Question for those that support Hillary

Would you be okay with Gary Johnson winning? I think I would be okay from what I've heard about the guy. I wouldn't necessarily be happy, but the country as a whole would okay with him as president in my view, and it wouldn't degrade the seriousness in which we as a people expect from our leaders.

He seems reasonable. I wouldn't be too upset. Really at this point, I think it would benefit the country if the Libertarian Party went and supplanted the whole GOP.

Anyone but not > Killary

He's okay. I don't agree with libertarians that socialism is bad or that a fully fledged capitalist system is the way to go. Granted, I do agree that we should have a more competitive playing field so that we can allow smaller businesses to prop up but I also think that government can provide for the people services that are necessary such as education and healthcare. But hey, he's liberal on social issues, I'm liberal on social issues, I'll be happy with a Johnson Administration.

@CommandoAgent: Yes we get that you don't like Hillary.

Hillary would be my top choice, but if Johnson won, I would be alright.

Trump is unacceptable no matter how much his people get him to tone it down. His true nature has already been revealed.

I'm not a fan of any libertarian candidate, so no. Both him and Jill Stein have too many untenable positions. They're fringe for a reason.

Honestly, I dont know enough about Gary Johnson. I agree with afbrat on the overall picture. Trump is too dangerous and too unstable and too polarizing. He's a disaster in so many ways. Honestly, I'd take 4 more years of Obama to any of these candidates. I don't always agree with his policies, but I like the president and think he's a good role model.

I wouldn't mind if he won, but its still worth remembering that he stands practically no chance of actually winning.

No. The Libertarian economic positions are a nonstarter.

Not American but no lol Johnson and Hillary are nothing alike.

No. LOLbertarianism is just as bad as Republican ideologies and is in some ways worse. Anything of worth in the Libertarian platform (like their position of marijuana) can easily be subsumed into garden variety liberalism.

i kinda believe in matriarchy

Hillary bends down for the Rothschild family.

One of her creepiest emails by the way she replies to them like they own her. Seems whatever she is doing with private citizens is illegal by giving them a platform in government and foreign policy.

https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/1606

The fact that you still support Hillary and think she is fit for president creeps me out. I lose hope in humanity. Trump and Hillary have got to be the two worst candidates in history.

Nope, we need more (and smarter) government, not less. Why do people think the answer to our problems is to not do anything? to not vote for reform, changes, and improvements? As if things will get better if we just leave it alone lol

@mrbojangles25: An entire generation has been raised on the virtues of neoliberalism as a cureall. The fact that these people responded to the 2008 crisis with austerity measures should be enough to prove they've lost their bearings on reality.

From what I hear, the guy did a relatively good job with his own state. Balancing the budget and all. If I was american, that would be the guy I would vote for if I lived in a blue or red state.

Out of curiousity, how? Isnt Libertarianism pretty much Republican ideologies, minus a lot of the stupidity? No Dick Cheney foreign policy, no religious right trying to legislate their agenda, no ultra-nationalism?

In what ways are the republicans better?

Libertarians generally believe that a fully fledged free market economy is the way to go and that any type of government program, even ones that can be effective in helping those who need help, are bad.

Problem is that businesses can be corrupt, aren't always efficient, and can take advantage of flawed systems to reap profits. For example, you have private prisons, toll roads, charter schools, and the healthcare insurance businesses. I don't think libertarians would support such types of businesses that prey on the disadvantaged or maintain the status quo but privatization isn't always a great thing and businesses don't necessarily answer to voters.

Also, smaller government doesn't necessarily mean better governance. You have countries who are just as competitive as the U.S. or even more competitive in terms of market economy, yet have government programs that aid in paying for college, affordable housing, welfare, and the like.

Isnt that what the republicans (as a party) believe too in terms of economy, or is it just the fringe republicans that outscream the more sane ones?

Republicans, for all their faults, are not as hostile toward the safety net, regulations, etc. and they don't have weird opinions about child labor and what not. Also, I don't agree that there's no ultra-nationalism on the Libertarian side.

But the Libertarians are better than the Republicans in some ways (and you've stated those). It's just that Libertarians don't understand the concept of social responsibility. Republicans don't either, but they're not as bad as the Libertarians on that score.

It depends. Generally the Republican Party is supportive of free market principles but do support government programs such as social security and medicare as well as higher defense and homeland security spending. Also Republicans would support initiatives that encourage higher employment and business growth such as tax cuts and subsidization of certain industries, which may or may not work. Generally speaking, libertarians oppose any government influence, whether it's positive or negative.

I dont support any of these people. Whether or not they are good people is missing the point. They are all subservient to rigid ideologies, and numerous other affiliations. what we need is a borad minded, balanced approach that draws aspects from a vast number of positions, aligned with compromise. Instead, we get a bunch of teams trying to put us into their lane.

Ahh, so I have just been listening to the fringe republicans too much then, fair enough. Good to know. The fringe is really scary.

Don't blame the politicians for that, blame the voters who think voting is an act of personal expression and only ever want someone who closely aligns with their ideological makeup rather than choosing someone who is best fit to lead the country.

lol at Gary Johnson today. Getting rid of the income tax and corporate income tax....replace it with flat consumption tax. And people don't understand how Libertarians aren't taken seriously.

Which is why I'm very disappointed this Election Year! I'm NOT gonna vote this year's Election. Had Mitt Romney step in again, I would've voted that man for sure.

In theory a consumption tax wouldn't be a bad thing.

If you spend money in America it's taxed.

Doesn't matter if it's drug money, illegal immigrant money, legit money, or poor peoples money.

Everyone pays their share from the 1% to the lower class.

The problem is, that the rich would still get their breaks and cuts and it would be the middle and lower class still taking the brunt of the cost.

Far too radical with his free market ideology. On domestic fiscal policy he would be considered a radical Republican were he running as a Republican.

No, I don't want to give social security to the states (where it will promptly be privatized in Republican states).

No, I don't want to eliminate the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, etc., which oversee a plethora of programs that necessarily help and protect real people.

No, I don't think the GREAT INVISIBLE HAND of capitalism will solve climate change through the free market. Yes, I do believe regulation can and should play a role in this environmental issue and others.

No, I don't want to get rid income taxes in favor of consumption taxes that initially favor the wealthy and would shift the tax burden to the poor and middle class (Rich people don't spend all their money, poor people do. Therefore a higher percentage of the poor's money would be subject to a consumption tax. He claims his tax would be structured not to include family necessities, although no matter how it's structured it's still a shift downward in the burden, and there are zero details about what goods and services would be exempted and without those details I stand by my objections).

I don't approve of an education policy that is focused entirely on political buzzwords like "choice and flexibility," which is code for attempting to damage, drain and kill public schools in favor of private and semi-private schooling. Just because throwing money at public schooling isn't the answer, that doesn't mean we abandon our responsibility to improve public schooling, and competition from the private sector through vouchers is not the answer to EVERYTHING.

While I approve of caution and congressional debate before the use of force (I would approve of an amendment to ban the offensive use of force), even I find his rhetoric on foreign policy a little pollyannish. The US is the leader of the global economy, we can't simply swear off "meddling" because everything we do with regard to our interests, which are global, has serious consequences including the absence of doing anything.

My preference is for Clinton.

If I were an ideological Republican however, I would definitely vote for him over the bigoted, narcissistic sociopath running on that ticket. Even as someone ideologically far left of center, I wouldn't fear Johnson's election, I merely oppose it.

It is the nature of a "first past the post" voting system that has been affected by gerrymandering. In other words, the blame lies in a combination of our federal and state electoral systems, but it has always been this way (partisan) save for rare moments when big events supersede ideology. It's a good thing that things are calm enough that ideology is the argument. If they weren't, it would be because of immanent war or like existential threat. May not interest you, but that doesn't make it unimportant. And no offense, but Mitt Romney was highly partisan during his run, his ideology was merely more moderate, but I can only think of one or two examples of not "staying in his lane".

Point 1 a question...

10% of $20,000 is $2,000

10% of $100,000,000 is $10,000,000

Do you really think the burden of losing $2000 and being left with $18,000 is the same as the burden of losing $10,000,000 and being left with $90,000,000?

My answer, I would like the second person's "burden" more than the first.

Point 2 a fact...

On average, if you make 100,000,000 a significant portion of your money will not be spent on consumption. Some will be saved, some will be invested.

On average, if you make 20,000, almost everything you make will be spent because it has to be in order to survive.

I don't disagree.

That's why a straight percentage Tax is Bullshit.

It's just another way for the 1% to put the burden on the low and middle class.

A Consumption tax works a lot different than this.

Exactly. This is why those promoting a "flat tax", "fair tax", or "consumption tax" are usually the "conservative" political groups.

It's still regressive on income.

A 10% flat tax yields 10% of the income of the very rich and 10% of lower middle class income.

A 10% consumption tax means the lower middle class person will pay close to 10% of their income on taxes, since everything they make is spent on consumption (rent is not exempt from the fair tax, by the way), this is not true for the rich, who can afford to save and invest (which is exempt) and thereby avoid taxation.

Those in poverty are often exempted anyways, but the poverty line is about $16,000 in my state for an individual. What's more those in poverty would have their burden go down because of the loss of payroll taxes. The program required to achieve those exemptions would be huge, by the way.

In short, the very poor and very rich (actually anyone who makes more than a couple hundred thousand a year) would see immediate benefit from a consumption tax, and the middle classes of course, have to offset those who are now paying less.

However, the sales tax does increase purchasing power and may cause incomes to rise for the middle class over time, but how long it would take for this to overcome their new increased share of the burden is difficult to know.

I'm not reflexively against the sales tax because of that last point, but I am against the sales tax as proposed, which would be used to cut government revenue in a surreptitious way (a 34% sales tax would be required to offset our current system, while the consumption tax as proposed is only a 30% tax) while increasing the immediate burden on the middle class. If it was some sort of hybrid where the top bracket pays a small income tax on top of the sales tax temporarily to offset their lower burden and the loss of government revenue, while everyone else was switched to the sales tax then I would be more OK with it, but that will never happen. Although I would still be concerned with the unintended long term consequences of rewarding saving in an economy built on consumption.

buhahahahahahaha

Christ, and Jill Stein went and spray painted some bulldozers in ND. Please keep telling me how viable these 3rd party candidates are!

So I believe today, people have their answer about Gary. Also Jill was always an awful choice if people took 1 second to look at her insane positions in health

from the new yorker's profile on him. lol

Better question should be, "Who's Gary Johnson?". Lol.