> because the only disputable statements are the conclusions / interpretations / shade-throwing of the author The whole article reads as an extensive piece de

> 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.