I’m the type who believes that we all have a deep seated motive for every move we make as human beings.
It has long been my opinion that George W. Bush ran for office for 2 main reasons and they are —
To avenge what he considered to be a dishonor done to his daddy by Bill Clinton.
To finish a job he believed that his father failed to complete with regards to Iraq.
Now on to John McCain’s motive… a case of inferiority complex.
It is my opinion that he is running to top his father and grand dad - both Admirals. Of course POTUS tops Admiral. He is also running because he feels entitled.
I would say Bush ran because he thought he could win, and he was right.
I’d say McCain is running because he has an unusually strong desire to be president. I think that desire is perhaps moving into slightly unhealthy territory, since he seems willing to sacrifice his already damaged body in the quest. The man looks tired (though I didn’t think he looked too bad Thursday night).
I tend to believe that anyone of any party who’s willing to put themselves through that wringer for the sake of that office are a bit on the nutty side.
“He was a rebellious young man”; say those who knew him then. His friends called him "arrogant, a punk, “McNasty.”
His show of self confidence, his combativeness, cockiness, rebelliousness, and arrogance masked his insecurities. He was often told that he was not measuring up to his father, and that caused him to try harder to do better than him, and when he could not apply himself hard enough, his inferiority complex came to the forefront in the form of moodiness, and outburst at those lower and under him, just as can be seen by his interactions with members of congress and most especially women. He wanted to get out from the shadow of his father and grandfather.
Make no mistake about it, his complex is his driving force. This is personal for him. There is nothing statesman about him.
Or (pace Occam) they were indicia of actual self-confidence, combativeness, cockiness, rebelliousness, arrogance.
And you know because he told you so?
It’s always struck me as sophomoric at best to use pop-psychology (“complex?” will we be hearing about Oedipus next? I guess maybe we will given that we’ve heard about his father), usually some variant of watered-down and discredited Freudianism, to explain someone’s entire life, and predict its future course, in deterministic form.
People are the sum of their experiences, genes, and something else we may call a soul. Not a newsflash.
Also, if there is such metaphysical certainty about this diagnosis and its implications (“make no mistake about it”), where’s the GD?
You sound awfully upset that I would dare combine all of the utterances of those who know him and know him well, and also show who he actually has been to form an opinion that he has a strong inferiority complex.
Yes sir, John McSame wants so desperately to come out of the shadow of his Admiral father and Grandfather such that he has gone way above the norm to achieve that aim.
That you find it annoyingly debatable makes it GD.
Okay, so why do you want to do that? You seem to be delving much deeper into McCain’s psyche than into your own. And, frankly, though I have no intention of voting for the man, when you call him “McSame” I can’t feel that our conversation is in the interests of an exchange of ideas. I feel like I’m being proselytized.
Heres an article saying he was not making admiral. The son and grandson of admirals broke the chain by being in bottom 1 % of his class and showing a lack of discipline.
I’m not running for office. BTW, have you noticed the number of threads dealing with candidates and their reasons for being? Consider this just another one, except that you consider this one debatable.
Surely, this is not your first time hearing John McCain called John McSame, is it? How many times have you complained about being proselytized to on other threads
“Awfully upset” pays undue dignity to your dorm-room Freudian analysis.
Please do me a favor and Google the “genetic fallacy.” Hint: the source (alleged) of someone’s (alleged) motives does not, in itself, discredit said motives.
No it doesn’t. It makes you a dorm-room pishter, as they say in Yiddish. Why would anyone care about your pop-psy analysis of some old dude?
All I care about is anyone who purports to have an authoritative psychological profile of any candidate. You do not have this, hence you need not make pronoucements on what McCain’s motivations are.
If you did read the references to which I referred you on the Genetic Fallacy – you will understand just how irrelevant it is to speculate on “where McCain’s beliefs come from.” Of much, much more interest is: “what policies will McCain’s beliefs lead to?”
I have absolutely no need to read or google or woogle anything. The mere fact that you continue to claim or argue a point you know nothing about, tells me you think I might have something. You just don’t know what it is, so you first attempt to browbeat, and when that does not work, you name call.
Are you not speculating that I might not know what I’m speaking of? Do you know all there is to know about John McCain?
The way to make this a Pit issue is to open your own thread in the Pit and then to post a link in this thread to the Pit thread, with an invitation (preferably polite) to come visit it.
Calling a poster a moron in Great Debates while acknowledging that you are posting Pit material in GD just earned you a Warning to avoid that behavior in the future.
Obama supporter here, popping in to say the OP is complete non-sense. Couldn’t we also play armchair psych with Obama? Like, he has to prove to his absent daddy that he shouldn’t have run out on the family, by becomming the most powerful man in the world?
Seriously, I could give a rats ass about why someone wants to be president. I’d rather focus on what kind of president I think they would be.
Apologies made, it was late, I was too lazy to start that thread.
And, what Pashnish Ewing (and I, before I got exasperated) said. The willful ignorance (in the purest, least Pit-worthy sense; “I don’t have to Google anything! I just like pulling speculation out of nowhere and inflicting it on the board!”) is probably what put me over the line. The Genetic Fallacy has been one of my pet peeves around here for awhile, and the OP’s blithe unconcern with even spending five seconds to understand the Logic 101 irrelevance of the premise in question was a red flag to me. Again, Tom, point taken.
