Before the Republican primary, I didn’t even know that Scott Adams, famed for his “Dilbert” cartoons, had a blog. Since the Republican primary, I’ve become an addict. Adams’ insights into the way politicians feed information through our guts, rather than our brains, has explained many things that have long been inexplicable to me. For the most part, he’s been uncannily accurate and invariably enjoyable. But even the best analysts sometimes get things wrong — and Adams’ most recent column is that rare example.
Scott Adams took a look at the mud being slung in this campaign and suggested a “splitting the baby” approach to information and disinformation:
I have a different window into the election scandals because I’ve been semi-famous for a few decades. In my experience, about half of what you read about me is true, and half is complete nonsense. The interesting thing is that you can’t tell which half is which. The only person who knows the truth with certainty is me, and I’m not credible because I’m the subject of the rumors.
Extrapolating from my own experience, I think it is fair to assume that about half of what you hear about Trump and Clinton is true. The other half is nonsense. But here again, you can’t tell which half is the real part. I’m here to help.
Using this approach, even while he correctly noted that Trump was boasting about his approach to willing women, Adams nevertheless concludes that the plethora of women coming forward to complain about actual assault means that those accusations must be true:
Likewise, half of the Trump rumors about kissing and groping are likely to be untrue or exaggerated. But that still leaves enough rumors as true – although we don’t know which ones – to make me endorse Gary Johnson. (Johnson only touches himself. That’s a good quality in a president.)
In fact, a little bit of digging in the wake of accusations from a horde of women who suddenly remembered allegedly traumatic experiences ten, twenty, or thirty years after the fact has revealed that they are (a) Hillary operatives; (b) deeply troubled women; or (c) liars (or all of the above). Writing at Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft offers a comprehensive debunking of the first five women to come forward. Briefly, the debunking can be summed up as follows:
To read more, please go here.