Slashdot Mirror
Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Endorses Gary Johnson For President (dilbert.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike writes: Scott Adams, creator of the popular comic, Dilbert, has decided to endorse
Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson for President. He writes at his blog:
"Clinton supporters have been telling me for a few days that any visible support for Trump makes you a supporter of sex abuse.
From a persuasion standpoint, that actually makes sense. If people see it that way, that's the reality you have to deal with. I choose to not be part of that reality so I moved my endorsement to Gary Johnson. I encourage all Clinton supporters to do the same, and for the same reason...
"To be fair, Gary Johnson is a pot head who didn't know what Allepo was. I call that relatable. A President Johnson administration might bring with it some operational risks, and policy risks, but at least he won't slime you by association and turn you into some sort of cheerleader for sex abuse in the way you would if you voted for the Clintons or Trump."
The essay concludes, "You might enjoy my book because you're not sure if I'm really endorsing Gary Johnson or just saying so to protect my brand."
"To be fair, Gary Johnson is a pot head who didn't know what Allepo was. I call that relatable. A President Johnson administration might bring with it some operational risks, and policy risks, but at least he won't slime you by association and turn you into some sort of cheerleader for sex abuse in the way you would if you voted for the Clintons or Trump."
The essay concludes, "You might enjoy my book because you're not sure if I'm really endorsing Gary Johnson or just saying so to protect my brand."
This is a new low for a slashdot post...
Gary Johnson isn't aware of the world outside of the US's borders. He has repeatedly flubbed names of leaders and nations. And I'm skeptical if he could find the Middle East on a map.
The Libertarian party had a chance to go mainstream but they blew it big-time.
You aren't really able to understand what he's saying at all, are you?
Hint: He hasn't actually once changed who he is supporting or who he is saying you should support. This time is no different.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe you should learn what satire is jackass
Clinton supporters have been telling me for a few days that any visible support for Trump makes you a supporter of sex abuse. From a persuasion standpoint, that actually makes sense. If people see it that way, that's the reality you have to deal with. I choose to not be part of that reality...
Trump has a LONG and well documented history of misogynistic and racist behavior. This is merely the latest in a long line of horrifying behavior by him with regard to women and minorities. The man has been blatantly campaigning by appealing to (mostly via lies) the most base tribal instincts of scared white males. I can understand if someone dislikes Hillary or if you like some third party candidate but to pretend that Trump's behavior is some kind of made up reality by the Clinton campaign is just idiotic.
To be fair, Gary Johnson is a pot head who didn't know what Allepo was. I call that relatable.
One person's relatable is another person's ignorant. I don't give a shit if the president is relatable. Honestly I haven't seen a good one that was. I care if they are competent and I care that their political views don't diverge too far from my own. They don't have to be nice but they can't be an asshole like Trump. If Gary Johnson doesn't have a clue about international affairs (which accounts for about 2/3 of the job of the president) then I don't really think he's cut out for the job.
And why has /. gotten into the business of tracking who is endorsing whom?
Scott Adams is a compulsive cynic, who seems incapable of having a sincere, non-sarcastic thought. This cynicism is what makes his comics so entertaining, but it makes him badly equipped to comment thoughtfully on the real world.
Turns out it was a self caricature.
He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind.
Why would one make up their mind during the silly season of the primaries where both major candidates lie to their extreme base to get the nomination?
Why would one make up their mind prior to the debates where the candidates are not in scripted choreographed settings for the first time?
You sound like someone who is loyal to political party, meaning you not Adams are part of the problem if that is the case. People who are loyal to a party are irrelevant, their party can ignore them since they already have their vote, the other party can ignore them since they can not obtain their vote. Party loyalty enable crap candidates like Clinton and Trump.
Secondarily a for vote Hillary validates all the BS the DNC pulled on Bernie. The DNC and Hillary don't care if the revelations of their actions embarrass them, they only care if they win. If Hillary wins everything she and the DNC did to Bernie and his supporters become validated, successful, a good tactic. They are counting on Bernie supporters to be good little Democrats, to bitch and moan and then vote for the Democratic party. The ends justify the means to Hillary, her former DNC chair VP, the recently "fired" DNC chair working for the campaign and on a path to a White House position, etc.
Just because Bernie sold out to protect his Senate seat doesn't mean the revolution has to die. Vote for anyone other than Hillary or you are green lighting a repeat of her tactics.
He's been a bit nuts for a long time.
And by 'a bit nuts', I mean the most arrogant person you've ever heard of.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Scott... the man who uses sock puppets to brag about how he has a "certified genius IQ".
Scott... the man who argues that facts don't matter
Scott... who lies whenever it suits his purposes.
Scott is an embarrassing twat of a human being. He brags about being a mater persuader yet was passed over for promotions and more recently dumped by his wife.
When he started getting called out for his hypocrisy on his blog, he shut down comments citing "racism". But the fact is that he was getting called out left and right for his stupidity and just couldn't take it so shut down dissent.
He is a failure of a human being who happened to get lucky with a cartoon.
Really, she's not. And it's not because of all the trumped up crimes/lies/etc. They really don't matter.
She's not fine because she's a warmonger and in the pocket of the financial industry. So in four, or ugh, EIGHT years we will emerge deeper in debt, more hated, and less financially secure. The 1% will make out like bandits under her and the economy will flounder even more, since no one but the ultra-rich have the money to spend on anything to keep the economy working. (She's the only major candidate, for example, who supports H-1Bs.)
There are three kinds of states: Ones where Hillary will stomp Trump, ones which will vote him in just because he has an R next to his name no matter what, and ones where there's actually some sort of contest. If you're in either of the first two types of states, you need to vote for Johnson because your vote doesn't count unless you do, and it counts big time if you do.
If you're a Republican, you need to send a message to your party that letting this kind of crap happen is unacceptable. You WILL leave if they pitch for racism and stupidity.
If you're a Democrat, you need a to send a message to your party that you don't want a another Nixon-Republican pretending to be a Democrat. We've had one for eight years already. If they don't give you someone worth voting for, you WILL leave. (They currently think all the Bernie people will vote Clinton. Show them otherwise.)
You might think you could do the same by voting Green or writing-in a candidate, but that won't get reported because the numbers will be too small. A 10% showing for Johnson will get him on the cover of just about all the remaining print media and scare the CRAP out of both the big parties.
So there are a handful of states where it makes sense to vote for the Rep. or the Dem. But for all the other states, everyone who reads/thinks should vote for Johnson.
It doesn't matter how bad Johnson is. I don't want him as president, but that doesn't matter. He is fit for purpose: to scare the parties into worrying about the electorate, which is something they generally don't give a damn about. If you want an acceptable Republican or Democrat candidate in the next election, you need to vote for Johnson.
I decided a long time ago not to pay too much attention to art creators' opinions on much of anything. Mostly this applies to music. Turns out a lot of metal band members are idiots and/or aholes. But I do like the music. When I go to a restaurant I don't ask who the chef is voting for. Same when I look at art (I don't really go for political art).
Dilbert is funny as hell. The recent 'fire the bottom 10%' riff could have been taken from the company I work for. I'll continue enjoying the strip. But I won't start going to the blog for voting advice.
I really had no idea about any of this.
And yet, it still doesn't change the fact that I care zero about what he thinks about the presidential race.
I don't care if he supports a re-animated Hitler for president. He makes a cartoon that I used to read and find very enjoyable. That is pretty much the end of Scott Adams' influence on my life.
The opinions of celebrities or well-known people carry no more weight to me than if it were an average person on the street. It is unfortunate that this has turned into people's opinions of the candidates instead of talking about their positions on issues. What really makes me sad is that whoever is elected, a large portion of the country will really hate them. I just don't understand it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
This came to mind while observing the explosion of outrage over Trump's "Grab 'em by the pussy" video.
1. Take all the people who were outraged by Bill Clinton's sexual pecadillos and thought they made him unfit for office; make them equally outraged about Trump.
2. Take all the people who took the position that Bill's behavior was a matter of "personal character" having no relation to his ability to perform as President; make them adopt the same attitude towards Trump.
Now, re-draw the electoral map. What do you get?
I'm a lefty and I've been visiting /. since '98 or so. (18 years?? Wow.)
I only drop by occasionally because the site is a bit of a cesspool. It always attracted trolls and idiots, but there was a lot of humour and the level of intelligence and knowledge by many posters was incredible.
The average commenter here is now more right wing, less well informed, stupider and less fun. The editors post less interesting stories, with more bias and more nastiness. Some of it is just flamebait.
I have since migrated to other sites that have to some degree replaced the earlier incarnation of slashdot (not even going to mention where here).
I will personally be voting for Clinton because she's the only thing standing between Trump and the nuclear launch codes.
I don't understand how anybody can still vote to put nuclear armaments under the control of somebody who would go on a 3am Twitter rampage after being besmirched about his 20-year-old public shaming of a teenage beauty queen.
Ignoring the fact that he's never heard of the term "nuclear triad", this is a man who wouldn't rule out nuking Europe, doesn't understand why we can't use nukes, and thinks more countries (like Saudi Arabia and Japan) should have them!
All politics aside, a world with Trump as POTUS is materially less safe for all inhabitants.
dom
It is quite wrong to say that voting for third party is ineffective, even if the result is practically assured to favor a major party candidate.
If you reside in a non-swing state, like the vast majority of Americans, your vote doesn't count in any case. It doesn't matter if you vote for the inevitable winner of your state, or the major party loser, or a third party candidate. Your vote is just as statistically insignificant in any case.
But voting third party helps provide public campaign funding to that party in the next Presidential election. Third parties who actually make it, or come close enough to have a real platform, are more likely to lobby to reform the election systems which take choice away and always leave us with the so-called choice between the "better of two evils".
That is why it matters. If we want to get good candidates in the future, we must start voting against the duopoly now.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.