USANews版 - Presidential Temperament（Dilbert的作者写的） |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b******n
发帖数: 3103 | 1 If you think Trump is risky because of his “temperament” or because he is
“literally Hitler” you are experiencing cognitive dissonance caused by
Clinton’s persuasion game. I mean that literally. And remember that I’m a
trained hypnotist. That doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it does mean I
’m trained to spot cognitive dissonance and you probably aren’t.
I don’t think any of us is smart enough to evaluate the relative risk of
either candidate. And that’s my point. If you think Trump is the dangerous
one, that isn’t supported by his history, his patterns, or the facts. It is
literally an illusion created by his opponents.
One thing we can know for sure is dangerous is doing more of the same. Obama
has been a successful president in part because the United States was
strong enough to take on massive new debt. But that situation can’t last
forever. Debt is a good idea until it reaches a point where it is deadly. At
the current rate of debt growth, we’re doomed in the long run. That makes
the candidate of change the lowest risk, even if you think he might call a
few foreign leaders dopey.
—
全文：http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151288850856/presidential-temperament | t*******d
发帖数: 12895 | | a******e
发帖数: 5411 | | a****l
发帖数: 8211 | 4 Actually this has been said again and again during the both debates and
rallies. Voting for one candidate is for the status-quo, voting for another
is for a change.
is
a
I
dangerous
is
Obama
【在 b******n 的大作中提到】
: If you think Trump is risky because of his “temperament” or because he is
: “literally Hitler” you are experiencing cognitive dissonance caused by
: Clinton’s persuasion game. I mean that literally. And remember that I’m a
: trained hypnotist. That doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it does mean I
: ’m trained to spot cognitive dissonance and you probably aren’t.
: I don’t think any of us is smart enough to evaluate the relative risk of
: either candidate. And that’s my point. If you think Trump is the dangerous
: one, that isn’t supported by his history, his patterns, or the facts. It is
: literally an illusion created by his opponents.
: One thing we can know for sure is dangerous is doing more of the same. Obama
| A****y
发帖数: 2467 | 5 Presidential Temperament
Posted October 3rd, 2016 @ 8:59am in #Trump Clinton
Do you remember the time someone insulted Donald Trump and then Trump
punched him in the nose?
Neither do I. Because nothing like that has ever happened.
Instead, people attack Donald Trump with words (often) and he attacks them
back with words. See if the following pattern looks familiar:
1. Person A insults Trump with words. Trump insults back with words.
2. Person B mentions some sort of scandal about Trump. Trump mentions some
sort of scandal about Person B.
3. Person C endorses Trump (even if they publicly feuded before) and Trump
immediately says something nice about Person C. The feud is instantly over.
See the pattern?
Consider how many times you have seen the pattern repeat with Trump. It
seems endless. And consistent. Trump replies to critics with proportional
force. His reaction is as predictable as night following day.
The exceptions are his jokey comments about roughing up protesters at his
rallies. The rally-goers recognize it as entertainment. I won’t defend his
jokes at rallies except to say that it isn’t a temperament problem when you
say something as a joke and people recognize it as such. (We see his rally
joke-comments out of context on news coverage so they look worse.)
What we have in Trump is the world’s most consistent pattern of behavior.
For starters, he only responds to the professional critics, such as the
media and other politicians. When Trump responded to the Khan family and to
Miss Universe’s attacks, they had entered the political arena. As far as I
know, private citizens – even those critical of Trump – have never
experienced a personal counter-attack. Trump limits his attacks to the folks
in the cage fight with him.
And when Trump counter-attacks, he always responds with equal measure. Words
are met with words and scandal mentions are met with scandal mentions. (And
maybe a few words.) But always proportionate and immediate.
Does any of that sound dangerous?
What if Trump acted this way to our allies and our adversaries? What then?
Answer: Nothing
Our allies won’t insult Trump, and they won’t publicly mention any his
alleged scandals. They will respect the office of the President of the
United States no matter what they think of Trump. If Trump’s past behavior
predicts his future, he will get along great with allies. Our allies have
been fine with every president so far, and they haven’t all been perfect
humans. The worst case scenario is that Trump calls some prime minister
goofy. We’ll all be used to it by then, including the prime minister in
question.
But what about our adversaries? It seems that Trump will get along fine with
Putin. And Trump says North Korea is China’s problem. Compare that to
Hillary Clinton trying to publicly emasculate Putin (with words) while
talking tough about North Korea and forcing them to act tough in response.
Clinton seems like the dangerous one here.
Clinton and Trump both talk tough about Iran. That feels like a tie. Trump
might talk tougher, but he has a pattern of doing just that to begin any
negotiation. Iranians understand negotiating. Clinton has the extra risk of
being influenced into military action by lobbyist for the defense industry.
That risk is hard to measure, if it exists at all.
China’s ruling party is a bunch of trained engineers who couldn’t be
goaded into an over-reaction if you tried. China would expect Trump to be a
tough negotiator, but that’s not a cause for war.
From the viewpoint of foreign leaders, Trump is 100% predictable. He
responds with proportional force, every time, and right away. The safest
situation for the world is when everyone can predict what the United States
will do. You can criticize Trump for a lot of things, but he is completely
predictable in this particular way.
That’s why it was easy to goad Trump into counter-attacking the Khans. That
’s why it was easy to goad him into counter-attacking Miss Universe. But
you know what no foreign leader will ever do to Trump?
That sort of bullshit.
That stuff only happens in campaigns and in our internal politics.
And if a foreign leader tried something so classless, Trump would respond
proportionately. And every American would cheer when he did. It would be a
headline for one day.
The riskiest situation for the world is when our adversaries can’t predict
our response. That encourages them to be adventurous. With a President Trump
, foreign leaders will know that every action creates an equal and measured
reaction. Every time, and right away. That’s his unbroken pattern.
With a President Clinton, foreign leaders won’t always know what they will
get. For one thing, they won’t know where her allegiances are. Is she
serving the people, the Democratic Party, or lobbyists? Will she react with
equal force or try to be diplomatic? Uncertainty is risky. Clinton offers
more uncertainty. She is complicated. Trump is simple.
I’ll wrap this up by summarizing the alleged risks of each candidate so you
can see how they compare on the “scariness” dimension.
Alleged Clinton Risks
Dementia risk (because of age)
Low energy (maybe can’t perform the job)
Temperament (alleged to yell and throw things)
Might allow more terrorists into country via immigration
Influenced by lobbyists to start wars (Eisenhower warned of this)
Drinks alcohol (We don’t know how much or how often)
General brain health is questionable lately
Adversaries won’t know who she serves or how she will react.
Alleged Trump Risks
Dementia risk (because of age)
Trump is “literally Hitler” (This risk is cognitive dissonance, not real)
Con man (Sure, but we’ll be watching him closely)
Temperament (responds proportionately every time)
Race riots (Clinton’s side created this risk by framing Trump as a racist)
Inexperience (But Trump routinely succeeds where he has no experience)
If you think Trump is risky because of his “temperament” or because he is
“literally Hitler” you are experiencing cognitive dissonance caused by
Clinton’s persuasion game. I mean that literally. And remember that I’m a
trained hypnotist. That doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it does mean I
’m trained to spot cognitive dissonance and you probably aren’t.
I don’t think any of us is smart enough to evaluate the relative risk of
either candidate. And that’s my point. If you think Trump is the dangerous
one, that isn’t supported by his history, his patterns, or the facts. It is
literally an illusion created by his opponents.
One thing we can know for sure is dangerous is doing more of the same. Obama
has been a successful president in part because the United States was
strong enough to take on massive new debt. But that situation can’t last
forever. Debt is a good idea until it reaches a point where it is deadly. At
the current rate of debt growth, we’re doomed in the long run. That makes
the candidate of change the lowest risk, even if you think he might call a
few foreign leaders dopey. | d****y
发帖数: 502 | 6 赞 美国人里有胆色说实话的不多了
is
a
I
dangerous
is
Obama
【在 b******n 的大作中提到】
: If you think Trump is risky because of his “temperament” or because he is
: “literally Hitler” you are experiencing cognitive dissonance caused by
: Clinton’s persuasion game. I mean that literally. And remember that I’m a
: trained hypnotist. That doesn’t mean I’m always right, but it does mean I
: ’m trained to spot cognitive dissonance and you probably aren’t.
: I don’t think any of us is smart enough to evaluate the relative risk of
: either candidate. And that’s my point. If you think Trump is the dangerous
: one, that isn’t supported by his history, his patterns, or the facts. It is
: literally an illusion created by his opponents.
: One thing we can know for sure is dangerous is doing more of the same. Obama
| b******n
发帖数: 3103 | 7 这篇blog重点不是讲status quo vs change，而是讲risk assessment.
another
【在 a****l 的大作中提到】
: Actually this has been said again and again during the both debates and
: rallies. Voting for one candidate is for the status-quo, voting for another
: is for a change.
:
: is
: a
: I
: dangerous
: is
: Obama
| b******n
发帖数: 3103 | 8 他自己另一篇blog中提到自打开始挺川普之后（其实不过是说了些实话和自己的分析看
法，有利于川普的），一年间损失了至少$1mil的邀请演讲机会，社交网站上还被水军
追着各种攻击。我记得他自己还说因为身在加州为了人身安全要投希拉里的。
【在 d****y 的大作中提到】
: 赞 美国人里有胆色说实话的不多了
:
: is
: a
: I
: dangerous
: is
: Obama
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
