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."

Comments

Is this real life?

[the_skywise]

This is a new low for a slashdot post...

Re:Is this real life?

[Applehu Akbar]

By now maybe Adams should outsource his political analysis to Elbonia.

He also endorsed Trump

[serviscope_minor]

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.

flip flops

[Lead Butthead]

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.)

Re:flip flops

[ColdWetDog]

New information? What new information. We've known pretty much all of this nonsense on all sides since the beginning.

Perhaps filling in an occasional sordid detail, but this isn't new or news.

Re:flip flops

[jellomizer]

As a professional comedian/cartoonist. There is a seriousness inside his joke.
He may or may not be really endorsing any candidate. But using absurdness of endorsing to point out problems.
Over the past generation or so. We have been equating a person's personal ethics and their stance as a human being based on their political and who they vote for.

Studies show that a person's political stance is based on what they grew up with. So if you lived in a republican family with republican friends you will be republican or vice versa. Growing up in such an environment the opposing political party is seen as evil, stupid, or part of some grand conspiracy. So attacks on that candidate of your choosing are usually ignored or considered exaggerated for political reasons. While what they do well, is strongly weighed. Thus making your choice seem perfectly rational.

Now if you are actually a person in the middle, and you observe all these families and lives you find that they are quite similar, have the same problems and often think of the same solution, until the party of their choice states it is different.

While I personally will be voting for Clinton,it isn't because Trump voters are all racists. Nor do I expect the democratic party turn the US into a communist nation.

Re: flip flops

[bondsbw]

It is quite wrong to say that voting for third party is ineffective, even if the result is practically assured to favor a major party candidate.

If you reside in a non-swing state, like the vast majority of Americans, your vote doesn't count in any case. It doesn't matter if you vote for the inevitable winner of your state, or the major party loser, or a third party candidate. Your vote is just as statistically insignificant in any case.

But voting third party helps provide public campaign funding to that party in the next Presidential election. Third parties who actually make it, or come close enough to have a real platform, are more likely to lobby to reform the election systems which take choice away and always leave us with the so-called choice between the "better of two evils".

That is why it matters. If we want to get good candidates in the future, we must start voting against the duopoly now.

Honestly...

[johnsmithperson123]

The Libertarian party had a chance to go mainstream but they blew it big-time.

Re:Honestly...

[AthanasiusKircher]

The Libertarian party had a chance to go mainstream but they blew it big-time.

Indeed. I had high hopes a few months ago that we'd at least have the possibility of seeing a 3rd-party candidate on the debate stage. In a year when the two major parties have basically elected the most hated candidates in history, ANYONE else might have seemed like a "breath of fresh air." I sincerely doubted a 3rd-party candidate could actually win the election, but with all the squabbling and ill-will toward the major parties, it could have really started to shake stuff up in future years if a 3rd-party candidate managed to get maybe 15% or even 20+% of the vote.

Alas, Johnson has had a few major gaffes, and most of the mainstream media will be relentless on stamping out any 3rd-party voice at any chance they can get (particularly in a year like this where everyone keeps saying "the stakes are so high"). And Johnson doesn't have the brand-recognition or the savvy to play up these gaffes in a way like Trump would -- Trump would just call everyone else idiots and say something outlandish so everyone forgot about the gaffe. So the media can feel okay in going back to just ignoring the 3rd parties.

Frankly, the whole Aleppo thing was less disconcerting to me than the later interview where Johnson couldn't name ANY world leader he respected. I can understand someone just having a moment of confusion once around a place name on the other side of the planet. But you're asked repeatedly if you can identify ONE world leader you admire, and you can't think of anyone?? Even if you can't remember the person's name you'd really like to say, come up with something else. Or move the question to some other non-"leader" you'd admire. Or anything really. He just stammered and couldn't come up with anything... which means he either is decidely ignorant about world politics or is exceedingly bad at public debate (and unable to recover if he forgot one name). Either way, it was embarrassing.

And thus, I'm no longer sure it would have been a good thing to have him on stage at the debates. If he were asked the wrong question, it would make 3rd parties even more fringe and unrealistic than they already seem to most people.

Are you really that stupid?

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Are you really that stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

This exactly. He explained it in a Stephan Molyneux interview. He was getting threats for supporting Trump so he changed it and the threats stopped. He lives in the People's Republic of the Bay Area where it is dangerous to health and property to support Trump. His fans know who he supports but it threw the stupid people off the trail.

He's not done yet!

[scunc]

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 ...

"Reality"?

[sjbe]

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.

Who cares?

[QuietLagoon]

And why has /. gotten into the business of tracking who is endorsing whom?

Cynicism

[bluegutang]

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.

Re:Extremely ignorant

[FatdogHaiku]

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!

Now we know who pointy-haired boss is based on

[JoeyRox]

Turns out it was a self caricature.

Don't forget

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

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.

Scott Adams

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Extremely ignorant

[drnb]

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.

Adams too thick

[epine]

Maybe you should learn what satire is jackass

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!"

No, she's not fine

[wonkavader]

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.

Re:No, she's not fine

[danbert8]

Mod up. If you believe Gary Johnson has no shot, even better to vote for him knowing you won't have to live with him as president. But it will sure send a message to the Republican and Democratic leadership that their shit has gotten to stinky for you to continue to support. Send a message to the major parties that they don't own your vote by default.

Re:No, she's not fine

[number6x]

Don't throw your vote away by voting for a Democrat or a Republican. They will simply ignore the voters and do whatever it is the sources of their largest campaign donors ask. Voting for a Democrat or a Republican is a wasted vote.

Vote for third party candidates, or write in the name of a qualified person, or even a personal friend when a third party candidate is not running for a given office.

Re:Extremely ignorant

[meta-monkey]

Problem is he's pro-TPP. I can't vote for anybody who supports the TPP.

Re:Ugh.

[kwerle]

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.

Handy List of 3rd Party Candidates

[Jack9]

http://2016.presidential-candi...

Re:Dice, we get it you don't like Ms. Clinton

[RobotRunAmok]

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.

Re:Extremely ignorant

[ranton]

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.

Re: Dice, we get it you don't like Ms. Clinton

[dunkelfalke]

I am still here.

Re:Doesn't matter, he's "none of the above"

[j-beda]

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.

Oh to have a ranked ballot system where we could choose whoever we wanted as 1st, and then go down the list (of more and more stinkyness) until we got to the D/R choices and could select them based on whatever small differences we may seem them to have.

I can dream.

WOW... I had no idea

[gosand]

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.

This is why the polls might not be accurate

[Beeftopia]

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.

Re:As for me...

[tripleevenfall]

I agree. An immobilized government is not going to take away and additional freedoms, which is the best we can hope for.

WALLY 2016!

Thought Experiment

[tsqr]

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?

Re:Extremely ignorant

[meta-monkey]

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!"

Re:Dice, we get it you don't like Ms. Clinton

[Just Some Guy]

But now it's not Just Some Guy's Blog anymore

Leave me out of this.

Re:Dice, we get it you don't like Ms. Clinton

[Pentagram]

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).

Re:Dice, we get it you don't like Ms. Clinton

[serviscope_minor]

You've been waiting about 17 years to say that, haven't you.