५ जानेवारी, २०२४
Speaking of disqualifying a presidential candidate...
Here's a famous quote from Gore Vidal: "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
Gore Vidal is over-rated.
What does that even mean? We are to be leaderless?
Well, right now, we are leaderless.
OPEN SOUTHERN BORDER
Power attracts psychopaths like food attracts bears.
He's channeling Groucho Marx: "I'd never join a club that would have me as a member"
I don't think Nikki Haley would disqualified under this rule.
Vidal desperately desired a reputation as a wag. Regrettably, the harder he tried to be witty the more his bon mots stank of patrician bile. The man wrote a comedy from which even Jerry Lewis couldn't extract a chortle. Gore Vidal wanted to be Swift, but he needed to be quicker.
The basic form of the joke is an old one. For example, Groucho Marx: “I would never be a member of a club that would have me as a member.”
Vidal preferred to be drafted. Putting oneself forward as a candidate is so gauche.
"Dozens of Democratic members have already called for the disqualification of up to 126 Republican colleagues under the same sweeping theory used against Trump. These efforts could easily place this country on a slippery slope to political chaos."--Jonathan Turley
GOPe: See? If we just get rid of Trump everything can go back to normal! Its really all about Trump and its all his fault. Paradise awaits us if Trump will just step aside.
"The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
- Douglas Admas
So would eliminate everyone that has been President except George Washington?
Douglas Adams said it like this:
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
And so this is the situation we find: a succession of Galactic Presidents who so much enjoy the fun and palaver of being in power that they very rarely notice that they’re not. And somewhere in the shadows behind them—who? Who can possibly rule if no one who wants to do it can be allowed to?
Mindless cynicism. Not a good way to look at the world. Some seem to like it. Perhaps it feeds their ego in some way.
Reminds of a science fiction story I read years ago. A supercomputer selects the president on this basis and the Secret Service go and kidnap the new president
I have the same belief in the catch-22. Any person who desires a government position, I automatically distrust.
This follows Adam Carolla's rule that any man who volunteers to lead a scout troop on a camping trip should be denied. The leader should be the guy who wants the job the least.
there's also the wrong lizard problem, Zaphod the blow hard who was all about himself, I dubbed obama zaphod was a figurehead for the real powers that be,
I’ve long felt that interest in taking a job as a censor should be disqualifying,
Waugh, Wilde, Vidal et al. No shortage of bon mot masters.
Kind of like W.C. Fields claim that he would never join an organization that would accept him as a member.
CATCH 22 is back. But good news is that the MAGA Main Man a great communicator who wants good things for us.
Progressive regression to the null space. Clever, I suppose.
"Gore Vidal is over-rated.
What does that even mean? We are to be leaderless?"
Apparently you lack the smarts to understand his point: Those who want to be "leaders" of the people are typically the least-suited for the job, as they are most interested in aggrandizing themselves (and their wealth and power) than they are interested in helping the people.
As put wonderfully succinctly by RideSpaceMountain above: "Power attracts psychopaths like food attracts bears."
"Vidal desperately desired a reputation as a wag. Regrettably, the harder he tried to be witty the more his bon mots stank of patrician bile. The man wrote a comedy from which even Jerry Lewis couldn't extract a chortle. Gore Vidal wanted to be Swift, but he needed to be quicker."
Vidal did have a reputation as a wag, not to overlook (and more important) as a writer of stature of both fiction and non-fiction. As for Jerry Lewis, he was the creep one hired to kill any potential for actual humor in a movie. His best film role was in THE KING OF COMEDY, where he essentially played himself (but with the real nasty dialed down).
In olden times we selected men of means who had already earned all the money they needed and being in their 60s faced soon coming death and the Judgement of God. Especially we selected retired lawyers as our Judges.
But after antibiotics extended life spans into the late 80s and the god of greed for power from wealth soared, it’s all becoming SNAFU..
In olden times we selected men of means who had already earned all the money they needed and being in their 60s faced soon coming death and the Judgement of God. Especially we selected retired lawyers as our Judges.
But after antibiotics extended life spans into the late 80s and the god of greed for power from wealth soared, it’s all becoming SNAFU..
"Mindless cynicism. Not a good way to look at the world."
Closer to a knowing acquaintance with reality, not meant to be taken literally or applied always or universally. (Just in most cases most of the time.)
Why is that famous? It's not even intellectual really, simply taking a statement and applying a negation. Comedians do it all the time.
The only reason is some 'news' person reported it as witty.
Utah Phillips method could work..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trQW-1TnjSY
But I am with Gore in once sense. Those who crave power are the ones you should least be willing to cede it to.
It was not until this thread that I recalled who Cookie reminded me of.
It was not William F. Buckley.
I'm with Cook 100% in his assessment of both Jerry Lewis and the other comments.
To me, the most persuasive sign that a candidate is NOT suited for high office is that he declares that his nomination is sufficient to stop the rise of the oceans.
Vidal was an insufferable snob.
Trouble is, an ambivalent candidate would not have the fortitude for these long nasty campaigns.
Vidal knew that. He himself wilted under the pressure of his own half-assed efforts in NY.
Gotta go in whole-assed.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा