Analysis On The Mark Cuban Analysis
“I call it political chemotherapy. One of my friends who I always thought was very smart said, Mark, I voted for politicians my entire life. He’s in his 50s. Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over expecting (sic) the same results. So I voted for Donald Trump. Is he poisonous in a lot of respects? Yeah. He’s our chemotherapy. We hope he’s going to change the political system.”
CNN anchors Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota hosted billionaire Mark Cuban recently and seemed to merely fawn — like most people do with billionaires — over his analysis given on Donald Trump and his electoral college win rather than deliberate on the perspective.
Mark Cuban went on to suggest that voters knew what they were getting when they placed their vote for Trump and that vote was akin to opting for chemotherapy as a cure for the political system.
Its a fair analysis and in following up on that analysis with my own, I must conclude that if these voters believed the assessment that they were given was that dire from their so-called self-proclaimed doctor, and subsequently believed that the only alternative was to cure it with a potentially life-threatening treatment, then I hope you live long enough to sue for malpractice.
My concern is why go to a quack doctor to begin with. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo seemed to justify the assessment and its treatment simply because the doctor or Trump rather, simply said so. Really!?
If being assessed under and with such compulsion to go straight for chemotherapy for chemotherapy sake, without sufficient evaluation and no estimation then prudence would have me conclude that we are not dealing with a real doctor then — or in Trump’s case not a real president. Cuban’s friend and the many other voters like him did not seek a professional opinion, they opted rather for someone who is a quack. I take it that they would have opted for homeopathy rather than pursue oncology.
See, this is what I’ve been talking about.
This movement towards pseudo-intellectualism is alarming. I am not saying that our politics isn’t sick, nor does it merely have a cold. What I am saying is that you have embraced an inaccurate assessment which subsequently lends itself to a method of treatment that is profoundly an act of negligence preceded by malpractice. I guess that is what it will have to boil down to — a lawsuit, however one must have standing and in this case there would have to be an indication of damage/harm done or its imminence. The latter is difficult to prove and the former is harder to take.
I liken the political assessment to having certain tumors that require removal without the risk of weakening every vital organ in the process. Certain tumors are benign and should be called out and isolated but that doesn’t mean they are cancerous, unless you ignore it or act like it’s not there. I chuckle here because there are many who will read into this and figure out what those malignant tumors are and how surgery could easily rid ourselves of the threat. But I leave it to you to fill in those blanks. See exhibit A, B, C, & D below as partial examination examples.
