Seriously. This guy is so over-rated. I love his cartoons. Dilbert is and has been my daily read for over ten years. No other cartoon can say as much. It is always an insightful slice of live that I always get on the first take.
Then he goes into presidential endorsements. Dude, Stop it. No one asked you. Well, maybe someone did, but I didn’t. Vox Day posts his latest on his site, which is where I found it. Note that I happen to also endorse Trump (not that it matters) so my criticism of Adams is not related to any disagreement with who he supports.
My opinion on abortion is that men should follow the lead of women on that topic because doing so produces the most credible laws.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! I suppose that could be true, depending on how you define “credible”. This sentiment betrays a mindlessly myopic view that is common among feminists that the abortion debate is a gender driven debate of men versus women and that if men just STFU, we would have free abortions for everyone all the time. But the fact is that some of the most ardent pro-life leaders I have ever met are women and the best argument for abortion (other than kill moar brown babies) has always been male convenience. But this idea, if followed in all aspects of law is so mindlessly stupid that it deserves to be laughed at. Only people who have been murdered should be allowed an opinion about the legality of murder. Or maybe only murderers should be allowed to have those opinions. It gets a little confusing at that point.
So on most political topics, I don’t know enough to make a decision. Neither do you…
He seems to be advocating that if you aren’t smart on every possible topic, you should not vote. But that is totally opposite the American system, as designed. You vote for people you trust, not people who agree with you on every topic. You are electing representatives in Congress, and someone who you trust to run the executive branch for president. You don’t need to know everything about their job, only that you trust them to do it.
I have been saying I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president. That neutrality changed when Clinton proposed raising estate taxes. I understand that issue and I view it as robbery by government.
Great. So, on his pet issue, you should disregard his moral stand of neutrality. But he doesn’t have a clearly articulated point to make on this issue either. If he sees this one pet tax as theft, then why cannot everyone see any tax as theft? What is the moral or intellectual line that separates them? Does it matter? NO! The president doesn’t set tax rates. Not even dictatorial ones. Congress does that. So, even on his pet issue of death taxes, Adams proves he is not smart enough to vote. He should just vote for other people who are smart enough.
4. Clinton’s Health: To my untrained eyes and ears, Hillary Clinton doesn’t look sufficiently healthy – mentally or otherwise – to be leading the country.
So, if I understand Adams correctly, A healthy mass murdering psychopath is better than a sickly saint with a Nobel prize in economics. He would rather have someone healthy than someone who is qualified. This is utterly stupid. A person’s health might be a discriminator when you are choosing between two people of equal talent and disposition. But that isn’t even close in this case. First, there is no guarantee that any candidate can finish his or her first term. They cannot even guarantee they will live long enough to take office. Second, the President doesn’t “lead” the country. The president “manages” the executive branch of the federal government. Period. Stop. Carriage Return. Everyone else in the country pretty much “leads” themselves. Third, the Constitution provides for what happens if the president cannot fullfill her term. This is that provision:
Likewise, Bill Clinton seems to be in bad shape too, and Hillary wouldn’t be much use to the country if she is taking care of a dying husband on the side.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! She has never “taken care of him” before. Why would she start now? She didn’t even raise Chelsea. She always used government provided interns, nannies, and staff to take care of her family obligations.
Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something that the military would refuse to do.
NAME ONE. When did “put America First” become an extreme position? Or “enforce our laws”? What is unconstitutional about anything he has ever advocated? I have been listening for a long time and haven’t heard a peep that would qualify. Likewise for anything impractical or evil. Finally, there isn’t ANYTHING your military “wouldn’t do”. Remember, your heroes in the sky were all set to shoot down civilian air liners on 9-11 and the only 2 things stopped them. 1. Prior to 9-11, the Air Force didn’t have any fighters loaded with live ammo ready to go up against hostile civilian 757’s. Second, once the fighters got their missiles loaded, all the airliners got the word and landed on their own. But let’s be very clear. There is no law that would have permitted US Air Force pilots to shoot down civilian air liners in US airspace. There still isn’t. If they do that, it is, according to our law, an act of murder, on the part of the pilot. It is an illegal order, the type they all swore they would never obey. And one which EVERY PILOT said afterwards they were ready to comply with. None of the generals in the Air Force resigned over it. To this day, none of them have required congress to pass legislation making killing civilians in the USA “legal”. The same goes for Army Generals who would cheerfully use those anti-air missiles around the capital. If they would do that, there is NOTHING they wouldn’t do.