PostHeaderIcon Dilbert’s Endorsement

I told you this guy was an astute thinker. He is also a pragmatic one: My Endorsement for POTUS:

I’ve decided to come off the sidelines and endorse a candidate for President of the United States.

I’ll start by reminding readers that my politics don’t align with any of the candidates. My interest in the race has been limited to Trump’s extraordinary persuasion skills. But lately Hillary Clinton has moved into the persuasion game – and away from boring facts and policies – with great success. Let’s talk about that.

He then explains why Hillary’s new fear based attack on Trump may actually start a race war, which he wants no part of. He concludes with:

So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.

As I have often said, I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president. But I do know which outcome is most likely to get me killed by my fellow citizens. So for safety reason, I’m on team Clinton.

My prediction remains that Trump will win in a landslide based on his superior persuasion skills. But don’t blame me for anything President Trump does in office because I endorse Clinton.

The rest of you are on your own. Good luck.

The man likes to think ahead… and he is pretty good at it. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º


19 Responses to “Dilbert’s Endorsement”

  • Jerry Elkins says:

    Shame on Dave. So you are for a criminal for POTUS? You can do better. How much money has she and her husband collected from foreign governments Dave? Oh I know. It doesn’t matter because, one she is a female of sorts, and her name is Clinton.

  • Jerry Elkins says:

    Sorry Dave. Appeared YOU were endorsing Hillary.

    • Huh? I don’t see how, Jerry. It was clearly in the indented, colored, ‘blockquotes’ style, indicating I was quoting from the provided link. Also, you might note that I tagged it as ‘Humor.’

      To be clear, NO I do not support Hillary (or anyone else for that matter) for POTUS. Neither does Scott Adams, in my opinion. Since my preceding post had already explained who he was, I didn’t see the need to restate that he draws a well-known comic strip for a living. That makes him a form of comedian, I think. While his previously discussed blog post had been profoundly insightful, this one struck me as LOL funny. Thus, my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek during my sparse comments about it, while only intending to share a good joke with my own readers. I’m sorry you missed the humor. â—„Daveâ–º

  • This guy makes me laugh out loud.
    Let me read between the lines here.

    I will publicly endorse Hillary Clinton for my own safety against HER THUG MOB. But behind the scenes I will vote for Trump.
    Should Trump fail on his promised mission I can join the crowd now bitching their heads off.
    If he is a success I can say good job whoda thunk. LOL

    Lets all play both ends against the middle which apparently got us where we are today.

    Is there really something positive to say for a “delusional state of safety”?
    Oh MERCY we are so screwed! 😉

    • This guy makes me laugh out loud.

      I’m pretty sure that was his intent, CT. As I explained to Jerry above, making people laugh is how he earns his living. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

      • I am fairly sure that was his intent too.
        His whole scenario though funny … certainly is thought provoking.

        I love what is going on … Trump calling out the judge in his case made me laugh out loud. The outrage he causes with the media is the best.

        The special interest groups whining about him being raciest etc makes them look like fools.

        I watched a clip of “The View” the other day … where Hillary went into her lie mode and the whole crew chimed in like trained pigs. The audience who has to have an IQ less than my shoe size (or they would not be there) was applauding.

        Clearly we now live in a world where ignorance is bliss … LOL 😉

        • Chris says:

          CT, many are missing the real problem with Trump “calling out” the judge in the “Trump U” case. They are focusing on the racist aspect missing the real problem. Trump is using the “bully pulpit” as the “presumptive nominee” to influence and or change a court proceeding that he is the defendant. At the very least he is engaging in jury tampering by preemptively poisoning the jury pool. At worst he is attempting to intimidate a federal court into actions he feels would benefit him. From what I have been able to find out he has a good chance of losing that case, and one in NY that isn’t being talked about with much bigger teeth. No matter the situation it has no place on the stump and if it weren’t Trump any other defendant would be explaining himself in front of that judge for contempt.

      • Chris says:

        LOL there is no safe place. In my roaming of the internet I come across all sorts. I can assure you there are elements of Trump supporters every bit as rabid as Hillary supporters. Their venom is particularly place toward those that would support neither candidate. If you don’t like Hillary you must love Trump. Although I suppose there are degrees of threat. I’m used to being called a racist doody head by liberals. The specter of “blood in the streets” being voiced by the supposed “right” is pretty new. Mission accomplished.

        • Sorry Chris I do not see Trump supporters showing up and Hillary Clinton or Bernie rallies throwing eggs, rocks, bottles or bashing people in the head.

          I am further sorry but my view of justice is you show up to a rally with a carton of eggs you get shot by authorities … it is as simple as that.

          My stance is the same for anyone using violence against any rally goer no matter the candidate they support.

          As far as who anyone supports I do not give a flip. It is a free nation so far and one can vote as they choose or not.

          BTW: you are lucky I am called a BITCH DAILY … my go to response is … “empress BITCH to you” … lol 😉

        • Chris says:

          My point CT is what this cycle has done to both sides. Or more likely posers from neither represented majority. Both extremes are AstroTurf.

  • …if it weren’t Trump any other defendant would be explaining himself in front of that judge for contempt.

    I disagree, Chris. Even Megyn Kelly and Newt Gingrich, et al, while excoriating Trump for referring to him as a Mexican, acknowledged that he had every right to complain about the judge’s rulings if he considered them unfair, or any biases he thought warranted a change of venue. I suspect that if he had the authority to order Trump before his bench, to answer to a contempt of court charge, he would exercise it in a heartbeat.

    Meanwhile, I am getting a little disgusted at all the outrage over Trump referring to him as a Mexican. That is what he is! I have been referring to individuals of Mexican heritage as Mexicans all my life, regardless of where they live, where they were born, or what their citizenship status might be. For the most part, Mexicans are proud of their heritage, or at least not ashamed of it. This judge is an anchor baby and before becoming a judge was involved with La Raza, he couldn’t possibly be offended by being referred to as a Mexican. How many Americans of Italian decent get their knickers in a twist over being referred to as an Italian? How about the Hawaiians? This country is going mad with all the PC nonsense. How soon before it is a faux pas to say, ‘Mexican Restaurant?’

    What many are really missing in this flap, is the profound service Trump is performing for conservatives, in publicly challenging the judge’s bias. If you are up for a whole new profound take on the issue, read “Trump and the Judge“:

    The slightly deeper assumption is that this identity-based predictability is necessary, because the institutions and laws as designed will not reliably produce the “correct” outcome. That’s the logic of diversity in a nutshell. If everybody in power strictly followed law and procedure, the good guys—the poor, minorities, women, etc.—would lose a great deal of the time and that would be bad. We need people who will look past the niceties of the rule of law and toward the outcome—the end. The best way to ensure that is “diversity,” i.e., people more loyal to their own party and tribe than to abstractions like the rule of law.

    Trump simply took this very same logic and restated it from his own point-of-view—that is, from the point-of-view of a rich, Republican, ostentatiously hyper-American defendant in a lawsuit being litigated in a highly-charged political environment. He knows full well that at least 50% of the country will howl like crazy if he wins this suit. He knows that the judge knows that, too. He further knows that judge knows what his own “side” expects him to do. It would take an act of extraordinary courage to act against interest and expectation in this instance. And our present system is not calibrated to produce such acts of courage but rather to produce the expected outcome.

    Go read it and let me know if it changed your perspective. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

    • Here is more on the La Raza connection, by our old friend Jerome Corsi. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Wait… this one is even better. It is nice to see that at least a few on the Right are still able to think straight! â—„Daveâ–º

    • Chris says:

      Contempt may have been over the top. I still maintain that the race aspect isn’t the problem. The way it’s being handled by Trump is. If he feels he can’t get a fair hearing there are remedies in place other than using your political supporters. This is a private civil matter having nothing to do with Trumps run for office. (save an indication of character which he can defend by explaining how it was a wonderful thing he was doing for those people) Suppose Trump weren’t running for office. Would anybody care if he thought the judge was fair? No it would be just be some rich SOB whining about getting sued. Who cares? He’s using his position for his own benefit. Simple as that. Never saw that coming.

      • The race aspect is so old hat it is boring to the public no matter what side. It is the standard argument when THERE IS NO ARGUMENT.

        Apparently what Trump haters fail to get … Trump is Trump. He is a sharp as a tack, even sharper wit who speaks his mind NO MATTER WHAT.

        Do you for a second think he cares what anyone else thinks on the fly?
        Watching him in interviews anyone who can not grasp that needs behavioral psychology 101.

        He is ever moving forward … probably like most uber-intellects at least 100 miles ahead of the average dumbed down dullard in society today.

        Suppose Trump weren’t running for office. Would anybody care if he thought the judge was fair? No it would be just be some rich SOB whining about getting sued. Who cares?

        Apparently you do … but why?
        Because you dislike him?
        Do you not use your position and might for your benefit when you are not treated fairly?

        I certainly would and do.
        If one is not willing to stand up and fight for self then one deserves no help or support from anyone else.

        Just my opinion.

        • Chris says:

          I have lived my whole life in NY. Trump has been Trump for as long as I can remember. Whether I liked or disliked him made no difference what so ever up until a year ago. To be honest the Trump of a year ago I kind of liked. He was always entertaining whether good or bad. The problem now is that what you see is his default setting and always has been. It’s no longer a reality TV show.

          I must say I’m somewhat surprised by your reply. Not so much the fact that because you like Trump and by that you assume that he is in fact being treated unfairly. What surprises me is your condoning a different justice for those in power with influence and connections and the blatant use of the same. How much different is what Trump is attempting to do than say Hillary using her position to skirt FOIA laws and having her minions in government and media block and discredit any meaningful investigation? Or her skirting any meaningful investigation into her responsibility for incidents in Benghazi and the lies there after? Or the long list of women’s reputations left in ruins in the wake of Billy’s extra activities? In all the go to strategy is to discredit and attack the arbiter of justice or the victim to become the perceived victim when it should be just laying out the case that allegations are simply untrue.

          Haven’t we had enough of this yet?

        • The problem now is that what you see is his default setting and always has been.

          Surely you realize it is his default setting that his supporters like?
          You must further realize his supporters EXPECT HIM TO REMAIN that way? Unlike the 2 faced pond scum that is inundating both parties today.

          that you assume that he is in fact being treated unfairly.

          Looking at the facts of the case I assume nothing. This case is frivolous (at best) and should have been dropped long ago. If the legal firm was made to pay for Trumps cost of defending himself there is no doubt in my mind they would have dropped this long ago.

          Dave is correct when he says most of those who attended the university were happy. There will many times be someone in a class who wants to blame others for their own lack of talent, ability to learn or have buyers remorse.

          How much different is what Trump is attempting to do than say Hillary using her position to skirt FOIA laws and having her minions in government and media block and discredit any meaningful investigation?

          Infinity comes to mind 🙂

  • How much different is what Trump is attempting to do than say Hillary using her position…

    Chris, I have tried to fairly evaluate your reasonable sounding point here. First, as is my wont of late, I should point out that in the absence of the state, and the thoroughly corrupt legal system it enables and supports, neither Trumps lawsuit travails, nor any of the political crimes and injustices you ascribe to Hillary, would even exist. Haven’t we had enough of this yet? 😉

    That little detail out of the way, I just cannot accept the equivalence implied by your question. I think we all agree that in a just world, Hillary would be in an steel cage by now, for her actual criminal misdeeds. Trump is being harassed by a class action civil suit, by a few disgruntled customers solicited by a pack of legal ambulance chasers, all hoping for a big payday. I would suggest there is an enormous difference.

    It doesn’t take much research to discover that 98+ percent of customers in that particular enterprise were completely satisfied, and conclude that it is a nuisance lawsuit. More often than not, these things are settled out of court to swat them away, and get back to doing business. The problem with that strategy, is that if someone of Trump’s stature gets the reputation of settling nuisance lawsuits, it just invites more of them. This is why such tycoons must retain significant legal talent on staff, to be able to play hardball when necessary, to keep the volume of such distractions at least down to a dull roar.

    You place a high value on adhering to one’s principles. One of Trump’s is to fight such injustice, rather than to take the easy out of using his checkbook, to make such nuisances go away. Personally, as an entrepreneur myself, I give him credit for that. I might question the wisdom of insulting the Federal judge adjudicating this case; but you might notice that in all the uproar, few are fairly questioning his actual charge of potential bias. They are only outraged at his impudence for publicly stating it.

    The judge’s various public connections to the openly racist “La Raza” meme are well documented, and irrefutable. His celebrated awarding of a law scholarship to an acknowledged illegal alien, would certainly call his fidelity to the rule of law, over his affinity for “The Race,” into question. Given Trump’s recent conflict with the judge’s affinity group, it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that there might be an appearance of impropriety, necessitating he recuse himself.

    Politics is hardball, and Trump plays to win. Were his opponents not trying to make political hay out of this nuisance lawsuit, he might never have thought it necessary or prudent to ever mention the judge himself. It is politics itself that has changed the dynamics here, not Trump trying to exercise some new political power. To get to what I think was CT’s point, tell me Chris, if you were in his shoes now, would you be quietly “just laying out the case that allegations are simply untrue” and hoping for the best from an undoubtedly conflicted judge? If so, I would suggest that you would have been better off shelving your principles, and just settling it in the beginning. Thereby saving all the fuss and a lot of money, because you would very likely lose it now, no matter how valid your position. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Again we agree Dave 🙂

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links