5 ms·

First the Trump quote. “The only thing she's got is the woman's card. If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote,” Mr. Tr

First the Trump quote. “The only thing she's got is the woman's card. If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote,” Mr. Trump said. Adams is a genius and a weasel. He literally wrote the book on weasels. He knows exactly what he is doing. In fact, he has written about how to push agendas indirectly. You can recognize the described techniques in his writing. Promoting Trump benefits Adams directly. But Trump has gotten to the point where denying his dogwhistling is impossible, so Adams describes it in a non threatening manner.

mistermann 10y ago
> “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote,” Mr. Trump said. Interesting that you think that is sexist, as to me it seems like he is describing a sexist scenario, and I happen to agree with that interpretation. I think you're pretty on point with Adams though.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kelukelugames 10y ago
  "The only thing she's got is the woman's card" is not sexist. Stay classy Hacker News! I had a haunch when I replied to your first comment. Shame on me for responding.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    Is whether or not the statement is true of interest to you? edit: Or in other words, do you think there is actually such a thing as a woman card (race card, victim card, etc), or are these a completely manufactured ideas with no basis in reality?
    - mistermann 10y ago
      Apparently this is now a designated safe space.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    In what way is that sexist? Sexist would be to say that she's a bad candidate BECAUSE she's a woman. What he said is that she's using being a woman to win over votes while not having much else to offer, policy wise -- which he could legitimately believe. FWIW, I believe that the woman card is indeed something Clinton played. Not the first to use such tactics either: Obama played the race card. And I'm not saying these things as in any way republican. I'm a foreigner, and for me even Sanders or Kucinich look right wingers. Clinton (Bill) played the "40-something youthful" card, Bush played the "more patriotic but still plain folk like ya all" card, etc. And Trump has his own "mad-dog patriot tells them like they is" card. >I had a haunch when I replied to your first comment. Shame on me for responding. Shame indeed, but not for responding to the parent, but for belittling them and going for a personal attack.
    - kelukelugames 10y ago
      You are foreigner? That explains your lack of knowledge. "Woman card" and "race card" are loaded terms in the US. They are used to dismiss grievances due to discrimination and to belittle the achievements of non white males.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >You are foreigner? That explains your lack of knowledge. That probably explains my impartiality. I'm more in tune with American culture (everyday and historical) than probably 90% of the local population. Heck, I've even been to most states than most (well, all of the continental ones). But I don't ascribe to ideological biases of either side. >"Woman card" and "race card" are loaded terms in the US. They are used to dismiss grievances due to discrimination and to belittle the achievements of non white males. That's a loaded way to put it itself. Yes, "woman card" and "race card" can be used to "dismiss grievances" by white males, but can also be used to claim bogus benefits by the respective card holders. Whether white or black, man or woman, there IS such a thing as an abuse of your race/gender to gain sympathy. And blanket statements about this are one-sided -- whether "woman card" or "race card" is a valid or bigoted use have to be examined on a case by case basis.
- jimbokun 10y ago
  "I happen to agree with that interpretation." I think it will take some doing to defend your interpretation. You are basically claiming men are massively discriminated against in politics, such that just for being a woman, Hillary's support goes from 5% of the vote to 40-something-percent (depending on how you interpret current polls). Frankly, almost anyone at the top of the Democratic ticket would get much, much more than 5% of the vote due to the qualification of "not being Donald Trump", who is only the least favorable presidential candidate on record. So it is a self-obviously stupid statement, as with pretty much everything else the Donald says, and I have no idea how you might defend it. Frankly, I don't think its a statement meant to be defended at all, just a signal to misogynists that Donald wants their votes, but that's just my interpretation.
coldtea 10y ago
How is the Trump quote "threatening" or "sexist"? The rest of the comment is a content-free ad-hominem. Adams might very well be a "genius weasel", but not describing this quote as non-threatening, if that's what's implied here.
- kelukelugames 10y ago
  Threatening as in a threat to his own campaign. Good point, insignificant would have been clearer. I'm sorry, did I offend a reader of his blog? Adams writes about himself being a weasel and manipulating journalists.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >I'm sorry, did I offend a reader of his blog? If by reader you mean someone who read his blog maybe 4-5 times total in the last 10 years (and doesn't even own any Dilbert book), then, still no (ie., no I was not offended). I made a statement concerning the lack of any practical proof/content in the comment. As I said, he may very well be a weasel (and I could not care less, I might add) but that's not something that's concluded from the contents of the comment.
    - kelukelugames 10y ago
      You write a lot for someone who could care less and isn't offended.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        And you analyse people's souls a lot for someone who is not a psychiatrist. I'm just chatty. I write a lot for every topic I'm interested in, as you can plainly see from my comment backlog. Doesn't need to be offended on behalf of Adams to respond -- I'm just the kind of person that doesn't let an inconsistent argument slip by. And I saw "Adams is XXX because he said YYY is OK" without YYY being either bad or any justification for the XXX.

mistermann 10y ago

> “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote,” Mr. Trump said. Interesting that you think that is sexist, as to me it seems like he is describing a sexist scenario, and I happen to agree with that interpretation. I think you're pretty on point with Adams though.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kelukelugames 10y ago
"The only thing she's got is the woman's card" is not sexist. Stay classy Hacker News! I had a haunch when I replied to your first comment. Shame on me for responding.
- mistermann 10y ago
  Is whether or not the statement is true of interest to you? edit: Or in other words, do you think there is actually such a thing as a woman card (race card, victim card, etc), or are these a completely manufactured ideas with no basis in reality?
  - mistermann 10y ago
    Apparently this is now a designated safe space.
- coldtea 10y ago
  In what way is that sexist? Sexist would be to say that she's a bad candidate BECAUSE she's a woman. What he said is that she's using being a woman to win over votes while not having much else to offer, policy wise -- which he could legitimately believe. FWIW, I believe that the woman card is indeed something Clinton played. Not the first to use such tactics either: Obama played the race card. And I'm not saying these things as in any way republican. I'm a foreigner, and for me even Sanders or Kucinich look right wingers. Clinton (Bill) played the "40-something youthful" card, Bush played the "more patriotic but still plain folk like ya all" card, etc. And Trump has his own "mad-dog patriot tells them like they is" card. >I had a haunch when I replied to your first comment. Shame on me for responding. Shame indeed, but not for responding to the parent, but for belittling them and going for a personal attack.
  - kelukelugames 10y ago
    You are foreigner? That explains your lack of knowledge. "Woman card" and "race card" are loaded terms in the US. They are used to dismiss grievances due to discrimination and to belittle the achievements of non white males.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >You are foreigner? That explains your lack of knowledge. That probably explains my impartiality. I'm more in tune with American culture (everyday and historical) than probably 90% of the local population. Heck, I've even been to most states than most (well, all of the continental ones). But I don't ascribe to ideological biases of either side. >"Woman card" and "race card" are loaded terms in the US. They are used to dismiss grievances due to discrimination and to belittle the achievements of non white males. That's a loaded way to put it itself. Yes, "woman card" and "race card" can be used to "dismiss grievances" by white males, but can also be used to claim bogus benefits by the respective card holders. Whether white or black, man or woman, there IS such a thing as an abuse of your race/gender to gain sympathy. And blanket statements about this are one-sided -- whether "woman card" or "race card" is a valid or bigoted use have to be examined on a case by case basis.
jimbokun 10y ago
"I happen to agree with that interpretation." I think it will take some doing to defend your interpretation. You are basically claiming men are massively discriminated against in politics, such that just for being a woman, Hillary's support goes from 5% of the vote to 40-something-percent (depending on how you interpret current polls). Frankly, almost anyone at the top of the Democratic ticket would get much, much more than 5% of the vote due to the qualification of "not being Donald Trump", who is only the least favorable presidential candidate on record. So it is a self-obviously stupid statement, as with pretty much everything else the Donald says, and I have no idea how you might defend it. Frankly, I don't think its a statement meant to be defended at all, just a signal to misogynists that Donald wants their votes, but that's just my interpretation.

coldtea 10y ago

How is the Trump quote "threatening" or "sexist"? The rest of the comment is a content-free ad-hominem. Adams might very well be a "genius weasel", but not describing this quote as non-threatening, if that's what's implied here.

kelukelugames 10y ago
Threatening as in a threat to his own campaign. Good point, insignificant would have been clearer. I'm sorry, did I offend a reader of his blog? Adams writes about himself being a weasel and manipulating journalists.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I'm sorry, did I offend a reader of his blog? If by reader you mean someone who read his blog maybe 4-5 times total in the last 10 years (and doesn't even own any Dilbert book), then, still no (ie., no I was not offended). I made a statement concerning the lack of any practical proof/content in the comment. As I said, he may very well be a weasel (and I could not care less, I might add) but that's not something that's concluded from the contents of the comment.
  - kelukelugames 10y ago
    You write a lot for someone who could care less and isn't offended.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      And you analyse people's souls a lot for someone who is not a psychiatrist. I'm just chatty. I write a lot for every topic I'm interested in, as you can plainly see from my comment backlog. Doesn't need to be offended on behalf of Adams to respond -- I'm just the kind of person that doesn't let an inconsistent argument slip by. And I saw "Adams is XXX because he said YYY is OK" without YYY being either bad or any justification for the XXX.