Thursday, February 16, 2017

Scott Adams — How to Evaluate a President

I made most of these points is somewhat different way previously. First, DJT, like all presidents, faces a learning curve. How quick a study he is will partially determine the length of the curve and his ability to get ahead of it.

Secondly, DJT faces a different problem than most presidents since the teaching is done by establishment figures that the president appoints and their connections and networks in government. As a professed swamp drainer, DJT has severely reduced the size and depth of his bench. 

Thirdly, as an outsider he faces opposition from inside the bubble, like Jimmy Carter did. But has a populist rather than a party liner, DJT also faces a much more vibrant and determined opposition, from both sides of the establishment, Republican and Democratic.

It's very early in the game. If DJT can survive long enough to get his bearings, he will have plenty of opportunity to meet the opposition from a position of power.

Losing the first round doesn't mean the end of the fight unless it's not possible to recover sufficiently from the initial blows.

Scott Adam's Blog
How to Evaluate a President
Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert®


lastgreek said...

First, DJT, like all presidents, faces a learning curve.

From today's nutty (and I am being kind here) news conference:

"I Am The Least Anti-Semitic Person You've Ever Seen"

Tom, he obviously didn't realize it but he just called himself an anti-Semite.

Forget the learning curve. He's hopeless.

Greg said...

Right greek

If Hillary had said something like that Adams would be all over it as a "major persuasion blunder".

Dave said...

Adams has mastered the art of gas lighting in a blog. "who you gonna believe, your lying eyes or me?"

Trump. Is. A train wreck. He will only get worse.

Penguin pop said...

Drumpf is a distant relative of those goldbug PR morons. I don't expect him to learn much of anything and it's still astounding to me people would look into this guy so much. Occam's razor tells me he's a village idiot with no hope.

Greg said...

"Gas lighting in a blog"

I like that. Thats pretty much what "persuasion " is to a degree. Of course there is no doubt that most (probably all at some time) of us can be misled by our own faulty analysis of situations due to our blindspots. Adams is right to point out how we as humans make bad choices and can jump to wrong conclusions. Where I part ways with him is he seems to think Trump is immune to this.

Our deep state has its problems and I disagree with much that it appears to be driven by, Im just not sure Trump is the one I want rearranging things. Especially the band of merry white nationalists he has assembled. Attitudes of a leader and his advisers matter. The attitudes of Bannon, Sessions, Conway and of course Trump are absolutely repugnant in my view.

Dave said...

Agree Greg. Defiantly everyone has blind spots, and no one can see the future. But, I feel like Adams takes advantage of people's natural tendency to assume they don't have perfect knowledge, and to turn it around in such a way as to then try to fool you into thinking he does, especially regarding his boyfriend DJT.

Bob said...

He's a cheerleader. This is what cheerleaders do when they blog.

Greg said...

You are right Bob, but if you look at Adams' history he has always presented himself as some sort of detached observer of people and simply interested in Trumps amazing powers off persuasion. He has claimed to be completely a-political and not a partisan (impossible), which of course is a persuasion technique itself ( "You are blinded by partisan attitudes, I however am able to remain neutral!").

He would NEVER call himself a cheerleader, that would make him look just like the Hillary bots he is slamming. (Now of course he'll probably do a post admitting he's a cheerleader just to take that criticism away from those internet Hillary trolls)

I have really liked Adams stuff for a while but he crossed a line in my mind a few months before the election. He was dishonestly stating that he didn't WANT Trump to win he just was predicting that he would, as if he could never be tainted by the human urge to make ones predictions be correct, while simultaneously making daily posts questioning Hillarys honesty, health, vigor etc. He was working to make his predictions come true, which is fine but not the actions of a detached observer of people.