Which is more dangerous to you and your loved ones future?
A lewd, crude, bombastic President facing a hostile media and a suspicious Congress/Judiciary or a corrupt, lawless bribeable President with an slavishly adoring media and a lapdog Congress/Judiciary?
He is. He endorsed Gary Johnson. Far out, man.
bookmark
Good article, but in fairness, I turned it around in my head —
I think Hillary is a globalist who will damage the country, destroy the Supreme Court and the constitution and completely change the demographics of this country, ushering in a future of mass dependency on an increasingly totalitarian government.
That’s the pink elephant I see.
Scott Adams would likely tell me I’m wrong, because other people don’t see what I think I see. So my pink elephant of Hillary is a mere hallucination.
So I’m not sure how useful this article actually is.
It’s the dems stock in trade. Make you afraid of the other guy, and they are damned good at it.
AMEN ! ! !
I've been thinking exactly the same thing for quite some time now; and most recently in NYC last night when I overheard a couple of conversations about what a low-life idiot Trump is. (It was a real struggle to keep my mouth shut. But I remembered the old adage: Never teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.)
ML/NJ
I am hallucinating. No way I have a friend who sees pink elephants.
His reasoning seems faulty, but hopefully it converts some from Clinton.
Some people can’t be convinced of the truth so to them that is in addition to reality. By his reasoning the person who believes the least or has the least cognitive ability to perceive the world around him is correct most of the time. He seems to claim a monopoly on the knowledge of reality.
The same reasoning could be used to prove Hillary is not what we say she is.
https://www.periscope.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1OwxWrgAnbpJQ?t=4
Scott Adams’ ‘Coffee with Scott Adams’ this morning (video)
(—I haven’t watched it yet—just FYI here)
Before you scoff at mass, shared illusions as being unlikely, keep in mind that everyone with a different religion than yours is experiencing exactly that. Mass shared illusions are our most common experience.
Intelligence does help against being persuaded by a false belief--but only if it is applied. If he is saying not applying one's intelligence is what he means by "illusion" or "hallucination" then indeed mass illusion is common.
However it is only with actual hallucination cases in a less metaphorical sense that the "extra" information is necessarily a "hallucination"--this does not apply to thinking a hypothesis through where you are trying to figure out if something exists. For example, if most people can see there is such a thing as atoms based on applying intelligence, but a minority can't, it does not follow the minority is right because the atoms are an "extra".
On the other hand, if he means by "illusion" or "hallucination" an actual subjective experience that someone else present ought to see if it were real, then the claim that mass hallucinations are common seems completely unsupportable.
The gripping hand is, that he has snuck in an equivocation fallacy here, I suspect by accident.
Status quo or risk taker?
Bernie voters were/are risk takers.
Clinton is status quo. Did Bernie voters flick some sort of internal switch, or are they stoopid?
Is a DJT vote really risky or is fully half of the eligible voters fisted meat puppets hooked on the gimme gimme politics of free cheese and cell phones?
Sounds like “thinking with” from “The Cool War,” by Frederik Pohl. From 1981 but still fascinating in many ways.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Here’s what we need to know:
The POTUS we elect will:
1. Appoint 1-4 Supreme Court Justices
2. Be Commander in Chief of our military
3. Will support our Constitution (especially 1A and 2A) and the rule of law, including immigration law-—or not
4. Will raise taxes, promote bigger government, put more Americans out of work, and increase the deficit-—or not
5. Will be pro-American business interests, or will favor foreign interests