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...
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.
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
Knowing nothing more about them man than what you've posted, he still doesn't sound as bad as the R and D candidates.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
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 isn't it sad that this STILL makes him more suitable than Clinton and Trump combined?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
BUT he can totally nail Middle Earth!
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
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.
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.
"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.
Which means he doesn't admire and want to be like them (Trump & Putin) and it also means they haven't been bought and paid for by them (Clinton and anyone that has given money to the Clinton Foundation).
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.
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.
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 President is not a quiz show contestant. A President consumes facts and information from the roomful of expert advisers. A President mostly needs honesty and integrity, those traits allow for better processing of the information.
Hillary knew lots of names, met many leaders as First Lady and visited many places. Look how terribly she performed as Secretary of State; relations with Russia, state of Iraq, Libya, Syria; Iranian nuclear deal; TPP; etc.
Facts can be learned. Mr. Johnson is a reasonably smart guy and if he finds the need to learn specifics about transient world leaders, I'm sure he can do so.
Character is what you bring with you over a lifetime. You can't fake it for long. From what the press has actually produced on this front compared to the two mainstream candidates, Mr. Johnson wins hands down.
I work in Public Education, and saying it can't be improved by competition the reason why it is failing in so many places. You can spend all the money in the world on "Tech Toys", but it only obfuscates what some of us already know, some teachers just suck. And there are enough of them that you can't dodge all the raindrops.
When I walk into a classroom, and the teacher has Ricki Lake on the TV for the class, and is reading a newspaper, and there is nothing I or anyone else can do (like fire the teacher), the system is already been destroyed from within. The public schools aren't educating kids, they are indoctrinating them. We are more concerned with "safe zones" and "anti-bullying" (which doesn't stop bullying, but is used to dodge lawsuits) than if the kids can read, write and do math.
Our educational system is built on Industrial style schooling, and isn't about to change. We have one size fits all education in a world that is built on information age tools. Treating our kids like robots is the goal of our educational system, and there is almost nothing you can say to dissuade me from my view.
We aren't building cogs for use in factories, why are we educating our kids that way? So, when you say Gary Johnson wants to destroy something that is already broken, you're not going to get any argument from me, it NEEDS to be destroyed. Fuck the Establishment Educational system. it is a dinosaur, 70 years out of date.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
Problem is he's pro-TPP. I can't vote for anybody who supports the TPP.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Without knowing anything at all about him, I can tell you he's a smarter option than Trump.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.
So anything not pro-Clinton is anti-Clinton?
Adams is a quite witty comic strip creator, and that is about the end of his intellect. Anyone with such a vacuum between his ears as to need Adams' input to decide where he stands on issues that matter, or put any stock in that input, is a fool. But the majority of citizens are fools.
I find when I stop supporting artists who support things I find objectionable, that while they surely don't miss me, the feeling is mutual. I would definitely stop eating at restaurants that were supporting Trump. It tells me a lot about them and their judgment and how likely I am to either be cheated or food-poisoned.
Facts can be learned. Mr. Johnson is a reasonably smart guy
He sure doesn't give very much evidence for that assertion.
and if he finds the need to learn specifics about transient world leaders, I'm sure he can do so.
He's fucking running for the job of president. That really, really ought to be enough reason for him to learn who is leading other countries.
Basically, what I see from his attitude is that he doesn't think there's any chance that he would get the job, so there's no point in bothering to learn even the basically rudiments of what he would need to know for the job.
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.
http://2016.presidential-candi...
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Looks good to me!
I have been posting here since back when Slashdot was Rob Malda's blog. Then, the politics of the posters, where discernible, was decidedly extremely left wing. But there were not that many posts on politics. There were, however, a lot of posts on Buffy the Vampire Slayer...
But there was also a lot of activity, period. Every day, numerous stories spawned 500, 600, 700 posts, easily. And these were stories about the latest tweaks on the linux kernel, the merits of one spreadsheet or another, the latest laptop specs, or -- of course -- Buffy.
But now it's not Just Some Guy's Blog anymore, it's gotta make money for somebody. And that somebody who bought it got handed a bag of snakes, because operating a "community website" in this post-Facebook web world is a job for a buggy-whip manufacturer. So, yeah, the editors obviously got a mandate to do whatever they can to drive traffic/eyeballs/impressions or whatever web marketers are driving these these days, And Politics stories -- especially in this End Of Days Election Season we are going through -- do that.
As far as an answer to the question, "Where have all the Slashdot Lefties from the 90's gone?" I suppose the answer is either [a] they're still here but they've all grown up and become Righties, [b] fled to their online safespaces and echo chambers because engaging in a level exchange of ideas is anathema to them, or [c] a little of both.
I'm voting for Ratbert!
What's your point? A lot of people feel like that's exactly the kind of president we need right now. There is a lot of stuff to rebuild within our own borders so we don't need to worry about how other people around the world are living their lives. We are not the world police.
This is one example of how poorly educated most voters are. Foreign policy is one of the few parts of our government where the President has a great deal of control. With the exception of supreme court justices, foreign policy, and the military, all other talking points are mostly irrelevant since Congress is responsible for most domestic issues.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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
I disagree, I have no issue with pot smoking, but in excess, it dulls the brain. Gary Johnson has smoked waaaaayyyyyy toooooooo muuuuuccccccchhhhhh weeeeeeeeed. It is all the man thinks about.
Caught in a landslide...
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
I am still here.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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."
an inexplicable hate on for Ms. Clinton
Inexplicable? Only if you haven't paid any attention to her crimes...
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
> 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.
Or Slashdot just became trite and boring and I only check it out for a few minutes once every week or two.
Times change, websites fade.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Would you feel better if he had memorized a list of foreign leaders?
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.
What's wrong with TPP? As someone whose priority list has TPP way at the bottom, I don't really see why this is such an important issue. I'm not saying it's not important, I'm just saying I don't see why it is. Why is it important to you?
So, when you say Gary Johnson wants to destroy something that is already broken, you're not going to get any argument from me, it NEEDS to be destroyed.
Fair enough. And replace it with...?
Yeah. That's what I thought.
It's easy to tear things down. It's harder to build things up.
You've been here a long time. If you haven't left by now, you're not going anywhere.
"To even consider putting the Clinton’s back in the White House is an insult to women and every survivor of abuse."
I really don't see Gary Johnson taking much support from Clinton. Any attention to him is more likely to draw votes from Trump which is probably the real motivation behind much of the media coverage of him.
He's pro free trade. He's made comments that he likes the idea of the TPP, but also stated that he feels the current form of the TPP is likely filled with crony capitalism.
“I have a sense that [the TPP] is laden with crony capitalism,” the former Governor of New Mexico explained. He further went on to clarify why his position might not have been as clearly relayed previously: “I have heard from people that I respect that it actually advances the ball, so I would keep an open mind, but the devil is in the details.”
Based on this clarification, it would seem that Johnson himself doesn’t have much love for the TPP, but isn’t completely ruling it out until he reads it for himself. Which is as reasonable a position as a libertarian politician can possibly take when discussing a document that, while shady, hasn’t been available to read for oneself yet.
Johnson further clarified on how he would approach the TPP if he were get is hands on it: “I would be a skeptic looking at that to begin with, because I think those who have money are buying favoritism, and [the TPP] is for sale.”
source:
https://beinglibertarian.com/g...
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.
You should do your own research on it. There's just too many things to list in this space. Search through Slashdot's archives for plenty of discussion.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Easy we grew up!
We have families now, hate newer technology like win 10, SystemD, and those who want to tax us more.
Most of Trump supporters want low taxes or are religious and think they are following God by not voting for liberals ( in the south really)
http://saveie6.com/
She "performed terribly"? Do you have any basic understanding of international politics?
Yes, I do. Its not simply the ultimate outcomes. Its her misreading of people and situations and the formulation of poor plans to deal with things. Being dealt a bad hand is one thing, playing a bad hand poorly is something else. Hillary has a track record of playing hands poorly, all the way back to First Lady days. Hint: Her attempt at health care reform.
Sorry buddy. Would you want a surgeon who doesn't know everything and rely on experts?
The presidency requires someone who can make instant decisions that can have a profound impact at any time. Sounds insane and unrealistic? It is!
Look at George W Bush as an example of a president with an above average IQ but not top end? Iraq war and certain decisions were disastrous?!
Yes if you are too dumb to know the leader of North Korea then God help us if you have the keys to the white House.
People keep voting with their gut and not heads. An average Joe Six pack knows better than to hire another Joe Six pack for surgery. Why does he not have the same concerns for a president.
http://saveie6.com/
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.
Dude no.
The average slashdoter here is more qualified since we can at least know who the freaking leader of North Korea is?
Does he even watch the news?
http://saveie6.com/
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'd say we have a winner.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
I'm a pretty average slashdotter. I recognize the North Korean leader's name when I see it, but I couldn't quote it off the top of my head. At this point, KJU simply isn't on the list of leaders of countries that are relevant to me and as fast as they go through leaders - may well never be. His policies don't seem any different from his predecessor(s), so I tend to think about N. Korea - the country - as opposed to who is currently running it.
That doesn't mean that I don't know anything about what is going on in N. Korea or what they have been doing. It doesn't mean I don't care about how deplorably they treat their own people. It doesn't mean I don't worry for nearby countries that we do a lot of business with that are directly threatened by North Korea and its nuclear ambitions. It doesn't mean I don't think China should be doing more to reign him in. I just don't happen to be great with names.
From what I've seen, Mr. Johnson is similar. He gives good opinions on what is going on in particular parts of the world - he just doesn't seem to associate names very well. Of all the things to worry about with the candidates this year, a command of names of leaders (and particularly the ability to name your favorite leader) seems way down on the list of things to worry about. That's why the White House has a staff and why we have a State Department.
Here is a thought. Replace it with vouchers which can be used by any accredited school.
Let the parents decide if the inner city school is serving their kids well by keeping the status quo that is sucking the life out of kids who want to learn, but can't.
Let the parents decide if they want to put their kid in a special school for "Really Smart People" that doesn't ignore the smart kids in favor of the trouble makers and idiots.
Let the parents decide if they want to put their kid into a School for the Arts and Music.
Let the parents decide if they want to put their kid in "Math and Sciences" based school.
Let the parents decide if they want to put their kid in the school for Snowflakes, Emos and Wallflowers, Computer in a wall (https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_shows_how_kids_teach_themselves?language=en) or Green families, or Computer Nerds or .... whatever
Oh, I don't know, let the parents decide what school their kid deserves to be in. Hell you can even give vouchers worth "extra" to those with "Special needs" where they get to spend the money the way they think their kid needs.
Saying "Yeah, that's what I thought" shows dismissive answer to real problems that need addressing. Any and all protests against voucher or programs like that is that it might destroy public schools. Well, if they can't handle (compete) against better schools, then they should die. The most common answer by the anti Voucher people is "Yeah our schools suck, but you shouldn't have a choice because you might choose something I don't like for your kid"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
So, you're saying I shouldn't trust "EditorDavid" then?
Look at George W Bush as an example of a president with an above average IQ ...
[ citation needed ]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
You call privilege a bad thing, when I am trying to extend it to people who don't have it. You'd rather the inner city blacks remain uneducated with the status quo, rather than learn something and free themselves from the plantation of the DNC.
You have no idea how ignorant you really sound.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You should do your own research on it. There's just too many things to list in this space. Search through Slashdot's archives for plenty of discussion.
Code for: "I don't really know." (But now that someone's called me on it, I will do some Googling and reply with stock Trump / anti-TPP information to show that I do know what I'm talking about.)
[ Please don't bother, your views are already clear. ]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Ditto
--fatboy
Eh? You can't be this new to slashdot. I didn't realize people on /. liked the TPP now. What do /.ers like about it? Is it the worldwide permanent copyright extensions? Yeah we love that shit here.
Code for: "I don't really know." (But now that someone's called me on it, I will do some Googling and reply with stock Trump / anti-TPP information to show that I do know what I'm talking about.)
Code for: "I'm a brain-dead leftist who was against the TPP and interventionist wars last year but since teh ebil Drumpf is the anti-TPP, anti-war candidate now and the bitch with the (D) next to her name is pro-TPP and pro-war fuck yeah I'm a neocon warhawk now shove corporate cocksucking permanent copyrights up my ass I love it so much madam president fuck me harder oooo yeah I love corporations suing governments for lost profits yeah yeah yeah more wars for israel yeah yeah #ImWithHer!"
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
While that seems like the conventional wisdom, it does not appear to be the case. Even the DNC is concerned about stealing votes away from Johnson.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I have done my own research. None of that stuff really jumps out at me as being really good or really bad. I was asking why it was important to you. I don't need to hear a giant list of reasons. What is the single most egregious thing about TPP for you personally?
Um... Nothing in *my* post indicated that *I* like or endorse the TPP. I was just commenting on your lame reply.
One of us us apparently "brain-dead" and it's not me.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Relations with Russia - what is the problem there, specifically? The Russian government has been deliberately and intentionally provoking and antagonizing the west for years now... do you think that our relationship with Russia is in any way a deliberately manufactured tension at least partially due to Russia? Or do you think we should have been at war with them for a while now, since they're being so deliberately provocative? In what way would war with Russia be a good thing?
Iranian nuclear deal - you mean, the multilateral deal Iran reached with Russia, China, Germany, France, the UK, and the US, which dramatically limited Iran's ability to produce weapons-grade nuclear material, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, which automatically snap back into place for 10 years if Iran is found to be violating the provisions of the agreement? Yeah, it would've been much better if we kicked the door in and blew shit up. Or just let them quietly continue pursuing a nuclear weapon until they can threaten the entire Middle East as a nuclear power.
Libya, Syria, Iraq - explain how the condition of these states is HER fault, specifically? I'm curious what you view as her material shortcomings in these cases, since as Secretary of State, her job is implementing the president's foreign policy goals.
No, a quiz show contestant is expected to know at least enough trivia to last through a 30 minute taped session. Gary Johnson couldn't even manage that without having an "Aleppo" moment. If you are unable to name a single, sitting, foreign leader when asked, then you are unqualified to be president. It's that simple. You will be expected to interact with these people, and if you can't even name a couple of them, you have no business having an opinion on a foreign policy towards them. If you are unable to identify the epicenter of a massive humanitarian disaster that's unfolding in real time, then you have no business having an opinion on foreign policy that would address it.
A president who does nothing but "consumes facts and information from a roomful of expert advisers" is a fucking MOUTHPIECE. A PUPPET. If you, for a single second, think that somebody like that has any business leading the most powerful country on earth, you are wrong. The president needs to be one of the smartest people in that roomful of expert advisers - he or she does not need to be a deep expert on every topic, but he or she needs to be capable of listening to expert advisers, asking the right questions and gathering the right information, then making a rational, well-informed decision based on those facts.
Pro tip: "What is Aleppo?" is not "the right question" or "the right information" for a president to be gathering. That's the question of an ignorant novice, not an experienced statesman with a command of the situation.
Probably worldwide copyrights, and the ability for corporations to sue governments for lost profits. These used to be really important issues for /.ers until it turned out the guy with the (R) after his name was against it, while the neocon warhawk with the (D) after her name is for it.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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.
That would make him quintessentially... American!
So that button found its way into the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 design?
OK, no more Dilbert. Scott Adams is an idiot.
He's an "idiot" that has called every single thing Trump was going to do this election. Every single one. Months, and in some cases a year before anyone else.
Tritto.
On the Iran nuclear deal, if European countries - France, Germany and other countries who were determined to do business w/ Russia pushed back on continuing sanctions, there was a simple solution. The US could have told them: 'I get it that you want to end the current sanctions against Teheran. We don't. And it's not in our interest to terminate them at all. So if you want to lift those sanctions, go ahead, but after that, we'll stop doing any business w/ you.. Since there is nothing to guarantee that any money or goods that go from us to you will end up in the hands of Iran'.
Give them those choices, and the sanctions would have stayed in place.
A good way of judging him is from his record as New Mexico governor. It was pretty mediocre, and no wonder, NM turned from (R) to (D) after he left: Bill Richardson succeeded him and was a good improvement. Sometimes, going w/ just party labels is a bad idea
> 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.
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.
If it is about nerds, it could easily be about Dilbert, and if it's about Dilbert, Scott Adams would be relevant. I do think though, that his switching from Trump to Johnson makes little sense whatsoever. He should study the issues, decide who he agrees w/ the most, and go w/ him/her.
Why does /. not point out that RMS has endorsed Stein (after previously backing Bernie) and also have a story on who ESR supports?
There's plenty wrong with the TPP. Enough wrong that the only two remaining candidates are opposed to the TPP- Trump for real, and Clinton at least nominally (and possibly genuinely, depending on if her recent statements about what it turned into can be taken at value).
The TPP enjoys broadbased opposition for very good reason. It will make the poor of the world poorer, so the progressives are opposed to it (including Sanders). It will spread ludicrous copyright crap all around, so a lot of techies are opposed to it. It is mostly a list of things preventing local governments from governing democratically on a bunch of trade and "intellectual property" issues, so the "states rights" types are opposed to it. And it will enable the outflow of jobs, so the civic nationalists are opposed to it.
Basically, to back it, you need a principled stand on free trade and a willingness to hold your nose for its stance on censorship. Johnson's quote on it:
“It is my understanding that the TPP does advance free trade,” says Johnson, “Is it a perfect document? Probably not. But based on my understanding of the document, I would be supporting it [though] in a perfect world there wouldn’t be a document like that, there would just be free trade.”
The TPP seems very popular on capital hill, contentious within the ranks of libertarians, and roundly opposed by the electorate.
And besides, neither Johnson nor Weld is a Randian wackjob. All they want to do is incrementally increase the amount of freedom available to Americans and see how far this can be taken in practice. They alone promise to do rational things like end the abomination (Johnson's term) of civil forfeiture and introduce the concept of competition into healthcare.
Republicans and Democrats see positions like these as a threat, and this is exactly why the Johnson ticket deserves our support.
And smelly.
Besides, if you're going to mock Johnson's knowledge of hellpit geography, it would really help is you spelled Aleppo right.
> 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).
Meh, I'm only still here because IT hasn't blocked this site yet... Hell they blocked Dilbert.com so I can't even screw around on Scott Adams' blog anymore even though since commenting has been "temporarily" disabled it has been pretty useless anyhow.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
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
But now it's not Just Some Guy's Blog anymore
Leave me out of this.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Get off my lawn. :P
Sorry buddy. Would you want a surgeon who doesn't know everything and rely on experts?
Absolutely. I want my surgeon to rely on an anesthesiologist.
The presidency requires someone who can make instant decisions that can have a profound impact at any time. Sounds insane and unrealistic? It is! Look at George W Bush as an example of a president with an above average IQ but not top end?
Hillary made that same decision to go to war. Lets consider the housing crisis culminating in a broad financial crisis. This crisis was not purely a creation of Wall Street, it was also a creation of government. A government that encouraged and bought up low quality home loans. Prior to the crisis when questions were raised about the stability of the system and the various government sponsored entities involved, many Democrats in Congress came to the defense of the agencies and proclaimed that they were strong and healthy. Hillary was one of these. Hillary's quick decision to go to war was wrong. Hillary's quick decision that there was no looming home loan crisis was wrong. Hillary's quick decision to support the idea of government backed low quality loans was also wrong. She repeatedly makes decision based on good intentions but fails to anticipate where things might go wrong. That's where people with good instincts differ, not in the good intentions but by seeing where the plan can go astray. By you own questionable metric she is a failure.
The Russian government has been deliberately and intentionally provoking and antagonizing the west for years now...
Due to our demonstrated weakness and ineptitude, some of that Hillary's.
In what way would war with Russia be a good thing?
War is not the only option, there are other ways to deter Russia.
Iranian nuclear deal - you mean, the multilateral deal Iran reached with Russia, China, Germany, France, the UK, and the US, which dramatically limited Iran's ability to produce weapons-grade nuclear material, ...
Russia, China, Gernany, France, ... you mean the countries selling equipment and helping to build Iran's nuclear facilities?
The president needs to be one of the smartest people in that roomful of expert advisers - he or she does not need to be a deep expert on every topic, but he or she needs to be capable of listening to expert advisers, asking the right questions and gathering the right information, then making a rational, well-informed decision based on those facts.
And quiz show gotcha-questions neither confirm nor rule out any other the above traits.
No one is claiming anyone can fix all things, but we do hope that a Secretary of State does not make a bad situation worse. But she has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to do so. That is the problem. Not being dealt a bad hand, but playing that hand badly.
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).
Yeah. It used to be "stuff that mattered." Now it's 75% shit.
You've been waiting about 17 years to say that, haven't you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I am still here....and a Gary Johnson supporter. I don't put the time into Slashdot that I did 15 years ago, but I do check in from time to time.
-- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
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
Hmm.. nothing makes sense anymore. This is actually pretty exciting if accurate though. Not the notion that one candidate or the other might actually win but simply the thought that there might be real changes in the makeup of each party after near a decades of status quo.
So you want some guy who is wrong, maybe doing cocaine, rapes women, and has 0 EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER and is clueless and narcastic.
" Lets consider the housing crisis culminating in a broad financial crisis. This crisis was not purely a creation of Wall Street, it was also a creation of government. ..
Hillary did create the housing crises. In fact the republican led congress did with deregulation before she was a senator
"Hillary was one of these. Hillary's quick decision to go to war was wrong"
Based on false intelligence by the Bush Administration saying he had chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
" She repeatedly makes decision based on good intentions but fails to anticipate where things might go wrong. That's where people with good instincts differ, not in the good intentions but by seeing where the plan can go astra
Which are?
" By you own questionable metric she is a failure. ... oh ... governor ... nope ... VP ... nope. Um business. Yeah great success.
Right and Trump is a steaming pile of success in experience in government as a senator
How can you say that in a straight face? Seriously listen to his words. HE IS NOT QUALIFIED PERIOD.
Lay off FoxNews
http://saveie6.com/
/. is not getting any better, and tech news can be had other places.
Anyhow, slight correction to point [a] I think you meant to write "Grown old, demented and became Righties."
Cartoonist changes mind. Story at 10.
and stoned out of their skull
What do their backs being in the Whitehouse have to do with anything? Why that part of the body?
and have the munchies
I like an exchange of ideas. But this doesn't happen much on Slashdot anymore. I'm sick and tired of the alt-right leanings here; but then I figure I need to hear views from all over; only it turns out these arent viewpoints so much as name calling and trolls.
In other words, I came here looking for an argument and ended up in the abuse room by mistake (stupid git). I'm just too lazy to leave.
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.
...and communists are cool.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I think if Johnson gave proper Libertarian answers to those two questions, then the result would make your head explode and set social media on fire so bad that people would forget about Trump.
As a Libertarian, his answer to Aleppo should be "fuck em". They are not our problem and we should not be playing global police. I am not sure there are any world leaders he should admire. They're all either strongmen or some variation on socialist. Some of them have even fucked up in a big way by being arrogant about the voters or letting their heart bleed too much without thinking shit through. If anything, I suspect he's inclined to eviscerate some.
Johnson is not someone that posts memes adoring Finland.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So you want some guy who is wrong, maybe doing cocaine, rapes women, and has 0 EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER and is clueless and narcastic.
Some of those qualities did not impede Bill Clinton. That said, I've never endorsed Trump. However I don't fear him, he will be the most ineffective President every IF elected. Presidents who are able to move their agenda forward must have broad support. Trump will not even have support from his own party. We will have the most obstructionist do-nothing Congress ever. However the Supreme Court may be busier than usual quashing executive orders. Well, those that are implemented. The usually course of action will probably be that the military and law enforcement will need to explain that executive orders need to be legal and constitution.
" Lets consider the housing crisis culminating in a broad financial crisis. This crisis was not purely a creation of Wall Street, it was also a creation of government. ..
Hillary did create the housing crises. In fact the republican led congress did with deregulation before she was a senator
Bill Clinton was responsible for signing that deregulation. Years later as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were seen in financially risky conditions Hillary was one of the great defenders of Bill's actions (deregulation, mandate for low quality loans, etc.) and claimed the institutions were financially sound and healthy. Coincidentally they had donated millions to her. And not so surprisingly they were a major part of the crisis and needed a federal bailout. The financial crisis was not purely a Wall Street creation, Congress had its role, both Bill and Hillary have their fingerprints on it. Again, bad judgement with mandates for low quality loans, bad judgement as to the risk of financial problem at the institutions ... she acted entirely politically. Defending allies and supporters and Democratic policies.
" She repeatedly makes decision based on good intentions but fails to anticipate where things might go wrong. That's where people with good instincts differ, not in the good intentions but by seeing where the plan can go astray Which are?
Well one example might be telling banks to issue low quality loans, and then having a government sponsored entity buy them from the banks so that the banks carry no risk, a person with good judgement might think some sort or unintended consequences might arise, that maybe the wrong thing is being incentivized.
Except that there is nothing Libertarian about Trump, which is why Johnson is drawing more support from Clinton.
The idea shouldn't have been to get Iran to any table. The idea should have been to get Iran to abandon the desire to have them in the first place. One of the few good things about the Iraq war was that Col Gadaffi thought he'd be next, so he dropped his WMD program and started to make nice w/ the US and the West. With proper pressure applied, Iran would be brought to the same point.
Bill Clinton can be president and was competent
Monica Lewinsky was consensual whether you agreed with it or not. He possesed the intelligence. He had the prestige and knew how to act.
He and Trump are not even in comparable
http://saveie6.com/
Hillary no doubt has a high IQ yet look at the consequence on her decisions on Libya -- an entire country destroyed due to her reckless decision to kill Gadhaffi.
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!
Clinton's sleeze goes way back before Lewinsky. That is just where he got caught because evidence was left behind. There are numerous women who claimed to have been *physically* abused and harassed when he was Governor of Arkansas. He settled out of court paying $850K to one former state worker.
What's your point? A lot of people feel like that's exactly the kind of president we need right now.
Those people are wrong. And woefully stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hprovincial.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"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!!!
Personally I got bored over here and am spending a lot more time on Reddit. It's more exciting.
This is probably the second time I've been here this year, and it's mostly because someone posted that you guys were talking Gary and to come on by and check it out.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
It does actually make a bit of sense.
It's the Bernie voters for the most parts. Bernie Sanders talked about the problem that matter to millennials. He had some really socialist solutions, but he talked about those problems, and seemed like a decent, honest man.
Gary Johnson talks about a lot of the same problems. He has a few of the same solution, but mostly not - but he's talking about the same problems and the long term future of the country. He's not talking about who has small hands, or who's dicking bimbos, or who has probably grabbed women by the genitals, or even email servers. He's talking military intervention, race relations, ending the drug war, federal deficit and other actual issues - and the worst "dirt" anyone can find on him is that he may, possibly, not be great with proper names. And on top of that, he is clearly a very nice, very honest man.
Contrast that with the two major party psychopaths and the disgusting show of a debate last night.
Do you see why Bernie supporters might head toward Gary instead of Hillary?
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
That just isn't true. I'm pretty sure he has a vastly deeper understanding of Syria than Trump - and in fact of world politics in general.
Deeper than Clinton? No, probably not - being Secretary of State helps with that. And he's a lot less likely to either 1) bomb unnecessarily or 2) sell himself to the highest bidders.
What foreign leaders has he flubbed? He failed to name one he admired. I'd like you to name a foreign leader that a Libertarian should admire. He had three seconds before he looked dumb. You have all night. Let's hear what you come up with.
He refused to play Foreign Leader Jeopardy with a paper - the NY Times I think. Of course he knows the leader of North Korea - he refers to him in speeches all the time.
Here's an article.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
That is a 100% correct answer for a Libertarian.
We've got stalkers?
Sorry, who doesn't know the leader of North Korea? Johnson refers to him, by name, in most foreign policy speeches. He refused to play Foreign Leader Jeopardy with the NY Times (I think - not sure on the paper) and that got spun into "Johnson doesn't know leader of North Korea!"
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
I like the TPP as a concept. It's free(er) trade with most Pacific nations that aren't China.
The Cato Institute's analysis says that it's a net win; not perfect, but a net gain.
That analysis is almost certainly is what Gary Johnson is relying on. The Libertarian Party is not the Republican or Democratic party. They don't have the budget or the staff to do their own analysis of such a big document. So he's depending on Cato.
He's said, repeatedly, that in office, it would be gone through, and if it's less free-trade and more cronyism, he would not sign it.
But come on. Obama's going to get it done in lame duck anyway. It's not going to even matter what President Johnson thinks.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
NM is mostly Democratic, and was then, too. Johnson was re-elected the one time that term limits allow.
Yeah he must have been awful.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
He refers to Kim, by name, repeatedly in speeches.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
Thanks for the info.
You should do your own research on it. There's just too many things to list in this space. Search through Slashdot's archives for plenty of discussion.
Code for: "I don't really know." (But now that someone's called me on it, I will do some Googling and reply with stock Trump / anti-TPP information to show that I do know what I'm talking about.)
[ Please don't bother, your views are already clear. ]
FWIW I'm pretty damn liberal and I think the TPP is an abomination, or more accurately contains enough sub-abominations that its good features are not redeeming to the document as a whole.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Oh, one last comment in closing. Could you Americans please not elect either of those horrendous leading candidates? Thank you.
I would sell my soul to do what you're asking. And I'm really betting more than 50%, probably closer to 2/3 of the population, agree with me.
Nah, it looks more like "no president left behind" But he is indeed a more representative person of the average american population the "I'm american, i don't need to think, pop a pill" bunch. The bigot, the puppet and the burnout, you can pull a sitcom out of that, you're so owned by the media moguls that maybe thats the plan after all, theres no other rational explanation for this train wreck.
Still leftie and still reading Slashdot after 16 years or so and I agree 100%. I only read as far down as the first idiotic comment and that means I don't spend a lot of time reading Slashdot anymore.
The TPP enjoys broadbased opposition for very good reason. It will make the poor of the world poorer, so the progressives are opposed to it (including Sanders)
I think this is a good reason to oppose something. I was a Sanders supporter, and I'm pretty sure that's why he supported it. But I'm not yet convinced that this criticism is true. I haven't seen any evidence that the TPP specifically would increase poverty beyond the claim that all trade agreements increase poverty (e.g. arguments like NAFTA created poverty, and TPP is like NAFTA)
Honestly I don't feel like I understand the nuances of the economics of trade agreements enough to make an informed judgement over something like this.
It is mostly a list of things preventing local governments from governing democratically on a bunch of trade and "intellectual property" issues, so the "states rights" types are opposed to it.
I feel a bit more entitled to an opinion over the normative aspects of a trade agreement like this, as they don't really depend on the truth of various claims of causal economic relationships (e.g. this poverty is *because of* NAFTA/TPP etc), rather than simply correlations.
I definitely think IP laws in this country and around the world are problematic. I honestly don't know if TPP will/can make them worse. I suspect it probably does, but I am not aware of any specifics.
And it will enable the outflow of jobs, so the civic nationalists are opposed to it.
I would think that this is one of the goals of free trade, is to allow the outflow and inflow of goods and labor. My intuition is that it's probably pointless to try to hang on to the sorts of low skilled jobs that are flowing out of our country. If we ignore the good/evil of wealth redistribution, I think it's probably more efficient to spend money to re-educate people to do skilled jobs than it is to have people doing low skilled labor for artificially inflated wages (e.g. minimum wage). We have the infrastructure to do this that other poorer countries do not. Let's let them have those low skilled jobs and we can spend money we have investing in our own people.
Anyway, it certainly seems messy to me. It's probably a bunch of good ideas mixed with a bunch of bad ideas and everything in between. It's not clear to me if it will be a net good or a net bad compared with other trade agreements or compared to nothing.
This is why this is a low priority for me. I feel like there are so many issues that have relatively clear good answers, and I'd rather spend my time and effort advocating for those things.
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.
Do you really wanna know what teachers make: go to http://transparentcalifornia.c... and enter "teacher" under job title.
Those are actual salaries for California state employees.
He says: here's some things wrong with education, I've seen it personally
You say : derp derp derp Repuglicans! Racists!
Seriously, I can see why you're posting anonymous.
Oh god. Life becomes a constant battle. I used to try to do this, and you find yourself analyzing everything . I eventually decided, like Kwerle, that it didn't matter. If the chef at a local restaurant is a rabid Stalinist, I don't really care as long as it doesn't influence the food quality or taste. Sometimes you just don't bring up differences that don't matter to the subject at hand.
Obviously there's a limit to this. If he posts a "no blacks allowed" sign in the window, then I'm not going in either
Walking away from the table and not lifting sanctions does exert economic pressure! A few more months or years of that would have either bankrupted Iran, or forced them to a state where they agreed to abandon the desire for nukes. Very honestly, they're not gonna abandon that as long as they are Islamic - they believe in the Mahdi who'll come out of a well in Qum to start an armageddon.
Still here
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.
Yeah, in 1988. People and parties change. I don't believe he fits any more.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
I'm really hoping this election forces people to realize the need for election reform, and really push for it. That's really the only upside to it so far.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
"The average commenter here is now more right wing, less well informed, stupider and less fun."
I wonder how much of that is paid trolls? Especially around election time.