Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Maybe Trump's the one With Undisclosed Health Problems

After all, he's unaccountably cancelled events this week, including his big immigration speech in Colorado.

"Wow maybe he's having serious undisclosed health problems that Fox should speculate about without evidence."

"Hey @realDonaldTrump, sorry your widely rumored health problems caused you to cancel your CO, NV & OR events. Get well soon!"

Of course, part of this might just be due to the fact that his immigration policy is still 'to be determined' with 76 days until he wants Americans to elect him President of the United States.

But there is also a report that he almost fainted at an event last Friday.

So it's ironic for him to talk about 'stamina.'

Of course, according to Scott 'Landslide' Adams AKA Super Genius, Donald Trump is a Master Persuader who has this deadly ability to choose just the right derogatory nickname and hypnotize everyone into believing it.

But Hillary is showing she's no slouch with a nickname either.

Clinton's new word for Trump's attacks: "wacky."

She also had a good time with Trump's wacky attacks on Jimmy Kimmel last night:

"Hillary Clinton poked fun at the Donald Trump’s repeated claims that her health is failing Monday night, jokingly asking ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel to take her pulse while they spoke on his late-night TV show."

"The late-night host then challenged her to open a pickle jar to demonstrate her physical well-being. The nominee did not hesitate, popping the lid open."

Clinton also provided insight into how she’s preparing to handle Donald Trump freewheeling, improvisational style in their upcoming general election debates.

“I am drawing on my experience in elementary school,” she said before imitating a boy pulling on a girl’s pigtails.

"The nominee also addressed some of Trump’s strongest accusations, including the claim that Clinton and President Barack Obama co-founded the Islamic State — a claim the Republican nominee has since cast doubt on before re-upping himself."

“I think it’s crazy, but I think it’s also harmful,” Clinton said. “This is like giving aid and comfort to the bad guys. I think there's enough evidence now that when Trump talks the way he talks, it actually helps the terrorists.”

Read more:

It's certainly true that ISIS likes what Trump says about Obama being it's founder, just as Putin, Kim Jong-un and the Iranian government like what Trump has to say on foreign policy.

Donald Trump would be such a disaster selecting a cabinet or with his hand on the nuclear codes, that I'd-much-rather elect this dog for President.

"Fact: This dog has more experience in elected government than Trump."

Dog elected for third term as mayor of Minnesota town

Makes you think of Rose-played by Bettie White-on the old Golden Girls show. She was from Minnesota.

But while I do sometimes think Americans-to say nothing of Minnesotans-take worship of dogs too far, it's impossible to deny that he's more qualified to be POTUS than Donald Trump.


  1. While I agree with you that Scott Adams has taken some of his Trump stuff a wee bit too far I still find a lot that I like about him. When he's not talking politics/persuasion I find a lot that I find interesting, original and in line with how I see things. I am working hard not to let this whole Trump episode make me start disliking Scott. While he certainly wouldn't claim he is above our normal psychological frailties he touches on in his discussions of hypnosis/persuasion, I do think that he, as the one who is enlightening the rest of us about the ways of persuasion, might fall into some traps of reasoning like the rest of us. Its possible that a Trump victory will wrongly be attributed to his persuasion skills and that this would be a run of the mill confirmation bias. I'm not sure there is any way to know.
    Just because someone predicted his win does not mean their attribution as to why he won is true. All the things Scott says about how humans make decisions and misbelieve that they are rational are pretty well documented and understood, and undoubtedly there are people who know how to use these facts to get a little edge ........ like say in marketing but I dont think Trump, Clinton or anyone else just needs to find a magic word/phrase to sway millions of voters. Trump and Clinton are so different one would have to make a 180 degree turn.

    Trump may end up president but it wont because he did something brilliant and mind melting it will be because Hillary blows up, from her own doing or outside forces.

    Scott had an interesting interview with Stephen Molyneux (who I actually found more likeable when seeing his exchanges with Scott then when I read some of his older stuff). You might like it. The whole discussion covers some topics that would interest you for sure and I think he refers to YOU at some point when he talks about his twitter feed and a guy who has called him "Goebbels"

    He's read your stuff!!

  2. Is that piece on his blog? Yes, he blocked me-and Tom Brown-on Twitter.

    The joke about Adams being "Landslide' and Super Genius-after Wylie Coyote-was actually Tom's.

    You're right that Adams does have some interesting books he's written and no doubt I could sit down and enjoy it.

    It's just that in the heat of political battle this sometimes happens.

    I do agree with him that people aren't as rational as the Scott Sumners of the world might want to think.

    But it's the same thing with Donald Trump. I used to enjoy The Apprentice. Many people would go to the Trump Hotels.

    But now that he's become so politically defined, bookings are down 60%.

    What you will find now, is that those who like Trump in the future will be those who agree with him politically.

    That's what happens when politics enters the equation.

    Now I will say this. Hillary is not guaranteed to win, but her position is pretty strong right now.

    She's up 17 points in the middle of the third quarter. As long as she plays smart and cautious-which is her speciality-she'll be fine.

    But I have to see that interview with the Goebbels reference! LOL

  3. Yes its linked to on his site

  4. Ok here is the interview. Tom Brown might like this too.

  5. I went to it mainly cuz it was with Molyneux I had come across him at som point in past and made mistake going to you tube and liking some video of his (I actually only liked a few parts of it). Now I get sent everything he puts out, a lot of it I find tiresome and just like the alt-right stuff.

    But as I said, actually seeing him (Molyneux) have an exchange (with someone who was not a follower) and showing a little human side in his interview actually made me like him a little.

  6. Yes. In this interview, Molyneux-this is the first I've heard of him-comes across pretty likable. Of course, I haven't heard his political views yet.

    Adams does make some pretty compelling arguments here, I agree.

    Do you know roughly what part of the video he mentions me at? I've got to see that Goebbels reference. LOL

  7. Molyneux is pretty right libertarian I would say. He probably thinks gold is money and he definitely mistrusts the state but I do think he sincerely wants individuals to be able to lead happy healthy lives (and is willing to work in that direction)and isn't just wanting to get "his" and turn his back and build some fortress of protection.

    It seems like the reference was within the first 40-60min but I cant be sure.

  8. See that's politics. Like you want to still like Adams despite his pimping for Trump. I understand that and you will be able to if that's your preference.

    But for me, once I hate someone's politics, it's tough

    Though, I still can be honest if I can learn from them.

    What's interesting about what Adams is saying in this interview about how we think we're rational but we're just these pattern finding machines who are ruled by irrationality is similar to the arguments that Bryan Caplan makes in this book called what else?

    The Myth of the Rational Voter

    I read it and it's pretty good though I don't agree with his extreme libertarian views either, of course.

  9. I think with me, right now it's the heat of the battle. The only animating concern I have is that Hillary Clinton is the next President of the United States.

    So anyone who I see as opposed to that I have a problem with right now. LOL

    Because the alternative is Trump who I do believe is the America Caesar. He's been talking about 'a peaceful regime change.'

  10. "But for me, once I hate someone's politics, it's tough"

    I agree. I have a lot of people I work with that I just walk out when the conversation turns cuz I dont want to hear them and let that poison my view of them, even though I know what they are probably saying its different when you actually hear them say it.

    Regarding Adams though, dont think Trump actually represents his politics. He is just invested in being right about his election. Now, has that changed him some? Has that emotional attachment to being correct kind of blinded him to things he himself knows people do when the world isn't exactly as they thought.

    He's made too big a call for too long to back off now. I think that is the only reason he "wants" Trump to win. But this has colored his objectivity. It has to

  11. I agree that's it: he's emotionally invested in being right at this point. Which is coloring his objectivity

  12. I'll have to take a look at Molyneux's video later. I ran across him years ago. In fact I left some comments on his youtube channel similar to the ones I (and you too Mike) recently left on Robert Murphy's blog: asking about a person who owns everything and decides to defend himself from "collectivists" "initiating violence against him" by breathing his air. =)

    My opinion of Molyneux is that he's a quasi-cult leader in his extreme libertarianism. Some of his cultists didn't appreciate my youtube comments. Maybe I'm wrong, or perhaps he's changed a bit since then. I must have watched a dozen of his videos five years ago or so and I had more than my fill of him then (more than a lifetime's worth). It was morbid fascination that kept me interested. I thought it was a great example of how wrong libertarianism could go. Sort of an Ayn Rand sort of character. But I'll check it out nonetheless.

    I know he's done quite a few videos recently with somebody I actually like: Peter Boghossian... but my liking Boghossian was not enough of a draw to overcome my repulsion for Molyneux, so I've avoided those videos. Seeing Scott Adams refer to Mike's posts however... that *is* enough of a draw!

    And I'm not kidding about that cult leader stuff. Do some googling on the man and you'll find there's a bit of a controversy about that: with teenage kids falling for his extremist philosophy to the point that they cut off communication with their own families and friends and others not in the cult (arguably because Molyneux directly or indirectly said they should).

  13. He mentioned my calling him Goebbels. LOL. I'm at about 12 minutes so far but I got to keep watching until I get there. LOL

    I'm sure I wouldn't be a fan of Molyneux in terms of his own theories but he does come across decently as Adams interviewer-as does Adams himself. Then again, it's still early in the video! LOL

  14. Re: hating someone's politics. I find it's a lot easier if they are at least principled about it. For example, if they are "pro-life" that's a lot easier to swallow if they don't advocate killing abortion doctors and if they're against stupid wars and the death penalty as well. Also if they don't make being specifically being anti-abortion a single issue on which they cast their ballots. Like I say, being pro-life begins with keeping Trump well away from the WH and specifically our nuclear arsenal.

  15. Based on what you're saying Tom, I find it very plausible that he's a kind of cult leader. That's kind of what Scott Adams would like to be. LOL.

    He talks about how he learned hypnotism in his 20s, etc.

  16. I want to be clear here. My opinion of Molyneux was not overly positive prior to seeing this interview. I came across something he did a while back (maybe a year or so) and thought parts of it were good, but I knew he was a lot more hard right than me . I made a somewhat positive comment and was soon battered with other stuff. Most of which I found overdone but some of it repulsive.

    When I saw Adams post an interview he had with Molyneux I had my interest piqued. I didn't really see them as soul mates so I wanted to see where it would go. Overall I thought it was good. Molyneux was obviously interested because of the Trump angle but I thought he didn't come across as a guy who's impossible to move off a radical position. Molyneux found some connection to Adams and so he was not as....... hardened maybe?! In fact the more I think about it, this kind of confirms a part of Adams' thesis. Connect with someone emotionally and you have a chance to change their view, maybe even significantly. I just think he is asking some people to move 180 degrees in this election and that might be a little too ambitious.

    I think people can end up leaving a cult without trying to. I dont know about Molyneux but I dont think Adams wants that. Has he developed a following? Yes.
    Was that his goal? According to his book, he doesn't have goals he has a system.

    I also think he just want to share what insights he thinks he has gleaned through his years. Mostly innocent, but he, like any of us who suddenly found ourself in the position of being "the first guy to make such and such prediction" and getting a lot of attention for it, that would have to change us a little. It would also catch us off guard. We likely weren't going into this expecting this outcome.

    1. Make that "leading" a cult not leaving

    2. Ahem Adams predicted Trump early but so did I-we both predicted he could go places back in July, 2015.

      Difference is, I never thought he could win the general and this seems to be holding up

    3. Yeah Mike, you're not getting the credit you deserve!