Scott Adams at his best: “The Crook Versus the Monster”
Thanks to timely assists from Wikileaks, Trump has successfully framed Hillary clinton as a crooked politician. Meanwhile, Clinton has successfully framed Trump as a dangerous monster. If the mainstream polls are accurate, voters prefer the crook to the monster. That makes sense because a crook might steal your wallet but the monster could kill you. As of today, Clinton has the superior persuasion strategy. Crook beats monster.
Reality isn’t a factor in this election, as per usual. If the truth mattered, voters might care that the Democratic primaries were rigged against Sanders. They might care that the Clinton Foundation looks like a pay-to-play scheme. They might care that the FBI gave Clinton a free pass. They might care that we know Clinton cheated in at least one debate by getting a question in advance. They might care that Clinton’s dirty-tricks people incited the violence at Trump rallies. They might care that Clinton’s “speaking fees” were curiously high. They might care about all of that. But they don’t, because a crook is still a safer choice than a monster.
This is a consistent theme of Adam’s blog, in which he endeavors mightily to help us understand how insignificant most of the scandals we obsess over, will be to the ultimate outcome of this election. Read the rest of this entry »
*****Update 10/19/16: This clip turns out to be a HOAX. See Mark Dice’s expose of it in the comment section below. ◄Dave►*****
No wonder so many of these savages are getting shot:
I’d happily shoot these five fools, and rid society of their utterly worthless lives, which shouldn’t matter a whit to any civilized American. Read the rest of this entry »
As usual, Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams’ blog this morning was persuasive: “Lie Detection and Scandals”
When Clinton’s surrogates respond to questions about Wikileaks by saying the Russians are behind it, that’s an acknowledgment of guilt. Guilty people almost always question the source of the information first. Innocent people start with a clear denial, or sometimes confusion as to why the question is being asked.
He then makes a persuasive case for how and why Clinton’s apologists believe the Wikileaks are true. Later, he also suggests that they aren’t making much difference:
The Wikileaks emails are not having a huge impact because movies and books have taught us that even our most-respected politicians do favor-trading to get things done. And the emails that DO NOT come from Clinton are little more than underlings chattering. So far, Wikileaks is a big nothing.
I tend to agree with his analysis here; but the far more interesting critique comes when it is Trump’s turn: Read the rest of this entry »
This is a great example and explanation of why I don’t have time, to bother to turn on my TV anymore. Two of the intellectual stalwarts of the Alt-Right (or at least my interpretation of it), freely discussing current events at politically-incorrect depths Read the rest of this entry »
I feel sorry for this kid:
Like most seasoned political junkies, I first heard about Danney’s inconvenient paternity issues around 25 years ago, when he would have only been about five-years-old. Despite his extraordinary bad luck in parentage, and the pitifully unstable environment of his youth, he seems to have grown into a likable and remarkably responsible young man. Read the rest of this entry »
For all the whinny beta male Cuckservatives, pissing themselves over Trump’s crass language on the eleven-year-old ‘hot mike’ tape, Breitbart offers:
While The Washington Post was busy putting the finishing touches on the release of a video in which Donald Trump boasted about hitting on women, Juanita Broaddrick was in town at the historic Watergate Hotel, where she repeatedly broke down in tears during a powerful video interview exclusive to Breitbart News, recounting what she described as the life-changing experience of being raped by Bill Clinton.
Too bad that we are paying his Praetorian Guard detail for the rest of his miserable life, to protect him from the street justice he so richly deserves. If it matters to you Read the rest of this entry »
Do you Periscope? If so, you may wish to experience the debate tomorrow night, as I intend to. I will watch it on TV, while simultaneously enjoying Scott Adams’ (Dilbert) running commentary on my iPad tuned to his Periscope channel, “@ScottAdamsSays.” It will be similar to someone “Live Blogging” a political event, except Periscope is an actual streaming audio/visual experience. Speaking of visual, his very hot neighbor will be co-hosting the “Scope” with him. 😉
If you are unfamiliar with Periscope, don’t feel too old. Since I eschew most social media, I didn’t even know what it was a week ago; but I easily became addicted to the technology, once I tried it. It all started when YouTube recommended a replay of one of his daily morning “Coffee with Scott Adams” Periscope episodes, which one of his many followers, using the handle, “CyberDurden,” now converts and uploads to his own YouTube channel. E.g. here is yesterday’s episode:
You may not wish to invest the time to watch the whole episode; but if you are unfamiliar with Periscope, watching a few minutes will give you a feel for how Scott uses the platform very effectively, to communicate with his “Persuasion” oriented fans, Read the rest of this entry »
Medical malpractice or medical BS? The latest:
It happens that I own a couple of pulse oximeters, which I have used at least once a day, for the past nearly three years. I referred to them as my “E-Cigarettes,” in this old post a couple of years ago. I can confirm that my own oxygen level generally tests at 93-94%. By doing some deep breathing, I can pump it up fairly easily to 95-96%. I really have to hyperventilate, with emphasis on complete exhales, to get it to ever go higher than 97%. For her doctor to claim Hillary’s tested at 99% while suffering pneumonia, is downright laughable! Read the rest of this entry »
I find this MD rather persuasive. He has been posting videos explaining his conclusion that Hillary has Parkinson’s disease, for a couple of weeks now. His latest is a discussion of her most recent episode on 9/11:
I thought there was something really weird about the deep blue sunglasses. Too bad she won’t be able to wear them during the upcoming debates. 😉
To better understand how and why he came to his Parkinson’s conclusion, watch the following Read the rest of this entry »
Although one of my favorite sites is The Objective Standard, I rarely share links to the excellent content there, because much of it is behind a pay wall. While I have been a subscriber for years, I can’t expect others to be. However, today’s article, “9/11 and America’s Failure to End the Jihad,” is openly available to all, and worth considering:
The anniversary of 9/11 is here, and another year has passed without America naming, much less eliminating, the cause of the attack.
The cause of the attack on 9/11 and, more broadly, of the jihad against the West is the fact that Islamic regimes—most notably those in Iran and Saudi Arabia—take Islam seriously and thus seek to convert or kill everyone who doesn’t. Toward that end, these regimes materially and spiritually support jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State, who, in turn, attack and murder Americans and others who refuse to submit.
That, in a nutshell, is why al-Qaeda attacked America on September 11, 2001. And it is why jihadists and their supporters are constantly planning or sponsoring more attacks. Everyone paying attention knows this. But the U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the cause and thus refuses to eliminate the source of the problem: the Islamic regimes that sponsor jihad.
Like he said, we all know this; but it is not considered Politically Correct to say so out loud. A very good question is why? Read the rest of this entry »
Dilbert thinks so: “The Race for President is (Probably) Over.” He suggests that her latest medical “overheating” episode, at today’s 9/11 memorial event, has finished her off:
That clip of her falling again will soon go viral! Scott Adams makes an excellent point:
You probably wonder if the “overheated” explanation is true – and a non-issue as reported – or an indication of a larger medical condition. I’m blogging to tell you it doesn’t matter. The result is the same.
His logic seems rather persuasive: Read the rest of this entry »
One frequently encounters the sentiment that people get the government they deserve. This is usually found in the context that those suffering tyranny in foreign lands, should rise up and overthrow their rulers. I must admit that I have in the past been persuaded by this logic, especially during debate over the notion that we somehow have a moral obligation, to go abroad seeking dragons to slay, on behalf of oppressed people.
I am pretty clear in my assessment that we have no such obligation; but is it even true that oppressed slaves deserve their masters, for lack of will to depose them, violently if necessary?
In a comment section here the other day, CT referring to Hillary said:
It boils down to CHARACTER … who has it and who does not.
I am not talking about CHARACTER of the candidates I am talking about character of the American voter who clearly is about to get exactly what they deserve.
From my increasingly anarchistic perspective, I was tempted to quip that this would be their just deserts, for legitimizing the oligarch’s Kabuki dance by voting at all, regardless of the winner of their sham election. The “Deep State” could care less who wins an election; because normally they control both candidates. The jury is still out; but this is the first time in at least a generation that this may not be true.
I have just finished reading probably the most important essay of this political season, which concluded with:
The election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final test—of whether there is any virtù left in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.
The pseudonymous author was referring, of course, to the #NeverTrump faction of the conservative intelligentsia, which he repeatedly excoriates with the delicious metaphor, of comparing them to the Washington Generals. Read the rest of this entry »
Or, was it lying while cheating? It seems that the NYPD caught her wearing what they think is a stealth miniature communication device, during the so-called CinC debate last night.
Of course, it might have just been another undisclosed medical infirmity, which requires her to wear a hearing aid. Granny is obviously rapidly decomposing before our eyes.
Best comment of the day: Read the rest of this entry »
First, I would like to point out my “Cultural Bigotry” essay, which I wrote a few months back, before I ever heard of the “Alt-Right.” Since Hillary’s speech introducing the term to the rest of us, much is being made of the alleged ‘racist’ or ‘white supremacist’ nature of some of those associated with it. The research I have been doing, has revealed that multicultural challenges, are seen as much more important than race to these young folks. For one thing, they are actually intelligent enough to understand that terms like ‘Muslim’ or ‘Mexican,’ do not refer to the race of those they label. However, here is a short discussion of the diversity within the movement, by one of its founders:
Certainly not PC; but I find his positions reasonable, and certainly worthy of open discussion in the marketplace of ideas. I also note his push back, regarding whether either Breitbart or Trump, Read the rest of this entry »