IMO his support from the get-go was tainted. His original original justification was, "I know what master persuaders do, and Trump does it. Therefore he's going to win, therefore I support him."
The insight into persuasion was interesting (and clearly correct), but what a morally bankrupt rationale for supporting someone. If anything, a person with Scott Adams' interest (and skills?) in persuasion would be compelled to counteract those talents.
He would've been a lot more respectable if he said, "I like Trump and I'm glad for my own political purposes that he's a master persuader."
I thought it was pretty clear from the start that his observations about Trump's persuasive talents, although valid, weren't his real reasons for supporting Trump (the real reasons being that Scott Adams is wealthy and apparently a bit racist.)
"Clear" in the sense of inferable, yes, but usually people's stated rationalizations are quite a bit more defensible. In this case the excuse was morally abhorrent even if you accepted it at face value.
The man is all about "persuasion" so I have to assume that lying about his motives is part of his toolbox.
Like a used car salesman who tells you that he's motivated by helping people get the best car they need, instead of being motivated to make lots of money by getting people to spend as much money on a car as they can bare.
FWIW I don't subscribe to memes as a way to construct arguments. I didn't care what that person said the first time around and I don't care about it now either.
