So what he's saying is, if Trump ends up being like Hitler, it's our fault, for thinking he would end up like Hitler? Because we'd prefer Hitler to having Scott Adams think we're confirmed morons?
I guess I am a confirmed moron, because I used to look up to Scott Adams. What a disappointment he's turned out to be.
It was weird enough when Adams was doing his "I don't support him, but trump will win because he's so enchanting" bit.
When he flipped his support to Trump over Hillary's estate tax policy, because "it might one day" apply to him (it wouldn't have applied to him currently, had (Hillary, if she won|Trump) enacted that policy, by a long shot) I just stopped trying to understand his logic.
Scott has some really weird alt-right tendencies that make me pretty nervous.
Rationalizing xenophobia as doing what's best for America (with absolutely no evidence to back up his actions) isn't, 'wanting to be right'. I mean, you can demonstrably show that immigration to the US has done this country a lot of good.
Trump's entire platform is completely devoid of evidence-based decision making and is much closer to that of a temperamental child who wants to just go with his gut at every turn.
Some top class victim blaming right here. He doesn't address the concern that this particular Executive Order victimizes a broad swath of minorities for no justifiable reason other than to please a large section of society. What's more, the hatred amongst that section for the minorities was stoked by the person issuing the order in the first place. That is remarkably similar to how Hitler started out. But no, it's the protesters' fault if the situation turns anarchic.
> the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons.
No, it isn't. If a candidate makes promises that sound a lot like the ones Hitler made ("all of your problems are because of <minority>. We'll get rid of them and make <country> great again") it's reasonable to think that the candidate might follow through with that. If the candidate later sees the light, or is unable to push that agenda for some reason, then that's excellent. Everyone is happy with that and no one looks like a moron, they're just relieved.
> how excited/happy the Trump critics seem to be
Perhaps people are happy that others share their views, that others are willing to stand up for what they feel is right and they're willing to protest on the streets to make it happen. If people saw that everyone around them reacted with apathy, they'd feel the exact opposite.
Maybe what Scott Adams is saying would be easier to swallow if it didn't come right on the heels of this Executive Order, which implements some of the worst things Trump promised on the campaign trail. The Order even has some classic authoritarian hallmarks - a temporary measure until we can "figure out what is going on". Makes it easier to accept for now, but does anyone imagine that on day 57, the White House will experience an epiphany about this that will "solve" the problem they're talking about? No, this measure will be renewed again and again, similar to how Erdogan in Turkey and Maduro in Venezuela renew their "temporary" emergencies.
Coincidentally, Erdogan, Maduro and Trump all promised to return power "to the people".
> He doesn't address the concern that this particular Executive Order victimizes a broad swath of minorities for no justifiable reason other than to please a large section of society.
This point was addressed in his prior blog post (same day):
>> [...] Are Trump’s temporary immigration plans chaotic? Yes. Do they hurt innocent people who were minding their own business? Yes, temporarily at least. Did he scare the pants off of half the country? Yes. Will there be lots of unintended damage from Trump’s immigration orders? Yes. No honest person should deny the cost component of the equation. It’s ugly. But don’t stop with a half-pinion. If you want a full opinion on immigration you have to compare those costs to the potential benefits that include fewer terrorist acts and avoiding Europe’s refugee problems. Are people making that comparison?
>>
>> No. [...]
Of ~780K refugees accepted since 11-9-2001 about a dozen have been arrested/deported for terrorism/related threats/risks.
That's 0.0015%.
Trump is a racist, sexist, self absorbed human shit can. No ifs or buts about it. He proved that himself during the ridiculous primaries and election process.
There is no deeper reason. The man is a clown obsessed with his own reflection in the mirror and how many people love his balloon animals.
There is something to this. Collective expectations are a powerful force. If most of us feel that in the 21st century every child deserves a good education, or healthcare, we will act in a certain way when we see a child not getting it.
That having been said, most Americans on the left and right have an expectation that their country has a great tradition and robust institution for human rights. Conservatives emphasize financial freedom. Liberals emphasize social freedom. Both claim to emphasize freedom of speech, etc.
So the difference is that even if Adams' theory is correct and people "wishing for" Hitler thereby "bring him about", they have also "wished for" a Congress and Judicial branch that care enough about the above rights that they would impeach and charge him with high crimes or treason if he ever violated serious rights.
We can apply this logic to existing phenomena. I am a liberal and see Republican opposition to Obamacare largely as hypocritical partisanship. Millions of Republicans are gleeful if Obamacare leads to growing deductibles, bad availability of good insurance plans in some states, and millions dropping coverage because they can't afford it anymore. Sad right? But, they are doing it out of a sense that at the Obamacare mandate is against the principle of Freedom. While that may be misguided, and their opposition to single payer in Healthcare might look silly alongside their acceptance of it in Public Education, nevertheless look at the motivation. Americans across every major party share a respect for values of Human Liberty and Limited Government. This is a good common ground.
I say that, what as should really preserve is the systsm of checks and balances. Hitler by himself no matter how powerful is nothing without centralization of government and a removal of the opposition. What you should worry about is the 2010 REDMAP gerrymandering and the refusal to vote on supreme court justices nominated by Obama. That is actually a dangerous example of a party stealing power permanently from the people by breaking the rules.
Already a judge in NYC pushed back on the ban. And by pushing the GOP to repeal-and-replace Obamacare ASAP, or refusing to do anything negative to Saudis and Russians, Trump is not actually making the Republicans any more comfortable with him.
Trump is seen negatively because he can't deescelate any situation. He doubles down on the dumbest, most easily disprovable stuff. His narcisism runs deep so it's easily taken advantage of by folks with nutjob agendas like Bannon and Flynn.
Honestly he's more of a King George III than Hitler. Hitler had much more of an agenda, backed by a competent team, than Trump has. Trump's a 2-bit narcissist that's attracted crazy dead-enders. The threat is a combination of fringe politics, insanity, and incompetence.
I don't entirely agree with him, but I think we need to be careful about confirmation biases.
This situation about a police state may get out of hand, especially if Trump and local government authorities feel like they need to crack down on it.
What's more important (and more effective) will be lobbying directly to members of Congress to oppose Trump's (and Bannon's) directives.
We are already seeing a number of Republican senators condemning Trump's actions. This number needs to grow to have a chance of Congress being a check to Trump's powers. If Americans think Trump is unfit for the presidency and should be impeached, it needs to be done the right way and via legitimate channels.
Scott Adams makes a very valid point. Fortunately some of us don't get excited at all. Just disgusted and watchful.
The worldwide solidarity which is building up can even be net positive.
Also once he decides to open his first torture chamber he can be assured that everyone in his family involved or complicit will one day be persecuted as war criminals. The judgement of the righteous people is ultimately inevitable.
I guess I am a confirmed moron, because I used to look up to Scott Adams. What a disappointment he's turned out to be.