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.
Well, he had two choices, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. There are no other decent picks so one out of two is not bad.
He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind. First he did the world's fakest endorsement for Clinton:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
Then he switched over to trump:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
There are some brutally funny and plain brutal Dilbert comics out there, but he seems to have gone a but nuts in his old age. He seems to have forgotten that DNRC was all a big joke and has started to actually take it seriously.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The man has endorsed all three candidates at one point or another. I would not take this matter with any seriousness (which is probably what he hopes for anyways.)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
The Libertarian party had a chance to go mainstream but they blew it big-time.
More at 11.
Stay tuned as the story unfolds.
His endorsement seems to be mainly based on that there is no one else left. He should have endorsed Jill_Stein, at least she might know someone that is not from her state ...
web CRANK endorses political KOOK
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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
Since he's already endorsed Clinton, Trump, and Johnson, I look forward to Scott Adams' inevitable endorsement of Jill Stein. One of the most important things about being a "Master Persuader" is saying enough conflicting bullshit that you can point back to the time you got it right! ...
-------
Pay no attention to the man behind the comic strip
a pot head is the least evil. In fact, pot heads aren't even evil. They're just really, really annoying.
Scott Adams is woefully out of touch with the culture he used to comment on. He supported Trump, and now he's a Libertarian.
Gary Johnson wants to destroy public education and incentivize private education. I'd think most Slashdotters value education, and would find Gary Johnson's views on education to be disgusting.
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.
I'll make note of that. But I'm really waiting to hear from the guy who draws "Garfield." I usually don't make any kind of meaningful decision until I know what he thinks about it.
So far he has endorsed every candidate but Jill Stein and the act really isn't edgy or informative, I'm not sure what message he's trying to get out there but it's gotten dull.
So in the next couple of weeks he will endorse Jill Stein.
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.
Adams endorsed Clinoton because he didn't want to get beat up by her supporters.
It is interesting how many posters including the submittor and EditorDavid don't have a clue.
This is why we have secret ballot.
So no one knows who you voted for even if you tell them there is no way to verify that's really the way you voted.
Why vote for another lizard when you can vote for a cat?
Limberbutt 2016
"An unfunny man's idea of what a funny person sounds like"
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
His endorsement seems to be mainly based on that there is no one else left. He should have endorsed Jill_Stein, at least she might know someone that is not from her state ...
You can learn the names of other people pretty quickly, as needed. Honesty and integrity are pretty much set by the time one reaches a Presidential age. Some consider the later more important. The President is not a source of facts, he/she is a consumer of facts from the roomful of expert advisors surround him/her.
Since the sale to Dice, /. has continually gone down hill with an inexplicable hate on for Ms. Clinton.
In the past 24 hours, this is the third anti-Clinton story that has been featured here.
Time to get off the soapbox and focus on what this site is about - it's not about attacking a political candidate.
Otherwise, I'll get my "News for nerds and stuff that matters" somewhere else.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
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.
OK, no more Dilbert. Scott Adams is an idiot.
Hill shills everywhere.
Originally, there was almost no politics. There was politics on tech issues. Then there was the hacking of Hillary's email. Now, this is a tech cartoonist changing his political stance... I take it back, this is just as political us Lucky Palmer being uncovered as supporting Trump memes. I don't want to see stories this political on slashdot, but there is no good enough alternative.
Removing Hilary votes while Trump is the Rep nominee is asking for self-destruction. Funneling off votes from the front-runner can only help Trump. I understand everyone is frustrated but this spiteful attitude is only going to hurt ourselves.
Satire—once the cynicism becomes too thick—is nothing more than a devious way of getting the reader to work four times as hard as normal, to ultimately decode the underlying message "look at meeeeee!"
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.
"Clinton supporters have been telling me for a few days that any visible support for Trump makes you a supporter of sex abuse"
lol - the name Clinton is a perfect synonym for "sex abuse"
Adams and Johnson are both spectacularly, colossally stupid bastards. Anyone who would put any stock whatever in what either of them says or "believes" (if either of them can be said to have any true beliefs at all) is a useless waste of oxygen. So the two primary candidates are an evil, hateful bitch intent on destroying the country and a slow-witted self-destructive bastard who can't construct coherent sentences. And neither of the snowball's-chance-in-hell alternative candidates (Johnson and Stein) has as much qualification and suitability for the job as any of the squirrels in my back yard.
I don't wish either Adams or Johnson any personal harm, but the world would be a less awful place if they both STFU.
Slashdot was sold in January to another company.
I think it's been since that sale that it's gotten significantly worse. It's like the Fourth Reich around here now.
I was sexually abused as a child by women. So was my brother (by a different woman).
I'm not comfortable with the debate, or with a sophies choice for president.
I shouldn't have to vote for your ugly mean ceo-entitlement candidate, because you're convinced the other candidate is uglier, meaner, and more entitled.
"Slimed" is the perfect word to describe this whole affair.
As I understand this, he is actually de-endorsing all of the candidates.
Gary Johnson's qualifications don't matter because there is a 0.000000% chance he'll be elected. I'm marking his name on my ballot because that's how I can tell the Rs & Ds "nope, gotta do better next time if you want my vote". Suppose the Libertarians get 10% of the vote, which seems likely. Next election, the Rs and Ds, if they are smart, will want some of that 10%, so they'll look at the Libertarian platform and consider adopting some of the positions that make sense.
Johnson absolutely will not be elected, but a vote for him sends a message to the major parties. Maybe in the future some Libertarian presidential candidate will actually be in the running, but not this time.
It makes him extremely well equipped to comment on the real world. Or perhaps we should all have sticks up our fucking asses like you do?
throwing a temper tantrum when presented with two unsavory choices is not a "well equipped decision"
discarding decades of good reputation for a stupid publicity stunt is not a "well equipped decision"
what an idiot you are
http://2016.presidential-candi...
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
When I have mod points, I mod down not merely an offensive post, but also all responses to that post.
I'm voting for Ratbert!
Coming from someone hiding behind Anonymous Coward, your action speaks louder than your words.
What I said about Adams is simple observation; he started out endorsing Clinton "for personal safety reason", followed by Trump and then now Johnson.
Each time he wrap his endorsement in humorous reasoning (good read, by the way) but ultimately my reading of his endorsement explanation isn't intended to be taken as an endorsement. I do question if you've read through his blog entries.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
he is making a disingenuous argument to Clinton supporters to try to use their own logic (which he mistakenly finds specious) get THEM to vote Johnson.
rest assured this dipshit is still voting for Trump.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Caught in a landslide...
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
If I were the king of the world, I would use my infinite power to have every artist sign the following document at the beginning of their careers:
"Politics and religion can be good subjects for art, but only if the artist abstains from picking sides, or at least effectively conceals their choice. Otherwise, it all just turns into a big giant circle-jerk."
> I don’t know if any of the allegations against the Clinton’s are true,
Against the Clinton's what, may I ask...
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.
..not good enough to be on the debate?
10% is also 5 states
In most of "free world", between 1% and 5% of votes will bring your party to the parliament.
He changed his endorsement because of how other people might perceive him? Not even a politician but already a wimp. Good cartoonist, though.
Correct That Record.
He's endorsed Hillary before too, but Trump is very much his kind of guy.
Just always remember that he's a liar who thinks he's the smartest man on earth - and just in case you doubt it, he will create sockpuppets to argue with you.
I liked my computer better before the internet.
Sneaker-net was labor intensive, and complete crap this this post would not have been worth the time.
"To even consider putting the Clinton’s back in the White House is an insult to women and every survivor of abuse."
Voting on "Principle" is going to guarantee we get Hillary Clinton as President, which is just about as polar opposite from Libertarian "principles" that one can get.
The irony of it just kills me.
Trump supporters are absolutely vilified online and in the main stream media ("deplorables"). Yet a sizable segment does support Trump. This might suggest the polls are not accurate because people don't want to be publicly state they support Trump, when in fact they actually do.
The Brexit polling was an example. And this is just one factor. Another factor could be that with increased use of social media, people are getting their RDA of human interaction, and are less inclined to speak with anonymous callers on the telephone, thus skewing polls again.
Trump brags about things he'd like to do* and Hillary actually slut shames rape victims, yet supporting Trump makes you a supporter of sex abuse and Hillary supporters aren't? WTF? You really can't trust anything from the Hillary camp.
*Saying you get away with more when you're rich and famous is a true statement. There should no be blow back over that. Anyone complaining about that statement is living in a fantasy world and I'd claim is unfit for a national leadership position since they're so far out of touch with reality.
You had them going. They were totally buying it - you had just whooshed ...almost everybody. And then you go and let the cat out of the bag like that. Now, only half of them are going to believe you're serious.
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?
Scott Adams misspelled Aleppo in his blog post. What an Idiot.
All of Scott's posts seem like yet another veiled Trump endorsement....
You are lying. He referred to the ex-president of Mexico.
RE: Even if you can't remember the person's name you'd really like to say, come up with something else.
That is what he did, except fucking Mathews talked right over him. Johnson did exactly what you say he should have at least done, then you lie and say he didn't to it.
Part of the reason, of course, is that Mathews is hyper-ADD and cannot shut up for a fucking second so that Johnson can answer the question thoughtfully.
If only there were another option to write in votes for CowboyNeal. Based on proven past performance in Slashdot polls, CowboyNeal prevails whenever all the other choices are unpalatable.
CowboyNeal 2016!
> If people want to get a third party elected, then it must start at the Congressional level, if not the state level.
That's true.
> I don't understand the third party voter fixation during a Presidential election. It's the most unlikely to make a difference
The calculus is completely different between swing states and non-swing states. If your state is a swing state this year, you vote hoping to influence the direct outcome of that election. That seems to be the case you have in mind. If your state is solidly red or blue, there's no chance you'll influence the direct outcome this time around. The best you can do is send a signal - in an election with a 2% difference between winning and losing, the major parties DO notice when 10%-15% is "lost" to third parties.
> currently serves *solely* to steal votes from one party or another (Bush Sr. in 1992, Gore in 2000, and most likely Trump in 2016). [emphasis added]
In swing states, yes. In non-swing states, there an no electoral votes in play, only popular votes, and those popular votes *solely* inform the parties as to what to do differently next time.
Johnson looks to get 10%-15% this time around. If doing X will get either major party even 5% of the vote, without losing any significant amount, they HAVE to consider doing X. That's enough to swing the entire election.
While I don't doubt Hillary will discuss policy with Bill--they're married--Bill is not on the ticket, right? And to equate Hillary's victimization with Bill's transgressions, criminal or otherwise, is the worst kind of misogyny. Regardless, your alternatives are Pussy Grabber and Blank Stare.
> if they stay true to their party [not bloody likely], then you get Trump
Many representatives (most?) would probably saying that "staying true to the party" would mean picking someone who embodies what the GOP represents - not Trump. If they stayed true to the fucked up results of a failed primary process instituted by the party, yes that would be Trump. If they wanted to stay true to the ideas the party puts forward, they could very well coalesce behind the one guy who is respected by almost every Republican - Speaker Paul Ryan. That would be "true to the party" for some definition of the phrase (and a much, much better choice than Trump).
Wow, I just lost all respect for Scott Adams. No, not because of the Gary Johnson endorsement. That's fine. In a single post, he used an apostrophe to pluralize "Clinton"...TWICE. Come on, man, you're better than that.
"A true friend stabs you in the front." -Oscar Wilde
By endorsing a fringe candidate who has zero/none/zilch chances of winning you take one vote from one of the viables and help the Groper in Chief one step closer to ruining the universe.
This is Brexit multiplied a zillion times.
A great political cartoon because it trashes them all.
Table-ized A.I.
What part of QUOTE "But recently I switched my endorsement to Trump"
Oh - so you ARE that stupid! I feel so, so sorry for you if you can't understand something the underlying context of something so clear... something more obfuscated must be impossible for you to discern.
You must have been really surprised at all of the vans that didn't actually have candy in the when you were a kid.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yep, he is right. Johnson should be the easy choice this year, but so many Americans are so dumb they only chew on what the media feeds them. For those that can think, our choice is Johnson. He is more experienced, he is honest, he was highly-rated as governor, and he thinks thoughtfully about the issues.
What do their backs being in the Whitehouse have to do with anything? Why that part of the body?
1. Didn't call a regional neighbor a country of rapists
2. Didn't confess a crush on Vladimir Putin
3. Didn't threaten to pull out of NATO
You and I clearly have different ideas of what constitutes "ability and skill" in foreign policy. Dick.
He says he intentionally does stuff like that to trigger this response. That way, you argue about style while secretly agreeing with his point.
Not that I believe that. I think that's bull. But it is what he says.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Maybe they're really hairy and will clog up the plug and drains in the executive showers.
"I call that relatable. "
I don't want to 'relate' to my president... I don't want a president that -I- want to have a beer with... I want my president to be competent... And sadly the only person running for office this year (Yes, I'm including Lib & Green party nominees in that) that is competent is Clinton... I don't like her policies on a lot of things (Foreign policy mostly, I think she is too hawkish) And I think she is strangled by the 'being first woman' thing... which prevents her from showing any emotion/anger towards the stupidity that is Trump...
But all that considered... Clinton is the least bad option for the United State (This is my professional opinion(Which is why I'm AC: I'm not allowed to state that opinion publicly))
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He's better than Clinton and Trump, but he isn't a real libertarian. Look into Darryl W Perry if you want an idea what a libertarian actually is. For those who are liberty-minded freedom-loving Americans (neither democrat nor republicans are) you should look into moving to New Hampshire to take part in the libertarian migration sweeping this country (http://www.freestateproject.org/ http://www.freekeene.com/ http://shiresociety.com/ http://www.freetalklive.com/). 10% of 20,000 people who signed up for the Free State Project have moved already (people weren't suppose to start moving until March, but despite that many already have) and there isn't a place in New Hampshire now that doesn't have activist groups campaigning for more freedom. Every week there are dozens of events, protests, political actions, and other activism going on to curtail government in New Hampshire (most arrests happen at the state and local levels so we can do a lot by migrating to one place).
That said Garry Johnson isn't against the use of violence to achieve political ends and that's what a libertarian is at the fundamental level. It's in the very foundation of the libertarian party that is no longer libertarian (except in New Hampshire). If you want to know what a real libertarian is here is an idea: We are against copy"right", 'intellectual property', the concept of boarders, drivers licenses, license plates, criminalization of drugs, vehicular registration, government schooling, laws on marriage, taxes, gun regulation, restaurant 'health' and business licensing, open container laws (public intoxication, this is not the same thing as laws prohibiting drunk driving), laws regulating relationships/speech/etc (rape is rape regardless of age- you don't need a sex offender list when the majority of people on it haven't even committed violence against anybody, but at best have pissed in a garbage can or viewed child porn, ethical or otherwise it's not violence), state police/FBI/NSA/etc, foreign wars, regulation on financial markets (ie, government should stay out of BitCoins and the government should not intimidate people or outlaw 'laundering' money), steal people's children, tell people how to raise there children (for instance letting your six and ten year old walk a mile down the road from a friends house), social security, welfare, reduce risk from things like driving (life has risk, deal with it people, your little daughters not likely to be raped and murdered just because it's happened a few times in the history of man kind), laws regulating the age of driving (this is a form of discrimination and requires violence to stop kids from driving), and any other law where there is no actual victim, violence, fraud, or coercion. We are for property rights, real physical property. You have a right to your body and nobody else including government should be able to take it from you.
What is immoral and should be criminal? Rape, theft, violence (non-consensual anyway), fraud, and coercion. Things the government is very good at uses on a routine basses against those that do thing it doesn't like.
"Clinton supporters have been telling me for a few days that any visible support for Trump makes you a supporter of sex abuse."
Trump may say a lot of despicable things but Bill Clinton has actually DONE Those things!
I think Trump gave Bill the ideas of what to do. Heck Trump and the Clinton's have been friends for like forever! So I don't know what Clinton supporters are so shocked about what Trump is saying......
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Gary Johnson is not a charismatic and polished politician. Never has been, never will be. But actions speak louder than words. When he did have the reins of power in NM he kept the budget from growing (took 700 vetos to do it) used state money to build roads, highways and infrastructure, and left the state with a 4 billion budget and a 1 billion surplus. His successor, Bill Richardson, an accomplished, articulate, well educated politician, increased the state budget to 7 billion, spent the surplus, allowed his cronys to manipulate the state investment funds to their advantage and obligated the state to decades of bond payments to support pet projects.
I'll take goofy Gary over the polished guy any day, at least he'll keep his hand out of my pocket.
That is a ridiculous comparison. Bill Clinton is a defacto sexual harasser. He is very likely also a rapist, and settled cases to avoid such legal judgements.
His wife participated in the sliming and destruction of Clinton's victims. The exact opposite of what a feminist is supposed to do. She is a true hypocrite, because she actually does not believe in the feminist ideals she hides behind. To her anyone without money or power is simply a pawn to be manipulated, used, and then discarded as needed.
The Clinton's attitude and actual practice towards women is far worse than Trump's schoolboy comments. That by the way are sadly true - women AND men will very often accept and even encourage behavior from the rich and powerful that they would not tolerate from their closest family and friends. Example 1: Bill Clinton.
That is a 100% correct answer for a Libertarian.
Thanks for the info.
Ron Paul isn't even a Libertarian as far as I'm concerned.
You're concern is irrelevant, the fact is he was the Libertarian nominee in the Presidential Race.
I hope people realize that Hillary was the one that was cheated on and to equate her having a someone cheat on HER with a man promoting sexual abuse of women is sick and Scott Adams and anyone else who takes that point of view should be ashamed of themselves.
I don't care who Adams endorses. I've been displeased by his politics in the past so I don't take his political positions seriously. Doesn't stop me from enjoying his comics.
If Garry Trudeau were to endorse Johnson I might pay attention. But it's not going to happen.
A lot of ppl don't know when their leg is being pulled. Adams is a humorist from the realm of the print media. He will change his endorsement AT LEAST once more before the election!
Let me guess, you're a Johnson supporter, and have pretty much been one all along.
And your options are: Putin's boi Trump; Republican failure Johnson; Schmuck off the street Jill Stein.
So vote for any of them if you want to see things fucked up beyond Shrub's wildest dreams--just to spite the DNC. But realize that even in all the Bernie supporters did vote for Stein. She's going to still fucking lose, and Trump is going to win by the biggest landslide ever.
And if you happened to be a Bernie supporter, a vote for either Johnson or Trump isn't even a protest vote because both of them are as far away from Bernie's Democratic Socialist's ideology as one can get in the cycle.
Mr. Adams was originally a Clinton supporter but dropped her in his blog on the 2nd weekend in September. Hillary Clinton's physicians "engineered 90 minutes of alertness" for her at the presidential debate, "Dilbert" creator Scott Adams contended in a 9/20 column on his blog. "Clinton looked, to my eyes, as if she was drugged, tired, sick, or generally unhealthy, even though she was mentally alert and spoke well," Adams wrote. "But her eyes were telling a different story. She had the look of someone whose doctors had engineered 90 minutes of alertness for her just for the event." "If she continues with a light campaign schedule, you should assume my observation is valid, and she wasn't at 100 percent," the comic strip author added.
I love this one, I need to think on it. Oh, by the Im not a coward.