In this subject Addams is beginning to look as if he is ignoring the fourth dimension. At the same time he is claiming that Clinton is making what for him are errors he is refusing to see how the whole electoral voting public is seeing what Trump is doing and most are not being impressed, Scott Adams is still mainly looking at the action in the Republican sandbox and not at the whole electorate where most of the mistakes that are being noted are being seen as coming from Trump, because IMHO there is very little else to explain why the aggregate polls in recent days saw Clinton increasing her lead over Trump by 5 points. (and Clinton has been in the past ahead of Trump by 3 points in ages)
Oh it is not hard, as one of my favorite free tinkers and biologist PZ Myers continues to note:
Because those terrorists are all simply sexually frustrated? That’s so wrong and so silly, but it’s the foundation for his whole solution.
And say…who is Scott Adams to tell Middle Eastern men that he can give them “access to women”? Does he think he’s holding the leashes on women everywhere? There’s an awful lot of similarity between Scott Adams and fundamentalist fanatics who think they’re the ones in charge of dispensing sexual favors.
[/QUOTE]
So your argument is that one guy that you represent as both “smarter people” than you and himself, criticizing something completely different invalidates Adams opinions about the elections. Fair enough.
Read it again, you seen to have missed the second paragraph were I point at how flawed his view of how a genius Trump is, good for the Republican Sandbox while at the same time Trump is losing most of the electorate.
I ran out of edit time; I was going to say also that Trump “genius” may be good for the Republican Sandbox but at the same time Trump is losing most of the electorate. That huge blind spot by Adams regarding the issue only leads one to dismiss his opinion.
Seeing how I can see how underwhelming Scott Adams is on this issue it is then pertinent to look if Scott Addams deserves attention, and it is clear that his crank magnetism a strong one (and his creationism points to that too), so he is good for cartooning, but not good to rely on his musings outside of his area of expertise.
I think Hillary should win, but Donald can make this race a lot more interesting than people might think at the moment.
His blistering attacks on Hillary will probably soften some of the conservative resentment working against him. The conservatives are bent that Donald Trump crushed the establishment and that he’s not an ideological conservative. But if there’s one thing that Trump repeatedly proved time and time again over the past year, it’s that he knows how to stir passions and voter energy, whether it’s good or bad. He is a master at getting attention and drawing interest in an otherwise dormant crowd.
There are a lot - I mean a lot - of voters who hate the Clintons. There are some on the right who almost literally associate the Clintons with the coming of the antichrist. And we have seen that Trump can actually do well with evangelical and religious voters and voters of different stripes. I think that once Trump starts going aggressively after Hillary, once he uses his rhetoric to torch the Clintons and the Democrats, he could very well ignite some of those who are right now convinced they couldn’t consider him. It’s almost like a pheromonal reaction. Like the sting of a single killer bee that starts whipping up frenzy of the hive.
And here’s the thing: if enough voters start coming out in support of Trump, then the republican establishment will want to avoid the perception that they’re on the fence and not doing their part to attack the Clintons. There will be pressure on them to attack and support Trump. Right now that’s nearly impossible to imagine, but the attacks on Clinton have just started and I think they’re going to get vicious. Trump will back away from the broadsides aimed at demographics like women and minorities and instead focus on the Clintons themselves.
The key here is whether the voters respond to it. If voters start showing signs that they’re responding to the attacks on Clintons, watch out. If Trump keeps attacking and the polls remain flat, then the game is over before it starts. But if Trump can rattle Clinton, he’s going to hard to counter-attack. Maybe the Trump University scandal comes back to haunt the Donald, but that’s not an issue at present. Will be interesting to watch.
It seems to me like all she has to do, at this point, is take the high road, refuse to mudsling like him. To stand, point and say, “This, is not what Americans are. We are better than this.” If she stood firm on this position, I don’t think she could lose.
Apologies for the hijack, but while she “famously” said that, she actually didn’t.
Much like “You didn’t build that” or “What difference does it make?”, the mutilated Kael quote persists because it allows those in certain right-wing circles to portray Democrats as out of touch or uncaring, despite the purported meaning being the opposite of the actual original meaning when quoted correctly and in context.
Note that I’m not accusing Sam of anything more than repeating a common urban legend, but I wanted to nip this one in the bud.
if his party would get behind him, he’d def have a chance, but they’re clearly trying to sabotage him, deliberately. It also doesn’t help that Max Boot just endorsed Hillary. I respect Boot, so I’ll listen to him, look past some of Obama’s big time foreign policy fails, and probably vote Hillary.
This election is gonna be fun; its basically Tyson (Trump) vs. Ali (the Clintons).
I don’t know of any big time Obama foreign policy fails. Libya would have been a disaster no matter what the US did or didn’t do. Not continually verbally fellating Netanyahu is only a fail if you’re a Republican.
there’s a reason Hillary has been much friendlier to Netanyahu than Obama, and hitting Trump’s “neutrality,” despite too many progressives. I’ve said why before. And its not just to not to just please Republicans.
I apologize to pessimists like Mr. Truthseeker whose overall sentiments may be valid even when details are flawed. It doesn’t seem unlikely that the next 5 to 10 years hold a disaster comparable or worse than those under Mr. Bush-43. Our grandchildren will know that Obama was one of the great Presidents — a beacon of intelligence in an era where disaster was the norm.
While Trump was beginning to get Republican support higher than 40% in February, at the same time Trump began to falter in the polls against Clinton among the whole public and electorate, for months Clinton was consistently ahead of Trump 1 to 3 points; in February things began to change in favor of Clinton and now Clinton is ahead 5 to 7 points. (it would be higher if Rasmussen was not falling for what it looks as its usual Republican bias that they have)
IMHO while one can claim that Trump is a genius in the Republican sandbox, the majority in the playground was not impressed by him, and he is less so now.
