Scott Adams: Trump “won the election” last night by losing the debate

In regards to Roger’s claim that Trump’s base is the common man, this is obligatory:

I think Rogark here is proof that men are too emotional and irrational to be allowed the vote : P

What is it they say? “Reals not feels”?

Reals, Roger. Not feels. Reals.

Scott Adams has his own reasons for saying what he says. He is insightful, but he’s not omnipotent. He very well could be succumbing to his own confirmation bias, or he may even be running a social confirmation or authority confirmation experiment of his own design.

I think Robert Cialdini, author of “Influence” and “Pre-Suasion” would tell you to ignore Scott Adams for now.

We can have a choice about letting in only good people from other countries though. So that is one thing Trump would do better.

Like… the time he hosted Muammar fucking Gaddafi? On this side of the century?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/23/muammar-gaddafi-tent-trump-estate

That sort of good people?

Or the time when he wrote a letter to a judge, pleading the good character of a cocaine dealer? SNIFF SNIFF, dude.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/the-donald-and-the-dealer-173892

Today I learned that wanting your country to be functional, wanting to shrink the gender gap, and wanting to reform the justice system are not principles. Thank you, Roger.

Off-topic, but, speaking of horrible people, can we talk about Martin Shitweasel for a moment? He’s auctioning off a chance to punch him in the face to benefit the son of a friend who passed away from cancer.

http://ti.me/2cJfKVL

So, this smug little snot rag has put a lot of people through a lot of pain by making medications unreasonably expensive because he believes they should be expensive because health is valuable. And then his friend dies and he sees an opportunity to help our someone who has suffered as the result of a terrible disease. He could have given the kid a lot of money privately, but instead he takes this as an opportunity for a new publicity stunt and at the same time get someone else to pay at least half of the amount being given to this kid (he’ll match up to an unspecified amount). He’s seeking to gain publicity for himself from this child’s pain and cut his contributions in half at the same damn time.

Anyone who has ever read Scott Adams’s books knows he has big problems with strong women.

I wrote analyses of hiking accidents in the White Mountains for several years and got interested in real vs. perceived risk. People are always more afraid of things that “look” risky. For example, rock-climbing with competent people can be less dangerous than hiking on a very steep trail. One of the dogmas of hiking safety was “never split up a group,” but when I looked at the situation I found that the problem was not deliberately splitting up a group, but in carelessly allowing weaker or less experienced hikers to become separated from the group.

Here in NH we grow a lot of apples, and about 40 years ago there was a big to-do about a chemical called Alar, which was used to keep the apples from falling prematurely from the trees, and might cause cancer. People were driving 50 miles to get Alar-free apples and cider, in spite of the fact that the risk of dying from cancer from Alar and the risk of dying in an auto accident on a 100-mile trip were in the same order of magnitude — and the risk of dying from cancer 40 years from now should be less scary than the risk of dying in a car crash today.

Can we please go back to the bit about choosing a leader based on who we’d rather see on tv?

I’d go for David Attenborough myself, I find him so relaxing.

Sadly he doesn’t meet nationality or residency requirements. And though it’s sad to mention it, I’m not sure he’s got four years in him. So I guess I’d want him to choose oh, I don’t know, maybe Marceline the Vampire Queen, as a running mate. Of course she’s not real and it’s not clear in my head how evil she is, but better than Pence anyway.

If we must choose from the current candidates, I’d rather have Hillary Clinton. Sure, watching her isn’t the emotional roller coaster of waiting for The Donald to blow his fuse. But she’s got some humour and I kinda like the wonkishness (oh, who am I kidding, I love it).

Fortunately, I’m voting for her anyway based on, y’know experience, temperament, policy and frankly general likeability.

I’d also like to say, regarding this idea of “needing to be cautious” and “only letting in the good people”:

Given the rise of anti-government militias, the increase in talk of violent revolution by white nationalist groups, justices like Roy Moore telling his state officials to ignore Supreme Court rulings; and given the history of violence of anti-government militias, and of right-wing politicians stoking the idea of “get your way or revolt violently and usurp democracy”; what would “being cautious” look like in this case?

I mean, we can’t abide the innocent children who were blown apart in the Alfred P. Murrah building, can we? That’s what “never forget” means, right? So we probably need to ban from entering the country any white conservative who has posted anything anti-government on social media, until we “know what’s going on”, right? And track and monitor churches and militia groups that harbor these types of people? Especially since they have tripled during Obama’s presidency? We definitely need to consider waterboarding the ones who are stockpiling weapons, right? Because the minute we suffer another attack, we won’t have a country, anymore, will we?

If we have *one*, just *one*, more Robert Deer or Dylann Roof, it’s game over, right?

If black people can’t go to a prayer meeting at their church without the possibility of getting murdered by a racist, then it’s absolutely common sense to ban all white Christians from entering the country, right? At least until we know what’s going on with this racism thing?

And given that black people are much more likely to have their lives senselessly cut short by police, since the country finds them to be more threatening than white people in the exact same situation, and the police mirror that; there should at least be some kind of movement to raise social consciousness that black people’s lives matter, too?

Or maybe we should just be careful and disband the police, since the national police union has endorsed an openly racist candidate who has retweeted white supremacist propaganda about black-on-white crime that is the opposite of reality — at least until we know what’s going on?

(And that’s actually a terrible analogy, because the percentage of Americans who support “come home at any cost, don’t try to de-escalate any situation involving a black person” [a la: Officer fired for not shooting suicidal suspect] dwarfs the percentage of Muslims who support “when you are scared, don’t take any chances, kill the threatening white person”. How many white people have we seen parading around in front of Mosques while carrying a high-powered rifle, terrorizing Muslims? And how many of them have been killed?)

That capybara looks so relaxed. Kitty massages are the best. If only mine would work on my bad back for me.

I didn’t watch the debate due to not having a working audio socket in my PC although I read the open thread about it here. BBC was saying it had gone 50/50, glad to see some more accurate polling putting things right.

@ Axecalibur, kupo

Reminds me of Trump’s “presidential restraint” choosing “not” to bring up Bill’s marital infidelities during the debate. Set the bar on the ground, then pat yourself on the back for walking over it.