Posted on 07/15/2018 12:16:13 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Author: 'The left has made it clear that this is personal now'
Author and “Dilbert” cartoonist Scott Adams says President Trump’s critics may scare him into the voting booth this year.
The author of “Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter” took to social media on Sunday to discuss why he might vote for the first time. The reason: Democrats are “coming for you next” if Republicans lose control of Congress.
“The left has made it clear that this is personal now,” Mr. Adams told his large fan base on YouTube. “This is citizen to citizen. Probably the safest thing you can do if you’re a Republican is to help get out the vote because it’s going to be a dangerous place around here if the president gets impeached. I’m not wrong about that, right? Impeachment is the point where the risk of something snapping is pretty high.”
Mr. Adams, whose “Dilbert” cartoon runs in over 2,000 newspapers around the world, added to his popularity during the 2016 election season by being one of the first commentators to predict Mr. Trump’s electoral success....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
That is the real "insurance policy" Strzok was talking about. It's established fact the FBI is in bed with the MSM. The FBI has been feeding stories to the MSM to inflame the lunatic left. This enables them to foment an assassination attempt without direct involvement. Consider the over the top consuming hatred Strzok has for Trump and Trump voters. This level of hatred leads to evil decisions.
Healthy skepticism is always appropriate.
bookmark
There’s a dawning realization among much of the citizenry that we’ve been subjected to 50 years of fake news. So yes, people are skeptical.
And that is as near to critical thinking some people will get. Which is good nevertheless. At least the LIV's are paying attention.
And you will not be the only one Scott.
In avoiding giving aid and comfort to the enemy, the Demonicrat Party is now becoming recognized as the enemy.
Scott Adams is an idiot and should stick to the cartoon. His Periscope on Strozck’s testimony was ludicrous. He said that Strozck was “credible” when he testified that his “we’ll stop it” text to Page didn’t mean what it most certainly meant. I quit following Adams on Twitter immediately. Just another California Cool egghead.
He is spot on. This is now personal with those folks. Very dangerous times. They were getting their candy and it was suddenly jerked from them. Juvenile reaction coming.
Trust me on this. If he loses congress, the wind will be out of his sails. His winner's momentum will be gone and we will see a much different leader.
Vote like we're losing!
Despite Scott Adams’ seeming common sense and “conservative” approach to society, I’m shocked to find the he may vote for THE FIRST TIME in the upcoming elections. What a coward.
He just figured that out?
Trust me on this. If he loses congress, the wind will be out of his sails.I would trust you if you could first demonstrate where he ever won congress.
Trust me on this. He never has.
I think Scott Adams chooses to defend the other side because they want to be seen as somewhat non-partisan.
We definitely need people in the middle if we hope to save the country. Besides, Adams gave perfectly good reasons why he believes Stozck’s claim that “we will stop him [Trump]” meant stopping Trump politically.
On FR I regularly make private (anonymous) comments that I would be not want to make public.
Adams did not say Strozck was innocent overall.
This is what I found so disturbing about his testimony at the one Congressional committee hearing. He swore under oath before God and the entire nation that his personal feelings had no effect on his job performance. But common sense tells us that can't be true. A person doesn't say the things he said about Donald Trump and his supporters without a hatred that is deep and pathological, and must of its own soul-searing corrosiveness permeate his entire rational and irrational being. An individual with that kind of pathology simply cannot avoid having their ingrown hatred express itself in their job performance.
This guy doesn’t vote?!! Yeeesh.
Freegards
Ignorant words. Do you think we'd have Gorsuch on the Supreme Court if Democrats held the Senate? Kavanaugh? We'd be lucky to get Merrick Garland and hope he'd be only slightly to the left of Kennedy.
I have no doubt that President Trump would disagree with the sentiments that you posted. I understand the frustration with our cowardly GOP congress and have felt this way many times as well but at this point, I do see them slowly coming around to the President's side. Just as a winning football team sees an increase in fans as they enter the playoffs, President Trump's winning streak is seeing congressional Republicans loosen up and come on board, something that absolutely will not happen if the Democrats take back congress.
Filling congress with Trump-supporters is ideal but keeping congress in the GOP majority is absolutely essential.
My response too! see #31
Bookmark
“... it was a nation of skeptics as soon as the Federal government lifted a finger to do anything other than enforce the tariffs at ports and provide enough of a Navy to keep the British off our necks.
It wasn’t until the 60s when television replaced newspapers as the primary source of information for most people, especially younger people,... The amazing lack of skepticism is the problem.” [Rashputin, post 7]
Not a bad read on what changed. The arrival of TV heralded the change from what was a print-based culture to an image-based culture. At this late date, we are far down that road. The briefiest self-aware glance at TV and magazine advertisements will give it away: ever the longer the more, there is no deliberately stated “message” - not even one so simple as “Buy this!” No written nor spoken words, save the name of the product, or a pic of it (if it’s easily identified, like an automobile or a watch, or a bottle of shampoo with a big bold brand name logo).
The thumbnail portrait of the US Navy is wrong though. Or possibly 120 years too early. The USA did not win the War of Independence. Rather, we got lucky: in 1775-1783, other Euro powers eventually got involved; Imperial Britain found that hanging onto its American colonies was less of a priority.
A similar sequence of events occurred in 1812-1815, though the USA’s plight was more self-induced. Heavily committed to the defeat of Napoleonic France, the British could not spare the forces to deal a decisive blow.
US Naval exploits against the Royal Navy were vital in reviving American morale and cohesion, but barely rated as pinpricks, in the overall strategic picture.
If we Americans of the latter day are inclined to thank anyone, we ought to thank the Royal Navy. During much of the 18th century and all of the 19th century it was British maritime dominance that enabled a truly American nation to germinate, take root, and grow. Trade flourished because the Royal Navy suppressed piracy, slave trading, and hostile powers. The British Empire embraced free trade - imperfectly at first, but more fully as time passed. But its role in keeping sealanes open benefitted the USA and all other trading nations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.