muzz...Standing O from me.
One last attempt here >Tom you are waiting for the debates and I will try to explain why they will be a disaster for Trump. I look at people as to whether they have a slow methodical brain or a fast reactionary brain. In internal medicine the best is the slow brain cause your practice is gradual heart pulmonary rena liver disease. You look at something run some tests and set down with the patient and discuss it. Vascular/cardiovascular anesthesia is a fast reaction brain i.e. "you put a hole in what?!!!!!!"
Trump is a slow brain. Get the plans and the union and the architect and blah blah blah and we will a set down in a month. My theory says it is REALLY hard for a slow brain to become a fast reaction brain. Hiliary has lived in a fast reaction world for 40 years. Her brain wasnt all that good to start and it has slowed significantly but it still is faster reaction than the Donald
Last night it was all the same bs from him. He was looking down at his notes almost every sentence.Ransom blah blah blah.He will perform badly at debates because he is a slow brain and on top of that he is not up on current affairs other than H is a crook.
I will finish saying that H has too go into a 15 min coughing fit to look unhealthy Otherwise The Donald will be the proverbial emperor without any clothes

MikeCLT said...

I agree with Chess that the debates will probably be a disaster for Trump. It is clear that the entire political, cultural, media and corporate establishment is against Trump. The debate moderators are going to ask many detailed questions that will require detailed policy knowledge to answer. Not all the questions will be detailed but enough to make Trump look ignorant. Something along the lines of who is the foreign minister of Ukraine. Or [obscure name] the foreign minister of [obscure country] said "XX". What do you think of that? And Trump will be unable to intelligently respond. The moderators are not going to start a food fight like they did in the GOP primary.

Yes, events could intervene. But depending on a catastrophe to save Trump's candidacy is pretty depressing.