Ansichten eines Informatikers

US-Wahl: Warum Dilbert Clinton und nicht Trump wählt

6.6.2016 22:39

Oh, ist das böse.

Ihr kennt doch die Dilbert-Comics.

Ein Leser hat mich gerade auf einen Blog-Artikel des Dilbert-Zeichners Scott Adams hingewiesen, der erklärt, warum er bei der US-Wahl Hillary Clinton und nicht Donald Trump wählt.

Die Begründung ist heftig.

Eigentlich hält er von beiden nichts und kann mit beiden nichts anfangen.

Er sieht aber massive Unterschiede in der Gefährdungslage und wählt so, wie er Gefahr für sich vermeiden kann. Denn die Trump-Anhänger wären friedlich und würden auch einem patriotischen Clinton-Wähler nichts tun. Das sei für ihn also ungefährlich. Wäre er aber für Trump, dann sähe er sich auf der Abschussliste gewalttätiger Clintonisten. Es geht ihm nicht darum, wer Präsident wird, sondern einfach nur darum, von wem er Gewalt zu befürchten hat:

I’ll start by reminding readers that my politics don’t align with any of the candidates. My interest in the race has been limited to Trump’s extraordinary persuasion skills. But lately Hillary Clinton has moved into the persuasion game – and away from boring facts and policies – with great success. Let’s talk about that.

This past week we saw Clinton pair the idea of President Trump with nuclear disaster, racism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever else makes you tremble in fear.

That is good persuasion if you can pull it off because fear is a strong motivator. It is also a sharp pivot from Clinton’s prior approach of talking about her mastery of policy details, her experience, and her gender. Trump took her so-called “woman card” and turned it into a liability. So Clinton wisely pivoted. Her new scare tactics are solid-gold persuasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if you see Clinton’s numbers versus Trump improve in June, at least temporarily, until Trump finds a counter-move.

The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States. And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him. And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms. (I’m called an “apologist” on Twitter, or sometimes just Joseph Goebbels).

If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing – and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader. I too would feel that way if an actual Hitler came to power in this country. I would join the resistance and try to take out the Hitler-like leader. You should do the same. No one wants an actual President Hitler.

So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.

As I have often said, I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president. But I do know which outcome is most likely to get me killed by my fellow citizens. So for safety reason, I’m on team Clinton.

Das muss man sich mal reinziehen:

Clinton stellt Trump in die Hitler-Ecke, tatsächlich aber ist sie selbst diejenige, die rechtsradikale Hass- und Hetzmethoden verwendet, mit der Methode Angst und Furcht arbeitet, die Leute radikalisiert. Andere als rechts hinstellen und selbst rechtsradikale Methoden anwenden.

Is ja ne tolle Demokratie, wenn die Leute ihre Wahlenscheidung aus schierer Angst treffen.

Erinnert mich aber sehr daran, wie sich unsere Politiker aufführen.