tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post9149730832792394833..comments2024-03-17T04:17:49.429-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Ayn Rand as Word-Thinker and PersuaderDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger239125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6038524689334078582017-01-07T01:06:20.247-08:002017-01-07T01:06:20.247-08:00You can usually spot the crazy when it starts hack...You can usually spot the crazy when it starts hacking up its cute little catchphrases like a cat with a hairball.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-911159277797062017-01-05T21:42:50.906-08:002017-01-05T21:42:50.906-08:00At least Trump won. America is reborn, and very so...At least Trump won. America is reborn, and very soon, believe me, we won't have to put up any longer with the evil analyzed so well here:<br />http://ariwatch.com/ValedictoriansOfYesteryear.htm<br /><br />Here's an example of something Andy Bernstein would evidently support as "moral justice":<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVbtV1O1xsY<br /><br />Look at those moral giants, equal to the Founders, standing up for liberty and yooman rights and contextual capitalist rational epistemology!<br /><br /><br /><br />America Recidivusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-34860264398146823912016-12-12T22:01:38.125-08:002016-12-12T22:01:38.125-08:00@Neil Parille - could you pass along this excellen...@Neil Parille - could you pass along this excellent talk by Lew Rockwell:<br />https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/<br /><br />to Lindsay Perigo.<br /><br />(I'm too lazy to sign up for account on SOLO Passion)<br /><br />Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70311303986681153472016-11-13T11:37:44.287-08:002016-11-13T11:37:44.287-08:00Funny, I don't FEEL "rewarded generously&...<i>Funny, I don't FEEL "rewarded generously"></i><br /><br />i admitted to you that i couldn't meaningfully prove my position on the only issue you wanted to talk about. When you said you didn't want to discuss the issue I was interested in, I accepted your decision and moved on. I also let you have the last word, just like you wanted. I also told you that I believed we had reached common ground, were having a raitonal conversation, and that I was enjoying it.<br /><br />That's about as "rewarded" as you can get in an online debate.<br /><br />I didn't get any equivalent treatment from you or anybody else, despite having "won" on a number of issues. But I don't care. To play "generous tit for tat" you have to give up on being rewarded yourself, and be endlessly patient. You're undoing millennia of accumulated psychological trauma, so it takes time.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55791939265355130162016-11-13T10:06:04.654-08:002016-11-13T10:06:04.654-08:00Funny, I don't FEEL "rewarded generously&...Funny, I don't FEEL "rewarded generously".Anonymous 2:30noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-42263141017875105182016-11-12T17:32:49.178-08:002016-11-12T17:32:49.178-08:00@Jzero:
"In any case, I'm no longer will...@Jzero:<br /><br />"In any case, I'm no longer willing to waste the time. Expect fewer mega-arguments in the future."<br /><br />Right on. Been there, done that. As have many others. There is no light at the end of this tunnel.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-9557231773071245702016-11-12T15:51:52.123-08:002016-11-12T15:51:52.123-08:00Q.E.D.Q.E.D.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-16091384070783177842016-11-12T13:52:30.253-08:002016-11-12T13:52:30.253-08:00When rational people disagree with you, they give ...When rational people disagree with you, they give you a counter argument. When irrational people disagree with you, they intimidate, insult, isolate, change the burden of proof, and change the subject. When I see you and JZ doing the latter instead of the former, psychological explanations are the only rational ones I can draw.<br /><br />You then complain about my use of the only explanations that are possible, given your total failure to make rational counter arguments. Because that makes you feel better. ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-87187235344963222432016-11-12T13:20:43.957-08:002016-11-12T13:20:43.957-08:00@Gordon:
Yeah, I'm done for now. I mean, I...@Gordon:<br /><br />Yeah, I'm done for now. I mean, I'm not going to absolutely swear I'll never retort in some way if he says something particularly dumb, but it's clear that most of this feeds U's ego and lets him trot his sense of superiority out and give it walkies. (Regardless of whether he's got any point or not.)<br /><br />I mean, right there he's just told me all my insults are meaningless, but it's always him that brings up issues of intimidation and unfair treatment first, so there's something that galls him going on. Either that or he's putting on an act, pretending to be galled so he can come back and crow about it all being his master plan to... whatever the hell he thinks he's doing.<br /><br />In any case, I'm no longer willing to waste the time. Expect fewer mega-arguments in the future.Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-64652256856751677782016-11-12T12:28:39.485-08:002016-11-12T12:28:39.485-08:00@Jzero:
Before this argument goes even further do...@Jzero:<br /><br />Before this argument goes even further down the rabbit hole, a few thoughts on all this psychologizing.<br /><br />In all of U's vaporings, there is an unspoken major premise - never stated outright, but always there.<br /><br />The premise is: that the views being expressed by U. are obviously true, and eminently clear to any rational mind. There's no way that anyone could seriously believe that a lot of his arguments are pretty stupid. Oh no! Not at all! Any disagreement therefore positively demands a psychological explanation.<br /><br />And those disagreeing with him are not merely rationalizing or in denial. Oh no! Not at all! His arguments are so brilliant, so self-evident, that people who disagree with him must in fact be mentally ill! “Narcissistic psychopaths” is his confident diagnosis. His professional diagnosis, no less.<br /><br />For my own part, I have no interest in attempting to psychoanalyze someone who sees his own reasoning and the rebuttals of others in these terms. But I do find myself thinking that such an analysis is urgently required.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-63373751981858888652016-11-12T10:40:54.185-08:002016-11-12T10:40:54.185-08:00So am I indeed a freak to be studied, or is that j...<i>So am I indeed a freak to be studied, or is that just the thing you say so you can win your tit-for-tat game?</i><br /><br />at this point, both. if you started engaging in rational conversation, neither. i'm trying to figure out how to bridge that gap with this crowd in this forum. real people in real life are much easier. the internet is a haven for trolls, which allows me to learn how to deal with people at their nastiest.<br /><br /><i>And in what way do you suppose you socially intimidate me?</i><br /><br />I don't really care whether i do. I'm just hitting you with your own medicine. It hurts you about as much as yours hurts me. Meaning not at all.<br /><br /><i>Have you ever rewarded me?</i><br /><br />You haven't been rational yet. Anon got there, but it took weeks to get him there.<br /><br /><i>You can't intimidate me - your insults have been hollow and empty from the start, only brought up by me to illustrate your hypocrisy. </i><br /><br />Maybe this will help you understand how hollow and empty your insults are to me. I just laugh when you tell me i'm obsessed with this forum. i use "tit for tat" so you can learn how stupid your games are by being on the other end of them.<br /><br />Seems to me it's working. At least we can agree that insults are a stupid waste of time. Maybe now you'll apply that principle to your own behavior.<br /><br />the prisoner's dilemma has one fault -- it assumes that the prisoners share a single goal. shawshank redemptions shows that isn't true. andy's had several goals -- to learn, to live, and also to escape. it was his multiple goals that ultimately allowed him to beat the dilemma.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-12496592487673185242016-11-12T09:19:59.235-08:002016-11-12T09:19:59.235-08:00"You mock me for my alleged obsession with th..."You mock me for my alleged obsession with this forum, I turn it around on you by saying I can't look away because you are a freak who needs to be studied."<br /><br />Uh huh.<br /><br />So am I indeed a freak to be studied, or is that just the thing you say so you can win your tit-for-tat game? And in what way do you suppose you socially intimidate me? Have you ever rewarded me? What a crock of BS.<br /><br />You can't intimidate me - your insults have been hollow and empty from the start, only brought up by me to illustrate your hypocrisy. Plus, there's been no "social" group here to interact with, as what little society there is here mostly drifts out the door when one of these mega-arguments happens. So whoever you think there is with which for me to be "socially intimidated" is beyond me. (Not to mention that the people that do remain don't exactly appear to be supporting you.) And I don't know what form this rewarding of yours is supposed to take. Either I haven't qualified for it or you're "rewarding" me with something I don't care about.<br /><br />I mean, fine, whatever. We are way, way off the subject now so I'll let you have this sandbox to yourself for the time being. See if you can find some other member of the social group to engage with you.Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-33176924351931846172016-11-12T08:26:43.702-08:002016-11-12T08:26:43.702-08:00"Here, I had no power to affect the outcome a...<br /><br /><i>"Here, I had no power to affect the outcome at all. I couldn't affect what two candidates were selected, and my vote could not have affected the outcome because my state went Clinton by one of the largest margins in the country."<br /><br />States predicted to go for Clinton went to Trump. Perhaps yours wasn't expected to, but you could have tried. Looking at it after the fact and saying "see, it was impossible" is rationalizing your inaction.<br /><br />In the larger sense, though, he's everyone's Trump now. Have fun!</i><br /><br />Well then I guess he's your trump too. Even if you're not American, you could have tried to change the outcome by changing your citizenship and voting. Or if you are American, you could have run for office yourself or voted a few thousand times in Michigan or shot trump voters. And since you didn't do that, you're to blame in exactly the same way I am. So you enjoy your Trump too, along with your primitive moral system that divorces responsibility from control.<br /><br />In the mean time, I'll be out here living in the real world where people aren't deemed responsible for things they can't control.<br /><br /><i>But you bring out "your work" as a club, saying that I or others exhibit X behavior which is like Y people you deal with at "your work". You're obviously trying to paint yourself as some sort of professional in the realm of the human psyche, and then using that supposed expertise to call your opponents bad or crazy or whatever.</i><br /><br />That's not a correct assumption. Psychopaths and narcissists are a major factor in all areas of work -- business, medicine, law, entertainment. The higher up the chain you get, the more important it becomes to know how to deal with them. Psychopaths and narcissists are disproportionately present at the top of every game. Hell, look at he election.<br /><br /><i>Then you have the gall to turn around and complain of social bullying and other persecutions! It's amazing the hypocrisy you engage in and maybe don't even see.</i><br /><br />Really I've just learned that with people like you, one needs to employ a "generous tit for tat" strategy. "Tit for tat" is recognized as the most effective and efficient means of resolving the prisoner's dilemma when you're dealing with a partner that doesn't understand what winning the game requires. The prisoner's dilemma is especially common when you're dealing with narcissists and psychopaths because they lack the mental capacity to see the whole matrix.<br /><br />https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2011/12/19/generous-tit-for-tat-a-winning-strategy/?client=safari<br /><br />You mock me for my alleged obsession with this forum, I turn it around on you by saying I can't look away because you are a freak who needs to be studied. You try to socially intimidate me, I socially intimidate you back. Then as soon as you do something right, I reward you generously.<br /><br />There's plenty of research on it. Look it up.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-61539670498951006432016-11-11T10:42:39.528-08:002016-11-11T10:42:39.528-08:00"Well, we've backed away from calling him..."Well, we've backed away from calling him "my trump" to now talking about "some responsibility." "<br /><br />No we haven't. Still your Trump. The fact that I use different words from time to time isn't "backing away" from anything.<br /><br />"Here, I had no power to affect the outcome at all. I couldn't affect what two candidates were selected, and my vote could not have affected the outcome because my state went Clinton by one of the largest margins in the country."<br /><br />States predicted to go for Clinton went to Trump. Perhaps yours wasn't expected to, but you could have tried. Looking at it after the fact and saying "see, it was impossible" is rationalizing your inaction.<br /><br />In the larger sense, though, he's everyone's Trump now. Have fun!<br /><br /><br />"Suspecting from the fact that I post on this forum a few times a day that I don't have a job?"<br /><br />I never said that. I'm sure you have some sort of job to pay for things like your Internet. (Speaking of "sorts of thinking" that leads to things, how about this tendency to infer what isn't there, make stuff up out of nothing like you do? Does that have a clinical name? Paranoia, perhaps?)<br /><br />But you bring out "your work" as a club, saying that I or others exhibit X behavior which is like Y people you deal with at "your work". You're obviously trying to paint yourself as some sort of professional in the realm of the human psyche, and then using that supposed expertise to call your opponents bad or crazy or whatever.<br /><br />Then you have the gall to turn around and complain of social bullying and other persecutions! It's amazing the hypocrisy you engage in and maybe don't even see.<br /><br />I don't really know exactly what it is you do, and honestly it doesn't really matter. I sure wouldn't tell you any details about me, so I'm not expecting anything of the sort. I simply can't imagine that someone as much of a dick as you are on this forum has made it through any kind of reputable training in human psychology, and if you have, I pity your patients and/or clients. You've mentioned "cults" in the past - well, if you're the one deprogramming, I have to wonder if the poor cult member wouldn't be better being tossed into a Scientologist convention.<br /><br />So that's what I mean by fiction: my hunch is that whatever your job is, it doesn't have the stringent requirements of, say, a full-on psychiatrist, and does not make you an authority on matters of the mind, at least to the extent you like to imply here.Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-90866107720880638692016-11-11T06:06:07.662-08:002016-11-11T06:06:07.662-08:00I don't see how there's much of a differen...<i>I don't see how there's much of a difference. Realistically, you'd have to be arguing with a Clinton supporter, someone who, in fact, does not see anything particularly evil about what Clinton may or may not have done. </i><br /><br />What she's done is on the record. E.g. She knew Benghazi had nothing to do with "innocence of muslims" because she had emails explaining what happened, but instead she blamed some idiot YouTuber for it, causing him to be arrested and investigated. She threw a completely innocent person under the bus to cover a lie she told to cover up a major and fatal fuckup under her watch.<br /><br />So whether or not she did what she did is not at issue. What is at issue is the collective yawn let out by the left. Most likely you're right, they don't see anything wrong with throwing somebody under the bus like that, because they like her and they do the same thing. But as an outsider to this subculture, it's shocking to me that people can be so without conscience.<br /><br /><i>So yes, if you did not vote for Clinton, the only viable alternative, then you have to have either actively wanted Trump, or allowed Trump to win by simply not opposing him. It would have been the same if Clinton had won - you would bear some of that responsibility if you had not voted Trump.</i><br /><br />Well, we've backed away from calling him "my trump" to now talking about "some responsibility." How much responsibility does it take to start calling trump "mine?"<br /><br />Here, I had no power to affect the outcome at all. I couldn't affect what two candidates were selected, and my vote could not have affected the outcome because my state went Clinton by one of the largest margins in the country. My vote for Clinton would have just been another drop in the bucket for her.<br /><br />How much responsibility does one have, exactly, with absolutely no power to affect the outcome in any way? If I see a train about the run over a child and I can't stop the train and can't move the child, am I still "responsible" for the death unless I engage in some meaningless ritual that can't possibly change what happens?<br /><br />Only if we're trying to manufacture blame and guilt where none is deserved.<br /><br />There's no rational moral theory in the world that justifies responsibility where one lacks power to change the outcome. Christianity does that, of course. In that system, we're to blame for being born and being what we are and can't help but be. Maybe you're clinging to the vestiges of that moral system?<br /><br /><i>I'm beginning to think that your "work" is some kind of fiction, frankly</i><br /><br />That fiction also probably helps you feel better about yourself, doesn't it? Suspecting from the fact that I post on this forum a few times a day that I don't have a job? That's the sort of thinking that makes elections like this one possible.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-29319518922282459502016-11-10T23:01:51.668-08:002016-11-10T23:01:51.668-08:00"What I said, over and over and over, was tha..."What I said, over and over and over, was that the left doesn't care how bad she is, not that i wanted to argue about how bad she was."<br /><br />I don't see how there's much of a difference. Realistically, you'd have to be arguing with a Clinton supporter, someone who, in fact, does not see anything particularly evil about what Clinton may or may not have done. Right there, your premise depends on you establishing Clinton's misdeeds, and explaining their severity and why anyone who isn't Republican ought to care, so that you could then paint it as a moral failing of the left when they <i><b>don't</b></i> care. It's either that or slide into the echo chamber with someone else who worships at the feet of Breitbart or Alex Jones or whatever.<br /><br />"That's pretty clever. Unless a person voted for Hillary, he's responsible for Donald Trump being elected? When you're handed two terrible choices and you refuse to affirmatively support the one JZ prefers, you're to blame for the alternative being elected?"<br /><br />There's only four real possibilities here.<br /><br />1) You voted for Clinton. Unlikely, sure, but at least then you could be said to have not enabled Trump's win.<br /><br />2) You voted for Trump. You're definitely to blame for Trump (along with millions of others), then.<br /><br />3) You did not vote. You've abdicated your choice, or as Rand might have said, you've chosen to let others choose for you, which is still a choice. There was no duress or hostage-taking, you stood back and let it happen - you didn't even try to select the lesser of two evils. You may not have cast a ballot, but your inaction still carries consequences. Whether Trump or Clinton won, some of that can be laid on your shoulders.<br /><br />4) You voted third party, or write-in. Yay, principles, I guess, but since no alternative to the major party candidates had a remote chance of winning, the ultimate result is the same as if you'd not voted at all.<br /><br />So yes, if you did not vote for Clinton, the only viable alternative, then you have to have either actively wanted Trump, or allowed Trump to win by simply not opposing him. It would have been the same if Clinton had won - you would bear some of that responsibility if you had not voted Trump.<br /><br />"Helps me in my daily dealings with narcissistic psychopaths through my work"<br /><br />I'm beginning to think that your "work" is some kind of fiction, frankly.Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-9057789510707075852016-11-10T17:47:11.972-08:002016-11-10T17:47:11.972-08:00"Helps me in my daily dealings with narcissis..."Helps me in my daily dealings with narcissistic psychopaths"<br /><br />Physician, heal thyself.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-9390046423702964002016-11-10T14:29:03.137-08:002016-11-10T14:29:03.137-08:00You pretty much said you wanted to discuss your bi...<i>You pretty much said you wanted to discuss your big hypothesis about the Clintons making everyone "not care" about their misdeeds</i><br /><br />It's pretty easy to win arguments when you put shit in other people's mouths, isn't it? When you don't limit yourself to what other people actually say, facts, evidence, or reality? So you can just say somebody "pretty much" said something they never said, and then allow yourself to believe it's so? <br /><br />What I said, over and over and over, was that the left doesn't care how bad she is, not that i wanted to argue about how bad she was. Nobody was interested in talking about how bad she was. Because it's old news. It's all documented. What isn't old news -- but is much more important -- is how morally defective the left is for not caring, because she was the "chosen one" whose election was to help leftists distract themselves from their own mental and moral degradation for a while by helping them pretend they were doing something good. That's what I'm interested in.<br /><br /><i>I didn't say you liked him, I said he's "your Trump". Unless perhaps you're not of the US. You've likely played your part, you've cast your vote, you've (I assume elsewhere) talked about how terrible HRC was, so unless against any seeming indication you actually voted for Hillary, then your actions have helped bring about President Trump. You'll have to live with that as will we all. Have fun!</i><br /><br />That's pretty clever. Unless a person voted for Hillary, he's responsible for Donald Trump being elected? When you're handed two terrible choices and you refuse to affirmatively support the one JZ prefers, you're to blame for the alternative being elected? What a moral universe you live in. I guess if a terrorist puts two hostages in front of me and demands that i choose one to die, unless i affirmatively say "no" to 1, then I'm responsible for the death of the second. Or do you just enter that moral universe long enough to dump that crap on somebody else, and then shift to a different moral universe when it's more convenient for you?<br /><br />The morbid curiosity that keeps me here is, "Are these people actually able to convince themselves of their own BS?" It's phenomenal in this forum. Like stage four cancer of the soul. Helps me in my daily dealings with narcissistic psychopaths through my work, because they exhibit all the same symptoms as the members of this forum.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-46910018792628074362016-11-10T11:09:31.176-08:002016-11-10T11:09:31.176-08:00Haha, wow.
You pretty much said you wanted to dis...Haha, wow.<br /><br />You pretty much said you wanted to discuss your big hypothesis about the Clintons making everyone "not care" about their misdeeds, which is when Anon said "no thanks" - bowing out. The fact that you then clammed up doesn't mean that he didn't actively disengage first.<br /><br />Suppose you guys had gone on. If that wouldn't have been you droning at length about how bad Hillary is, well, that would be a big surprise.<br /><br />I didn't say you liked him, I said he's "your Trump". Unless perhaps you're not of the US. You've likely played your part, you've cast your vote, you've (I assume elsewhere) talked about how terrible HRC was, so unless against any seeming indication you actually voted for Hillary, then your actions have helped bring about President Trump. You'll have to live with that as will we all. Have fun!<br /><br />In other words, blah blah persecution complex and reading into things that which isn't there. Got any more whining about how nobody's being fair to you and they're all some kind of psychological aberrants? You want to argue about nothing at all related to the original topic some more? Want to get the last word in? Be my guest.Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-62170277393173014002016-11-10T10:15:43.124-08:002016-11-10T10:15:43.124-08:00Lessons to be learned: JZ knows what I want, with...Lessons to be learned: JZ knows what I want, without me having to say so. Also, even when anon gets the last word, JZ still knows he "bowed out." Also, no matter how many times I say what a dick/chump/clown/buffoon Trump is, JZ still magically knows that secretly I like him. In other words, JZ has magical mind reading powers that allow him to see things completely contradicted by the evidence, but which make him feel better about himself.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35468686255468634252016-11-10T10:07:57.377-08:002016-11-10T10:07:57.377-08:00I didn't claim you GAVE long lectures on the e...I didn't claim you GAVE long lectures on the evils of Hillary. I was saying giving one would be moot - the implication being that you sure seemed to WANT to give one. Which is probably why Anon bowed out, I can see how that would be entirely wearying.<br /><br />And as for "loving how" people do things, I sure love how you come back to the "ungtss being persecuted for whatever" routine. POOR BABY. Maybe if you weren't such a condescending dick, there'd be more than just a couple die-hards who engage with you at all.<br /><br />Have fun with your Trump!Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-51010498638496579032016-11-10T04:30:05.124-08:002016-11-10T04:30:05.124-08:00I ended my conversation with anon. Responding to ...I ended my conversation with anon. Responding to you on a different subject entirely. I love how you people function purely on social pressure and mockery of the outsider because you lack the capacity to reason. It's like<br />a crutch for you.<br /><br />As another example, claiming I was giving "long lectures on the evils of Hilary." When I was saying that the left was so focused on their own righteousness and trump's buffoonishness that they were ignoring the evil's of Hillary. Turns out that decided the election. The elitist left ignored hillary's evils and pleasured themselves with their own righteousness and trump's evils, but a good chunk of the democratic base didn't ignore what Hillary is, and ended up staying home.<br /><br />Poor elitist leftists, always too in love with their own fantasies to learn what's really going on in the world.<br /><br />Adams' Argument re trump is that he is pacing and leading. We're still in the pacing portion. ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70779077155988005422016-11-09T23:17:07.285-08:002016-11-09T23:17:07.285-08:00So that's what, two days of restraint?
"...So that's what, two days of restraint?<br /><br />"Moot", as in: a big lecture on the evils of Hillary is pointless now and would accomplish nothing. She lost. Congratulations! Hope you love the taste of Trump. I have a hunch that in the end, the person responsible for things like "Trump University" isn't somehow going to be more principled while in the White House. And I also suspect that when Trump is caught cheating on his wife while in office and tries to deny it, Clinton critics will break their own spines to avoid holding Trump to that same kind of standard.<br /><br />Yes, Adams' prediction came true. I haven't checked but I imagine the smug insufferability levels on his blog are off the chart.<br /><br />Still, I think Adams is mistaken on his claim of Trump being a "Master Persuader". At least grammatically, because I don't think Trump has persuaded anyone of much of anything. He simply exploited an existing political current and said whatever he needed to say to present himself as the guy who would take care of things. But you don't hear much about him actually changing minds. He didn't find pockets of Clinton supporters, say "Hey, let's make America great again!" and have them change sides. He played to an existing mindset that happened to be so distributed so as to enable him to win the Electoral College. Whatever that is, I don't think it really qualifies as "persuasion".Jzeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6271453410740102472016-11-09T17:31:54.645-08:002016-11-09T17:31:54.645-08:00Hardly moot.
Scott Adams' prediction in the ...Hardly moot. <br /><br />Scott Adams' prediction in the OP came true. <br /><br />Also, Clinton lost because her own base abandoned her. 6 million fewer Democratic voters turned out than did for Obama last time. Trump won with fewer votes than Romney and McCain got when they lost. The problem was that HRC sucked. And her "look at the boogie man over there" strategy did not work well enough to get her a win.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1004925831248434102016-11-09T02:15:39.819-08:002016-11-09T02:15:39.819-08:00Hey, looks like it's all become moot anyway. W...Hey, looks like it's all become moot anyway. Welp, I'm gonna sit back and chuckle in a couple years when Trump turns out to be more corrupt than any alt-right fever dream about the Clintons.Jzeronoreply@blogger.com