It was obvious he was going to win, the media/establishment did everything they could to make hillary look like she had the biggest pocket of voters, Establishment took a huge blow with this election, i mean hillary was resorting to having jay z and performers do concerts to get people to vote for her. Someone who pays off the fbi's agent's wife 500k, who was responsible of her investigation during her investigation is extremely bad, she doesnt even deserve to be eligible to run, i mean she took millions from haiti relief fund, didnt give them anything, Haiti is rioting as we speak against the clinton foundation.
I can't find the vid, but I've seen a video on RUclips of Trump doing EXACTLY the same hand movements and voice as he did to the disabled reporter many times to many different people. It's one of his common, go to insults. The point of the physicality and voice of the insult is to make you picture the person as a stuttering, quivering nervous mess. It's also kind of old tyme since he comes from a age when physical comedy was more pronounced, vs today's comedy that uses far less slapstick.
"I've reasserted my prediction that he's going to win." "So you still feel that he's going to win by a landslide?" "I think the landslide's a little harder to say . . . but I would say his odds of winning now are really high." 100% correct. The "pros" couldn't figure this out (because they didn't care to). Good job, Mr Adams!
jack just pulled the same persuasive shit on you and you fell for it. Stick to your story. If you grew up in NY (southern, NYC) you would know that his schtick is pure sarcasm.
He is a great speaker. But his thought process is actually irrational. He uses clear concise OPINIONS and tries to justify them as facts. He forms his opinions in a way that it's difficult for anyone to disagree or argue with him.
I think vlad just bases his hate for Trump not on policies but like a 5 year old would: oh hes racist, hes a meany, bully, hes orange wah wah...I would agree to disagree if he whined about policies like: Vaccines are useful or we do need higher taxes on the rich and so on
***** History MORE THAN SHOWS that the economy, jobs, wage growth all are stronger under Democratic leadership. There is no arguing that point. Even NOW - Bush trashed the place and Obama cleaned it up and turned it around. In REPUBLICAN STATES, look at the economies, wages, worker's rights, education - ALL IN THE TOILET. Why? Because they do what they always do - give it all to the rich and then make the middle-class pay for it, while doing NOTHING FOR EDUCATION OR WORKERS. SO - they lead in Minimum Wage jobs per capita, teen pregnancy, fewest worker's rights, lowest wages, poorest education. Any economist will tell you that the economy does better under Democrats. Both the Clinton and the Obama eras have seen unprecedented growth in the stock market. Also, recessions usually begin during republican administrations and end during democratic administrations. Don't take my word; look it up. Republicans support policies that attract non-wealthy Americans. These include conservative positions on abortion, immigration, religion, free-speech, drugs, and gun control. The Republicans' conservative social point of view convinces enough poor and middle class people to elect Republican representatives and presidents, even though the Republican policies work against the economic interests of the vast majority of citizens who vote Republican. As an example of how the two parties look at taxation: Republican: "I work hard for my money, I don't want it to pay for people who abuse the welfare system. It's not fair." Democratic: "The poor will always be with us, and some of us become poor for reasons beyond our control. Wealthy people, who benefit from the U.S. infrastructure, should pay a greater percentage of their wealth to help the poor." Abortion: Republican: "Any product of conception is a human being, and it is wrong to kill it" Democratic: "It is wrong to force another human to become or remain pregnant." Government spending: Republican: "We can't afford to tax and spend at such a high rate (of GDP)" Democratic: "In the long run, U.S. wealth will come from a well educated population with an excellent infrastructure. Cutting back on education, health care, infrastructure will, in the long run, cripple the US Economically." -- Note that the typical American is limited to earning a living in the domestic economy, but wealthy Americans can invest abroad, or even live abroad, insulating them from a poor American economy.
***** Honestly most people who jumped ship to Trump after Bernie just did it because they don't like Hilary lol. Bernie and Trump aren't alike at all in terms of policies. Hilary is attempting to invest in the middle and lower class.. none of the previous republican presidents did that lol I'll give you this.. you actually have knowledge about hat your talking about... but Most of the people that are voting for trump have no idea what his policies and regulations are.. there voting for him because Hilary is corrupt. and because his bigot rhetoric makes them feel good lol. i don't think all trump supporters are racists but ALOTTT of them are.. TOO Much of them are. Trump lowering taxes on corporations in hopes that it creates more jobs isn't going to work. that's been attempted many times by republicans and it's always failed Economic growth is useless if the rich is getting richer and the poor getting poorer and the middle class is disappearing. what's the point in that? You realize Trump is one of the biggest perpetrators in taking jobs abroad right lmfao? especially in mexico. Idk what you be watching bro but trump never has any answers lol. he's a idiot. maybe his website has the answers but when he speaks he joints a moronic fool and barley talks about policies lol. but we can agree to disagree. i'm team hilary but i'm not voting. i honestly don't care and can't wait till this shits over lol. regardless whose put in office ima still be out here grinding for mines. so it is what it is.
Funny how you assume anti-Trumpers think that way. Some just don't care for Trump because he's incompetent. I'd bet money that he couldn't tell me how a law gets passed through Congress. He doesn't know anything, and simply doesn't care to learn. That's why many people, including myself, can't support him. Very simple really
No, he's been successfully persuaded by the Clinton camp. Note how he doesn't say anything about disagreeing about the details of policy, past voting record or anything beyond the scandals surrounding Trump. Even if Trump is a talented persuader, Clinton has hired a team of professionals. Remember when every Dem pundit was using 'dark' in their statements regarding Trump? The strength of the racist, bigot, sexist association is so deep that it's very hard for anyone to not view Trump through those filters.
First some context, I commented on only the first 10 minutes of the Vlad interview with Scott Adams, with one minor but compelling exception. My purpose was to show that Scott contradicted himself horrendously. You may stop when you have had enough, but it's only 5 minutes of verbiage for an average reader. Scott’s first admission is that much, if not most, of what Trump does and says is indefensible. To get around this problem, Scott then stipulates that his defense of the indefensible is not based on Trump's politics, that is, what Trump does and says but rather on Trump's extraordinary skill of persuasion since Trump possesses "the highest level of persuasive talent," Scott's words precisely, that he has ever observed, as an expert observer of such skills. Interestingly, Scott also concedes that almost nothing Trump says should be taken seriously. In other words, a "Trust me." issued by Trump is not worth the breath used to issue it. But there lies another problem: persuasive power and distrust are incompatible, so Scott has already introduced a fatal flaw in his defense of Trump. (But let's ride on anyway.) More specifically, Scott says that what most people think is "random behavior" or "childish talking" or just "bad vocabulary" is really not what it seems; namely, the ravings of a "sixth grader" trapped in a man's body. Why? Scott says because if you ignore those artifacts, what is left is a very direct, simple, down-to-earth way of talking that when repeated over a campaign cycle makes Trump the great persuader and communicator he no doubt is. That is a strong thesis, but the reality is Trump's persuasive reparteé was in fact rejected by most of the American people - despite his winning a sliver of the electorate sufficient to win in the Electoral College. What is more, Trump has been wholly unpersuasive since his election in terms of major legislation, and for someone who was supposed to gather around him only the best and brightest, of the people Trump persuaded to take jobs in his administration, two have been indicted, one has pleaded guilty and more than 17 others have already been booted from the WH. (Of course, the Trumpkin refrain is: Trump won, and that's all that matters in a Trumpian world where facts are not relevant.) But, let's ride on. When Scott said Trump’s persuasive skills compared to those of his challengers left his challengers lacking, it would have been nice if Vlad mentioned the inconvenient fact that only Trump received billions of dollars worth of fee coverage of his rallies, where his words were repeated ad nausea, which militated against the messages of his challengers. And, of course, repetition is an effective learning technique. However, I would argue that it is access more than persuasion since if you cannot get in the room, you cannot make your pitch. Nonetheless, Scott asserts that Trump's persuasion skills were destined to decimate his challengers had it not been for the Access Hollywood tape, which according to Scott was unlikely to be true because, according to Scott who is steeped deeply enough into how presidential campaigns work, you really cannot believe "anything said," (which were it only true, Trumpkins would rule the world). Of course, Scott himself jumped off the Trump train when the Access tape came out, which makes his argument that nothing can be believed yet another contradiction because Scott himself apparently believed what Trump said since he tried to explain it away. (3 misfires out of a 100) But in a Trumpian world, these contradictions don't count because persuasion or bamboozle skills are more important, that is, appeals to emotions rather than rationality because what Trump needed to win were folks susceptible, Trumpkins as it were, to Trump's bamboozle, strike that, I mean Trump's raw persuasive skill. After all, Scott is a Trumpkin, so as he said, "forget about policy or facts" since according to Scott, Trump’s appeal is made to the emotions of the people since it's those feelings that drive people's decision making. And fortunately, though far from a majority, there were slightly more than enough, though barely, of those kinds of people susceptible to Trumpian rhetoric. Ende, right? No, not so fast, when your skills of persuasion are superior, you by definition persuade a majority, not a mere sliver of a minority, which contradicts Scott's assertion that Trump's persuasive impact was all that. (Remember, Hitler persuaded the majority of the German people and those who were not with the program hid their objections so their speaking fees were not affected - not the other way around.) Yet another contradiction by Scott was his saying that Trump only does or says bad things to non-Americans. But when challenged with the instance where Trump allegedly made fun of a disabled reporter, who was probably American, Scott contradicts himself straight away by saying that Trump does such things to everyone, apparently forgetting that everyone Trump makes fun of or says bad things to are not all non Americans. Oops. What is more, not all of Trump's female accusers were Colombian. Judge Curiel is in fact just as American as Trump himself, as is Sen. Cruz, etc.. Clearly, Scott is demonstrating in spades that the facts are irrelevant. Next, Scott seems to project his own view of Trump, something he called his framing, onto Hillary, saying that her view of Trump was that of a monstrous racist, when Hillary's view, I do believe, was that Trump was simply not qualified because he was unstudied and had no political experience compared to her over 30 years. Besides, let's set aside the Trumpism for just a moment; if Scott's assertion that Hillary successfully framed Trump as "Hitler or the worse thing that could happen to America," Scott's words, Hillary would be president. My point: this projection or framing is readily refuted. What Scott said next was even more amazing since he said the people against Trump are really good persuaders too. Really, why? Surely, they cannot rival the persuasion skills of Trump himself? What nuanced point is Scott about to make? Well . . . according to Scott, Trump haters are only persuasive because when Trump does something bad (although it's something he does to almost everyone Scott argues), these anti-Trumpsters only get traction because they can point to countless other bad things Trump has done, and amazingly Scott is not even contesting any of the supposedly bad things because they don’t matter and therefore should be ignored. (A suggestion that only makes sense to a Trumpkin no doubt.) Nonetheless, by Scott’s own admission, all Trump’s acts taken together give his opponents their persuasive power against him. So, in addition to Scott's admission that Trump does bad things, Scott also seems to not realize that doing something to a lot of people does not make those acts less bad; it only makes such acts characteristic of someone's behavior. As a result, Scott ends up arguing why Trump did so poorly, not why he succeeded in spades with the American voters since the fact is Trump succeeded only with a sufficient minority. So let's parse some words to figure out what all this double talk on Scott's part means. Fact: Scott concedes directly that a lot of what Trump says and does is terrible and therefore cannot be defended, but since a significant minority are unperturbed by Trump’s politics, the majority should just disabuse themselves of being overly politically correct since Trump is going to be Trump. So, when Trump said judge Curiel should have recused himself from the Trump University lawsuit because he has immigrant, Mexican parents, it should just be ignored because in the final analysis, the best lawyer money could buy could not remove judge Curiel and ultimately was forced to settle the case, resulting in a substantive payout. So just ignore it. However, in the real world, only people who are not keeping score would ignore such a grand failure. However, it is Scott's last admission in the video that drives a stake in his own heart, that is, that all-but-nullified almost everything he said in the entire video. Namely, that The Great Persuader, Trump, ironically and in direct contravention to Scott's thesis seems to have persuaded a preponderance of Scott's own fans to dump Trump and his defenders, including Scott himself, causing Scott's speaking fees to decline by 40%, so much so (and now I understand all the contradictions) that Scott tried to hedge his defense of Trump (although rather obtusely) in an attempt to save as many of his remaining fans and speaking fees as possible. (If I remember right, we agree on this point.) So, I finally get it. So, as a dear friend likes to say, the jury has spoken and they voted against the bamboozle. Seems like the reality is: Trump has persuaded the wrong people to do the wrong thing, and Scott's view of Trump is upside down. QED
vlad you are doing an interview with extreme prejudice already. and you and your friends never have any locker room talk? you have very special friends then. me and all my friends have talks like that all the time. especially when drunk or high. those are some of the happiest "bro" bonding moments ever.
Hypocrisy like this lost the left everything, no one believes your like this, nobody believes that at one point in your lifetime, you have never uttered a sexually innocuous statement that is comparable to grab her by the pussy, and EVEN if you didn't that doesn't mean you should act like your morally superior to anybody else, all you do then is alienate yourself from the common man. Keep acting like this, keep whatever social media echo chamber reverberating with this kind of mentality that your involved with and we will see a Trump 2020.
I normally defend Vlad but I've got to say, he sounds stupid trying to argue with this guy. I'm beginning to see a pattern here; sounds like Vlad likes to hear himself talk. Just let the man speak and stop acting like a know-it-all.
One of the best interviews I have ever heard. I really like the mindset and the way Scott Adams lays things out to navigate our thought process. He seems direct, to the point and quite candid.
This guy articulated this whole thing so well. It's so frustrating to hear such reasonable arguments that I've felt myself and yet some people just shout against reason.
In his own words: Don't trust the advice of a cartoonist. Every interview that he does, every blog post and tweet has been a persuasive argument to see things from his perspective.
damn Vlad as smart as you are, sometimes you seem a lil slow, I love to hear this dude talk, because he steps out of his shoes and look at it from all points of view, and gets a better understanding of the situation. Really Vlad no election never been rigged? And all men locker room talk, might not talk about forcefully grabbing a women , but talk about what you want to do, and more, even women do it.
Scott Adams is brilliant. Vlad got a little emotionally invested in trying to prove Trump is a villain. He shouldn't have tried to pin Trump's crimes on Scott. Adams was trying to make an objective intellectual argument, and did a fantastic job.
I hadn't seen this before today, but intend to watch more Scott Adams. A) Having had my share of pointy-haired bosses and misbehaving ties, I loved Dilbert B) he actually sounds intelligent.
"Let me finish this thought, because it's important." No one would interrupt somebody when they're saying something that's important. Adams is a master of persuasion .
What do you expect? The vast majority of trump haters don't know a damn thing about him, even though they act like they're experts. Funny thing is, most of them don't know shit about hillary either. Like the man says, you ask them what they like about her and the answers you get are basically "oh you know... stuff" and "she'll make things better" / "Shes better than trump". They're imbeciles.
The opposing side isnt different though, as much as you would like to think otherwise. "Anybody but Hillary" "She deleted emails" "He's gonna make america great" Whats the difference?
Message from the UK. As a Trump supporter I appreciated Scott Adams objective input. It was intelligent and informed. I particularly enjoyed his optimistic conclusions about the outcome of this election. Other Trump supporters should not input insults at him here simply because he is not beating a Trump drum. Be glad that he, as an objective observer, is likely to provide a forecast that would be all the more realistic.
The way you wrote that makes it seem like you think Americans are more easily persuaded(or even manipulated) than the rest of the world. Maybe. The reality is, most people are about the same when it comes to subconscious biases and persuasion, it's not a "dumb American" thing!
This man is the smartest guest that Vlad has ever interviewed. I feel that if Scott Adams were on the Breakfast Club or Ebro in the Morning he'd make all hosts on both shows look like complete morons. Not even a Trump fan, but no one's really feeling Clinton either. That man's rallies make Clinton's look like a fucking PTA meeting at Mrs. Robinson's house.
Normally I would disagree, but I actually would prefer it if people who don't know what the fuck is going on would stay their asses at home and NOT vote. So please, if you haven't followed politics this year, don't vote. Also if you want to vote independent, it's like not voting at all, so go ahead and do that if you're not informed. Thx
Well, I hope Scott Adams gets the speaking engagements back since he called it properly. He is actually worth listening to as opposed to all the other people who fell for Hillary's smear and predicted things wrong.
Interviewer: "F-ing around in the whitehouse I don't find as huge as [saying what Trump said]." Seriously? Wow. I guess words are more damning than actions.
A lot of what Scott Adams said flew right over Vlads head in this. They were on a similar page but definitely not the same page haha. Vlad just baiting Scott into slippin'. Shonky techniques Vlad.
you don't have a decent life of your own do you. This is why Nobody is respecting people in the US anymore. Thats why when US acts come to the UK shining they get robbed. And come home and keep quiet. Too up your own ass, easily lead down roads of BS, no fact checking, and Vlad aint a road man he is a middle class Jewish guy from the burbs. So how he a snitch? The info is there to be seen and found. Alexis Banks get a life.
What can I say... he called it
This video is gonna give this guy his speaking engagements and 40% income back; You saved him Vlad lol
yeah nigga u best believe we get those mac - n - cheese bites right every time on folk nem my nigga
djvlad facts lol
He certainly did
It was obvious he was going to win, the media/establishment did everything they could to make hillary look like she had the biggest pocket of voters, Establishment took a huge blow with this election, i mean hillary was resorting to having jay z and performers do concerts to get people to vote for her. Someone who pays off the fbi's agent's wife 500k, who was responsible of her investigation during her investigation is extremely bad, she doesnt even deserve to be eligible to run, i mean she took millions from haiti relief fund, didnt give them anything, Haiti is rioting as we speak against the clinton foundation.
"You would like to test that."
"Yes"
"Proceed."
Legendary.
simple_reed I liked that too haha
SAVAGE😂
I'm voting trump
Then you're a fucking idiot.
O I know people just brainwashed the dude says if you really listen to what Trump is saying and not what the media is pushing you vote for him too
chris cager he don't care about your black charcoal ass nigga
not all blacks on welfare I own 3 McDonald's what u working with
Fabulous Divo Who's the real racist? Sounds like you.
This dude is like a Jedi when it comes to persuasion.
lol
facts
Or maybe you're just very easily persuaded.
+Exiles Of The Underground my thoughts exactly lol
Is there an uncute or longer version of this interview?
When Scott says "proceed" at 5:43, you can tell the interviewer is about to get wrecked.
Vlad try to prove his point against trump ! Then gets owned ! 6:10
Get wrecked.
Matt Erwin what the fuck are you talking about, he doesn't mock people the same way he mocked the disabled reporter.
Looks like Vlad is just buying all the BS the media has been saying. Scott Adam's understands not only the context, but what Trump actually said.
I can't find the vid, but I've seen a video on RUclips of Trump doing EXACTLY the same hand movements and voice as he did to the disabled reporter many times to many different people. It's one of his common, go to insults.
The point of the physicality and voice of the insult is to make you picture the person as a stuttering, quivering nervous mess. It's also kind of old tyme since he comes from a age when physical comedy was more pronounced, vs today's comedy that uses far less slapstick.
CRFlixxx bullshit, you can't find a video that don't exist.
Smart and informed guy. Rare these days.
Scott straight schooled Vlad.
This interview is where people find out that Hip Hop journalists really have no business doing political content until they can debate it well.
yup very bad interviewer
How so?
How?
You see, you trump suckers are all over the place
lol
Scott Adams has had the most interesting perspective I've heard this whole election, and a lot of his ideas are spot on.
"I've reasserted my prediction that he's going to win."
"So you still feel that he's going to win by a landslide?"
"I think the landslide's a little harder to say . . . but I would say his odds of winning now are really high."
100% correct. The "pros" couldn't figure this out (because they didn't care to). Good job, Mr Adams!
Dilbert is just so rational and basically saying you cant take the harsh stuff Trump says for their literal meanings
you should because that how every authoritarian leader comes to power
jack just pulled the same persuasive shit on you and you fell for it. Stick to your story. If you grew up in NY (southern, NYC) you would know that his schtick is pure sarcasm.
He is a great speaker. But his thought process is actually irrational. He uses clear concise OPINIONS and tries to justify them as facts. He forms his opinions in a way that it's difficult for anyone to disagree or argue with him.
Tyler Chamberlain Yep, anyone following Scott Adams has known this and knew this was an obvious outcome.
And the harsh stuff Hillary said about Blacks being "super predators"? How do you take that?
This guy really knows how to use his words in a very educated way. Smart man.
He is a trained hypnotist after all!
This guys a fucking idiot....he thinks everything he says is correct....i garuntee he is a white supremacist...
***** Huh ?
Kuronetwork Mhmm
***** dilbert is trash and hes a corny ass white supremacist know it all...and a low key trump throater..
I think vlad just bases his hate for Trump not on policies but like a 5 year old would: oh hes racist, hes a meany, bully, hes orange wah wah...I would agree to disagree if he whined about policies like: Vaccines are useful or we do need higher taxes on the rich and so on
anyone who actually bases this on policies will see that trump is only good for rich people so lol?
***** History MORE THAN SHOWS that the economy, jobs, wage growth all are stronger under Democratic leadership.
There is no arguing that point. Even NOW - Bush trashed the place and Obama cleaned it up and turned it around. In REPUBLICAN STATES, look at the economies, wages, worker's rights, education - ALL IN THE TOILET. Why? Because they do what they always do - give it all to the rich and then make the middle-class pay for it, while doing NOTHING FOR EDUCATION OR WORKERS. SO - they lead in Minimum Wage jobs per capita, teen pregnancy, fewest worker's rights, lowest wages, poorest education.
Any economist will tell you that the economy does better under Democrats. Both the Clinton and the Obama eras have seen unprecedented growth in the stock market. Also, recessions usually begin during republican administrations and end during democratic administrations. Don't take my word; look it up.
Republicans support policies that attract non-wealthy Americans. These include conservative positions on abortion, immigration, religion, free-speech, drugs, and gun control. The Republicans' conservative social point of view convinces enough poor and middle class people to elect Republican representatives and presidents, even though the Republican policies work against the economic interests of the vast majority of citizens who vote Republican.
As an example of how the two parties look at taxation:
Republican: "I work hard for my money, I don't want it to pay for people who abuse the welfare system. It's not fair."
Democratic: "The poor will always be with us, and some of us become poor for reasons beyond our control. Wealthy people, who benefit from the U.S. infrastructure, should pay a greater percentage of their wealth to help the poor."
Abortion:
Republican: "Any product of conception is a human being, and it is wrong to kill it"
Democratic: "It is wrong to force another human to become or remain pregnant."
Government spending:
Republican: "We can't afford to tax and spend at such a high rate (of GDP)"
Democratic: "In the long run, U.S. wealth will come from a well educated population with an excellent infrastructure. Cutting back on education, health care, infrastructure will, in the long run, cripple the US Economically."
-- Note that the typical American is limited to earning a living in the domestic economy, but wealthy Americans can invest abroad, or even live abroad, insulating them from a poor American economy.
***** Honestly most people who jumped ship to Trump after Bernie just did it because they don't like Hilary lol. Bernie and Trump aren't alike at all in terms of policies. Hilary is attempting to invest in the middle and lower class.. none of the previous republican presidents did that lol
I'll give you this.. you actually have knowledge about hat your talking about... but Most of the people that are voting for trump have no idea what his policies and regulations are.. there voting for him because Hilary is corrupt. and because his bigot rhetoric makes them feel good lol. i don't think all trump supporters are racists but ALOTTT of them are.. TOO Much of them are.
Trump lowering taxes on corporations in hopes that it creates more jobs isn't going to work. that's been attempted many times by republicans and it's always failed
Economic growth is useless if the rich is getting richer and the poor getting poorer and the middle class is disappearing. what's the point in that? You realize Trump is one of the biggest perpetrators in taking jobs abroad right lmfao? especially in mexico.
Idk what you be watching bro but trump never has any answers lol. he's a idiot. maybe his website has the answers but when he speaks he joints a moronic fool and barley talks about policies lol.
but we can agree to disagree. i'm team hilary
but i'm not voting. i honestly don't care and can't wait till this shits over lol. regardless whose put in office ima still be out here grinding for mines. so it is what it is.
Funny how you assume anti-Trumpers think that way. Some just don't care for Trump because he's incompetent. I'd bet money that he couldn't tell me how a law gets passed through Congress. He doesn't know anything, and simply doesn't care to learn. That's why many people, including myself, can't support him. Very simple really
No, he's been successfully persuaded by the Clinton camp. Note how he doesn't say anything about disagreeing about the details of policy, past voting record or anything beyond the scandals surrounding Trump.
Even if Trump is a talented persuader, Clinton has hired a team of professionals. Remember when every Dem pundit was using 'dark' in their statements regarding Trump?
The strength of the racist, bigot, sexist association is so deep that it's very hard for anyone to not view Trump through those filters.
I predict Vlad will make this a flashback video... win or lose.
Bean S 😂😂😂
He'll do it the day after the election...so next week lmao
Lord Jamar and DJ Vlad's Son the election is tomorrow lmao
cant lose
Well, I guess we know what nature that video will take now.
This guy makes a lot of sense. Well spoken
First some context, I commented on only the first 10 minutes of the Vlad interview with Scott Adams, with one minor but compelling exception. My purpose was to show that Scott contradicted himself horrendously. You may stop when you have had enough, but it's only 5 minutes of verbiage for an average reader.
Scott’s first admission is that much, if not most, of what Trump does and says is indefensible. To get around this problem, Scott then stipulates that his defense of the indefensible is not based on Trump's politics, that is, what Trump does and says but rather on Trump's extraordinary skill of persuasion since Trump possesses "the highest level of persuasive talent," Scott's words precisely, that he has ever observed, as an expert observer of such skills.
Interestingly, Scott also concedes that almost nothing Trump says should be taken seriously. In other words, a "Trust me." issued by Trump is not worth the breath used to issue it. But there lies another problem: persuasive power and distrust are incompatible, so Scott has already introduced a fatal flaw in his defense of Trump. (But let's ride on anyway.)
More specifically, Scott says that what most people think is "random behavior" or "childish talking" or just "bad vocabulary" is really not what it seems; namely, the ravings of a "sixth grader" trapped in a man's body. Why? Scott says because if you ignore those artifacts, what is left is a very direct, simple, down-to-earth way of talking that when repeated over a campaign cycle makes Trump the great persuader and communicator he no doubt is.
That is a strong thesis, but the reality is Trump's persuasive reparteé was in fact rejected by most of the American people - despite his winning a sliver of the electorate sufficient to win in the Electoral College. What is more, Trump has been wholly unpersuasive since his election in terms of major legislation, and for someone who was supposed to gather around him only the best and brightest, of the people Trump persuaded to take jobs in his administration, two have been indicted, one has pleaded guilty and more than 17 others have already been booted from the WH. (Of course, the Trumpkin refrain is: Trump won, and that's all that matters in a Trumpian world where facts are not relevant.) But, let's ride on.
When Scott said Trump’s persuasive skills compared to those of his challengers left his challengers lacking, it would have been nice if Vlad mentioned the inconvenient fact that only Trump received billions of dollars worth of fee coverage of his rallies, where his words were repeated ad nausea, which militated against the messages of his challengers. And, of course, repetition is an effective learning technique. However, I would argue that it is access more than persuasion since if you cannot get in the room, you cannot make your pitch.
Nonetheless, Scott asserts that Trump's persuasion skills were destined to decimate his challengers had it not been for the Access Hollywood tape, which according to Scott was unlikely to be true because, according to Scott who is steeped deeply enough into how presidential campaigns work, you really cannot believe "anything said," (which were it only true, Trumpkins would rule the world). Of course, Scott himself jumped off the Trump train when the Access tape came out, which makes his argument that nothing can be believed yet another contradiction because Scott himself apparently believed what Trump said since he tried to explain it away. (3 misfires out of a 100)
But in a Trumpian world, these contradictions don't count because persuasion or bamboozle skills are more important, that is, appeals to emotions rather than rationality because what Trump needed to win were folks susceptible, Trumpkins as it were, to Trump's bamboozle, strike that, I mean Trump's raw persuasive skill.
After all, Scott is a Trumpkin, so as he said, "forget about policy or facts" since according to Scott, Trump’s appeal is made to the emotions of the people since it's those feelings that drive people's decision making. And fortunately, though far from a majority, there were slightly more than enough, though barely, of those kinds of people susceptible to Trumpian rhetoric. Ende, right?
No, not so fast, when your skills of persuasion are superior, you by definition persuade a majority, not a mere sliver of a minority, which contradicts Scott's assertion that Trump's persuasive impact was all that. (Remember, Hitler persuaded the majority of the German people and those who were not with the program hid their objections so their speaking fees were not affected - not the other way around.)
Yet another contradiction by Scott was his saying that Trump only does or says bad things to non-Americans. But when challenged with the instance where Trump allegedly made fun of a disabled reporter, who was probably American, Scott contradicts himself straight away by saying that Trump does such things to everyone, apparently forgetting that everyone Trump makes fun of or says bad things to are not all non Americans. Oops.
What is more, not all of Trump's female accusers were Colombian. Judge Curiel is in fact just as American as Trump himself, as is Sen. Cruz, etc.. Clearly, Scott is demonstrating in spades that the facts are irrelevant.
Next, Scott seems to project his own view of Trump, something he called his framing, onto Hillary, saying that her view of Trump was that of a monstrous racist, when Hillary's view, I do believe, was that Trump was simply not qualified because he was unstudied and had no political experience compared to her over 30 years.
Besides, let's set aside the Trumpism for just a moment; if Scott's assertion that Hillary successfully framed Trump as "Hitler or the worse thing that could happen to America," Scott's words, Hillary would be president. My point: this projection or framing is readily refuted.
What Scott said next was even more amazing since he said the people against Trump are really good persuaders too. Really, why? Surely, they cannot rival the persuasion skills of Trump himself? What nuanced point is Scott about to make?
Well . . . according to Scott, Trump haters are only persuasive because when Trump does something bad (although it's something he does to almost everyone Scott argues), these anti-Trumpsters only get traction because they can point to countless other bad things Trump has done, and amazingly Scott is not even contesting any of the supposedly bad things because they don’t matter and therefore should be ignored. (A suggestion that only makes sense to a Trumpkin no doubt.) Nonetheless, by Scott’s own admission, all Trump’s acts taken together give his opponents their persuasive power against him.
So, in addition to Scott's admission that Trump does bad things, Scott also seems to not realize that doing something to a lot of people does not make those acts less bad; it only makes such acts characteristic of someone's behavior. As a result, Scott ends up arguing why Trump did so poorly, not why he succeeded in spades with the American voters since the fact is Trump succeeded only with a sufficient minority.
So let's parse some words to figure out what all this double talk on Scott's part means.
Fact: Scott concedes directly that a lot of what Trump says and does is terrible and therefore cannot be defended, but since a significant minority are unperturbed by Trump’s politics, the majority should just disabuse themselves of being overly politically correct since Trump is going to be Trump.
So, when Trump said judge Curiel should have recused himself from the Trump University lawsuit because he has immigrant, Mexican parents, it should just be ignored because in the final analysis, the best lawyer money could buy could not remove judge Curiel and ultimately was forced to settle the case, resulting in a substantive payout. So just ignore it. However, in the real world, only people who are not keeping score would ignore such a grand failure.
However, it is Scott's last admission in the video that drives a stake in his own heart, that is, that all-but-nullified almost everything he said in the entire video.
Namely, that The Great Persuader, Trump, ironically and in direct contravention to Scott's thesis seems to have persuaded a preponderance of Scott's own fans to dump Trump and his defenders, including Scott himself, causing Scott's speaking fees to decline by 40%, so much so (and now I understand all the contradictions) that Scott tried to hedge his defense of Trump (although rather obtusely) in an attempt to save as many of his remaining fans and speaking fees as possible. (If I remember right, we agree on this point.) So, I finally get it. So, as a dear friend likes to say, the jury has spoken and they voted against the bamboozle. Seems like the reality is: Trump has persuaded the wrong people to do the wrong thing, and Scott's view of Trump is upside down. QED
@RICKY RICH, r u kidding me? If you read all that sh*t, you're the one that is butt hurt. QED
Good interview - too bad about the 40 point IQ difference.
Scorpa yeah. I was wishing vlad would just not even attempt to rebuttal this guy clearly leagues above him
vlad you are doing an interview with extreme prejudice already. and you and your friends never have any locker room talk? you have very special friends then. me and all my friends have talks like that all the time. especially when drunk or high. those are some of the happiest "bro" bonding moments ever.
I guess that makes you a creepy piece of shit as well.
"bros" ... how disgusting.
Hypocrisy like this lost the left everything, no one believes your like this, nobody believes that at one point in your lifetime, you have never uttered a sexually innocuous statement that is comparable to grab her by the pussy, and EVEN if you didn't that doesn't mean you should act like your morally superior to anybody else, all you do then is alienate yourself from the common man. Keep acting like this, keep whatever social media echo chamber reverberating with this kind of mentality that your involved with and we will see a Trump 2020.
Kris White i guess so and that makes you an asexual
what a bunch of ignorant fools.
Scott Adams did a damn good job here.
Scott Adams is a brilliant analyst. Happy to know that the creator of Dilbert is a person dedicated to reason.
I normally defend Vlad but I've got to say, he sounds stupid trying to argue with this guy. I'm beginning to see a pattern here; sounds like Vlad likes to hear himself talk. Just let the man speak and stop acting like a know-it-all.
The production of this video is top notch. It looks like a high budget documentary.
You (Mr. Adams) were right. The power of persuasion is impressive. Very good analysis of what was happening.
Trump 2016!!! We gotta defend our democracy guys👍🏿
This guy looking like a genius after this result
he is a genius, IQ 180
One of the best interviews I have ever heard. I really like the mindset and the way Scott Adams lays things out to navigate our thought process. He seems direct, to the point and quite candid.
I love the look on Scott Adam's Face: "I'm F#@ing talking to an idiot."
Scott Adams - the only true voice of reason in this election.
I'm definitely going to go get a dilbert calendar
This guy articulated this whole thing so well. It's so frustrating to hear such reasonable arguments that I've felt myself and yet some people just shout against reason.
In his own words: Don't trust the advice of a cartoonist.
Every interview that he does, every blog post and tweet has been a persuasive argument to see things from his perspective.
@@MC-pz9ql *Scott's logical, critical thinking works, doesn't it. Cheers!*
damn Vlad as smart as you are, sometimes you seem a lil slow, I love to hear this dude talk, because he steps out of his shoes and look at it from all points of view, and gets a better understanding of the situation. Really Vlad no election never been rigged? And all men locker room talk, might not talk about forcefully grabbing a women , but talk about what you want to do, and more, even women do it.
Most men don't hold long conversations in the locker room...
Scott Adams is brilliant. Vlad got a little emotionally invested in trying to prove Trump is a villain. He shouldn't have tried to pin Trump's crimes on Scott. Adams was trying to make an objective intellectual argument, and did a fantastic job.
TRUMP 2016
Versace loudpack Shutup Democrat.
quiet humans, be loud but be mindful of others.
TRUMP 2016!!!
Wow!!!
Had to come watch this again...
thumbs up if you came back and watched this after you saw the election results
Spot on with this comment LMAO
saw*
Dame I definitely did
I hadn't seen this before today, but intend to watch more Scott Adams. A) Having had my share of pointy-haired bosses and misbehaving ties, I loved Dilbert B) he actually sounds intelligent.
When this guy says he knows hypnosis... I believe him. Very clever guy, very smooth, very quick, very calm, very in control.
this guy is a very great communicator.
Oh my, the interviewer is not a bright guy. He's pretty slow to catch on.
This is another great interview. loyal viewer for 3+ years
It's awesome to see Scott Adams on VladTV. The Dilbert blog is one of the most entertaining and enlightening blogs in the world.
This interview was like an adult talking to a 8 year old child about life.
I was thinking the same thing..lol….Vlad should be sitting on the floor in this interview..
S.A message is so convincing because he makes us FEEL clever when we get it...good technique, man
this is brilliant. thank you for holding such an honest interview.
"Let me finish this thought, because it's important."
No one would interrupt somebody when they're saying something that's important. Adams is a master of persuasion .
Maybe this guy knew something none of us knew. WOW!!!
He really did have other sources lol
Vlad sounding like that 1 friend in the group who keeps giving suggestions on where to hang out on Friday and everyone's like nah
The moment you realize that what this man said about the election was completely true...
Vlad seems so oblivious to the "REAL" world. No Rigged Elections!!!!!!!! Lmao
LOL Vlad is so naive, he thinks that "no election in history has ever been rigged" lol
Vlad, trump is 70 not 50. Do at least a little fucking research
I could be wrong but I got the impression that Trump said those scandalous things many years earlier.
He wasnt 70 in the recording.
Icureditwithmybrain That would make him 81 now. It was 11 years ago.
What do you expect? The vast majority of trump haters don't know a damn thing about him, even though they act like they're experts. Funny thing is, most of them don't know shit about hillary either. Like the man says, you ask them what they like about her and the answers you get are basically "oh you know... stuff" and "she'll make things better" / "Shes better than trump". They're imbeciles.
The opposing side isnt different though, as much as you would like to think otherwise. "Anybody but Hillary" "She deleted emails" "He's gonna make america great" Whats the difference?
He was right !!!
Wow This dude is too smart for this interviewer lol
DJ Vlad is coming off stupid this guest is too smart for this interview
DJ Vlad knows hip hop. Not politics.
This man can make sense out of everything. Who needs him to make sense out of thier life?
but vlad, what does he think about gays in hip-hop?
What a smart interviewer. Does not interrupt and asks great questions.
Wow this guy a legit prophet
Scott owned this guy. Per usual.
Someone find Jarule so he can make sense of all this
Jay Des where is ja??!
Scott Adams is well informed and on point.
Mr Adams is brilliant man!
This man is super intelligent and understands communication and persuasion on a deep level. What a rational thinker, pleasure to listen to.
I bet Vlad feels a type of way about this interview now. This guy called Trump winning a long while back.
BRING BACK SCOTT ADAMS!! LOVE HIS PERSPECTIVE..... A HIGHLY INTELLIGENT GUY.
This guy thinks EXACTLY like me. First i've heard from him, but immediately recognized his work. He is a smart, free thinking guy.
Good on ya Vlad. I love your hip hop interviews and this was a pleasant surprise
The only think that Vlad said that made sense was, "I don't want a regularly person 'like me' being the president."
Marc Burton 🤣👍
Vlad is on point with these interviews. Much respect
Wow these comments give me hope. People aren't nearly as naive as they want us to be. Cheers
Message from the UK. As a Trump supporter I appreciated Scott Adams objective input. It was intelligent and informed. I particularly enjoyed his optimistic conclusions about the outcome of this election. Other Trump supporters should not input insults at him here simply because he is not beating a Trump drum. Be glad that he, as an objective observer, is likely to provide a forecast that would be all the more realistic.
dude look like eminem
78binks Slim Jesus dad wylin
eyes are too small
Trufh Boof Truth!!!
well that was the joke silly....see, you're catching on
*Trufh
Can't believe I just know heard of Scott Adams! New fan
Me: I am a black man
Scott: Are you?
Me: you know what,everything I know may be a lie.
Hilarious Truth
Great job Scott Adams. I heard your prediction and i believed you. And you were absolutely right!
Vlad you seem like you missed the entire point of this.
Fantastic interview, well done by host and guest.
What a biased interviewer
Everything that Scott said is facts Trump playing to the avg american that can't think for him or her self
TheMr2face Yeah... the black community... 9 out of 10 vote Democrat... are the epitome of thinking for themselves. 😂😂😂
TheMr2face Enjoy the liberal plantation.
The way you wrote that makes it seem like you think Americans are more easily persuaded(or even manipulated) than the rest of the world. Maybe. The reality is, most people are about the same when it comes to subconscious biases and persuasion, it's not a "dumb American" thing!
I know which demographic of the American population is, on average, dumber than the others... which makes this first comment ironic as hell
your an idiot fam just like scott...
Whoever the interviewer is has been VERY influenced by Hillary's team of cognitive scientists. #hypnotized
Very interested and amazing comments Scott Adams !! I wish you had a pod cast I could listen to everyday.
This man is the smartest guest that Vlad has ever interviewed. I feel that if Scott Adams were on the Breakfast Club or Ebro in the Morning he'd make all hosts on both shows look like complete morons. Not even a Trump fan, but no one's really feeling Clinton either. That man's rallies make Clinton's look like a fucking PTA meeting at Mrs. Robinson's house.
This guy is a prophet
It would be Dumb to vote period. Especially if you're black
CL0UD97 so don't
A black vote is most likely a democrat vote. So please don't vote. Pass that along to as many black people you can find. Thanks.
MAGA
I voted for Jill Stein,
Normally I would disagree, but I actually would prefer it if people who don't know what the fuck is going on would stay their asses at home and NOT vote. So please, if you haven't followed politics this year, don't vote. Also if you want to vote independent, it's like not voting at all, so go ahead and do that if you're not informed. Thx
CL0UD97 That's a dumb fuckin' statement.👎
I think demand for Mr Adams as a speaker will go back to normal now - or increase!!!
He never lied.
Fascinating interview. Thanks.
this dude is baking Vlad
Well, I hope Scott Adams gets the speaking engagements back since he called it properly. He is actually worth listening to as opposed to all the other people who fell for Hillary's smear and predicted things wrong.
Interviewer: "F-ing around in the whitehouse I don't find as huge as [saying what Trump said]." Seriously? Wow. I guess words are more damning than actions.
goddamn Scott Adams is on point!
Amazing analysis
Finally a white guy on vladtv other than slim Jesus
A lot of what Scott Adams said flew right over Vlads head in this. They were on a similar page but definitely not the same page haha. Vlad just baiting Scott into slippin'. Shonky techniques Vlad.
This was different. Good job Vlad.
Vlad, you can't be this naive.
dilbert comics are my favorite comic strip
gd interview..i like when the convo goes in depth..
I voted for Trump.
VLAD YOU SNITCH
how
forbezdvd.com/50-cent-calls-out-vlad-tv-x-posts-jimmy-henchmans-snitching-paperwork/
you don't have a decent life of your own do you. This is why Nobody is respecting people in the US anymore. Thats why when US acts come to the UK shining they get robbed. And come home and keep quiet. Too up your own ass, easily lead down roads of BS, no fact checking, and Vlad aint a road man he is a middle class Jewish guy from the burbs. So how he a snitch? The info is there to be seen and found. Alexis Banks get a life.
he is a snitch for more then one reason he is a culture vulture his platform does nothing good for hiphop... do some more fact checking my man
and here you are...all on his videos (suge voice) take this L along with this backhanded slap
this guy was the smartest person vlad ever had on this culture vulture youtube show