Thoughts Aloud

As usual, Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams’ blog this morning was persuasive: “Lie Detection and Scandals”

When Clinton’s surrogates respond to questions about Wikileaks by saying the Russians are behind it, that’s an acknowledgment of guilt. Guilty people almost always question the source of the information first. Innocent people start with a clear denial, or sometimes confusion as to why the question is being asked.

He then makes a persuasive case for how and why Clinton’s apologists believe the Wikileaks are true. Later, he also suggests that they aren’t making much difference:

Wikileaks

The Wikileaks emails are not having a huge impact because movies and books have taught us that even our most-respected politicians do favor-trading to get things done. And the emails that DO NOT come from Clinton are little more than underlings chattering. So far, Wikileaks is a big nothing.

I tend to agree with his analysis here; but the far more interesting critique comes when it is Trump’s turn:

Now let’s talk about Trump. When Trump “categorically denies” the accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior, that form of an answer is common to both honest people and well-prepared liars. You can’t tell anything from Trump’s answer.

But Trump’s supporters and surrogates clearly believe Trump is guilty. You can tell by the precision of their answers. An honest opinion from a surrogate that Trump is totally innocent of all charges would look like this:

“None of it happened. It is all lies.”

Instead, you hear deceptive talk that fits these two forms:

1. “It can’t be a coincidence that everyone came forward at the same time.”

2. “Trump categorically denies the allegations and we take him at his word.”

The first response questions the source of the information, which I already taught you is a sign of deception.

The second response allows the surrogate to avoid giving an opinion on the facts and instead focus on their belief in the candidate. “Take him at his word” is code for “He’s on his own to defend the allegations. Keep me out of it.”

Pretty persuasive, huh? It gets better. Did you ever wonder what it would be like to be rich and famous?

Groping/Kissing Allegations

I think nearly everyone believes “something happened” with Trump and at least some of the women who have made allegations. I wasn’t a witness to any of it, and I have no opinion on the truth of any specific allegation. But I can help you put the allegations in context.

I’ll start with a true story that a good female friend once told me about going on a blind date with a famous billionaire (not Trump) years ago. A mutual friend set them up. On the night of the date, she drove to his mansion and a servant let her in. The billionaire came downstairs a few minutes later, introduced himself, and asked if she wanted to have sex before or after dinner.

Those were his first words. There was no chit-chat.

She chose before. So they did. She enjoyed it.

Why was my friend so accommodating that night? She said it was because he was a billionaire. She liked that.

Does that story sound anything like your life? I doubt it. So when you evaluate what a billionaire did or did not do behind closed doors, don’t make the mistake of putting your own filter on it. Trump’s experience with women is not like yours.

That has to be one of the best, and certainly the most efficient, lines I have ever heard. I was never rich or famous, but if I were young enough to still be dating, I swear I would try it just to experience the reaction. 😀

It brings to mind a wing-man I once had in the Army. Bearing in mind how outrageous it was 50 years ago, he would unabashedly walk right up to an unknown hot chick, and ask if she wanted to f—. Yes, he got his face slapped fairly often; but he also got a lot more action than I ever did. 😉

Enjoy the rest of Scott’s post here. â—„Daveâ–º

3 Responses to “Wikileaks vs Octopussy”