
‘Dilbert’ Creator on How Trump Is Like the Founding Fathers and Jesus - nnx
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/14/dilbert-creator-on-how-trump-is-like-the-founding-fathers-jesus.html
======
elcapitan
If it's ok to compare him with Hitler, then why not with Jesus and the
Founding Fathers from the other side?

Comparing him with Albert Einstein would be more of a stretch, perhaps.

~~~
galfarragem
Who can we compare Hillary with? That's the question.

~~~
werthersOrigin
Margaret Thatcher?

~~~
elcapitan
Donald Trump?

------
basseq
Note that this is from September, and here we are with Trump as the nominee.
If nothing else, Adams's analysis is interesting, funny, and (intentionally)
provoking. It's still a bit myopic (and don't wade into the comments), but
refreshing compared to most political news.

------
davidiach
Scott Adams has since endorsed Hillary, see:
[http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-
for...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for-
president-of-the-united-states)

~~~
_yosefk
This is not your usual endorsement to say the least:

"I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you
define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him.
And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a
genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in
positive terms. (I’m called an “apologist” on Twitter, or sometimes just
Joseph Goebbels).

So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal
safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans
such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have
convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if
I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing
Hillary Clinton for president."

I came here to say that he must have changed his tune because Trump's luck
seems to have turned for the worse based on the latest poll numbers; but he
still predicts Trump will win, so I guess maybe it's not that or at least he's
changing his tune gradually, hedging his bets.

(For the record, I generally think that Scott Adams is a troll and everything
he writes is clickbait, he himself said his traffic increased 5-fold since he
started writing about Trump. As to his correct prediction of Trump's rise, I
think that's the prediction one would have made based on polls alone
(certainly Nate Silver admitted that his abject failure in this instance was
due to ignoring polls.) Since Adams apparently doesn't care about the outcome
as much as Nate Silver and other professional journalists, he didn't have a
bias to cloud his judgement, or rather his ability to parrot polls which is
where the actual data comes from. His drivel about his mastery of persuasion
skills as the basis of his political analysis seems to me not that convincing,
since the supposedly stellar examples of persuasion that he shows outside of
the election business look pretty bad to me.)

~~~
whamlastxmas
I think Scott Adams has an overly important view of himself if he seriously
things anyone is going to go out of his or her way to track him down and cause
him some sort of injury. His sarcastic endorsement of Hillary wouldn't deter
someone wanting to do that anyway. If he's only writing that to make a point,
he's throwing tantrum levels of passive aggressiveness. I say this as someone
who has generally liked Scott Adams, but haven't really read anything he's
written in the past year.

~~~
runjake
I think you're confused. It's satire. It's a satirical post.

