Home 2016 elections Handy Positions Table for Any Progressive, Environmentalist, Millennial, etc. Even Thinking About...

Handy Positions Table for Any Progressive, Environmentalist, Millennial, etc. Even Thinking About Voting for Gary Johnson

1031083
437
SHARE

This handy table comparing candidates’ positions on the issues has been shooting around Facebook, thought it was worth sharing here as well. Great work by the folks who created this (note: it wasn’t us, although we think it’s excellent).

  • True Blue

    Thanks for this concise comparison/contrast.

  • FreeDrop

    If you’re going to compare/contrast, you should probably let him debate.

  • Nathaniel David Lane

    Um…. Jill Stein? She’s on 48 ballots. Typical MSM. Do your job and quit showing your favoritism.

    • Jill Stein is nuts. As for the MSM, this is most certainly NOT that – we are a progressive, strongly pro-Democratic Virginia political blog. We have zero interest in Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, only in electing Hillary Clinton and stopping neo-fascist Donald Trump.

      • Nathaniel David Lane

        Then why is Johnson included?

        • Ahhhh…I see the confusion,, you incorrectly thought that this blog created that chart, instead of just reprinting it (note that Twitter, Facebook, pretty much everywhere; just included it here for convenience).

          • Nathaniel David Lane

            You were the one who said you don’t care about Johnson or Stein, and you were the one who posted a image that includes Johnson and not Stein. You do realize we are seeing this same dynamic play out EVERYWHERE in the media and TRUE progressives see right through it. And it just encourages us to fight for Jill that much more.

          • Both Johnson and Stein are utterly unqualified to be president, plus again, only one of two candidates – Hillary Clinton or (god forbid) Donald Trump will be elected president on November 8, so a vote for anyone else is a complete waste (or worse, a de facto vote for Trump).

          • Another woman

            There is no candidate fighting for people Planet Air food and water. That makes her overqualified.

            I’m a mother I think that it would be in my son’s best interest to vote for someone that is focused on the future and not a toxic Earth.

            Trump and Hillary is the same vote. You get the same person. You get two people that are fighting for billionaires.

          • Wade Branstner

            TRUMP AND HILLARY, TOTALLY OPPOSITE ON CLIMATE:

            Taken directly from Clinton’s (hopefully the democratic) platform:

            Clinton 10 year Goals:
            -every home in America on green energy within 10yrs
            -cut energy waste in US homes and public buildings by 1/3 and make manufacturing clean and efficient
            -reduce US oil se by 1/3 through cleaner fuels, auto and shipping efficiency
            -uphold the Paris conference

            Policies as president:
            -protect and extend pollution controls and efficiency standards for autos and home stuff
            -$60 Billion Clean Energy Challenge to help US municipalities do their part locally **
            -invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, and workforce development **
            -ensure safe energy production **
            reform public land leasing
            -cut tax subsidies for big oil
            -cut methane emissions
            -revitalize coal communities ** NOT A PRO COAL EXTRACTION
            -addresses the impact of the managed transition from coal
            -re-vamps the infrastructure linking coal to other industries
            -protects health commitments by coal companies that will close
            -addresses black lung
            -r & d for carbon sequestration
            -expands broadband access to coal communities
            -expands clean energy on federal lands (re: coal country)
            -supports entrepreneurship and education for re-training
            -expand low income access to solar energy
            -prioritize environmental justice including cleanup of brown fields

            Trump’s plan (it really is very short)

            -declares American Energy Dominance to be a foreign policy
            -opens all known reserves of oil, gas, shale (fracking) and coal
            -become truly independent by severing OPEC ties
            -opens offshore (deep sea) leasing
            -promotes natural gas to address emissions
            -rescind all executive orders related to energy (environmental)

            In his own words:
            “We’re going to rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. …We’re going to save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.
            I’m going to ask Trans Canada to renew its permit application for the Keystone Pipeline….We’re going to lift moratoriums on energy production in federal areas…We’re going to revoke policies that impose unwarranted restrictions on new drilling technologies. These technologies create millions of jobs with a smaller footprint than ever before….We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs….Any regulation that is outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers, or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped. We will also eliminate duplication, provide regulatory certainty, and trust local officials and local residents….Any future regulation will go through a simple test: is this regulation good for the American worker? If it doesn’t pass this test, the rule will not be approved.” (copied directly from platform)

          • Correct:: Trump and Clinton can’t be more opposite (Trump horrible, Clinton excellent) on energy and the environment, and again, one of them will be president. Also, Gary Johnson is a nightmare on energy and the environment, so it makes no sense for any environmentalist to vote for him.

          • Suz Just Suz

            More opposite? Seriously?
            Are you familiar with the politicalcompass dot org’s website and their grid to break down left/right as a representation of economics and up/down aka authoritarian/libertarian as a representation of social policy? Because on that grid both Obama AND Clinton come out deep in the authoritarian/conservative grid not too far from pretty much any republican. I will give you that Trump is closer to Hitler than they are, but that’s not really saying much.

            Stein is the closest to the center than any of them, and socially she is actually slightly more libertarian than Johnson.

            Of course this assumes that we understand that American politics are skewed so far right across the board that we as a nation don’t really understand what liberal or progressive actually means anymore, particularly when compared to the rest of the western world.

            But no, Trump and Clinton are NOT complete opposites other than superficially.

            And I can point out several claims by this meme that are disingenuous at best. For example, it says Clinton supports women’s reproductive rights but it doesn’t mention that there is video of Clinton saying she’d be willing to negotiate a constitutional amendment with the republicans regarding late stage abortion if they would come to her with a plan that makes concessions for the health of the mother. I don’t call being willing to negotiate ANY facet of my body autonomy away for any reason “supportive of women’s reproduction.” This is only one example where the meme is misleading.

            Also, a lot of the stuff she’s alleged to support she was very slow to get on board with, has recently been heard in an audio presentation to admit she thinks isn’t feasible or reasonable, and only agreed to because she was forced to by the Sanders camp. Which essentially means it’ll all melt away after the election.

            Don’t even get me started on the proof that the DNC broke its own rules and colluded with the media to sabotage Sanders campaign. If you ignore your party’s corruption you also condone it.

            And let’s just finally admit that both the dems and the republicans are supply side, aka Reaganomics, economists much to the detriment of the middle class. In fact on that grid I mentioned above Hillary is, economically, a smidge more conservative than Trump.

            Anybody who is paying attention knows that the authoritarianism in this country is off the rails, but we’ve been inured to it slowly since the Patriot Act. The problem is that authoritarianism is a breeding ground for all the other ugly isms and so now it’s blowing up in our faces with race relations, rape culture, prisons for profit, and on and on. Both parties did that and will continue to do it until we stop giving them the power to do it.

            I don’t really care if other people agree with me. I don’t much care if Stein can or can’t win. I care that I can look my grand kids in the face and say that I stood up and voted against the oligarchs and imperialists and fascists, and that I voted to make the planet a place they could live on rather than just try to survive on. I want to be able to tell them that I saw that “working from within” was complete and total BS and that I said “no, I’m not going to do it anymore.”

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e6dfa86dcf76146b109c064d80e0b2943bec64a42c25eb10817b9bf786b1b124.jpg

          • Boojum

            Jill Stein will not be elected. Why don’t you just write in your own name, as it will have just as much impact and you can be sure you agree?

          • Suz Just Suz

            Was my post TL so you DR? I answered this question in my post.

          • Wade Branstner

            I made it easy anyone to get the points from the 2 main platforms. Clinton’s are more paraphrased because of her extensive planning and detail, but if it was a college paper I’d be plagiarizing almost word for word from both platforms.

            I am trying to stay detached and cool, but we are talking about how we will meet an impending ecosystem collapse. It’s hard to remain civil when otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people like some people on this thread are so lost.

            If you proudly parrot the unequivocally ridiculous claim that Clinton and Trump are the same thing I beg you to stop. That statement is completely false- totally at odds with objective reality. You discredit yourself every time it flies through your fingertips. If you truly believe they are the same, I pray that you will remove yourself from meaningful discourse until you have read and understand the platforms and how they differ.

            Also, anyone who doesn’t understand that reversing climate change’s worst effects at this late hour will involve the world’s billionaires, well, I don’t know what to say. The sad part is, for now, until you inform yourself, you are the ones who should be speechless.

          • Wade Branstner

            I made it easy for you and anyone to get the points from the 2 main platforms. Clinton’s are more paraphrased because of her extensive planning and detail, but if it was a college paper I’d be plagiarizing almost word for word on both platforms.

            I am trying to stay detached and cool, but we are talking about how we will meet an impending ecosystem collapse. It’s hard to remain civil when otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people like yourself are so lost.

            You proudly parrot the unequivocally ridiculous claim that Clinton and Trump are the same thing. That statement is completely false- totally at odds with objective reality. You discredit yourself every time it flies through your fingertips. If you truly believe they are the same, I pray that you will remove yourself from meaningful discourse until you have read and understand the platforms and how they differ.

            And finally, if you don’t think that reversing climate change’s worst effects at this late hour will involve the world’s billionaires, well, I don’t know what to say. The sad part is, for now, until you inform yourself, you are the one who should be speechless.

          • Thank you for that. After reading all this utter bull**** and cluelessness from Stein supporters today, I really needed a “palate cleanser.” Heh.

          • Wade Branstner

            you’re welcome. I am re-posting it in a general post…I would like my statements to be read and thought about, not felt as a personal attack.

          • Good idea, where are you going to post this? I look forward to reading it. Thanks.

          • Wade Branstner

            I just added it below the summary of the 2 platforms following this comment.

          • Boojum

            Did you not read the chart? Please do so, compare Hillary to Trump, and try not to make asinine statements.

          • CoyoteNW

            This is nuts! Hillary and Trump the same on environment? Or anything for that matter!?! That’s insanely uninformed. I can’t really believe that I just read that!

          • BreakingDeadMen

            You are sadly deluded. I heard that argument in 2000. What did we get in 2001? Do you really think a Gore admin would have been indistinguishable from the one we had with Bush? Especially on the environment.

          • Nathaniel David Lane

            Then why include one and not the other? If you mean what you say, neither Jill or Gary should be on this chart. What you are doing is very transparent.

          • This chart was created by someone else, we just reposted it here for the convenience of our readers. Feel free to create a chart like this with Stein or any other candidate you’d like included.

          • Nathaniel David Lane

            I already have made comparison charts. I’m the Ohio coordinator for the Stein campaign. Much more honest than this drivel.

          • Dennis G. Lambert

            A wasted vote is one not taken.

            It is selfish and undemocratic to assume the Republicans and Democrats automatically get the votes.

            You are presenting the idea that your candidates are superior and therefore nobody deserves a vote except those chosen by the Democrats or Republicans.

            Sounds like Russia or Iraq, not the United States of America.

          • Wade Branstner

            If Stein really wants to make an impact she should form substantive coalitions within her sphere of influence and build from the ground up, just like Clinton and Johnson did. Or any other public servant who mattered. Chipping away from the top reinforces her image as an amateur. Her list of pipe dreams is a far cry from a governing platform. As of today, it looks like the only sphere of influence on Stein’s mind is the one Glinda the Good Witch uses to get around in fantasyland. That is why she is rightly not included in the chart.

          • Yep, Stein is a complete joke, completely unqualified, kinda loony, utterly unrealistic. #FAIL all around.

          • Lou Novak

            Classic psychological projection

          • Boojum

            And just like Sanders did. He parlayed his support into real, substantive policy changes in Clinton’s agenda. That’s called “politics”, also known as the art of compromise.

          • Wade Branstner

            Clinton is the superior candidate.

          • Boojum

            Sounds like a pragmatic decision, made by an adult. You sound like a child whose parents did a little too much of the helicopter. No, sweetie, you aren’t going to get your way, no matter how blue you turn.

          • Randal Pink

            Thank you Dennis

          • s v

            Oh so you admit you already have it rigged to prevent a winning number of votes for Johnson or Stein from counting.

          • Boojum

            Neither Johnson nor Stein have enough support to matter. “Have it rigged?” Do you realize how insane you sound? This blog is in on a vote rigging scheme to prevent two non-entities from having their votes counted?

          • Right, and we post a table created by other people that has gone viral on Facebook…and it’s all a big conspiracy! LOL

          • Patricia Anne Donohue

            hey enjoy the war that Clinton will intensify or that TRUMP will home-grow. Don’t believe me Obama just started the bombing and the deployments just this week. It is quite obvious you do not believe in free public education for all americans, universal health care without big insurance middlemen, or saving this planet. Jill Stein is a medical doctor that is far more intelligent and educated than you obviously. Just becasue you belong to a party does not mean that party owns your vote. READ, THINK and make a conscience decision this November 8th for a candidate that isn’t bought and paid for by the international corporations. Yes check out Jill2016.com, or are you that afraid of learning something about the actual isses in this election period. pa

          • Randal Pink

            Yes! Thank you. The Hillary supporters here sound like the Trump supporters

          • spambrando

            Sheep Stepford Hubby

          • Lou Novak

            Oh, there’s plenty of confusion to see here.. Self fulfilling prophecy, cognitive dissonance, denial etc. all aimed at electing her royal highness Hillary. As to examples of privilege, just follow Chelsea on the campaign trail.

        • CoyoteNW

          Because he at least shows up in the polls. Although the reality is that he’s as far out there as Stein.

      • David Babiy

        You are running a neoliberal blog with little interest in democracy.

      • marymcgloin

        Jill Stein is a Harvard educated medical doctor who’s been the Green Party candidate before. She is quite “qualified”. Her stances on the issues are the most liberal and progressive of the bunch. I understand that you’re terrified of Dump, but the only way he wind is if people actually vote FOR him. Or don’t vote. I’m sick of liberals bullying other liberals out of this propaganda of fear. We should be encouraging each other to vote period. And for the candidate who’s values and policies match own own. Whoever that is. Not fighting amongst ourselves and posting about Dump, who’s had far too much free press from the media.

        • Boojum

          Why should we do that? Not everybody gets a trophy;p: Jill Stein won’t; Gary Johnson wont. We have to stop Trump. That leaves one choice. If you feel bullied when I tell you that, if you act like a precious snowflake and vote for Jill Stein, you run the risk of electing Trump, it is because I remember all of the precious snowflakes who voted for Nader, thereby (with a Supreme Court assist), electing George W. Bush.

          • marymcgloin

            9% of the population gave us Dump and Hilary. The majority of the population doesn’t vote, is Independent, then Democratic, then Republican. If by some miracle Dump wins, it’s because of people who vote for him or don’t vote. And that’s pathetic because anyone ahould beat him. These “conversations” always devolve into name calling, and I frankly don’t understand it. Stop blaming each other and work to get Congress to the left and people to vote, period.

          • Randal Pink

            People who call names opinion’s are invalid and as bad as Trump

        • Yeah, and Ben Carson is a famed neurosurgeon who graduated from Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, also authored numerous books. Your point?

        • Randal Pink

          Mary, you are not supposed to be mature and put facts on these threads. These threads are here to insult, tell you are wrong, and to put Harvard educated doctors down. Thank you Mary, Hillary represents everything I loathe about the current establishment, and Trump is a demagogue, I will be voting for Stein as well. “Liberals” are just as bad as the “Conservatives”, both of these so-called ideologies need to go. The bullying, insulting comments are further proving just that. I guess all those things Bernie said about Clinton were all just BS right? Or was he right all along. And I don’t even need to get started on Trump.

      • Patricia Anne Donohue

        hey enjoy the war that Clinton will intensify. Don’t believe me Obama just started the bombing and the deployments just this week. It is quite obvious you do not believe in free public education for all americans, universal health care without big insurance middlemen, or saving this planet. Jill Stein is a medical doctor that is far more intelligent and educated than you obviously. Just becasue you belong to a party does not mean that party owns your vote. READ, THINK and make a conscience decision this November 8th for a candidate that isn’t bought and paid for by the international corporations. Yes check out Jill2016.com, or are you that afraid of learning something about the actual isses in this election period. pa

      • Leota Scott

        Why do you say Jill is nuts.

      • True Blue

        “Only you can prevent a Trump presidency.”

        Well then. . . this reprinted chart has certainly generated interest from third partiers. I’m just curious where these new voices have been for the past year and where they stand on the other numerous issues facing America.

        Talking the talk and walking the walk for progressive causes here and out in our communities; many of us have done this for years.

        Maybe Steiners will create a blog like this one, and drive future impact. The libertarians already have a blog, bullelephant, which gives the anti-government folks their fix.

      • Scott Plumer

        I have to say, though, including Stein on the list would have been useful to see how nutty she really is.

        • Someone should do a chart just showing the nutty views of Trump, Johnson and Stein…would be fun. LOL

  • Caleb Whalen

    Any progressive, environmentalist should consider Jill Stein, being as she is the only one in the race.

    • Nope, for two reasons: 1) she has absolutely no chance, so effectively that’s a vote for Trump; 2) she’s completely unqualified.

      • Nathaniel David Lane

        So because the one candidate who truly calls for saving the planet doesn’t have a chance of winning, we shouldn’t support her? It seems to me that is all the more reason for us to get behind her and to support her.

        • One of two people will be elected president on November 8 Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Any other vote is wasted and/or de facto a vote for Trump.

          • Another woman

            I’m voting for Jill Stein that doesn’t make my vote for Trump. That’s impossible because I was never voting for Hillary in the first place.

            I don’t want lied to by my government everyday of my life. I want someone that’s going to go into the White House and tell us the truth. That’s going to do everything that’s honest and fair. How could anyone want anything else?

          • DL2

            You obviously, another woman, want something else, because your vote for Jill Stein IS a vote for Trump, whom you (and all the rest of us who want to puke) will get. Look, I think so many people have completely ignored what I believe is their responsibility to do their own research. So here’s some about HIllary: she’s worked on behalf of women and girls all her life. In 1994, she was one of the first to write about and seek recognition for modern slavery. And, perhaps you remember her work on affordable health care, etc. You may want Jill Stein but you are casting, as lowkell above wrote, a defacto vote for Trump. Sure, you can–as I can–vote for whomever we want, just recognize what your choice can enable: we can get Mr.-I-Don’t-Believe-In-Climate-Change, Mr. Misogynist, etc. as President.

          • Exactly.

          • karen how

            But Stein is not going to go into the White House.

            It’s a binary choice in a flawed system, and one of TWO candidates will be in the white house.

            If you can’t get destination, go for direction.

            We will have either a Trump presidency or a Clinton presidency.

            Think about the progressive goals and ideals that you claim, and consider which president would make that easier to advance, or harder?

            When people insist that they must vote for someone other than the only two candidates that will mathematically enter the White House, what they’re really saying is: I’m okay with EITHER of these two candidates being president. Trump or Clinton is okay by me.

            Now look in the mirror and ask yourself: am I really okay with racism? Am I really okay with xenophobia? Am I really okay with women’s rights being dismantled? Am I really okay with misogyny? Am I really okay with Citizens United? Am I really okay with the scant environmental protections that we have now, being walked back and eliminated?

            Voting third party in this election is like demanding that solar panels be put on the roof of a house that is on fire.

          • “karen how” nails it.

      • Caleb Whalen

        1) considering the right has Gray Johnson to contend with, the spoiler vote cancels out.

        2) despite not holding office, she is on the right side of history. I would say that is better than 30 years of making the wrong decisions.

      • Nathaniel David Lane

        Again, you included Trump and Johnson on this image. Do you honestly think that either one of them is qualified to be president? And do you think that Johnson has a chance of winning? And if you don’t think Johnson has a chance of winning, why did you include an image with his information and not Jill?

      • Another woman

        How is my vote… a vote for Trump. I wasn’t ever voting for Hillary. I would never vote for her. Even if Jill Stein wasn’t running I’m not voting for Hillary. See because the planet that I live on should come before people’s money. Because my son’s future food Air & water should come before billionaires. How is she not qualified? I mean be specific just don’t come on here post stuff and you ain’t got no back to it. She’s a doctor she studied psychology economics, she has been fighting for economic Justice pipelines oil bad food bad air and bad water for the last 30 years. How is she not qualified?. Anybody that wants to end the war is qualified !!!! Hillary is not qualified. She’s corrupt dishonest lies to us does not promote people and planet ahead of billionaires profits. That disqualifies her. Trump is not qualified. His only mission in life is to make money. That’s all he cares about. He doesn’t care about the planet that we live on or the people that live on it. That makes him not qualified. The number one qualification for running for president should be that you are concerned about the planet that we live on and the people that are living on it. Every woman in the United States should be voting for the woman that is going to promote peace prosperity people and Planet.

        • Everyone who writes for this site is a passionate environmentalist, and we’re all strongly for Hillary Clinton. The only other choice is Trump, who would literally destroy the planet.

          • Nathaniel David Lane
          • Yep, after Trump’s defeated and she’s elected, enviros and progressives need to push her to be as strong on the things we care about as possible.

          • Wade Branstner

            We already did with Bernie’s run. Now we just need to let them govern if we can get her elected!

          • Bingo.

          • Lou Novak

            Why the fear-mongering? You do know that there are two other branches of gov’t providing checks and balances to the executive branch, don’t you? We’re electing a president, not a dictator.

          • karen how

            Where do you think the Supreme Court justices come from? Think about who nominates them and who confirms them.

            And then think about who rules on whether or not environmental protections should be enforced, or even be legal. Think about who rules on whether or not marriage equality is law. Think about who decides whether a women’s right to choose should be modified. Think about reasonable gun laws, think about Citizen’s United…

            The Supreme Court and the Federal courts all are filled with judges with *lifetime* appointments.

            Think about who nominates, think about who confirms.

          • VERY important comment by “karen how” – the courts are absolutely crucial.

          • Sabbie

            The TPP will destroy the environment, and it’s on the official Democratic Party agenda.

          • Not exactly. Here’s the Democratic Party platform, which you’ll note doesn’t endorse the TPP, but instead lays out “standards Democrats believe must be applied to all trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership “

        • Nathaniel David Lane

          Exactly. I was a Jill supporter before Hillary even announced she was running. Hillary NEVER had my vote to begin with and neither did Trump.

          • Paulo

            Trump just got your vote.

        • Wade Branstner

          Wade Branstner She has the heart of the kind of leader we need. She is un-qualified. Here’s an incomplete list of problems that roughly follows her disjointed platform statement on her site:

          –Her energy policy would cripple some of the largest employers in the country. She calls for a World War scale paradigm shift, but shows no indication of how that might pass a Congress that is about half republican and in science denial.

          — GMO’s have been around for centuries, under development for 75 years, on the market in their commercial form for 35 years. There just isn’t enough data or history of correlated illnesses to merit a place on a governing platform,

          — Small businesses weren’t killed by greedy investors, they were systematically voted out of communities by the locals, a few quarters at a time, as they all chose WalMart savings over small town loyalty. So loans to re-open them sound nice but seem insignificant, maybe even without much demand..who would want to go into debt to compete with WalMart?

          — She attacks drug prices without a call how our pricing is tied into research and development world-wide (a de-facto subsidy for R and D in nations with price controls would have to be discovered and addressed before anything),

          — There is no clear link between organic food and a reduction of chronic disease (it makes sense, but that isn’t enough on a policy level),

          — She will repeal the Patriot Act but has no position on the monstrous, duplicative Dept. of Homeland Security,

          — She has a position on justice but skipped Salinas v Tx,

          — She would freeze Saudi Royal bank accounts…a family with the power to halt our economy at the time of their choosing,

          — She would democratize monetary policy under the darkest shadow of the right wing bias confirmation empire, at a time when our electorate has given Trump a neck in neck chance at the presidency…”OK America, should we continue unabated QE? Print more money? Or just all use gold like the good old days?”

          — She would throttle the flow of capital to thousands of honest small businesses by halting all evictions and foreclosures.

          It’s hyperbole to say a vote for her is a vote for Trump. Stated without any rhetorical flourish, a vote for Stein will directly and only benefit Trump. Her votes will not move America closer to a green future. Bernie did with his professionally crafted message born of experience and competence. Clinton will with her platform calling for a nation-wide solar grid and continuing the search for solutions that reduce emissions and create profit. If you don’t believe what I say here, look for yourself at her policy statement and compare it directly to Clinton’s detailed plan that considers congress, rural communities, environmental justice, federal land leases, and even methane. Take a look at Trump’s list straight from the desk of Mr. Burns. This is really important stuff. We owe it ourselves to put away the rumors of unexplainable Clinton evil and address the issues at hand because like it or not, one of them is going to drag the climate along with them.

      • Laurel

        It’s because of voters like you that change never happens. You are not the slightest bit progressive. Those of us voting for Jill Stein have the courage to do so because we will do whatever we can to oust the oligarchy, of which Clinton is part. And even if Jill does not win, if she gets 5% of the vote, the Green Party gets federal funding and will be automatically included on the next election’s ballot. Go ahead and cower in fear of Trump if you want. The rest of us will be stepping up for democracy.

        • DL2

          The “courage to do so,” Laurel? Spoken like someone who
          a) doesn’t care about the damage that will happen to those who are vulnerable, who don’t have a voice (that could be seen if Trump–with his belief that climate change isn’t happening gets in, plus all the Muslims he wishes to prevent from coming in, etc. etc.) and b) is completely ignoring what Hillary has done in her 40 plus years. She’s one of the first (see 1994) who has written about modern slavery and she raised awareness of it, etc. She has done a lot of work for affordable health care, etc.

          BUT NO, you’ve got god on your side with Jill Stein; YOU get to safely sit out the damage you will contribute to by voting for Stein and helping Trump WHILE ignoring a perfectly good candidate in Hillary. That’s your choice, of course, but the high and mighty (WE–and ONLY WE–have the courage) smells as bad as Trump’s feces.

      • KathyinBlacksburg

        Lowell is right. Zero chance. Zero cred. I am an always Bernie supporter who, will vote for Hillary. Imwill be backmwith Bernie after this election. You have to be kidding that Jill Stein is qualified to be pres. PS What part of the evidence of decades of elections do you not yet get? I have been involved in politics for nearly five decades and your dream world doesn’t work in the US. We do not have a parliamentary system. You build a third party from the ground up, not the top down. Even if a Stein presidency were possible (and desirable) at some future time, she would have nothing but an invalidating Congress.

        Most important you do have a moral responsibility to vote for a sane candidate, and not indirectly enable a sociopath with atomic weaponry. False equivalence is just that, FALSE. You have not been paying attention if you think there is any equivalence between Hillary and Trump. If you vote Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, you elect Trump. PS The aftermath will also be YOUR fault.

      • Lou Novak

        You say that like you believe it is true. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true.

    • Another woman

      I agree nothing is more important than food water air planet and the people that need it and are living on it. A vote for anything else is a vote for Destruction corruption and the end.

      • DL2

        To Another woman–you are LIVING already on another planet if you can write that and vote for Jill Stein. Because we will then be flirting with the very real possibility of Trump winning and that would be a vote for the end of all sorts of things, from an effective EPA to the Affordable Healthcare Act gathering anywhere from 4-6 million more people to NOTHING being done about climate change.

        • Trump would mean the end of: a) American democracy; b) any hope of saving the climate; c) civil liberties; d) progress for African Americans; e) world peace; f) etc, etc. Again, this is simple logic: there are two candidates who have a shot on November 8, one named “Donald Trump” and the other named “Hillary Clinton.” End of story.

  • Another woman

    Where’s Jill Stein.
    Bogus unless u include all !!
    Not fair. Just another site oppressing people and what they want.
    I want people and planet to come before rich people’s money ????? Can’t eat money. Can’t drink oil.
    #jillstein2016

    • Earl Henson

      Stein is missing because he’s trying to get a job on CNN or MSNBC.

    • Boojum

      I want Christmas twice a year and a goose that lays chocolate eggs. Jill Stein would promise that there are real questions about these ideas that need to be answered.

    • If she were in every ballot, maybe there would be a shot of me voting for her, but she has absolutely zero chance of winning. Absolutely none, so a vote for Stein would be a wasted vote, unless she were in every ballot and could win a single state to cause a potential electoral vote deadlock.

      There’s a possibility this can happen with Gary Johnson, as he is in every ballot, but I’m not sure I like his policies.

      I hate Clinton with the utmost of my being, but what is the other alternative? Trump would be an absolute disgrace to this country.

  • Andy Schmookler

    These things I would hope that everyone would concede are true:

    1) Only two people are possibly the next president of the U.S.: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

    2) The difference between Hillary and Trump on the environment (including climate change), and on virtually every other major issue, is vast and important.

    3) Every person who votes for a third party candidate means that whoever that person would prefer between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will get one fewer vote than if that person had voted for one of the actually possible winner.

    4) That means that the victory of the worse of the two possible winners become more likely.

    5) The experts are saying that the problem of climate change is urgent, meaning that what is done now and in the coming few years matters. Thus is is imprudent, if one regards climate change as a major issue, to play a long game– like the generations it took for the women’s suffrage movement to win for women the right to vote.

    Is there any point here that any of you Jill Stein voters would contest?

    If not, can you please present a plausible scenario by which people voting for Jill Stein, and Donald Trump being elected president, leads to a better outcome for planet earth than those same people voting for Hillary Clinton and thereby helping her, not Trump, become president?

    And if you can’t, is there something you care about more than the “better outcome,” i.e. more than the actual consequences for our world?

    • This (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30092016/stake-climate-change-2016-election-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-paris-clean-power-plan) kind of sums it up (by the super-enviros at InsideClimate News): What’s at Stake for the Climate in the 2016 Election? Everything: The choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump holds U.S. climate policy, and the Paris agreement, in the balance.

    • Dex

      That’s the point — I HAVE no preference between Clinton and Trump.

      • Andy Schmookler

        Well, that would explain a lot– if one takes it as a given, the rest follows.

        But not taking it as a given, a few questions arise:

        1) Do you agree with what Ralph Nader said, in 2000, that there wasn’t “a dime’s worth of difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush? (Which might also be framed: Do you think that W in the White House was no worse than having Al Gore in the White House would have been? Which could also be framed: do you think there would have been an Iraq war if Al Gore had been president? And do you think that things like the Iraq war are no big deal?)

        2) Does your not having a preference between Hillary and the Donald mean that you don’t think there are really big differences in the likely presidencies of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

        • Dex

          The difference between W and Gore, and Clinton and Trump, is the same as the difference between any D and R. Just a question of which rights they want to infringe.

          • Andy Schmookler

            If you are saying that it didn’t really matter whether the Iraq war launched in 2002 took place, or didn’t take place — and that seems a reasonable though not certain inference to draw — then, to my mind, that means that either you have little grasp of how the human world moves, or a morality that is little concerned with the condition of the world, no moral concerns at all.

            I gather it is not the last of those three. But I’d have to hear more about how you rationalize your indifference between importantly different options to know just where you’re coming from.

            In any event, anyone who can contemplate W’s presidency — and not see an important contrast with the spirit that Al Gore has brought to his work — and who can contemplate the abysmal character of Donald Trump — and not see an important contrast with Hillary Clinton’s lifelong clearly sincere concern about children and familities — is living in a different moral universe from the one I inhabit.

          • Dex

            Actually, I figure that after 9/11, Gore would also have spilled over from Afghanistan into Iraq. We’d probably have just as bad a surveillance state, PLUS he’d have been pushing for gun control for his entire term of office.

            Clinton is another authoritarian statist, and will trample just as many rights as Bush did.

      • karen how

        As a middle aged white man, I guess you can afford to think that way as you won’t get hurt.

        Really consider the real-world differences that a Clinton presidency or Trump presidency mean for women. How about for minorities? For the environment?

        Or do we need to appeal only to your self interest and state that a Trump presidency means YOUR drinking water, YOUR air, YOUR personal bubble will be affected?

        In a Trump presidency the scant environmental protection laws that we currently have will be rolled back, and pollution will increase.

        Consider what it really says about *yourself* when you say that you don’t care if either Trump or Clinton is president. You’re saying: I’m alright with racism; I’m alright with misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, discrimination…I’m alright with going backwards on climate change, with increasing pollution….

        Are you okay with all of that?

        • Dex

          I’m voting for JOHNSON. I don’t want either Clinton, OR Trump. Over on isidewith.com, Johnson scores 92% agreement with me, Trump is down around 40-something, and Clinton is 33%.

          Clinton has as many faults, and will be just as much of an authoritarian statist. When the boot is on your neck, it doesn’t matter if it’s a left or a right boot.

          • karen how

            So as Johnson is not one of the two candidates that will win, you’re still cool with an ultra-racist demagogue – because as a middle aged white guy, you’re not in the demographic that’s going to be hurt.

            Got it.

          • Trump and/or his supporters (who he and his campaign are encouraging) are some combo of: virulently misogynistic, racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, anti-democratic (small “d”), viciously anti-environment and anti-animals, crazy, etc. Which means, in the next 34 days, all of our job is to do everything we can to stop Trump from being elected president and destroying America/the planet. And, it’s just a fact that there’s only one other candidate who has any chance at all of winning…and no, it isn’t Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

          • Dex

            An ultra-racist demagogue who’s a total idiot / lunatic and can’t get anything done, isn’t any more dangerous than a seasoned politician, who knows the ropes, and CAN get things done.

    • Dennis G. Lambert

      Democrats who voted for Trump in the Primary and anyone voting for him in the general election are the ones to blame for a Trump presidency.

      NO ONE ELSE.

      If you wanted a Democrat to win in 2016, you shouldn’t have rigged the election against Bernie Sanders.

    • Boojum

      Yes, thank you.

      Here is a chart, which includes Stein. It show her as being much closer to Clinton than Clinton is to Trump. And, of course, Clinton can win.

      http://2016election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php

    • CTD

      You are ridiculously defeatist.

  • Dex

    Which is why I’m a libertarian, not a progressive.

  • Deirdre McHugh Dooner

    This list is deceptive to suggest that only democrats are interested in people helping people. Non democrats are against the GOVERNMENT helping people because our government is directly connected to big corporations who make bad decisions about human welfare. For example, take the environment. Our government is completely controlled by the evil chemical companies to “solve” the problems, when they are some of the ones creating it. Our government supports GMO’s and unsustainable farming and and chemtrails to seed the clouds. They pour money into vaccine developments that are proving unsafe but then hide the evidence and silence the media, to avoid being sued, instead of supporting other forms of natural immunization. This government supports a pill popping health system and squashes those who want to expand natural and alternative methods because it does not benefit the controlling corporations. This government is paid off by corporate health and education lobbys which are designed to keep us sick and stupid……… but that is clearly the point. Who needs that kind of “support”?

    • Kindler

      We absolutely need to reduce corporate influence on the government. That’s one of the biggest reasons I support Democrats to give us laws and programs on everything from campaign finance reform to clean energy to requiring businesses to pay and treat workers better.

      Dems get way too many of those opportunities blocked by the right-wing Republican Congress — which was elected thanks to so-called progressives who either don’t vote or vote for hopeless candidates like Stein.

      Complaining about the system can be fun, but it accomplishes absolutely nothing. I support candidates who make an actual difference in human beings’ lives – as Barack Obama has, and Hillary Clinton will.

      • Sabbie

        Have you read the TPP? It will undo all environmental regulation in one fell swoop, AND IT’S ON THE OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY AGENDA.

        • Kindler

          I’ve always believed that strong environmental provisions need to be part of any trade deal, and yes, this is an issue on which we need to push Democrats to ensure that they negotiate the best deals they can. Hillary has come out against TPP, in case you hadn’t heard.

          Now explain to me how electing Republicans by refusing to vote for Democrats helps matters? We could have had incredible progress under Obama if only more progressives came to the polls and elected a Democratic House and Senate. Instead, we got a GOP Congress that only serves corporate America and blocks every program of any value. How anyone can continue to help those troglodytes get elected and then pat themselves on the back for being “progressive” is just unfathomable.

    • s v

      It’s hard to resist the temptation to put words in his mouth when you get away with illegally shutting him out of the infomercial and not have to report it as a campaign contribution to Clinton and Trump.

      • Boojum

        Words like “Aleppo”? Or the name of any foreign leader?

    • Boojum

      Chemtrails? Seriously, chemtrails? What, pray tell, are in these mysterious chemtrails?

      Here, read about contrails. Apply Occam’s Razor. Try to keep up.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

      • Deirdre McHugh Dooner

        NOPE! Just tried to post an opposing view to what you wrote but it must have hit a nerve, and the post disappeared. This is why people don’t trust you. All you people controlling the media are shutting up all opposition to corporate greed. We’re noticing.

  • liljekonvall

    Jill Stein should be included here.

    The Green platform is by far the most “environmental” and “progressive”..

    • Linda McAtee Lysaght

      How nice. She can’t win. However, if you enjoy Donald Trump spewing his garbage, continue supporting her.

      • marymcgloin

        Stop spreading fear propaganda. The only way Dump wins is is if people vote FOR him or don’t vote at all.

        • Boojum

          No, dear. There are people who will vote for him. If someone who would vote for Trump votes for Hillary, then her relative proportion increases by 1 vote.

          If someone stays home or votes for Stein (presently polling at 2%) who — if given a binary option would vote for Hillary — then the relative proportion of votes received by Hillary vs. Trump drops by 1/2 vote.

          So, yes, voting for Stein rather than Hillary can elect Trump. Unless you are a suicidal nihilist — or so entirely narcissistic that nothing matters as much as getting to do what you want — you don’t want that.

          • Randal Pink

            @liljekonvall. Don’t listen to these kind folks. Yes Trump is an ass and Hillary is a little better. But remember, a vote for Jill Stein is NOT a vote for Trump, it is a vote for Jill Stein. We haven’t even voted yet but they have already made up our mind who can win, who cannot win, what is a wasted vote, etc.. I will never vote for a Democrat or Rebublican again (Bernie almost changed my mind then sold out), I will vote for the best candidate in the most solid party running, this time it is Jill Stein and the Green Party. Screw the polls, we need to stop being controlled. No offense to the above people. No offense to Obama or Sanders either, I respect both of them, but when it comes down to it they are just part of the establishment, problem, and machine that tells us what to do.

          • BreakingDeadMen

            And remember, a vote for Stein is a vote for a terrible candidate with no relevant experience for office.

          • BreakingMoron

            Exactly. Go vote for the guy who had a Comedy Central Roast. That’ll make for a great President.

          • BreakingDeadMen

            I’m a Clinton supporter. I wouldn’t vote for Trump with your dick.

          • WhataShame

            Said the person who is going to help Trump take office. This is such a naive and destructive path I can’t believe people still buy into the ‘We just fight the man/system… We must bring down the two party system’ bull crap. It’s not going to happen this time around.

            With the momentum Bernie got and the controversy surrounding the primaries, I really feel like it will happen one day. This is not that day. The notion that a throw away vote (which is exactly what it is – quit being selfish, proud and naive) won’t put Trump in office is absurd, foolish and willfully ignorant. You’re exactly the sort of person who will be sharing the blame and shame with the vapid morons who vote for him.

            The machine. The establishment. Please grow up in time to face the very real threat at the gates. I don’t want my daughter to have to live in a world and a country where Trump can become president because some self-righteous folks thought it would be a good idea to vote for candidates they know have zero… less than zero chances of winning so they can be even more self-righteous after they vote… while Trump guts our country.

            Sadly, it is becoming a fact that our founding fathers were right to keep us arms length from true democracy by not trusting us to elect a qualified candidate. Between those actually voting for Trump and those self-righteous, selfish people who think they have some sort of moral high ground that will help them sleep better if Trump is elected, this country is proving to be too ignorant and petty to be trusted with it’s own future.

            I wish I could get through to those who have convinced themselves that 3rd party voting doesn’t throw elections, but the cognitive dissonance, apathy, willful ignorance, narcissism and cultist mentality when it comes to fringe parties has made it frustrating and fruitless.

            So sip your free-trade, sustainable coffee from your cups made of reclaimed diapers and feel good about your percevied morale victory… because you’ll have a great view of the destruction of this country from your high horse on your high road. And you WILL carry a portion of the blame. And I will quietly despise you and your kind for it.

            The notions of a viable candidate and and lesser evil – they are a very real thing, in the adult world… a world with consequences.

          • “So sip your free-trade, sustainable coffee from your cups made of reclaimed diapers”

            Funniest line in the Blue Virginia comments section in a while – thanks for the laugh, that one rocked! 🙂

          • obxers

            What a troll comment if there ever was one, from a troll’s high pedestal. “I will quietly despise you and your kind” for voting your conscience and not capitulating to how I saw you must cast your vote. True democracy is voting how I tell you that you must vote. Give us all a break. There come times when some willingly and appropriately choose not to bow to your narrow “lesser of two evils” demands, recognizing that sometimes both are far too unacceptable.

          • WhataShame

            Do you even hear how arrogant your words are? Screw everyone else, right? As long as you ‘vote your conscience’. Screw the country, screw the children of this country… just as long as don’t feel like your ‘capitulating’. This is the narcissistic I spoke of. No one matters but themselves and the moral imperative. You’re a disgrace and a bad joke. It’s not a demand. I haven’t the power to demand anything.

            But I will judge someone so naive, willfully ignorant and selfish to nigh on the point of sociopathy. There is no appropriate time to check out and literally throw away a vote (you do not have a valid, factual or statistically defensible position, here – you’re vote carries as much weight as not voting at all. Except for in your own head as you take a victory lap and high five yourself. Because, narcissism; you’re way more important than anyone or anything else and so are your ego and pride), especially when a neofascist, eugenics loving, criminal, fraud, con artist, racist, bigot, misogynist shit-bag is knocking at the door of the presidency.

          • obxers

            I sure hope you’re just a troll, because, otherwise, you’ve got some seriously dangerous sociopathy going on. And, I gather from your rabid rant, enlightened one, that you would have us vote for the socialist, genocidal, “criminal, fraud, con artist, racist, bigot shit-bag that’s knocking at the door of the presidency” over the other “neofascist, eugenics loving, criminal, fraud, con artist, racist, bigot, misogynist shit-bag is knocking at the door of the presidency?” And you think you actually have a choice and you dare to call others naive and willfully ignorant. Bottom line? When you do vote for the candidate for whom you very clearly intend to vote, the one that has been appointed for you, it’s you who are voting to “screw everyone else, … screw the country, screw the children of this country” as you stumble forward in your own narcissistic zombie march. Enjoy continuing to absolutely bankrupt your children and your children’s children.

          • WhataShame

            Socialist? Socialist… omfg. I just can’t engage the ignorant anymore. Troll? Everything I said was on point, provided that it’s not twisted and distorted by you. And that you could so glibly throw sociopath back at me without cause or reasoning because I happened to call yours out is just one more verification of your mental health situation. And with that I will only say that I do feel for you and your view of the world through your brain chemistry, as that’s no laughing matter. I apologize for not taking it more seriously right away and I shouldn’t have made fun or called names. I hope things get better for you and you seek and received the support you need.

          • Nathan Ponzar

            Also, Hillary supports woman’s right to abortion and environmental protection. That alone is enough to make her 100 fold better than Trump in my book.

          • Nathan Ponzar

            But we don’t live in a true democracy. We have a chemotherapy vs. cancer choice. One feels like shit and might kill you, but the other feels like shit and kills you for sure. Voting 3rd party is like opting for alternative medicine. Maybe you stay true to your principles by not giving a dime to big pharma, but you end up dying of cancer.

          • obxers

            Yours is certainly a much more reasoned reply than the troll’s. But don’t try to convince me too much, because I think my opinion as to who constitutes the “lesser of two evils” vastly differs from your own. You might want me to throw my vote away. 🙂

          • Joy Hannah Paris

            Amen. It’s not about who can or even will win, it’s whose side you’re on. It’s about integrity.

          • In the real world we all live in, it’s very much about can or will win (and there are only two candidate who can or will this election cycle – Trump or Clinton). The stakes are incredibly high, particularly for the environment, poor people, minorities, world peace (or more likely, with Trump, war), animals, etc.

          • Jimmie Frazier

            When will be a good time to bring down the 2 party system? People need to vote in the person that they believe in. Don’t give in to the scare tactics of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. If Hillary wins it proves that the scare tactics and cheating wins. If Trump wins it means that the majority of Americans are racist and dumb. The consequences of either of these candidates winning is bad.

          • As has been stated many times in this comment thread, the key is to start at the LOCAL level, then the STATE level, but absolutely do NOT do what Jill Stein is doing and start at the presidential level where there is zero chance of winning, but a decent chance of throwing the election to a fascist.

          • Jimmie Frazier

            I am not saying voting for Jill is right choice, but voting Hillary so Trump will lose is wrong. I respect everyone’s opinion but my conscience will be clear when I vote. Asking me to chose between Trump or Hillary is like going in a restaurant and the only choices are pork or beef. I’m a vegetarian.

          • Timothy Brown

            if you believe that then why not vote for yourself. you have as good a chance as jill of winning using your concept of being told who will win

          • Kathy Gray

            True but I personally think that Hilliary is the #GREATEROF2EVILS

          • Steve Means

            Agree 95%. I don’t think Bernie sold out though. His movement will be back. He just didn’t want to split progressives off from the centrist party in our unfortunately binary system. Somehow, we need proportional representation in this country, as they have in most of Europe (whose governments are largely more modern than ours).

          • whitecat31

            Listen to the kind folks, because anybody who blatantly lies and says Hillary is only a little better than Trump should not be trusted. Even Republican newspapers in Texas shut down that lie. http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/02/stop-parroting-gop-lies-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html

          • As soon as someone says any variant on the absurd, false, brain-dead theme of “Clinton and Trump are no different” or “Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin” or whatever, you know they’re not serious…just ignore after that.

          • therain

            Agreed, conservatives are vastly better.

          • Nathan Ponzar

            It is a very idealistic stance that a vote for a 3rd party is effectively a vote for the 3rd party candidate. Philosophically, you are right, but in reality, a vote for a third party when the third party has no REAL chance of winning is effectively a vote for the worst of two evils.

          • Yep, not sure why this is a difficult concept to understand for some people.

          • Whatevah

            What does that even mean? Yes, there is an establishment. It’s called the constitution and our checks and balances. They’re not perfect, but they work pretty well.

            We have a two party system in this country. We do not have a 5 party system and if we did they’re all sorts of problems that come with it. Take a look at England. Take a look at Israel. Do you want to have those issues? You do understand that getting rid of the two party system just opened it up for other problems and none of them were very good

          • DL2

            Hillary, Randal Pink, is a HELL of a lot than “a little better.” She’s fought for affordable health care for decades. She is not a misogynist; she will not build a wall. She has served this country (whether or not you approve of all she did or didn’t do) and she is not against Muslims, etc. Whatever you think, Hillary is SO, SO not Trump. Any other conclusion suggests you are in need of a cognitive work up.

          • derekstar76

            One of two people will be president at the end of this election. If you are liberal or progressive, not voting for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Donald Trump. Period. It’s not fear or propaganda, it’s fact. Look at what Donald Trump and the Republicans stand to do if elected. Supreme Court justices alone. Just think about. It’s not hard. They win, and we lose a hell of a lot. Hillary Clinton has heard voices of those more liberal than she, and she has broadened her platform to include a great deal. She is by no means perfect, no one is, but voting for Jill Stein is quite simply irresponsible and childish — and is a vote for Donald Trump.

          • Wade Branstner

            The “machine,” I like that. It’s a refreshing change from “game” or “lesser of 2 evils” or “neoliberals” working toward the same goal. The Neoliberal machine is a real thing in my opinion. But whatever you call it, however much the “same” they all are, the true hidden powers that lie just beneath the surface of what you’re barely able to describe do not control the dice yet. If they own the board, and chose the pieces we move around, we still get to be the dice. We tell them where the pieces will land on Nov. 8th. The best guess is that our climate faces an avoidable tipping point for one more President. Our ecosystem is facing imminent systemwide failure. Like it or not, the platforms of Trump and Hillary are TOTALLY OPPOSITE, and both extremely ambitious. The climate will follow the next president. Please Read Clinton’s GREEN policy on Climate and consider setting aside your brave stance on the “machine” for after we make sure our atmosphere will support life.

          • Kathy Gray

            I still won’t vote for Hilliary. #JillStein2016

          • Meg

            It’s a race between Hillary and Trump at this point. A vote for Jill Stein is helping Trump. I’ll personally thank you when we have President Trump. This is not the year to protest- there is simply too much at stake.

          • Nathan Ponzar

            Fortunately, I think there are as many conservatives looking to 3rd parties this election as liberals, so the effect of 3rd party votes should cancel out 😉

          • redjelly39

            Then you better vote for Jill Stein if you dont want Trump. One thing that makes my blood boil is weak people voting out of fear. I will vote for Jill and if Trump wins, it wont be my fault. The same as if Hillary wins and I dont want either of them.

          • Nathan Ponzar

            It actually will be partially your fault. Let me put it this way, lets say someone takes your friend and says I’m going to beat your friend with a bat unless you tell me to beat him with my fist. If you say don’t beat him at all, you have effectively told him to beat your friend with a bat, because you could have told him to use his fist, but opted not to.

          • redjelly39

            Besides your ignorance & hate, you have stated nothing. What part of I wont vote for Hillary or Trump do you not understand? Now go run along with the other fearful sheep and stop embarrassing yourself.

          • Whatevah

            There you go using math and common sense.

          • Lisa Marie Garver

            this isn’t about voting for her. Its about bringing her to the same table that Gary Johnson is at and bringing them all to the same table as the dems and repubs.

          • Chris Marbutt

            Unless you live in a deep blue or deep red state in which case technically speaking voting for Hillary or Trump is a wasted vote and the only chance your vote has to matter is to help third party candidates. I mean, I live in Alabama and it will go to Trump, no ifs, ands or buts.

          • Boojumisakunt

            If Trump and Clinton have 45% of the vote each, and Stein has 10%, and then Stein gets a bunch of votes, which by relative proportion, bring her up to 10.2%, then Trump and Clinton, having not yet received any new votes (since they all went to Stein) are down to 44.9% each. They’re tied. They got nothing new.

            Whether or not they have a binary option doesn’t matter, because a.) they DON’T…you want that not to be the case, go change it….and b.) they clearly didn’t do a good enough job of getting the vote from a person who thinks Stein is any good…because they picked Stein.

            Go back to get your GED. Home school clearly didn’t work out for you.

        • Whatevah

          Sigh. Gore. Bush. Nader. Florida.

          • marymcgloin

            *Sigh.* 55 million of 156 million registered voters DID NOT VOTE. 205 million were eligible to vote. Election Fraud in FL. Some Democrats voted FOR Bush. Gore WON the popular vote. Gore had 55 mil votes, Bush 54.5. Nader 2 mil. SCOTUS handed the win to Bush. #StopSpreadingtheMyth #TakeBackDemocracy #Vote

          • Whatevah

            #stoppretendinglikethatwasn’toneofthefactors

          • Whatevah

            Really, I’m fully aware of what happened. But to pretend that voting for Nader wasn’t a factor in losing Florida is missing the point. If Nader hadn’t been a spoiler, and he was, it may never have been an issue.

          • marymcgloin

            Nader was not a spoiler. He was the Green Party candidate for President. He was participating in our supposed Democracy. In this primary election only 9% of the voting population voted for either Dump or Hillary. And corporate media and the 2 party monopoly try make sure we don’t have a democracy, just an illusion of one. I’m not playing this game. The only way to lose is to not vote for the person who represents the policies you want in office, period. No matter how the pretend, HRC will win anyway, there’s no need to fear Dump. The races we should be concerned about are congress. And encouraging every eligible voter to educate themselves and vote.

        • Del Austin

          fear?—my biggest fear and it should be the same for every American is that Hilary is elected —– more of the same will kill America

      • Earl Henson

        The DNC cheating ISN’T winning. I just vote for who I WANT not if they are necessarily going to win. I liked John Kerry, voted for him, he didn’t win. I would STILL vote John Kerry even if I knew he wouldn’t win.

        • homasapiens

          That’s incredibly special of you, cupcake.

        • Boojum

          Then you are a selfish little narcissist and should consider (a) learning how to adult or (b) receiving psychiatric help.

        • Cranky_Yankee

          Then you clearly are operating from a position of privilege in thinking that the outcome of an election has no adverse impact on you.

        • Randal Pink

          You are correct Earl, and please don’t listen to the name calling, insulting, condescending folks below. It is clear they are not adults. I am sure they are very kind, good people, just lost

        • BreakingDeadMen

          You start with a false premise; the DNC did not cheat. Did some of the people in it privately express disdain for a candidate who publicly spoke of them with contempt? Of course they did. But that’s not cheating. Even Bernie Sanders admits he lost on the square. As for who you want to win, I don’t know why you wouldn’t want the only person who is qualified and capable of doing the job. Most of us outgrow imaginary friends before puberty.

          • Earl Henson

            Oh YES the DNC did cheat!
            1 The voice vote caucus in Nevada where the NO’s were overridden by Roberta Lange who said “ok the YES’s have it!” then RAN from the stage.
            2 – New York Brooklyn where 100k+ people removed from the voting rolls ENTIRE BUILDINGS of people removed. Really? An entire building is disqualified? Why?
            The DNC CONTROLLED all of this.

          • BreakingDeadMen

            1.) Sanders lost Nevada regardless. Sanders’ delegates didn’t show up in numbers with proper credentials, and their behavior was deplorable toward Ms. Lange, along with Barbara Boxer that and virtually every other powerful female that was not 100% on their side throughout the campaign. It was a consistent and embarrassing pattern.
            2.)The DNC is not in charge of voting laws in New York.

          • Earl Henson

            Cheating was done against DEMOCRATS by the DNC and unknown others. But they were still cheated. I am NEVER voting for Hillary.

          • BreakingDeadMen

            Good for you, Ace.

          • whitecat31

            Hillary had little to do what the DNC did, but the DNC did not cheat.

          • Not sure why it’s so hard for people to understand that Bernie Sanders actually did WAYYYY better than he or anyone else ever expected when he started out, but that Clinton won fair and square, with strong support from the Democratic base electorate.

          • whitecat31

            You do know that Hillary won against Sanders by over 3 million votes right? Sanders did not win, because many of us Sanders supporters were not registered as Democrats and did not understand what a closed primary is.

          • Earl Henson

            “Hillary won against Sanders by over 3 million votes right?”
            ===============
            You do know the DNC cheated to get votes?
            You do know that CNN is owned by Clinton backers and is pushing the CORPORATE agenda? Bernie got next to zero coverage for someone who was beating Hillary in many states but got tiny coverage of that fact.

          • liljekonvall

            The DNC admitted “cheating” or favoring HRC over Sanders in violation of their own charter and promise to its own voters.

          • BreakingDeadMen

            Nope. That’s not what happened. They sent some catty emails. I would have said the same after being used as a whipping boy by Sanders, too.

          • liljekonvall

            Those stupid emails? You seriously think THAT is what we mean by cheating?

            According to the DNCs own attorneys, they put their thumb on the scale for Clinton. That is what they are saying in their own defense!

            Stanford University found evidence of vote rigging in favor of HRC. Discrepancies in exit polling are evidence of fraud at but a fraction of what they were during the primaries.

            Cue the lawsuits…

            Bernie Sanders brought hoards of Millenials into the Democratic party. You’re welcome! Rather than listen to them, the DNC decided to use them as a “whipping boy”… The DNC squandered a potentially arger voting block than Boomers so that they could remain a center-right corporatist party….

          • BreakingDeadMen

            Who is suing? Not Bernie.

          • therain

            Yes they did, it’s been proven they rigger the election for hillary.

          • BreakingDeadMen

            Funny, I don’t see any proof here. Just an assertion. Go ahead and bust, nobody cares.

      • liljekonvall

        9% of voters are ramming their pre-selected choices of “viable candidates” down our throat before a single vote is cast.

        VOTERS decide who “can win”. The utterly corrupt Republicans and Democrats must disagree with you; must believe she can get traction with voters given the way they treat her.

        We are up to our ears in “garbage”, from both parties. …but if you “enjoy” what they have been “spewing”, then, by all means continue suporting it.

        It is your right, just as voting Green is mine.

        • Randal Pink

          you are so correct, I will be voting for Dr. Stein as well.

      • Kathy Gray

        Explain to us just why we should vote for Hilliary without even mentioning trump’s name. I dare you.

        • Let’s quote Bernie Sanders on that one:

          “Clinton understands that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the people on top are going to have to start paying their fair share of taxes…

          John, young people are very concerned, appropriately so, about the crisis regarding climate change. Clinton has a pretty strong program which says we have got to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energies, like wind and solar…

          One more really important issue that I think has got to be talked about a whole lot, Clinton has said that she will appoint Supreme Court justices, nominate Supreme Court justices who will overturn this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision which allows people like Sheldon Adelson last week to put $45 million into the political process to buy elections. Billionaires should not be buying elections. Clinton wants to stop that….”

          Sanders gave four important reasons why millennials should support Hillary Clinton, the economy, the environment, Citizens United, and her stance against discrimination and racism. I would add Clinton’s free college tuition plan, and her plan to deal with student loan debt as two other very large reasons. Plus, Clinton’s plan on healthcare would make it easier and cheaper to get coverage, while Trump intends to throw Americans under age 25 off of their parents’ health insurance.

          • Moth

            Jill does all this better, and she wasn’t forced to the left to pander, she started there

          • whitecat31

            Jill does nothing better. She is the left’s version of Trump when it comes to saying anything to try to get elected. http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/210549/friends-dont-let-friends-vote-for-jill-stein

          • liljekonvall

            Jill Stein puts her money where her mouth is better than any other candidate. Were she so desperate to “get elected” she would never have offered Bernie Sanders her own place on the Green ticket.

          • Karthik

            I’ll just point out that the same logic could apply to Trump or Johnson. You can target income inequality with fiscally conservative principalities. You can believe Hillary is a bad candidate because what she believes in is wrong.

      • Jürgen Erhard

        And Gary Johnson can?

      • therain

        We do appreciate it, although we don’t need stein or johnson loonies for Trump to win.

      • Suz Just Suz

        It’s a pity the democrats aren’t running a liberal this year. I’m going to vote for the only liberal on the ticket, Stein. I’m going to vote for the only representative of a party that hasn’t been proven corrupt, the Green Party.

        Ignoring your party’s corruption is condoning it. It doesn’t matter if she can win or not, unless YOU are more interested in being on the “winning team.” Having more people swimming in your septic tank doesn’t make you smell less foul.

      • Jon Adams

        President Trump may just well bring on the revolution this country needs.

    • Scott Plumer

      It’s a shame she rejects a lot of the science she learned at Harvard Med.

      • liljekonvall

        It is a shame you believe that.

        What has been more damaging to scientific integrity than corporate influence? Spinning Dr. Stein’s criticism of regulatory agencies’ failure to be driven by science in favor of corporate interests as some sort of “message” to the anti-vax lunatics…

        …asinine.

        • HMS

          The pseudoscientific woo nonsense that Stein spouts and panders to on everything from vaccines to homeopathy to wifi in schools has been far more damaging to public health than the vague bogeyman of “corporate influence” on scientific consensus.

          • liljekonvall

            You are lying.

            Dr. Stein does NOT, in fact, support homeopathy, but does support vaccines. As for Wi-Fi, she has quite simply called for the same precautions in place in Europe as research continues. It is called the precautionary principle, and we should adopt it here.

            Stop reading “swiftboat/birther-style” nonsense written by some HillBot and read what Dr. Stein actually said about science:

            http://www.jill2016.com/jill_stein_answers_science_questions

            As for how science and our regulatory agencies are compromised by corporate influence, the Union of Concerned Scientists speaks to that very well:
            http://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html#.V_QSe8spDqA

          • whitecat31
          • liljekonvall

            She didn’t “pander to anti vaxxers ” even in your own article. Anti-vaxxers are idiots and interpreted her concerns about corporate interference in the regulatory process as a declaration that they are unsafe. She has stated her unequivocal support for vaccines and is not responsible for what people too stupid to grasp nuance understand. As President, every one of these anti-vax morons would have access to a doctor who would “educate” them.

            Europe – yes, that crazy tin-foil hat EUROPEAN UNION has issued a resolution that deems wired connections safer than Wi-Fi in schools while more research is conducted. That has nothing to do with depriving poor children of internet access – the author of your asinine article inserted that….. It would be irresponsible for Dr. Stein to declare Wi-Fi perfectly safe because the scientific community has not done so.

            She criticized Russian military policy in Moscow, and has publicly criticized its human rights record “many times”.

          • Whatevah

            Cannot. Run. The. Country.

          • readerofthis

            Look up the UN Mercury resolution known as the Minimata Convention, or the symptoms of chronic mercury poisoning.Connection to wifi/microwaves/mri’s,/cell phones is that those frequencies easily move mercury around in the body/brain.

          • Whatevah

            No. Prior. Experience. Done.

          • Lisa Marie Garver

            She deserves to be up there as much as Gary Johnson does. Many presidents have had little to no prior experience running the country. There is no requirement on that believe it or not.

          • Whatevah

            No one said anything about a requirement. But it’s part of my evaluation for how I decide whether or not to vote for someone. It’s all about experience and policy. Diane doesn’t need it for me. Clinton does.

          • Wade Branstner

            Gary Johnson was the governor of 2 states!! One of them was Florida, the other, New Mexico. Stein hasn’t even held a singe statewide office. No comparison. Period. People need to be more responsible about the information they let into their own minds, especially contributors to discussions like this one where people are actually having a serious debate.

          • Christy Grayson

            Like Ronald Regan had any experinece… 😂😂😂

          • Whatevah

            He was Governor of California. Moving on.

          • supercarp

            He had been the governor of the largest state in the country; larger than many countries.

          • Suz Just Suz

            The folks with prior experience got us where we are. That’s part of the problem.

          • Whatevah

            That’s a very simplistic analysis of a very complex problem. You’re going to have to do better than that.

          • Melanie Nelson

            That is just asinine. If you need brain surgery, are you gonna go with the trained surgeon who has done the surgery many times or some dude who has no training, has never been in an operating room, and just decided it was something he wanted to try?

          • Jill Stevens

            Like trump does??

          • Marion C. Marsh

            SCREW PHARMACEUTICAL they’re worse than the Politicians

          • supportveterans1

            Oh look! It’s a Correct the Record scum attacking common sense and logic. We’ve just seen the CEO if the epipen manufacturer sit in front of Congress for increasing costs by 500% and giving herself an absurd raise to 16 million/year but go right ahead and try to pretend there’s no corporate influence in big pharma. Idiot. I hope the Correct the Record people are paying you well, your soul (or what’s left of it) shouldn’t be sacrificed for peanuts.

          • BreakingDeadMen
          • sanderson

            Dr. Jill Stein, 2016.

          • Del Austin

            Who? is what most people would say—-a vote for Jill or Gary is like a vote for Hilary —— does anybody really want more of the same more of nobama???? Please think about it —- we only one choice that may be able to beat Hilary and that is Mr. Trump — we all must be together on this—-get out and vote for the only person who can win the election over Hilary.—Please think about this

        • mildmannered

          Regardless, she’s not even on the ballot in all 50 states and doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance. Whatever she believes about vaccination just doesn’t matter anymore.

          • Jon Adams

            Stein allows me to vote for an actual progressive — one who is not a warmonger.

          • Del Austin

            Yes and your vote will have no meaning —- none —- maybe some time in the future —- but we must first get past the mess nobama has gotten us in —– and sure does NOT Hilary in the WH

          • Del Austin

            Good point —- Please see my earlier post

          • readerofthis

            The best write in choice this year: Vermin Supreme.

      • Moth

        trollolololol

    • Bx007

      There was a commentary with this chart that is not included here. In it, it is explained why Stein is not included. Mostly, because she is not a viable candidate, has no chance of winning a single state. And, since she agrees with Clinton on 91% of the issues (her own words) it is Clinton she’s most likely to steal votes from. And, though you can tell yourself she’s the most “environmental,” the reality is, if Clinton loses to Trump, the environment will suffer.

      Stein supporters MUST come to grips with the fact that the only person who can protect the environment now is Hillary Clinton. People who made this mistake in 2000 by voting for Nader were forced to watch Bush take apart environmental protections for the next 8 years.

      Johnson is
      included to demonstrate just how far away from Sanders, Clinton and
      Stein he is and that he is NOT a viable choice for liberals.

      • liljekonvall

        I saw the explanation.

        It isn’t up to the media to determine who is “viable”. That is for voters to decide. Dr Stein is on the ballot in enough states to win and is entitled to equal time.

        9% of voters pre-selected these “viable” candidates, a vast majority want more choices, and those people deserve to see ALL of their options.

        Stein and Clinton do NOT “agree on 91%..”. Sanders, maybe. Dr. Stein is not at all “excluded” because she isn’t “viable”. She is excluded because people are afraid that she is.

        • Bx007

          That 91% figure comes from Jill Stein herself!
          And this is not from “the media.” It’s from a voter like you.

          • Exactly, would love to see a discussion of the substantive issues raised by your excellent chart!

          • liljekonvall

            No. The “91% figure” came from the ISideWith quiz, the results of which are on Jill Stein’s page. She called the 91% figure “inflated” because it was based on what HRC says she believes – historically unreliable

            https://m.facebook.com/drjillstein/photos/pb.240944029279128.-2207520000.1466205954./1203827602990761/?type=3

            Voters have not cast ballots yet, so it is ridiculous to assume the decision to exclude third parties has been up to “voters like me”.

      • Great job, thanks for clarifying — agree with you 100%!

      • Jürgen Erhard

        It was not the Nader vote that cost Gore the election.

        • whitecat31

          It was very much the Nader voting that cost Gore the election. that was why Nader’s campaign was basically paid for by conservative sources. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/nader-elected-bush-now-he_b_9999702.html

          • Not sure Nader cost Gore the election, but in the end, he certainly didn’t help matters. The result of that election: the Bush disaster, instead of what likely would have been a Gore presidency that addressed climate change, didn’t push through the “Halliburton loophole” and other monstrosities, didn’t embroil us in the Iraq war, didn’t condone and encourage torture for god’s sake, etc, etc.

      • Amy

        She also couldn’t get elected to her town council. But the spite voters will continue their passive push for Trump.

    • enrique64

      i agree , Environmental with out solution , companies run away from regulations and destroy another countries and we run out of work

    • Pan

      Stein is a dilettante who shows up every 4 years to claim the moral high ground. She lacks the seriousness and grit to do the work necessary to build a realistic platform and base. A vote for Stein is a vote for lily white puffery.

      • liljekonvall

        That you believe that, is reason to vote for the only candidate not owned by the same corporations that, evidently, also have your mind.

        Jill Stein has been very active, engaged, and well-read on the issues of her platform during off-years and before her candidacy.

        Further, she offered to step aside and yield the top of the Green Party ticket to Senator Sanders; a candidate with whom she agrees on most issues.

        “Grit”? She was arrested and handcuffed to a chair for hours at an “undisclosed location” in 2012, calmly entering the debate. She stood up to the bulldozers on more than one occasion…. …went to Russia…. “Puffery”? ..try the most badass candidate in this election.

        • whitecat31
        • Pan

          Well one person’s badass is another person’s dilettante. What can I say except that I’m happy Ms Stein is a non-factor. She’s polling too low to be a spoiler.

          • Thankfully, yes. Again, would be great to see Stein supporters put this much energy into elections for governor, state legislature, Congress, etc. next year and beyond…

          • liljekonvall

            The definition of “badass” and “dilletante” are not congruent….. That makes no sense.

            Either everyone in an election is a “spoiler” or no one is. A vote for Dr. Stein is as legitimate as a vote for ANYONE else on the ballot.

            “Polling too low”? The polls that exclude her and young voters likely to vote for her? Is that why the DNC has been so aggressive suing to get her off ballots, pushing the anti-science tripe? Her platform, that caught such fire with Sanders supporters is a threat to the legitimacy of a corporatist DNC…

    • whitecat31
    • Ruth Lafler

      Too bad she’s completely unqualified. Spouting a bunch of positions doesn’t mean you can actually implement them. She has *zero* experience at running anything.

      • liljekonvall

        She’s been in public service, and run enough….

        Trump and Clinton “run” people’s lives into the dirt.

    • supercarp

      I want to save the planet too but one has to have some cognizance of what the government does and Stein seems oblivious to everything except her own world. I think that she purposely obfuscated on her position about vaccines- not a good sign in my opinion.

  • Meg Buckingham

    No one who considers themselves a progressive or on the left should even consider voting for any of these corporate clowns. Vote for Jill Stein.

  • Bill

    If you liberal dipshits want to make a chart, why not make an accurate one? It’s sad that you have to embellish to try to sway people.

  • s v

    Handy hit piece now that you see he’s eating your lunch even though you shut him out of the debate. It must be nice to be able to muzzle him and also put words in his mouth like this.

    BIG PICTURE: Only Johnson would end the wars, and only Johnson would decrease total annual federal spending (for the first time since 1966). If you think the government is too violent and too big, it’s a no-brainer.

    • Boojum

      Who is eating who’s lunch? Johnson? He’s eating a carrot stick off in a corner somewhere.

    • karen how

      Johnson doesn’t know where the wars are.

  • True Blue

    I’m also a Bernie supporter, along with five others in my family, all of whom quickly got on board to vote for Hillary. We are idealistic and optimistic souls, but ultimately realistic and see the clear and present danger of a Trump win. None of us live in “safe” states for protest votes. It was alarming to hear “weed” voters interviewed in Nevada that have only one priority in voting, so will not vote for the presidency.

    For those of us who worked hard for years and deserve our earned benefits, worrying about those who would gut social security and medicaid, or privatize everything, like education and prisons (Johnson, New Mexico);

    For those of us who experienced or observed voter suppression or gerrymandering, and now live in areas that will not improve until the next census; or see further erosion to rights of workers;

    For those of us who heard catcalls or stereotypical comments about being a woman, or lived through bigoted decisions, or felt pain as friends of color or creed or ability or gender identity or financial stability were discriminated against;

    For those of us who took out student loans years ago, paid them off, and realized the many benefits of a great collegiate, graduate, or doctoral experience in employment, and maybe even living with parents for awhile to get our feet on the ground;

    For those of us who lived through the atrocities of racism during the Civil Rights Era, screamed for thousands of youth killed in Vietnam, saw protestors killed at Kent State, went to No Nukes concerts, paid 10% interest rates or heard Reagan’s promises about trickling down that wealth, or cried after Nader’s 2000 spoiler brought us the Bush debacle and unfounded, unfunded wars;

    We understand and have been there.

    We should have had a Gore presidency with great environmental impact – I’m a “silent spring” earth girl and admire Stein, but know that painting messages on bulldozers is just a beginning toward getting legislation through Congress. We succeeded in getting Obama elected, and are better for it despite the obstruction and dehumanizing of his presidency.

    I’ve learned that for all of us who want to thrive in a better America, gains are incremental and aren’t made by working against each other. I’d like to see expansion of AmeriCorps, reviving a Civilian Conservation Corps, reinstating the GI Bill, fixing infrastructure, and protecting national forests and parks, all of which are job creating and validating (although not my most exhaustive list). Stronger Together

  • Timothy Runkle

    If you want to make your preferred canditate look good then by all means don’t include #JillStein

  • Chris Brownsberger

    Get a clue! Jill Stein!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dana Schindler

    Stein should have been included.

  • Boojum

    Here is a chart that includes Stein. It makes it clear that Stein and Hillary are MUCH closer on the issues that Trump and Hillary.

    http://2016election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php

  • CTD

    Drone killing Americans without trial: Clinton supports, Johnson opposes.
    Domestic spying: Clinton supports, Johnson opposes.
    War on Drugs: Clinton supports, Johnson opposes.
    Fomenting civil wars in the Mideast: Clinton supports, Johnson opposes.

  • ShoutItOut

    There is a clear science with colors and advertising, notice the nice calm blue for Hillary and the evil red for Trump? LOL. I am not for any of these candidates. This has to be the worst election ever and I have voted for both parties in the past when I felt the candidates were worth it!

  • Lou Novak

    Unfortunately you left off the candidate that any Progressive, Environmentalist, Millennial etc would support if they knew of her, Jill Stein. Too bad.

  • Tracy

    Whomever created the chart didn’t do their research. Hillary does support TPP , she has said it’s the gold standard and there is video out there to prove that. Gary Johnson is Pro Choice, of course he’s going to support funding for Planned Parenthood. Donald Trump does not plan on touching Social Security , he is going to leave it as it is, but wants to improve it so it’s around for the future. He also supports equal pay, he does have a plan about childcare and giving tax incentives for families too. So all you need to do is do your research . This chart is either poorly done or intentionally biased.

  • BluMeany

    This table is absolute bullshit re: Johnson. Please do your research and don’t take this handy graphic as the gospel. Three lines in and they were already wrong.

  • Jesse Kilgore

    Misinformation/ fear tactics/ and outright deception. Are all democrats liars or just your “leadership”?

    Q: Do you have a plan for entitlements?
    JOHNSON: Absolutely. There are reforms to Social Security that need to take place. One would be raising the retirement age.

    Q: To 75, you’ve suggested. Do you think you could get that done?

    JOHNSON: I’m not giving a number here. This is something that Congress is going to have to come up with. Let’s remember that when Social Security was adopted, 55 was the average age of an American. And nobody was going to even live to collect it in the first place.

    Source: 2016 CNN Libertarian Town Hall with Gary Johnson & Bill Weld , Jun 22, 2016

  • BreakingDeadMen

    Exactly. And at least Ralph Nader had accomplishments to point at. He had experience talking to lawmakers and getting laws passed. Voting for Stein or Johnson is like rooting for your dog to catch a car.

    • Right, the key is actually getting laws passed, not just talking a good game.

      • BreakingDeadMen

        She should try and find a way to involve herself in the process. Spray-painting a bulldozer might be fun, but it’s not Presidential. The direct action in North Dakota did have an impact, but no thanks to her.

        • Moth

          stealing a election, getting caught, and then buying your way out with favors, now that’s Presidential! Hilltrolls make ZERO sense.

          • BreakingDeadMen

            Son, if you are going to live in a fantasy world, pick a less paranoid one.

      • Steve Means

        Just getting laws passed is not exactly what we need. We have too many laws, creating a murky web that only lawyers can navigate. We need to clean house with an Article 5 Constitutional Convention through which we can modernize and clearly state the federal government’s primary objective (a sustainably high quality of life for its citizenry?). We need deep, lasting fixes; not symptomatic inside-the-box alterations. With Hilary at the helm, life on planet Earth will take a bit longer to die out than with the binary alternative… but that’s not saying much. We need truly radical solutions that are based on scientific study, not on partisan politics!

        I think many agree with the above. The disagreements mainly lie in how to get there. I, for one, am done with inside-the-box, institutionalized, belligerence.

        • Nathan Ponzar

          I agree with you, but I don’t think either Stein or Johnson are better alternatives to clinton or trump. Sanders I think would have been. Also, I think we live in a world which is, unfortunately, already doomed. I think it will be a less painful death with Hillary.

          Maybe when the ecological situation gets so bad that there are undeniable direct health consequences, we will elect a real leader. Maybe it won’t be too late.

          • Steve Means

            Hey, two people can actually agree on something! Yes, the Democratic Party made a big mistake railroading Sanders and sidelining all the enthusiasm he created. All evidence shows that he would have destroyed Trump. I do have feelings for Hillary, just because she ran into a buzz-saw last time [who turned out to be just a wet noodle], and then had to wait 8 years. Maybe she would have been better than Obama in hindsight. In any case, the situation has gotten more dire in the interim such that the world cannot afford another 4 or 8 years of tepid incrementalism… but that’s what we’ll get, or worse.

        • L.L.L.

          I, too, agree that we have too many laws- – laws that are bandaids and essentially ineffective. But, I’m not sure a law needs to be based upon scientific study, but on history and what we can learn from it. Looking back in history at the amazing almost 4 terms of FDR and all that he accomplished and the unprecedented presidency of Grover Cleveland winning in 2 separate, but not consecutive, elections, we see men who made nation altering policies that improved our country. But, I think that is the key- – they desired to improve THIS country and did not spend so much time on foreign policies as the current presidents of our time. Our current politicians lack a love and a passion for this country and its people. They love themselves and have a passion for power.

          • Steve Means

            I agree, and I’d like to add that the study of history together with historiography is essentially a science… it’s looking at evidence and determining facts as a basis upon which to form judgments and a reasonable course of action forward. Historiography is essential, because it helps to minimize interpretive bias in the process.

        • Joseph Ahner

          Quality of life guarantee is not the responsibility of the state but that of the individual. State involvement kills initiative and destroys economic opportunities.

          • Steve Means

            I didn’t say anything about a guarantee. Of course, there are no guarantees. I didn’t mention happiness either, which is most definitely in the realm of the individual subject. I don’t agree with your blanket statement that “State involvement kills initiative.” What about policing criminal activity, building infrastructure, and supporting space-based science? Do those things kill initiative? The ideal government is essentially there to try to cultivate a civilized environment in which a well informed citizenry does not have to suffer great environmental and economic perils. Anything not related to this is wrong-headed government and a waste of time and resources. However, this is clearly not how our government acts, so therefore a Constitutional Convention is necessary for the citizenry to put our government back on the right track. It needs to work on our behalf, not on behalf of global corporations.

            Don’t even get me started on “economic opportunities.” Suffice it to say that human economic activity is now a major PROVEN cause of species extinction, pollution, global climate change, and generally the gradual death of our planet. Our entire economic MO needs to be overhauled and re-thought. Growth, growth, growth, and never-ending “economic opportunity” is not the answer, unless it’s completely green and clean.

        • Adrian Delgado

          I normally don’t comment on these kinds of threads but hearing you talk about “radical solutions based on scientific study” made me jump at the opportunity to share something I discovered years ago. You should look up the Venus Project. It is literally exactly what you just described. This is probably the one thing in this world right now that gives me any kind of hope for humanity. We CAN make the world a better place, but not within the context of our current socioeconomic system. The creator of the Venus Project, Jacque Fresco, has dedicated his entire adult life to redesigning human culture from top to bottom in order to allow every person on the planet access to the basic necessities of life and more without a price tag. There’s so much more to it than that and I could never do it justice in this small paragraph. The Venus Project has the potential to end and even reverse this path of planetary destruction we are on as a species if we just take the time to learn about this new direction and spread the word to anyone willing to listen.

          “When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace” – Jimi Hendrix

          • Steve Means

            Thank you for this. Indeed it is very interesting. When I studied architecture, I was kind of a fan of Paolo Soleri… a pioneering utopian, so this is right up my alley. I will study it in depth. Love your reference to Jimi too!

    • typhoidmary66

      Johnson is a two term governor of NM. Lowered taxes. Also started a business from his college handyman job that was worth millions. What kind of experience does he need?

      • BreakingDeadMen

        The original comment referred to Stein, not Johnson. Johnson does have experience that looks good on paper. It’s only when he opens his mouth that his troubles begin.

        • Karthik

          I mean, that’s not completely true in of itself. He has, i sum, made two “gaffes” which compared to amount of mistakes both Trump and HIllary have made with regards to the economy and Foreign Policy along with both their sketchy record, Johnson’s mistakes shouldn’t be taken very seriously.

          I mean, it sucks that he couldn’t name a foreign leader on the spot when randomly asked or blanked out a bit on the Aleppo question. But considering his plans regarding foreign policy with regards to Syria more comprehensive and more in line with the views of the American public then either HiIllary or Trump, he seems like a more qualified candidate in general.

          • BreakingDeadMen

            He strikes me as not having given much thought to foreign policy. I’m all for a less interventionist approach, but not an isolationist one; in either event, it will take a great deal of disentanglement and debate to achieve. I’m not certain he has put the thought into it, or is even willing to do with it.

            In general, my biggest problem with the Libertarian Party is that they seem to fear and criticize the government being too powerful, while having none of those concerns about the private corporations that are such a real threat. While I don’t want a too invasive government, giving away the store is not an answer. Thank you for a respectful and thoughtful reply.

          • Karthik

            I don’t know if I’d go as far to say that Johnson’s approach is that of an Isolationist. His approach has been to cease military involvement and involve Russia diplomatically, who has a stake in the region, to bring the conflict to an end. He also wants to curtail targeted drone strikes in the area and stop funding insurgent/terrorist groups through improperly allocated foreign aid.

            Now with regards to how we have dealt with international affairs thus far, it would almost seem as though Johnson is taking an almost isolationist approach. However, all his plans seem to center more around interacting less with conflict and dealing with the situation from a more diplomatic perspective.

            As such, I don’t believe your assessment of Johnson not giving much thought to foreign policy is really fair. It a pretty well thought out plan and its simple for sure. However, I don’t think it’s simple because he hasn’t placed a priority on it. I think its simple plan because the alternative solution that both Trump and Hillary propose are quite literally very convoluted and dangerous.

            Additionally, I’m not trying to say that you’re wrong in your hesitation about the Libertarian Party being to lax with private companies and having fear of government overreach. There are clear examples private industries acting shady. A great example is the pharmaceutical sector. But I really want to point out that in general, the government’s policies and regulation are for the most part relatively restrictive with regards to their corporate tax which then gets compounded by state taxes and zoning regulations. Again, I’m not saying that we don’t need a government, but I think that the responsibilities our government has afforded itself have become more and more damaging to the society and businesses alike.

          • BreakingDeadMen

            It is fair to say I have not deeply read Johnson’s foreign policy; I should make an effort to do so.

    • Deaisme

      Johnson and Weld have more executive experience than Hillary and Trump COMBINED.

      • BreakingDeadMen

        Johnson and Weld do have executive experience. New Mexico happens to be a deeply troubled state, however, and Johnson is a blithering idiot. I was hopeful that he would be a legitimate alternative to Trump for the conservatives out there, but he’s not much better. And, weed nothwithstanding, there is nothing about him for the left to get excited about.

        • And he talks like this! LOL

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhR41lsEJY

          • Maren Brown

            haha, are we in 2nd grade Lowkell? Well your candidate’s funny faces are weirder than my candidate’s funny faces

            https://youtu.be/dLLssbFwVjk

          • Uhhhh….so what was Gary Johnson doing there exactly?

        • Deaisme

          Weld is used to playing three games of chess at a time blindfolded. And Johnson beats him at chess. Not the sign of an idiot. As for talking as a sign of intelligence, not the case at all. I once met a man who could talk your leg off and you’d think he was of average intelligence, but had an IQ of 63. People who are shallow won’t get this, but Johnson is a rare combination of muscle, brains, emotional intelligence and honesty. If we get him as president, we will be a blessed nation.

    • Maren Brown

      8 years running a state isn’t experience? Well, no, not compared to the proxy-war experience of Hillary. Her foreign policy experience equates to havoc, puppet governments, illegal intervention and many lives lost. If that is “experience”, I’ll vote for inexperience ANY DAY!

      • BreakingDeadMen

        Again, the original comment referred to Stein. Johnson has prior experience as Governor.

  • Kathy Gray

    Why isn’t Jill Stein on this? Because she’s a REAL threat to $Hilliary.

  • Jennifer Boyles

    The chart is not correct. Clinton is pro fracking. Also, Johnson is very
    pro-choice. He publicly stated, after Casey v Planned Parenthood, that
    he’d keep it. Also, he is the only one that wants to cut military
    spending, which I notice they didn’t bother to show. They didn’t show
    immigration either, which Johnson is to the left of Clinton on. He’s the
    only one who wants to audit the Fed Reserve, not Clinton. He’s the only
    who opposed the bailout of Wall Street. His tax plan would increase
    taxes for the rich, not lower it. Not spend on infrastructure? Are you kidding? That’s the only thing he was willing to spend money on as Governor. As for her version of the tuition plan, she requires states to put up matching funds to qualify, which in the end means, tuition will still be the bugbear of any millenial’s future. He wants to do away with the Department of Education and guaranteed Federal Loans, which he believes will cut tuition costs in half (no math to back that up), but states get to keep the education money they raise, instead of sending it to the fed to be returned at a lower rate.

    He has plenty of stances that would upset people, especially environmental, but the ones listed aren’t accurate.
    A basic perusal of Ontheissues.org gives exact quotes and how they voted. Beware Facebook Memes, I have yet to see one that’s accurate in any way, shape, or form.

    • Bx007

      Clinton has stated that she believes there should be a hold on fracking while more research is conducted. As to Johnson being “very pro choice” he is on record as saying the federal government should not pay for it. That’s far from being “very” pro-choice when you consider all the women that depend on government provided healthcare.

      As to not including immigration, it’s right there on the bottom of the chart. Johnson is NOT to the left of Clinton on immigration. And, no, his tax plan will NOT increase taxes on the rich. he plans to eliminate corporate taxes completely and replace our progressive tax with a sales tax that will definitely have a negative impact on the middle class. You sure make a lot of excuses for Johnson.

      As to “Ontheissues.org” –

      On funding abortions “No funding for abortion; other restrictions ok.”
      On taxes “Zero corporate tax would create tens of millions of jobs.”
      On Social Security – “Raise retirement age to 75.”
      On Minimum Wage – “Why not $75? We can’t afford minimum wage.”
      On immigration – “Make work visas as easy as possible.”
      On healthcare – “Free market reduces prices with places like “Stitches R Us””
      – “Let states experiment with Medicare & Medicaid rules.”
      – “Government-managed healthcare is insanity.”
      On gun control – “Banning assault weapons just criminalizes the owners.”
      On TPP – “I’m a real skeptic on trade agreements, but I would sign TPP. ”
      On Vaccinations – “No to mandatory vaccines; let parents decide.”
      On Environment – “Man contributes to climate change, but no government fix.”

      – “Federal regulation makes fracking, coal mining, & nuclear OK.”
      He’s a Republican in lib clothing.

      • Yeah, Johnson is a radical, Ayn Randian right wingnut. Also completely unqualified to be president, starting with his utter lack of knowledge or curiosity about foreign policy. #FAIL

  • For all those who want a chart with both Stein and Johnson included, here it is: http://2016election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php

    I would suggest people read more deeply, of course. Go to the site of each candidate. Find their platform. Read the whole thing. Do the same for your local candidates. Be informed, then vote. Don’t take anyone else’s word for whether you should agree with a candidate or support them. Find out for yourself whether or not they even say in writing what they claim at the podium. It’s a lot harder to “walk back” your actual platform.

  • Eruanion Nolaquen

    Gee, I could have sworn we had @ 6 candidates running…..

  • Robert

    Clinton is a criminal with blood on her hands. A vote for this broad is a vote based on total ignorance and hatred for America. Vote for Trump so we can make America great again…..

  • Scooby

    They left out where the candidates stand in regards to Henry Kissinger.

  • Jazzyodle

    To say that no one should vote for Stein as a blanket statement is a bit over generalized and actually fairly counterproductive to democracy. I personally most definitely without a doubt would prefer Clinton over Trump but to be honest I may vote for Stein. I contemplate this because I live in a very blue state, Illinois, home of Chicago, home of a Clinton stronghold. I very much doubt voting for Stein will significantly take away votes from Clinton causing her to lose the state. Don’t talk down to people because their beliefs lie to the left of yours and they feel change is desperately needed. I ‘d say vote for whoever you want, I’ d encourage people to really consider the consequences and possible outcomes but the moment you start preaching to someone is the moment you lose their attention.

  • Barry Bylund

    Well, not sure where you got Johnson’s platform to be able to make this comparison but certainly not from his website, Gary himself or any Gary supporter. Go back to the drawing board.

  • Barry Bylund

    An on your blue side – can you count how many times the words – spending, fund, expand, free and regulation are used or supported? What about the words reduce, tighten, analyze, minimize, eliminate waste – any of those words on the blue side?

    Think people think!!!!

    If I didn’t have a brain and wanted lots of free stuff to – I might even vote for you. The problem is the Government doesn’t have any money to pay for all this free stuff – they only have your money!

    Read the Constitution – that’s what the government is legally entitled to do.

  • evZENy

    Jill Stein from Green Party way too good to allow her to be in the list!?
    Do your job better, unless your job is to mislead people.

  • jmattson22

    Interesting how the Stein people are now the new political elite “1 percent-ers”… that is about what she will get across the country, if lucky… notice there are no minority people
    supporting Stein… they have bigger fish to fry…

    • DeploDarkGoldMan

      Well… there is her nutty running mate.

  • ≎ Well golly, it’s as if the guy who was a Republican with a bong and is now a Libertoonian is actually just a Republican with a bong. Just like Ron Paul. The real question is why anyone falls for this, ever.

  • Allan McFarlane

    This is a garbage chart. You are not progressive if you leave the only ACTUAL progressive off of the chart. #propaganda #fauxprogressive #jillstein

    • That will certainly convince us, telling a bunch of people who have been fighting for progressive causes for years or even decades that they’re not progressive. Charming…and very attractive – not!

  • Michele

    so who DID make this chart? please share the attribute. these memes need to be traceable to their makers!

    • Again, this chart has gone “viral” on Facebook, etc. For more on who created it (not that that really matters; the facts are what are relevant here), see here

  • whitecat31

    Chart is wrong. Gary Johnson wants to defund planned parenthood and opposes air and water regulations when a profit is to be made. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-you-shouldnt-vote-for-libertarian-nominee-gary-johnson-w435712

    • So, Johnson’s even WORSE than the chart indicates. Wonderful….

    • Bx007

      The reason his position is listed as “not clear” is he has made statements on both sides of these issues.

      • Why are we not surprised at that? LOL

    • DeploDarkGoldMan

      PP is a political action committee that does abortions on the side.
      They’re an incredibly wealthy organization that doesn’t need tax-payers’ money.

  • Naters

    more shit from people who think the government is their hero and savior when they are 95% of the time anything but.

  • Molly Whitebear

    Obviously they’re afraid to include Jill Stein who is a VERY viable candidate! They are just trying to skew the information like they did when Bernie was running! If you want to see some VERY telling polling, get the app We The People – Election 2016!! It’s a real eye opener!

  • Rick O

    Jesus Christ! Gary Johnson is just as much of an Anti-American as Trump!
    Shame on Blue Virginia for not supporting Jill Stein and the Green Party.

    • Cherry Pop-Tart Flavored Bacon

      Agree with the ignoring Jill Stein part, but don’t know what you mean by “Anti-American” in what ways?

    • DeploDarkGoldMan

      You have psychological problems.

  • Deaisme

    You only think it’s excellent because it’s inaccurate.

  • Bx007

    The Jill Stein question has been answered about 1000 times. She is not a viable candidate. She has run many times and never won a major elected office. She is not polling in any state in large enough numbers to be considered a possible winner. From her own mouth, she shares 91% of Hillary Clinton’s positions. So, what would posting them prove? All she can do in this election is take voters from the only other liberal in the race, Hillary Clinton.

    Johnson is included because he has won major elected office and he is polling high enough in New Mexico that he has an outside (very outside) shot of stealing that state and sending the election to the House of Representatives (the heavily Republican House would make Trump our next president). Furthermore, many liberals have stated they consider him a viable candidate. But, when you look at his actual positions you realize how foolish that is.

    • “The Jill Stein question has been answered about 1000 times.” And Stein supporters have ignored it about 1000 times. Heh.

    • Cherry Pop-Tart Flavored Bacon

      It proves she is more liberal on most issues that is why she’s not included. It’s slanted information to trick people into voting for Clinton. That is why they don’t include foreign policy or privacy rights as well. She is further right than either Johnson or Trump.

  • aj7885
  • aj7885
    • Cherry Pop-Tart Flavored Bacon

      So does Johnson. The fact is Hillary wants to increase taxes on the wealth and generally leave middle classes taxes alone. Both Trump and Johnson want to reduce taxes for both groups.

  • aj7885

    What a bunch of BS. Trump and Johnson don’t oppose air and water regulations. They oppose it being done by executive branch offices. They believe Congress should make those laws.

  • aj7885

    More BS, equal Pay is already the law, Johnson opposes the onerous and one sided proposal of how to decide it.

  • aj7885

    Trump proposes more child care.

  • Looks like Bill Weld came to the correct conclusion!

    The Libertarian vice presidential candidate, William F. Weld, said Tuesday that he plans to focus exclusively on blasting Donald Trump over the next five weeks, a strategic pivot aimed at denying Trump the White House and giving himself a key role in helping to rebuild the GOP.

    Weld’s comments in a Globe interview mark a major shift in his mission since he pledged at the Libertarian convention in May that he would remain a Libertarian for life and would do all he could to help elect his running mate, Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico.

    But things have changed. Johnson has committed several high-profile gaffes in recent weeks that revealed apparent weak spots in his foreign-policy knowledge. Meanwhile, Trump had seemed to be surging back into contention after he fell well behind in the polls in early August.

    While Weld insisted he still supports Johnson, he said he is now interested primarily in blocking Trump from winning the presidency and then potentially working with longtime Republican leaders such as Mitt Romney and Haley Barbour to create a new path for the party after the election.

  • Samuel Axe

    Not saying that anything in this chart is correct or incorrect, but as it stands in this format, it shouldn’t hold ANY weight. If I tried to turn this chart in to a high school teacher or a college professor and pass it off as fact, they’d dock my grade considerably because there are no references or citations to support what it says! Granted, some of it is common knowledge, but that doesn’t forgive the fact that we need to cite sources when compiling information like this. Right now this is just a chart that panders to the political left.

    • So tell us what (if anything) is wrong with it.

      • Samuel Axe

        That there are no sources cited in this post to back up the information in the chart. I thought I was pretty clear about that.

        • Yes, I understood that, I’m asking you what is incorrect in the chart? Seems overwhelmingly accurate to me, and I’ve been following this extremely closely…

          • Samuel Axe

            Again, as I said in my original post, I’m not saying anything is correct or incorrect in the chart. However, without proper citation from credible sources to support the information in the chart, it’s just a chart showing the creators opinions. Show me the articles, videos, etc, that back up each cell on this chart (as it should have) and I’ll be on board with you 100%. Until then this thing holds no weight.

          • Looks fine to me, nothing jumping out at me as incorrect, almost tempted to spend a few hours finding sources to back up each rating (which I’m confident wouldn’t be hard to do, just time-consuming), but now it’s time to watch the two candidates who could be VP debate!

          • Samuel Axe

            I’ll be eagerly waiting to see what you dig up for sources. I imagine the rest of the readers that appreciate facts will be happy to see the sources as well! Enjoy the debate!

          • Cherry Pop-Tart Flavored Bacon

            Appears you scared the Hillary drone off by asking for facts…seems to be a trend.

          • I’m not going to spend hours on this, but let’s just take a few (note, again, that the chart appears to be overwhelmingly accurate for these three, and for the rest as far as I can tell):

            Raising minimum wage: Clinton – SUPPORTS, Johnson OPPOSES, Trump all over the place, Pence OPPOSES

            Climate change regulations: Clinton SUPPORTS, Johnson OPPOSES, Trump OPPOSES

            Obamacare: Clinton SUPPORTS, Trump OPPOSES, Johnson OPPOSES

          • Samuel Axe

            This is a good start, and thank you for your efforts! Assuming the sources you cited here are credible, you have now validated less than 10% of this chart. Politics aside, citing sources is a responsible and professional way to present facts to an audience. Readers should be wary of information like this that is not well cited. As you’ve seen, it takes work but it goes a long way to help show credibility.

          • Again, I am not going to spend my whole day on this, but that random sample is highly suggestive of the chart’s overall accuracy.

          • Samuel Axe

            With only less than 10% proof (assuming sources are credible), one should never assume 100% accuracy. Anyone who has reviewed or performed professional research would still be skeptical of the charts overall accuracy given the citation provided thus far.

          • In addition to random spot checking, I’ve also looked through this chart and am not seeing much that jumps out at me as “wrong.” A few that you could quibble about, but other than that…looks good to me.

          • Samuel Axe

            Politics aside, someone could make the opposite statement: ‘I’ve also looked through this chart and am not seeing much that jumps out at me as “CORRECT.”‘ As it stands, we could take that statement with the same amount of weight and veracity as your own.

          • Samuel Axe

            I look forward to seeing the sources that you dig up to support the information in this chart. Enjoy the debate!

          • JumpingBamboo

            “Again, as I said in my original post, I’m not saying anything is correct
            or incorrect in the chart. However, without proper citation from
            credible sources to support the information in the chart, it’s just a
            chart showing the creators opinions.”

            Now you’re learning how some followers operate!

  • supportveterans1

    Yeah, why don’t you try again but with Jill Stein. What’s that? Oh, that’s right, her positions would blow Hillary out of the water since several of Hillary’s columns could have both boxes checked depending on when you asked her. This is b.s.

    • Cherry Pop-Tart Flavored Bacon

      I am a Gary Johnson supporter this year, but I agree Stein should have been included. The point of this, like many other things released recently, is to discourage young people that supported Sanders from voting for Trump but especially Johnson. Hillary has a big problem with support from millenials and these people have been working overtime to help.

      Including Stein would require them to admit she is more liberal than Hillary on most issues. Just like why they didn’t include for policy as Johnson is more liberal than Clinton on that issue.

  • Chrissy Roper

    Is this were some of that $18 million has gone to trash Gary Johnson? Likening him to Trump is low even for you Clinton! Instead of pushing false eye candy (Where’s Jill? Not afraid of her yet?) why don’t you buy a mirror and take a hard look. There is a reason why Americans are begging for more choices! #OpenDebates #thesystemisrigged #Livefree #JohnsonWeld2016 #NeverFear

  • Chrissy Roper
  • JumpingBamboo

    No mention that Gary Johnson wants to reduce the military by 43%. (for all military-industrial complex complainers, this one’s for you)
    No mention that Gary Johnson’s stance on abortion is only if privately funded.
    No mention that Gary Johnson supports a non-intervention foreign policy. (Thanks to Obama we’re in Syria supporting “moderate” rebels. This is also for all of you who want peace and not war)
    No mention that Gary Johnson supports non-heterosexual marriages.

    Of course, there are many things Gary Johnson supports that a democrat would not, but it goes to show he’s not completely on the other side of the fence.

  • ButShesLying

    Hillary’s platform can be anything she she wants to say it is… but the day she gets into office, she’s going to revert to being the Neocon we all know she is.

    Hillary supports fracking. Hillary is paid by the banks and won’t touch student debt, if anything she’ll make terms more favorable for the banks. If you want a status-quo Republican in office, vote for Hillary. If you want things to change, vote for literally anyone else.

  • nillakig

    you morons forgot to include Jill Stein and this is clearly biased towards Hillary Clinton. Also you forgot one row: Private Email server and destroying evidence while under federal subpoena not to: Clinton supports

  • damon

    Certainly makes a case for a more diverse electorate represented in both houses of Congress. Perhaps a parliamentary system would allow representation of third parties and provide the flexibility to change governments by a vote of confidence. Would it work? Who knows but what we have clearly is not even with Republican control of the congress, most governorships and legislatures, and half of the Supreme Court.

  • Chris

    Horrible propaganda and typical Clinton machine misinformation. Lumping Gary Johnson with Trump is laughable, as is not including Stein. This is a straight smear piece designed to fool younger voters into voting for a lying crook.

  • therain

    Thanks for convincing me to vote Trump.

    • john doe

      me thinks you were already brainwashed to do that…….

  • therain

    BS chart. “Protect wildlife and pets” – Hunters, which are mostly Republicans, actually work towards conservation, unlike dumbocrats, who just get welfare and say they’re doing something.

  • Neil Harmon

    Gary Johnson stands with personal liberty not government knows all. He also thinks states should be the ones making the decision not the federal government. All in all nothing is free in this world. Taxing people to death and adding more spending is not going to solve the US problem. This chart is not factually correct either. I believe Clinton said tpp is the “gold standard” of trade deals. She waffles to what ever you want to hear. I think Jill and Gary should debate each other since they cant get on the national stage.

    • Disagree with everything you wrote except that Stein and Johnson should debate, strictly for the comedic value…two buffoons going at it, hilarious!

  • Maren Brown

    I think you mispelled “Higher taxes for the middle class” under Hillary Clinton’s platform. She was just campaigning this days ago. C’mon guys, if you want to be taken seriously, try reporting the facts and not your fairy tale wishes

  • Peter Orr

    You’re missing the “honesty” ranking. Clinton and Trump don’t have it. Without honesty, these positions mean nothing to me.

  • Cory Myres

    It would be “Handy” if it were accurate. the Clinton campaign makes too much stuff up. People, do your research into Gary Johnson yourself, pick the things most important to YOU and make a table of your own. Don’t let a democrat or republtell you the positions of the other candidates.
    #LetGaryDebate #GaryJohnson2016 #JohnsonWeld2016

  • Stephen Merritt

    What a pile of Garbage.

  • John Curren

    There is so much misinformation on here about Gary Johnson, I don’t even know where to begin. If you are value actual thinking, please research the issues you are most interested in beyond the party-line spin and sound bytes.

  • Tom W.

    This is just no-nuance pro-Hillary propaganda/DNC talking points that dumbs down every single one of those issues to “we’re for good stuff, the other guys are for bad stuff.” It is a serious misrepresentation of Governor Johnson and libertarian positions in general. Don’t fall for it. It also omits Jill Stein and the Green Party.

  • Steven Lee

    Kind of oversimplifies things, doesn’t it?

  • Crimson

    you do know how the election works, don’t you? if not, you should learn about it. A presidential candidate has to have 270 electoral college votes to be declared the winner. Voting for any candidate who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in heck is throwing your vote away. You may feel better, but it won’t change a thing for the election results. If you want Trump in office, vote for Trump, if you want Clinton in office, vote for her. Else use your vote more wisely and vote against one or the other by voting for someone who actually has a chance of winning.

  • Kevin Wills

    It is not even close to being accurate. What has happened to integrity. You dont the have to like a candidates postion but at least accurately describe them vs a silly chart

  • justmytoocents

    Jill Stein is clearly the best candidate if you focus on the issues. https://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV

    • Bx007

      Not if you actually want to see those polices become law. This liberal would rather get 90% than none.

      • justmytoocents

        Jill Stein is still the best candidate for liberals. My statement doesn’t specify if she will get any of her ideas passed just like no one can say whether or not Clinton will either.

        • Bx007

          A good candidate is one who can elected and get things done. Otherwise you’re dealing in fantasies. Might as well vote for FDR.

          • justmytoocents

            A better candidate is one who is trusted to follow through on campaign promises. That is the reason Clinton is polling poorly against Trump of all people. Democrats better start embracing “fantasies” or they will lose.

  • Sabbie

    Oops you forgot about that peskly old thing called WAR. But I guess that’s not our problem, let the parents of all those Middle Eastern children blown to bits worry about that.

    Also- HILLARY WILL PASS THE TPP.

    • Bx007

      Well, Clinton is the only one that would like to stop Russia from blowing the children of Aleppo to bits, so…

  • Barb Roettger

    Where’s Jill Stein?

  • Joseph Ahner

    Inaccurate on Gary Johnson. Johnson tax plan closes loopholes for the rich that trump used. Everything to do with spending tax money Johnson wants to fix through other means.

    • Bx007

      Johnson wants to do away with the tax code and replace it with a consumption tax. That kind of tax does more harm to the Middle Class and poor.

  • Steve Means

    Sorry, this requirement that party candidates get elected before you feel comfortable voting for them is an oxymoron. It was recently pointed out to me by some nice Germans [whose political system is much more modern than ours] that our winner-take-all electoral system can ONLY produce two viable parties, winners and losers. It is literally impossible for a third party to emerge within this system unless one of the incumbent parties crumbles, and can be supplanted. Hopefully, that is happening to the Republican Party right now.

    Anyway, proportional representation–as in much of Europe–is much more fair and nimble than our system. Just another reason why we need an Article 5 Constitutional Convention. We need to modernize our campaign and electoral systems (among other things).

    • Wade Branstner

      I respectfully disagree. Equal access to good information would keep the genius of our founding documents at work. Getting rid of Citizens United, Relieving our elected officials from the burden of fundraising and making them show up to work is where we should start. To me it all stems back to the flow of information. If you want to call yourself a news organization you should meet a high bar of truthfulness with signed articles and available source info. Teachers are not protected by the first amendment on the job, why not reporters and news anchors? News organizations and political information should be have a protected status not subject to the freedom to lie.

      • Steve Means

        I don’t disagree with anything you have said. I don’t understand why you say you disagree with me. I guess reasonable people can no longer agree on much.

        A Constitutional Convention would certainly “keep the genius of our founding documents at work,” because it would directly emanate from that Constitution [Article 5]. What I am proposing is a few simple fixes and a kind of re-direction, but the fixes would go against some Supreme Court blunders (Citizens United is just the latest), so they would HAVE to happen in the context of a Constitutional Convention, or at least a series of Constitutional Amendments. A Constitutional Convention would be more comprehensive.

  • Rubicon

    So she says…

  • Maria Brown

    I believe that they have Gary Johnson really confused with someone else, it is TOTALLY incorrect!

  • Bam Bam Muelens

    Made the mistake of scrolling down to far and saw there was a comments section. Trump won’t win but in another 4 or 8 years we will elect one of these nut jobs… and we’ll get what we deserve.

    “We need a tough guy. He needs to be someone we can have a beer with. Oh he doesn’t read? I don’t read either. He’s just like me.”

    We used to want the smartest guy in the room running the free world but the anti-intellectuals will win. Not this year but in the years to come.

  • EPearson

    How handy! A reference table that leaves out all of the issues that Clinton and Johnson agree on! The more appropriate title for this table might be “A handy tool for influencing uninformed voters who would rather be manipulated than think for themselves!”

  • Daniel W. McCullar

    The problem is Clinton’s position changes more frequently than the seasons.

  • Marcus

    Wonder why Mr Allepo is still listed anywhere as relevant?

  • John Zohn

    Anybody that actually believes that Clinton supports all those regulations knows very little about her history. Gary Johnson is just another republican but so is Clinton. Anyone as deep into the pockets of wall Street and the banking industry will do absolutely nothing to protect consumers from student debt, and Wall Street regulation. She has been quiet on Climate Change and gets too much support from the Fracking Industry which she has pushed around the world to really support water and and air regulations. As a matter of fact she sided with the Fossil Fuel industry and voted against a clean water regulation that would have phased out MTBE drinking water contamination that came from gasoline. Fortunately it passed without her because she was one of the only Democrats that voted against it,
    Here’s a link to th e actual role call vote if you want to research the FACT
    http://www.senate.gov/…/roll…/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm…
    She’s been a supporter of the TPP and she has been silent on it. So anyone who actually believes she is against it is quite naive. She’s in the pockets of the Health care and Pharmaceutical industries so she is not going make Medicaid any more available.This list was made by a $hillary troll and it’s pure BS.

  • Nick Bock

    Is no one actually talking about how this chart is misleading?

    You can’t simply put their positions into a “Support/Oppose” chart. And some of these positions are plain wrong. For example, a lot of the things that Johnson “opposes” He opposes at the federal level, leaving it up to the states to decide.

    Also, he doesn’t support “Lower taxes for the rich.” His tsx plan gets rid of income and corporate tax for a 28% sales tax. That’s definitly steep and not ideal, but that’s his position.

    I’m not really well versed enough to challenge the positions of the other two.

    • Bx007

      “leaving it up to the states to decide” is Republican speak for bury it.

      • Exactly.

      • Nick Bock

        No. It means you are letting the states decide rather than the federal government. As in, you don’t care whether they do it or not because it’s their choice.

        Decision made that way typically more effective because they address the concerns of the state directly, and also usuallyour faster than the federal government.

        Saying something like what you just did is fairly uneducated, and biased.

        • Bx007

          Seriously? Do you have no sense of history? Republicans have routinely used “let the states decide” to push regressive policy. See Roe V. Wade. Someone living in a conservative Southern state, for example, cannot rely on what their state thinks their rights should be. Eliminating the federal government from oversight in healthcare, voter rights, women’s reproductive rights is an invitation to disaster.

          • Nick Bock

            Well, my major in political science says otherwise.

            What you consider regressive, conservatives see as repealing something constitutional.

            Plain and simple, if something isn’t not within the power of the federal government explicitly, its the power of the states (10th amendment).

            We’ll use Roe v. Wade as an example. The US government doesn’t have a right to determine an issue such as that. It’s not a guaranteed right in the constitution, nor are there any powers of the government to enforce it as a right. By conservative view point, it should have been left up to the states.

            If New York wants abortion legalized but New Jersey doesn’t, then they can legislate themselves that way. If you’re living in New Jersey and you want an abortion, sorry, go to New York, because it’s illegal in New Jersey. That’s how conservatives think it should work. (Neoconservatives think it should be banned altogether, but that’s a different argument).

            Healthcare oversight: why do you need federal government intervention into healthcare? The FDA makes it much harder to get vital drugs to patients that need them because it takes roughly 8 years of extensive testing to make them legal. But what if you’re a terminal patient, and you’ll take whatever gives you a chance? That’s more meddling than needed. And again, having different systems throughout the states can help find what works best. That’s why the states are called the “Labs of Democracy.” If something works great in one state, then you’d assume that there would be a domino effect with neighboring states. And it worked like that for about the first 2 centuries.

            For some Republicans, yeah, it’s simple rhetoric to get what they want. But for a conservative (and no, the terms are not synonymous), it’s an actual form of government, while it may not always produce the best results for what some people view them as, it’s still fair and efficient.

          • Bx007

            LOL. A major in political science. Why didn’t you say so? That must mean you know better than everyone, including the Supreme Court justices who ruled on Roe V. Wade. Touting your poly sci major is like saying you have a degree in gym, or communications.

          • Nick Bock

            That entire response and all you are rebutting is that I mentioned I’m a political science major?

            I was using it as an example that I study these issues, how they were formed, and how they were resolved. I’m not claiming I know better. I’m claiming that I’m not just some punk on the internet making uninformed opinions.

  • Jon Adams

    you left out Jill Stein

  • Tim

    Whoever put together this chart is a moron. It’s nowhere close to accurate. Way to spread misinformation and lies about Johnson you tools!

  • Bpear

    Some of this is legitimately wrong. Specifically under Gary Johnson’s column. Maybe we should do our own research since this journalist can’t do their own. Also where are the stances on marijuana and ending the drug war?

  • Bob Healey

    After seeing the postings and reviews on Gary Johnson and Bill Weld’s Town hall Wednesday evening on MSNBC with Chris Mathews, I can honestly say that Hillary is right, but it is about this election in general that there are many “deplorables” out there.

    Gary Johnson was called stupid, dumb, loopy, ignorant, a joker, dumber than a box of rocks, a braindead stoner, as well as the ever popular pothead.

    This was said about a guy that while in college started his own business, Big J Construction. He sold that business formulti-millions of dollars after growing it to over 1,000 employees. He ran as a Republican for Governor of New Mexico, a state at the time that was 2 to 1 Democrats and won. He then won re-election because he did what he promised he said he would do and always put people before politics. He was described by his constituency as honest and trustworthy, a person with integrity, with
    perseverance, and passion. While governor he vetoed over 750 bills, over 1/3 of them sponsored by republicans. The question he always asked when presented with
    a bill was should government be involved and at what cost. He actually vetoed a bill that a Republican had sponsored and was called on it by that republican who stated, “But, I gave $30,000 to your campaign”. Gary’s response was, “I am sorry that is not the way it works, would you like a refund?” On the third Thursday of every month from 4PM to 10PM he would have an open door policy at 5 minute intervals for anyone to come and meet with him personally even if it was only to shake his hand or take a picture. He was a governor that loved and respected the people he represented. Due to term limits, which to this day he endorses in all levels of government, he left as governor after his second term.

    In 2003 he climbed Mt Everest, and has climbed the highest peaks on all seven continents. He has competed in the Ironman Triathlon in Hawaii and has completed the Ironman three times. He has also run and biked in numerous marathons.

    In 2005 he suffered a severe paragliding accident and suffered a burst vertebra making him 1.5 inches shorter. It was at this time facing approximately 3 years of rehabilitation and daily extensive pain he began using marijuana rather than the highly addictive opioids. While he continued the use of marijuana recreationally, he has stopped the use for the campaign run. His campaign run with Bell Weld has no large donors and has approximately 8 Million dollars all from small dollar donations. Compare this to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump who have well over 200 million with
    numerous large donors in their campaigns. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is now spending over 15 million dollars attacking Gary Johnson and Bill Weld now. Even the president, vice president, and Tim Kane are speaking out against them now. Who would have thought they could even get to where they are now considering they are not well known and are cut out of the debates and many polls allowing them the exposure they require. They get no Secret Service protection and are not afforded the luxury of the Intelligence briefings that Clinton and Trump both receive. They travel by Southwest air, no private jets, and usually stay in Motel 6 and user Uber to get around. Their campaign is without a doubt is getting the biggest bang for their buck.

    Gary Johnson’s vice president selection was Bill Weld of Massachusetts who himself was a 2 term Governor of the state of Massachusetts. He also was a republican that won election and re-election by the largest victory ever in the 80% Democratic state. Bill Weld has been described by other governor’s and Bill and Hillary Clinton as a brilliant man and he was even chosen by Bill Clinton to be the Ambassador to Mexico. Bill Weld was denied this position due to his liberal social beliefs by Republican Jesse Helms who was the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Bill Weld withdrew his nomination.

    Gary and Bill’s first promise is to have a balanced budget submitted to congress within the first 100 days of being in office. They will start the cutting right off the bat working as a team with only one staff shared by both of them. Gary often refers to this as two for the price of one as decisions will be made unilaterally. They believe that government should be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, in other words keep government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom.

    So the question begs to be asked is Gary Johnson, stupid, dumb, loopy, ignorant, a joker, dumber than a box of rocks, a braindead stoner, pothead, or just someone that you or your children shouldaspire to be living the American dream.

  • Palmer Granite

    Can”t tell you how much I adore Donald Trump for destroying what was left of the Republican party by taking their gun-totin’, ignorant, racist, redneck strategy to it’s logical conclusion. Blessed be thy name but no political office, please.

  • Lynnette Ward

    Considering that this chat is full of crap, it just pushed me farther away from Killery . Obama care , gun control , and immigration , she lost me there .

    • Anyone who would use the offensive, appalling, uncalled-for term “Killery” was certainly never going to vote for her.

  • tstranko

    Clinton’s column should say “whichever way she can make more money from it” the whole way down then it would be more accurate. This is the most idiotic and biased chart I’ve ever seen. Johnson’s WHOLE column is essentially ALL wrong in a deceptive way. He is for eliminating all federal tax and switching to a consumption tax with “prebate” for taxes issued to households to the poverty level for no undue burden on the poor. Hence when you are for a smaller federal government and more state control….you would obviously be against federal programs listed even if you support them on a state level.

    • Bx007

      His consumption tax would hit the middle class more than the rich.

      • tstranko

        It could but it definitely depends on the rich persons spending habits too. He admits it may need tweaked as it goes along but to say on a chart he is for “lower taxes for rich” is a completely false statement because he’s for a total overhaul to our tax system not just a simple lowering of tax for rich. Poor people actually benefit probably the most with the prebate money they will receive. Just like on the chart it makes it seem like he is pro-life but he is pro-choice. When you are for shrinking the federal government and moving most services to the state then basically you could put opposed next to every federal government program though you may want that program on a state level. Regardless, I’m voting for him because he’s not Trump or Clinton and I’d be embarrassed for either of them to be my President!

        • Bx007

          We disagree. There is no way to view a consumption tax other than to say it benefits the rich, the people who can afford to spend more. I think the person splitting hairs here is you. This is the man’s plan. It’s a terrible plan. Saying that he will “tweak” is like saying “we’ll invade Iraq and then figure out how to make that better.”

          As to the pro-choice position, the chart states CLEARLY that he “opposes funding” and that is 100% true. Many, many women rely on federal funding of their reproductive rights. Johnson’s stand against funding social programs like healthcare and reproductive rights is regressive and disproportionately affects poor people, the middle class and minorities.

          Your vote for Johnson can only get Trump elected. You’re probably a Republican conservative.

          • Nick Bock

            Again, he opposes FEDERAL funding. There is a big difference between federal and state.

            Whether it affects one group more or another, it comes down to whether the federal government is allowed to do that or not, and Constitutionally, they can’t and shouldn’t.

            As for the consumption tax, it doesn’t matter whether it benefits the rich or the poor. It’s fair. Everybody pays 28% on non-essential goods.

            The average person in the US makes $51,000 a year at 25% income tax. That’s $12,750- $3900 (per capita exemption)= 8,850 in taxes.

            To spend that much in sales tax, the average american would need to spend $31,607 of their yearly earnings on taxable products and services. So for the average american, they’re going to be saving money.

            The first 2 brackets (10% and 15%) contributed -2.87% to income tax revenue. So they get more back than what they contribute. Getting rid of income tax and implementing a sales tax, which is essentially voluntary, they’ll be paying their real fair share, considering they don’t contribute as is.

            The poor will likely be spending most all of their money on essential goods anyways. So it disproportionately AFFECTS the rich because they buy more nonessential goods, and they can no longer avoid taxes by claiming capital gains or net losses, like Trump has done since 1995.

          • Bx007

            How in the world is it fair to treat people who make $50,000 a year the same as people who make $250,000 a year? A consumption tax is regressive and no liberal in their right mind would support it. Libertarians are Republicans in sheep’s clothing. They argue for fiscal policies that harm the general population at the expense of the elite class.

          • Exactly.

          • Nick Bock

            You would treat them the same because they’re both human beings and they’re both citizens of the United States in the same regard. You can’t punish someone for making more money which is what a progressive tax ends up being. If everybody is paying the same amount for there taxes, then everybody is being treated fairly. If so I’m making $250,000 a year is paying more that’s only making $50,000 a year, then the person making $250,000 a year is being treated unfairly. Using the argument that they make more therefore they can afford it is unfair. Because those people work just as hard to make what they are providing a valuable service or good. I shouldn’t be but it’s simply because what they do is more valuable than somebody else.

            And no. Libertarians are not Republicans in sheep’s clothing as you said they are. There are a lot of differences between the two that I will be glad to name off. Libertarians are fiscally conservative, because that’s part of our political ideology. We believe that physical conservatism is the only real constitutional way to run and economy. Again, that’s our ideology. We also have very socially liberal views compared to Republicans, which is one of the big places where we differ. There are even economic issues that we disagree on. Saying that libertarian is the same as Republican is like saying that a socialist is essentially the same as a Democrat. It’s just very ignorant to even suggest

          • tstranko

            Typical idiotic response from either party. Clinton supporters tell me my vote is a vote for Trump and Trump supporters tell me it’s a vote for Hillary… maybe I just think for myself and am not happy with the two elitist morons the parties have put forth. Please explain how you guess I’m a Republican Conservative and that helps Trump get elected. That’s the stupidest comment I got yet. If I was, and I’m not, a Republican than how would NOT voting for the Republican candidate help the Republican candidate????

          • Bx007

            Gary Johnson is not going to win. One of two candidates will, Trump or Clinton. So, by simple math, not voting for Clinton helps Trump. Easy.

          • tstranko

            Maybe you’re using the “new math” because simple math does not say that someone who normally votes gop then votes third party….helps Trump. That’s one less vote for Trump that the gop normally would have had.

  • Bx007

    Here’s an updated and expanded chart with sources.
    http://areyouundecided.com/

    • Great stuff, thanks! In sum, Trump is absolutely heinous, Johnson is better in a few ways but actually worse in others (e.g., the corporate tax rate), and Clinton is the clear choice for any progressive who actually cares who’s elected president in 4+ weeks.

  • Sally Clarke

    From my little perch across the pond, I am taking a great interest in American politics at the moment. I judge by what I see and hear, not by polls or heresay. Mr Trump scares me, he is nasty, cruel and vindictive. This is my opinion. That is all.

  • skippyalpine

    This is a biased written pictograph. Even the colors are set to make Hillary more appealing. I hate biased “information”

    • Nick Bock

      It may be biased for sure but the colors are respective of their parties, other than Johnson, whose column should be Yellow.

  • Sad Millenial

    Without stating any position or even caring about candidate names or who they are, how do people not view the left column in blue as fundamental socialism? People have a very weak grasp on basic economics if they believe these policies will work.

    It is tried and true throughout history that socialism is a failed policy platform. Thinking otherwise is naive. Just ask Venezuela (if you’re looking for a moden day example).

    • Nick Bock

      Not all of it is socialism.

      A lot of people, especially Republicans, like to say everything Democrafts stand for is socialism.

      Socialism is taking the means of production and giving it to the people (still doesn’t work well in large, developed countries). But the only things that fit that category are healthcare, free college education, and child care assistance.

  • tompodm

    Johnson and Trump do NOT oppose “Women’s Reproductive Rights”. They oppose tax-payer funding of abortion. By the way, Planned Parenthood sells aborted baby body parts. Don’t sanitize what PP and the abortion lobby stands for.

    • Nick Bock

      The baby parts scandal has been debunked by literally every reputable investigative media source in America, and even some in the UK.

  • AdrienneHB

    You forgot Jill… oh. You’re water-carriers for the Dems too, huh? Mustn’t mention Jill – CAUSE SHE’S OUTPOLLING CLINTON!

  • Nick Bock

    That’s a fairly biased straw man argument you have there.

    How long did it take you to make it sound so clever and thought out?

    Because you’re still wrong about who Libertarians are.