Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Endorses Gary Johnson For President (dilbert.com) 523
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."
Is this real life? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a new low for a slashdot post...
flip flops (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
I am not taking any of the four candidates I could name with any seriousness. (Which is probably what they hope for anyways.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Alice Cooper for President!
I hear he wants to be elected.
Re:As for me... (Score:5, Funny)
I agree. An immobilized government is not going to take away and additional freedoms, which is the best we can hope for.
WALLY 2016!
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with being malleable? All of the choices are terrible, if you're really determined to choose it's not easy to pick the lowest evil.
I've followed his blog enough that I'm not sure if he's serious or just trolling 99% of the time, but this doesn't seem to support that one way the other.
Re: (Score:3)
What's wrong with being malleable?
In this particular case, being malleable at this point shows one hasn't been paying attention. Any individual candidate's fluffiness or scruffiness is much less important than their backing party, and the party agendas are slow to change. Slow as in measured in decades.
Re: flip flops (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
like the vast majority of Americans, your vote doesn't count in any case
No individual raindrop is responsible for the devastating flood. But they were all needed to make it happen. Each vote does count. That is kinda the basic "what happens" during an election: counting all the votes.
Re:flip flops (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
I'm a decline-to-state voter. I'm not a member of any organized or disorganized political party. And this stance is based upon growing up with very partisan friends, relations, neighbors, towns, universities. I do not care for watching competitive sports, I don't have any favorite sports teams, and that's the same feeling I have for politics - it's all a bit too sweaty and smelly for me to jump in and start waving pom poms around.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
If I was American, I would vote Democrat. There is a safety rule in politics -- you need checks and balances. If you get a Republican senate, a republican house, and a republican president, what is there to stop them from enacting laws detrimental to the middle or lower class. Obviously, we have already seen laws that favour the super wealthy. What would stop a stupid law of there was a Republican majority as mentioned.
With checks and balances, the president can veto bad legislation, and he can, if he i
Re: (Score:3)
I removed Dilbert from my bookmarks a few months ago when Scott began bringing up politics constantly. If I want to hear more opinions about either candidate's lies or incompetence, I'll bash my head into the wall until the feeling goes away.
I was thinking I'd add it back after the election, but I haven't missed it enough to worry about it.
Re:flip flops (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
and quick to engage in personal attack (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
His endorsement is still for "personal safety reasons" and that's sad. It's far more troubling than anything that Trump has said or that has been said about Trump. It's the true death of liberty. It's like living in a fascist or communist state.
People tend to project and they see Trump as Hitler.
Re:Is this real life? (Score:5, Funny)
By now maybe Adams should outsource his political analysis to Elbonia.
Oh, Good! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Dice, we get it you don't like Ms. Clinton (Score:4, Interesting)
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: Dice, we get it you don't like Ms. Clinton (Score:5, Informative)
I am still here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Dice, we get it you don't like Ms. Clinton (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
You've been waiting about 17 years to say that, haven't you.
Re:Dice, we get it you don't like Ms. Clinton (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
You've been here a long time. If you haven't left by now, you're not going anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Because Nadar worked out real well.....
Nadar was only a problem in Florida. If you live in a swing state, you should vote for the lesser evil. Anywhere else, you should vote for what you actually want.
I live in California, where Hillary has a double digit lead. So I will vote for Gary. If he gets over about 3% of the vote, it will send a message to the duopoly (especially the Republicans) that there is a significant constituency for less government and more personal freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
If a third party gets 5% of the vote, they get funding for the next election. That's certainly important, beyond sending the immediate message.
Re: (Score:3)
From Nader's point of view, thanking democrats for starting smaller unjust wars and sending slightly fewer innocent people to prison and being owned by slightly less evil corporations is like thanking Hitler for not being as extreme as Pol Pot. Why would he do that?
He also endorsed Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
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... [dilbert.com]
Then he switched over to trump:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1... [dilbert.com]
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.
Are you really that stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
You don't really buy this to you? Absolutely no one bought Adams' endorsements of anyone but Trump. Just look at absolute lack out outrage from the Trump supporters at his blog when he "switched" his endorsement.
I have no idea of people actually threatened Adams, or if those threats stopped at some point, but it has nothing to do with his fake endorsements.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe you should learn what satire is jackass
Adams too thick (Score:4, Interesting)
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!"
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you should learn what satire is jackass
I know what satire is. Saying stupid stuff and then claiming it's satire when you get called on it isn't actually satire.
A vote for Hillary validates DNC tactics (Score:3, Insightful)
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 h
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's been a bit nuts for a long time.
And by 'a bit nuts', I mean the most arrogant person you've ever heard of.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
He seems not to have gone nuts. You seem to have misread a satirist.
Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The Libertarian party had a chance to go mainstream but they blew it big-time.
Agreed. Johnson is about as Libertarian as Clinton is Liberal. Johnson has been their champion for the better part of a decade and they've only seen their numbers get worse. The guy is a fucking train wreck worse than Trump or Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Johnson is about as Libertarian as Clinton is Liberal. Johnson has been their champion for the better part of a decade and they've only seen their numbers get worse.
Factually wrong on every point. Johnson ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2012 after he didn't make it in the 2012 GOP primaries. In 2012, he got just about 1%. This year, he's polling anywhere between 8-13%. Even if he were to finish on the low end of that range, it would be a huge improvement over where they were in 2012.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that but the measly 1% he got in 2012 was the best ever voting turnout for the Libertarian Party. Kudos to the Party for not bowing to the crazy pants removers in the party and putting up someone who is extreme and nuts out there and sticking with Gary, who while imperfect, has a good track record on freedom and actual political experience to back it up.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter. He's not going to win. If you vote Libertarian now, you might have a COUPLE of libertarian candidates to chose from in the next cycle, and you might have a Libertarian on the debate stage to push the Republican candidate slightly further into the Libertarian positions.
You are not voting for Johnson, you are voting for a third party. You should do it, because the current two are crap.
In 12 years, either the Libertarian party will have replaced the Republican party, or (much more likely)
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the issue was that he considered it a "gotcha" question. He assumed (justifiably) that anyone he named would be thrown back at him... "Oh, so you admire BLANK, what about this thing that they did that's objectionable?!"
First, the actual question was to name a foreign leader he RESPECTS. Yes, I used the word "admire" too, as did some media sources, but the actual word was "respect." When the question was repeated on the show, it was also changed to "like." But NOT "admire," nor was it, as Johnson later tried to spin it, asking for his "favorite" leader.
So, he wasn't asking to "admire" someone -- he was just asked for the name of someone he respects or even likes. That's a pretty low bar. And whatever name he came up
Re: (Score:3)
So... Republicans without the religious baggage?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So... Republicans without the religious baggage?
Not necessarily, look at their icon Ron Paul.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
As a former member of the LP, I can say they've blown their chance on multiple occasions. Every election they trot out some nutty extremist who is ill equipped to hold office.
As opposed to Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
I loved colossal cave adventure! (Score:2)
He's not done yet! (Score:5, Funny)
-------
Pay no attention to the man behind the comic strip
"Reality"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I care if they are competent
Clearly you can't choose the candidate on the left. But you must have known this ...
Trump has a LONG and well documented history of misogynistic and racist behavior.
So clearly you can't choose the candidate on the right.
----
Apologies to Princess Bride.
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cynicism (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
it makes him badly equipped to comment thoughtfully on the real world
This is the same "real world" that presents us two completely deplorable choices for President.
Now we know who pointy-haired boss is based on (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Right-Wing Humor (Score:2)
"An unfunny man's idea of what a funny person sounds like"
Scott Adams (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Scott... the man who uses sock puppets to brag about how he has a "certified genius IQ".
It's irrelevant to the greater discussion but worth pointing out that all of his sock puppets get found out, on average, immediately after their very first post.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, he's right about facts not mattering. People aren't rational. We make emotional decisions and then rationalize them.
And as for his comments section that was a good move. I used to read it and there was good discussion there but then it started getting brigaded by stormfront. Straight-up Hitler-loving white power shit. Closing that down was a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
WOW... I had no idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Handy List of 3rd Party Candidates (Score:4, Informative)
http://2016.presidential-candi... [presidenti...idates.org]
With 10% of votes, representing 30 mil americans (Score:3)
..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.
This is why the polls might not be accurate (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Thought Experiment (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Bill Clinton isn't anymore and our understanding of consent has changed significantly since the 90s, if he did run again I expect that would be a much bigger issue.
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?
There are really only two convincing misdeeds by Bill Clinton. First the affairs, which were bad but not that big a deal. Second was the alleged rape, but that was over 40 years ago and not proven.
Trump's rape allegations are much more recent, and his sexual assault allegations much more numerous and recent.
Moreover he's completely unrepentant ab
Re: (Score:2)
No, she's not fine (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
And isn't it sad that this STILL makes him more suitable than Clinton and Trump combined?
Re:Extremely ignorant (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Extremely ignorant (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: Extremely ignorant (Score:3)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Extremely ignorant (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is he's pro-TPP. I can't vote for anybody who supports the TPP.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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. ]
Re:Extremely ignorant (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter, he's "none of the above" (Score:2)
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 e
Re:Doesn't matter, he's "none of the above" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Extremely ignorant (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Honesty and integrity most important traits (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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), th
Re: (Score:3)
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 an
Re: (Score:2)
Voting for Stein won't get you any power. Her numbers are too small. If she gets 4% (which would be amazing) it won't influence anyone or get reported.
Voting for the pot-head-know-nothing (true or not) Johnson will accumulate some numbers in that bucket, and 6% or 7% of electorate voting for him will get him in the news, and perhaps get his successor on a debate stage.
I'd personally rather we had a decent Green candidate to vote for, but we don't. And even if we did, right now voting Johnson would be the
Re:Ugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.