In the Clown World what should be the Real King is playing the part of the Secret King. I wonder if one of these Secret Kings has already explained how losing to Russia was the plan all along. In fact, they are the Real Winners and Russia the Real Loser.
I never understood the political necessity to always be 'right.' Is it a hierarchy thing, only, or a political thing? Surely not -every- politician is such low status that they can't own up to mistakes, correct them, and come out ahead in the eyes of the populace.
Often more than one factor at the same time. There is a portion of any group that takes a leader's mistake as excuse to not have to listen to them. Creates the temptation to avoid looking wrong. Ego, character, public status, etc also provide that temptation. Also, legalism can make one man who honestly admit a mistake the justification for a whole organization getting a lawsuit if said at the wrong place and time. Also, media pressure has its own effect. All that is without considering their SSH position.
But we're not talking about organizations, we're talking about politicians. Who, as far as I know, would be free from legal ramifications. As I said in another response; the only thing I find odd about it is that I don't recall a single time, not even once, where there's ever been a politician apologizing truly without a trial or court involved and finding them guilty.
As a representative of the government, them admiting culpability could be construed as the government admitting culpability. Similar to cops having qualified immunity but the department can still be sued for their actions. Not saying it's good, but it is one layer to the multi-factor venn diagram of why politics selects for those who don't take personal responsibility
"If I'm always right then you should trust my judgement and make me your leader, because being right all the time means the country will benefit from having me at the helm."
"I believe it’s more that as humans we have deep seated need for consistency in those who make decisions for us"
A business behavioralist named Deming demonstrated that leadership that refuses to admit they were wrong are simply people who don't want to take the responsibility and consequences for their actions. He insisted, and proved right through Toyota post-WWII, that leadership that actually took responsibility for the company would admit fault quickly and then change course.
More importantly a leader willing to admit fault is willing to accept fault from his subordinates without blaming them, while a leader who is unwilling to admit fault is unwilling to accept it from his subordinates. That means the poor leader punishes them and then people start lying to the leader to avoid being punished and that starts the company downward spiral.
In regards to SSH, it means that an alpha regards his responsibilities as bestowing so much legitimacy on himself that he doesn't fear admitting he's wrong. Who cares if he's wrong, he's the king and everyone trusts him to stay king. A gamma does not want to take responsibility and so doesn't have legitimacy and he knows it, which is why they lie.
You are right. The proof is Donald J. Trump, a businessman, ran the nation far better than any politician. He really needed to kick out every politician and replace them with displaced military or more businessmen.
Think of the usual sort of person who seeks out political office. What are they in it for? It's extremely unlikely they actually care about the well-being of their constituents, even if they started their careers with starry-eyed idealism. These are not honorable people, it should be no surprise that they behave dishonorably when caught in an error. Assuming that it was actually an error, and not a completely intended result.
In any case, you can't go far wrong if you assume that yes, every politician really is that terrible. Trust God; everyone else absolutely will disappoint you sooner or later. Ironically, once you accept that, it's a lot easier to appreciate mere mortals.
I understand that. It's just the sheer lockstep nature of it. I've never heard a single one - not a single one - ever apologize unless after some kind of legal trial. I just find that insane.
Part of that has to do with the legal system - a public admission of guilt prior to trial is a problem if there are actual crimes and not simply errors in judgment, and any lawyer will tell his client that you never ever do that. Even if you haven't committed a crime, an admission of guilt might hurt your chances for re-election, so better to smile and wave and act like everything's fine.
Bear in mind, too, that a politician is never standing alone. He has an entire PR team whose job it is to make him look as good as possible. They will have determined - and hammered it into his head, in case he should still have a functioning conscience - that any admission of guilt is bad for business. His speeches will be carefully crafted to be as weaselly as possible, no matter how guilty he is or how bad he actually feels about it (assuming he does at all).
Yes, but legally there is very little that he can actually be put on trial for to my knowledge. Mostly just actual abuses of law - not being wrong in errors of judgment.
I'm talking about being wrong in errors of judgment. I've only heard apologies, and mostly sorry-not-sorry types at that, for actual law violations. Never errors of judgment that I can recall.
In the Clown World what should be the Real King is playing the part of the Secret King. I wonder if one of these Secret Kings has already explained how losing to Russia was the plan all along. In fact, they are the Real Winners and Russia the Real Loser.
Clown world: where common sense is rare and the obvious elusive.
Plus it is so obvious that he putts from the rough.
Sadly if they do something retarded and say, "I meant to do that" it only confirms how retarded they were.
I never understood the political necessity to always be 'right.' Is it a hierarchy thing, only, or a political thing? Surely not -every- politician is such low status that they can't own up to mistakes, correct them, and come out ahead in the eyes of the populace.
Often more than one factor at the same time. There is a portion of any group that takes a leader's mistake as excuse to not have to listen to them. Creates the temptation to avoid looking wrong. Ego, character, public status, etc also provide that temptation. Also, legalism can make one man who honestly admit a mistake the justification for a whole organization getting a lawsuit if said at the wrong place and time. Also, media pressure has its own effect. All that is without considering their SSH position.
But we're not talking about organizations, we're talking about politicians. Who, as far as I know, would be free from legal ramifications. As I said in another response; the only thing I find odd about it is that I don't recall a single time, not even once, where there's ever been a politician apologizing truly without a trial or court involved and finding them guilty.
As a representative of the government, them admiting culpability could be construed as the government admitting culpability. Similar to cops having qualified immunity but the department can still be sued for their actions. Not saying it's good, but it is one layer to the multi-factor venn diagram of why politics selects for those who don't take personal responsibility
"If I'm always right then you should trust my judgement and make me your leader, because being right all the time means the country will benefit from having me at the helm."
Who actually falls for it though? Who is really insane and stupid enough for that? I don't know anyone.
Now, it could all be psyop. That I'd be willing to believe...
"I believe it’s more that as humans we have deep seated need for consistency in those who make decisions for us"
A business behavioralist named Deming demonstrated that leadership that refuses to admit they were wrong are simply people who don't want to take the responsibility and consequences for their actions. He insisted, and proved right through Toyota post-WWII, that leadership that actually took responsibility for the company would admit fault quickly and then change course.
More importantly a leader willing to admit fault is willing to accept fault from his subordinates without blaming them, while a leader who is unwilling to admit fault is unwilling to accept it from his subordinates. That means the poor leader punishes them and then people start lying to the leader to avoid being punished and that starts the company downward spiral.
In regards to SSH, it means that an alpha regards his responsibilities as bestowing so much legitimacy on himself that he doesn't fear admitting he's wrong. Who cares if he's wrong, he's the king and everyone trusts him to stay king. A gamma does not want to take responsibility and so doesn't have legitimacy and he knows it, which is why they lie.
You are right. The proof is Donald J. Trump, a businessman, ran the nation far better than any politician. He really needed to kick out every politician and replace them with displaced military or more businessmen.
Think of the usual sort of person who seeks out political office. What are they in it for? It's extremely unlikely they actually care about the well-being of their constituents, even if they started their careers with starry-eyed idealism. These are not honorable people, it should be no surprise that they behave dishonorably when caught in an error. Assuming that it was actually an error, and not a completely intended result.
In any case, you can't go far wrong if you assume that yes, every politician really is that terrible. Trust God; everyone else absolutely will disappoint you sooner or later. Ironically, once you accept that, it's a lot easier to appreciate mere mortals.
I understand that. It's just the sheer lockstep nature of it. I've never heard a single one - not a single one - ever apologize unless after some kind of legal trial. I just find that insane.
Part of that has to do with the legal system - a public admission of guilt prior to trial is a problem if there are actual crimes and not simply errors in judgment, and any lawyer will tell his client that you never ever do that. Even if you haven't committed a crime, an admission of guilt might hurt your chances for re-election, so better to smile and wave and act like everything's fine.
Bear in mind, too, that a politician is never standing alone. He has an entire PR team whose job it is to make him look as good as possible. They will have determined - and hammered it into his head, in case he should still have a functioning conscience - that any admission of guilt is bad for business. His speeches will be carefully crafted to be as weaselly as possible, no matter how guilty he is or how bad he actually feels about it (assuming he does at all).
Yes, but legally there is very little that he can actually be put on trial for to my knowledge. Mostly just actual abuses of law - not being wrong in errors of judgment.
I'm talking about being wrong in errors of judgment. I've only heard apologies, and mostly sorry-not-sorry types at that, for actual law violations. Never errors of judgment that I can recall.
Term limits for politicians. Two terms.
One in office, one in a Supermax Federal Penitentiary.
Do jail first, allow the term in office, then determine if a return to jail is needed.
Might filter some of the worst ones out of the system.
Ok, now I'm interested in the kinds of Xanatos Gambits a Dark Lord has unleashed on his unsuspecting victims. For science.
Read up on the history of the Rabid Puppies.
Thereby showing themselves to be perfect candidates for full membership of Clown World and the privileges it brings.