The Washington Post echoes what others have pointed out about the Libertarian Party and it's flaky nominee:
To those who support him out of disgust with “the system” — or, perhaps, because of his stand favoring marijuana legalization — do you know what else he stands for? He opposes strong federal action to address climate change. He supports the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which stands at the core of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) criticism of “the system.” Mr. Johnson opposes the national minimum wage. He opposes federal aid for college students. He opposes government involvement ensuring universal health-care coverage. He opposes rudimentary gun regulations. His views do not, as some might suppose, represent a sensible, reality-based combination of fiscal reason and social tolerance; he favors less government even where government is badly needed. (our emphasis)
A recent NBC News/Quinnipiac poll reveals that more than a quarter of young voters—many who had supported the presidential bid of Sen. Bernie Sanders—plan to cast their presidential ballots for Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
Gary Johnson? Gary "What's Aleppo?" Johnson? Yeah, the legalizing pot guy. Well, let's see what other "millennial- friendly" positions does the ultra- right Johnson take?
1. He opposes Federal guarantees for student loans.
2. He opposes virtually all forms of gun control.
3. He opposes the minimum wage.
4. He opposes equal pay laws.
5. He opposes collective bargaining for public employees.
6. He proposes cuts to Social Security and "devolving" Medicare and Medicaid to the states.
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, takes what he calls the "long-term view" of climate change. "In billions of years," he said in 2011, "the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future."
The former New Mexico governor did acknowledge that humans are making the world warmer in the near term, too—but he doesn't think the government should do much about it. In the same speech, he denounced "cap-and-trade taxation," said we "should be building new coal-fired plants," and argued that the "trillions" of dollars it would cost to combat climate change would be better spent on other priorities. (our emphasis)
Catherine Rampell cites the Quinnipiac poll and thinks the "crush" some millennials have on Johnson will fade:
[A] tighter race — one, ironically, made tighter largely because of millennial defections from the Clinton camp — changes the calculus. It’s riskier to “throw away” your vote, either by supporting someone who has no chance of winning or by abstaining from the polls altogether.
See, millennials may not adore Clinton, but they really, really hate Trump. Six in 10 young voters view him “strongly” unfavorably, and the same share describe him as “racist.” Don’t be surprised if their third-party crushes start to fade as the prospect of President Trump begins to feel all too terrifyingly real.
We wish we could be so sanguine. The shiny object that is Gary Johnson can turn into the presidency of neo- fascist dimwit Donald "Rump" Trump in a little over a month. Think about that. Think about what Sen. Bernie Sanders said on September 16:
"This is not the time for a protest vote, in terms of a presidential campaign," Sanders said. "I ran as a third-party candidate. I'm the longest-serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. I know more about third-party politics than anyone else in the Congress, okay? And if people want to run as third-party candidates, God bless them! Run for Congress. Run for governor. Run for state legislature. When we're talking about president of the United States, in my own personal view, this is not time for a protest vote. This is time to elect Hillary Clinton and then work after the election to mobilize millions of people to make sure she can be the most progressive president she can be." (our emphasis)
On November 8, the only choice is between Hillary Clinton and Rump. If you think and vote otherwise, it means you're willing to risk an apocalyptic Rump presidency. Period.
UPDATE: If you think this guy is playing with a full deck, watch this clip ("Yippee!"):
Fux Business personality and life support system for a '70s porn 'stache John Stossel thinks that we can do away with the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) because giant corporations like Walmart will always do the right thing and come to the aid of the needy (without writing off the "contributions" on their taxes or raising prices to maintain profit margins, right?). Randian libertarian gadfly Stossel is apparently relying on the right-wing philosopher Frederick Hayek's "theory" of spontaneous organization, that suggests that a generous outpouring of aid from corporate giants would supplant organized Federal assistance. Riiiiight! Shades of Ayn Rand and Galt's Gulch.
If Stossel's thinking (such as it is) is correct, then why was there a need for FEMA in the first place? Certainly organizations like the Red Cross provide important and welcome assistance in times of natural disasters, but what corporation has the resources and reach of the Federal Government -- not to mention the requirement -- to assist communities in times of need. Large companies do contribute (and claim a tax deduction) when they provide aid after a natural disaster, but to think that the likes of Walmart could and would replace an organized, national recovery effort is simply loony. And the large companies would probably be among the first to say so.
