The Sociopath in Chief
Webster’s Dictionary defines a sociopath as: “someone who behaves in a dangerous or violent way towards other people and does not feel guilty about such behavior.” In everyday usage it can be used to mean someone who has no conscience; someone who only cares about what benefits himself or herself with no regard for the suffering or loss of others.
When most people tell a lie, they have “tells.” They may look away, give too much or too little detail, have increased heart rate and many other indicators. They feel a sense of guilt for lying and it shows. For a sociopath, lying comes naturally and without that pesky conscience, they can be very convincing. Their only concern is getting what they want.
The most famous sociopath from recent history is probably, serial killer, Ted Bundy. He was intelligent, charming and handsome: a deadly combination for a sociopath. He was able to charm young women into trusting him even during a time when women should have been even more aware of ‘stranger danger” than they normally are. His sociopathy served him well. He could lie convincingly and his charm and handsomeness only made him more attractive.
There are several jobs that are perfect for the sociopath, such as being a hit man. Feeling no guilt, he is able to carry out the murder simply to make money. A normal person would suffer tremendous feelings of guilt for that type of behavior. A military sniper can justify his job believing that what he does is for the greater good and may save the lives of people on his side, but in talking to former soldiers who were snipers, they said that they still have some conflicted feelings about what they had to do. A sociopath would feel no conflict.
Another good job for a sociopath is as a vulture capitalist. This is a person who takes control of a valuable company, sucks out all of the money and discards what is left. He has no regard for those individuals who have spent their lives building a company they can be proud of or the employees that lose their jobs as a result. His only concern is how much money can be made. By now, most of you have heard of the trail of destruction left by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. For those not familiar with their behavior I will give a brief analogy. Suppose you borrowed money and bought a new car. Upon its delivery, you took it to a chop shop and had all of the valuable parts removed and sold. You then took what was left to a scrapyard and sold it as scrap. You then filed for bankruptcy and got out of paying back the car loan, but keeping all of the money you got along the way. If you had a lot of chutzpah you might even file an insurance claim to get paid for the loss of the car. Of course, in the real world, you would be arrested and charged with multiple counts of fraud, but in Mitt Land this is all legal.
A lot of jokes have been made about strapping his dog to the roof of the car for a road trip, but how could anyone with an ounce of human compassion for his family’s pet treat him so cruelly? Only a sociopath would put his convenience ahead of the health and safety of his children’s pet. Why? To have more room for his valuables or maybe so he didn’t have to listen to the dog’s barking. Animal cruelty is one of earliest indicators of a sociopathic personality and often precedes human cruelty.
As a candidate, Mitt Romney has changed his position on so many things so many times, that the running joke is: “If you don’t like Mitt’s position on something, wait five minutes and he will change it.” As a sociopath, he has no problem saying whatever he feels his audience wants to hear. All politicians do this to a point, but most have a line that they won’t cross. If such a line exists for Mitt Romney, no one has yet to see it.
He has that same deadly combination of traits that Ted Bundy had; he is charming, handsome, educated, and intelligent. Unlike Bundy, his goals are money, power and prestige, not literal rape and murder. These are more socially acceptable goals and I guess we can be grateful for that. Many “normal” people share these goals and attributes and there is nothing wrong with them, it is how you go about achieving them. The sociopath will do whatever it takes with the only limits being what he can get away with.
Along the way he has picked up some endorsements that one could reasonably question. He has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association as a pro gun candidate even though his history is far from a pro gun position. Here is a brief history of how his position has “evolved.”
From the 2008 Opposition Research report prepared by the McCain Campaign.
- In 1994 Senate race, Romney backed Brady bill and assault weapons ban, saying “I don’t line up with the NRA” and “that’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.”
- Romney called Clinton crime bill “a big step forward.”
- As governor, Romney quadrupled gun licensing fees and vowed not to “chip away” at tough gun laws
- In 2004, Romney signed permanent state-level ban on assault weapons that was mirrored after federal assault weapons ban.
- In January 2006, Romney said he owned a gun – then two days later admitted he did not and the gun belonged to his son.
- Romney bragged about being member of the NRA but later revealed he didn’t join until August 2006, just before launching his presidential campaign.
- Romney recently said he’s “been a hunter pretty much all my life” but later admitted he hunted only twice in his life, later clarifying remarks by claiming he has hunted “small varmints … more than two times.”
- In 2006 press conference, Romney claimed he had been hunting “many times” after returning from quail hunt in Georgia.
In an editorial endorsing Mitt Romney, Guns and Ammo Magazine writer Doug Howlett stated:
Life Under Romney
Whether you believe Romney is a true champion of the Second Amendment or feel he’s saying what he must to get elected, odds are if the NRA helps him win, his gratitude will be such that he won’t do anything to upset that support throughout his term. That means it is doubtful we will see a return to any “assault weapons” bans or other federal legislation that will infringe upon gun rights. Without question, where gun rights are concerned, Romney is the hands down choice.
Now there is a ringing endorsement. What he is actually saying is that no matter what Mitt Romney actually believes, he has received his thirty pieces of silver (actually with inflation it is several million pieces of silver) and is now bought and paid for. He will do whatever we tell him to do.
To be fair, President Obama has also shifted his position on gun control over the years. As president, he has signed legislation that permits Amtrak passengers to carry guns in their checked baggage and another that allows visitors to national parks and wildlife refuges to possess concealed guns. He has not pushed for actions he supported in his 2008 campaign, including closing the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows unlicensed private firearm sellers to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting the background checks and reporting requirements that registered gun dealers must conduct.
Here is a clip from the HBO series, Newsroom. The show is a fictional account of a TV news station, but the facts presented here and the clips within the clip are real.
The bottom line on the gun issue is that regardless of the outcome of the election, not much will change. The president does not have the authority to usurp the second amendment and Congress does not have the will to substantially change the laws.
Romney has promised that if elected, on day one he will repeal “Obamacare.” He has also promised to do about 20 other things on day one so it should be a busy day. Of course, the health care legislation was passed by congress and signed into law and it would take an act of congress to repeal it so he lying again. The Supremes have upheld the penalty on those who can afford to purchase health care insurance but choose not to, calling it a tax. Of course, Mitt has jumped on the word “tax” and is now claiming that Obama is imposing a new high tax on everyone. The tax only applies to those who are able to afford insurance and choose to not buy it. Here, let me have an expert explain it in detail, as reported on Fox News. (not exactly a bastion of liberal views)
Mitt Romney has finally chosen a clone er… running mate and I find the choice of Paul Ryan to be a curious one. I don’t see an advantage in this choice as supporters of Ryan were already firmly in Romney’s camp. It also focuses scrutiny on the Ryan budget plan, a plan so extreme that even some conservatives find it onerous. Romney has his own plan to benefit the one percent, but it is slightly different. Basically it treats the middle class like a target company from his Bain days. Squeeze all of the money out that you can and discard what is left.
I can understand the disappointment people feel towards Barack Obama: I feel much of it myself. The economy has only made modest gains and we are still in Afghanistan. At least he has resisted attacking Iran, which I believe is in Romney’s plans. If there were a “none of the above” option on the ballot, I believe that none would win in a landslide, but given the reality that the real choice boils down to Obama and Romney, the choice should be obvious. Hold your nose and do what you have to do.
This sums it all up.
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=219814