4 ms·
I agree that it's a hit piece, actually not as bad as I had expected based on the title. I disagree that it's fakenews, because the only disputable statements a
by squozzer 10y ago
I agree that it's a hit piece, actually not as bad as I had expected based on the title.
I disagree that it's fakenews, because the only disputable statements are the conclusions / interpretations / shade-throwing of the author, e.g. Scott's girlfriend.
But going meta -- not surprised by anything about the article except the timing, for which Scott offers an explanation in his counter-blog.
The #Resistance has not had much luck in attacking Trump directly, so they go after his allies and those upon whom Trump might have to lean for support.
Such a strategy may look cheap, but if one were tasked with stopping tanks without anti-tank weapons, then attacking fuel sources and making roads harder to navigate aren't such bad ideas.
- devopsproject 10y agoIt looks cheap because it is poor persuasion. This guy was playing the role of political pundit who got it right every time when nearly everyone else, including professionals, got it wrong. To use your analogy, the resistance is destroying petrol when the tanks are running on diesel.
- geezerjay 10y ago> because the only disputable statements are the conclusions / interpretations / shade-throwing of the author The whole article reads as an extensive piece devised to smear the man's character, complete with more or less explicit accusations of misogyny, lunacy, and even racism. And this was motivated by the fact that Scott Adams didn't jumped on the rabid anti-Trump bandwagon and actually had some positive comments on why the american people unequivocally elected Trump their president.