Scott Adams:Why I’m supporting Mitt Romney for president, even though I don’t agree with him on much

[brendala.livejournal.com]

Scott Adams (the artist behind Dilbert) just released this blog post about why he feels compelled to vote for Romney despite the fact that he disagrees with about 90% of his policies. His reasoning is a little weird. But it's an interesting read (and pretty ballsy considering the industry he operates in).

The whole post is gold. But here's the money quote:

So while I don't agree with Romney's positions on most topics, I'm endorsing him for president starting today. I think we need to set a minimum standard for presidential behavior, and jailing American citizens for political gain simply has to be a firing offense no matter how awesome you might be in other ways.


My thoughts:


I personally think changing his vote based on that one unfair drug arrest is a bit silly. Not to say the story isn't tragic (that man clearly does not deserve to serve more time than the average rapist for selling weed to sick people). But considering all the other things Obama bungled and all the other folks he tossed under the bus; this one guy's story feels pretty minor in comparison.

Also, as a cartoonist, I figured Adams would be FAR more concerned with Obama and the Democrats' recent attack on free speech to cover up their incompetence in the wake of our ambassador's murder. But, I suppose Adams REALLY loves him some weed. Who knew? XD

Comments

[theidolhands.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree with you bredala, sounds like the plea of a dope head and that's sad.

Still, I thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Certainly wouldn't expect Republicans to be "softer" on drug crimes, if that's what he wants. Actually, one of the things I'm greatful to Obama for is totally ignoring (as far as I know) the embarrassing plea of LOUD pot-heads demanding he legalize. That was seriously their NUMBER ONE agenda when he got into office and they DOMINATED the internet area where citizens were allowed to communicate directly (which wasn't a bad idea in and of itself), as well as the LOUDEST crowd when he visited San Francisco. *sighs*

NOTHING. Nothing could say more to me about how selfish and out-of-touch such people are. I believe the boards were shut down anyway.

[brendala.livejournal.com]

I also roll my eyes when pot-heads act as if legalizing pot is THE MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL ISSUE EVER!!! They say the taxes on legal weed would pay off the deficit and save the country (even though we already do that to cigarettes and alcohol and it hasn't fixed our economy yet).

Cracked recently did an article about those annoying pot-heads. I think you'd get a kick out of it: "5 pro-marijuana arguments that are not helping (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/)"

[theidolhands.livejournal.com]

LMFAO and I don't type that short-hand everyday. Aaahhh, thank you, I needed that.
So I'm not the only person who feels this way -- thank God.

[lilliew.livejournal.com]

I think there's bigger issues and reason to NOT vote for Obama than this. Sad. I think it's a real screwup of what's happened to Sandusky and something needs to be figure out there, but using that as a basis for your Presidential vote? Really?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Interesting post. But I don't think I play the way he thinks I should play:

Should the board of directors allow the superstar CEO to keep his job? Or is killing a guy to advance your career always a firing offense? Okay, keep your answer in mind.

All right, answer in mind.

I predict that every one of you favored firing the hypothetical CEO for killing a guy to get ahead.

And boom, fail on the first one. I'd be voting for the superstar CEO to remain.
And I can see how the argument would go. Oh, the horror, the tragedy, how could we associate with such an evil man, blah, blah, blah.
There would be one response from me to each objection: "So what? Is firing Superstar CEO in the best fiduciary interests of the company? Can we be guaranteed that his replacement would be just as superstar or more? No? Then my vote remains to keep him."
In ANY question of business, the first and foremost thing on everyone's mind should be what is in the best fiduciary interests of the company. What is good for business. Not personal. Firing someone out of moral outrage is a personal thing. Business, not personal. Business, not personal. I don't care if the CEO is the most virulently racist, sexist, bestiality-endorsing asshole that ever walked the face of the earth. How I personally feel is for the home and church. Business is business. Money does not care about your morality.

People who believe Obama is bad for the business/government of America should vote him out. People who believe the opposite should vote him in. That's really all it breaks down to.

Edit: Forgot to mention, though I meant to - the other question other than "Does this benefit the business?" is "Did he do anything illegal?" No illegality? No problem here.

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

Adams is more a contrarian than anything else. He's not wrong, but he likes to provoke.

On the other hand, he's not wrong in how our voting system is often riding on the most ignorant, and how their votes can indeed cancel out ours. If anyone has read his memoir, 'Stick to drawing comics, Monkey-Brain,' he is insightful in many ways. Does too much blue humor for my tastes, but that's how he rolls.

[theidolhands.livejournal.com]

Good points, dark_weezing.