Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, September 18, 2016

Jim Newell, Slate: Do the youngs know anything about Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for president? Recent polls suggest that a good number of them sure seem to like him, or at least consider him a worthy receptacle for a protest vote. And at first glance, it's not hard to see why. Johnson's fun. He's a fun, funny dude. I personally liked him when he was asked about Aleppo and was all, What in the hell are you even talking about? Ha! ... There's a lot more to Gary Johnson, though, that these young, liberal voters may want to consider before pulling the lever.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

When Johnson ran for president in 2012, he proposed a 43 percent, across-the-board, single-year federal spending cut, the worst idea proposed by any candidate running for president that year. Even the most ardent balanced-budget fetishists propose doing so over the course of five or 10 years. Johnson's goal is to do it in one fiscal year, indiscriminately. ...

His tax reform plan, meanwhile, is much like Mike Huckabee's beloved Fair Tax: replace the income tax and payroll taxes with a consumption tax. This would sharply reduce revenue and make the tax code more regressive -- "simplify" it, as they like to say.

Since we're talking about young voters here, too, don't ask Johnson for much help on college tuition. Same goes for your union drive.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"On net, from the perspective of the consensus, young, liberal voter, Johnson over Clinton means a marginally slimmer chance of a hypothetical ground war that Clinton -- though more hawkish by instinct -- has shown no interest in pursuing.

More substantively, he would be more likely to curtail the use of drone strikes overseas. Clinton over Johnson, on net, means an entire fiscal, economic, and regulatory agenda that -- while stymied in Congress in terms of large-scale expansions -- would at least prevent things from getting actively, aggressively worse.

Under Johnson, rich people would be richer, poor people would be poorer, and sick people would be sicker. Our only hope would be that the country could get too baked to notice."

Newell makes precise arguments in the article, so reading it before commenting is recommended.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-16 12:23 AM | Reply

Of course he is.

that's what Democracy is all about.

I don't need an article to tell my otherwise.

Garbage in, garbage out.

So they say...

#2 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2016-09-16 12:28 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Gary Johnson Is Not Worth Any Liberal's Protest Vote

I agree, liberals and progressives should vote Jill, not Gary.

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-09-16 12:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Under Johnson, rich people would be richer, poor people would be poorer, and sick people would be sicker. Our only hope would be that the country could get too baked to notice."

Very true but you can say the same about trump and hillary.

Vote for real change Vote for Jill Stein Green Party.

#4 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-09-16 12:34 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If Jill did really well, she could throw the election to Trump. But then, that's a real world concept, and we have some fantasy players who refuse the accept the possibility, or the responsibility, of a Trump presidency based on their narcissistic ideological conceit.

We'll be sure to remind them if that's what happens. They helped elect Worst Than GW.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-16 12:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I dunno. I was promised free ammo and LSD, in the mail.

#6 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-09-16 01:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-

"Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, joined Fox News Channel's 'Special Report' on Thursday, where she answered a question from Charles Krauthammer about whether or not she is worried about helping Donald Trump get elected.

"I will feel terrible if Donald Trump gets elected and I will feel terrible if Hillary Clinton gets elected," Stein said.

"Equally so?" Krauthammer asked.

"Yes," she said. "Hillary Clinton wants to start an air war over Syria with a nuclear-armed power [Russia] with 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. Given Hillary Clinton's record not only in Iraq, but in Libya, I think this is as dangerous as it gets."

"Donald Trump wants to bar Muslims from entering into this country, but Hillary Clinton has been very busy bombing Muslims in other countries," she said."
www.realclearpolitics.com

#7 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-09-16 02:13 AM | Reply

On net, from the perspective of the consensus, young, liberal voter, Johnson over Clinton means a marginally slimmer chance of a hypothetical ground war that Clinton -- though more hawkish by instinct -- has shown no interest in pursuing.

More substantively, he would be more likely to curtail the use of drone strikes overseas. Clinton over Johnson, on net, means an entire fiscal, economic, and regulatory agenda that -- while stymied in Congress in terms of large-scale expansions -- would at least prevent things from getting actively, aggressively worse.

The author conveniently leaves out one important point. Clinton can pursue her warlike ambitions by edict. We already have permission from Congress to do so, so there's nothing between Clinton and a renewed war on anyone she chooses. Johnson's ill-conceived tax plan would have to make it through Congress, and has a snowball's chance in hell of doing so.

Thus, Johnson can only do BETTER. He can curtail the war that Clinton is likely to escalate. Neither will have any substantive impact on the budget.

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2016-09-16 07:48 AM | Reply

"Thus, Johnson can only do BETTER. He can curtail the war that Clinton is likely to escalate. Neither will have any substantive impact on the budget."

The only thing he is really capable of doing is to pull enough votes away from Clinton to help Trump win. The same goes for Jill Stein. Both are more about their own egos than the welfare of the country.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2016-09-16 08:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If Johnson drops out, Hillary gets slaughtered by Trump.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-09-16 09:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Donald Trump wants to bar Muslims from entering into this country, but Hillary Clinton has been very busy bombing Muslims in other countries,"

I was talking about the election with a couple of guys from work who are Yemeni Muslims. One isn't voting at all because he thinks it's all a sham. The other is voting for Clinton and says that both are dangerous for Muslims but Trump is dangerous for Muslims who live here in the US, while Clinton dangerous for Muslims that live everywhere else.

#12 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2016-09-16 09:46 AM | Reply

The only thing he is really capable of doing is to pull enough votes away from Clinton to help Trump win. The same goes for Jill Stein. Both are more about their own egos than the welfare of the country.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2016-09-16 08:39 AM | Reply

Tell us again how you plan on "holding Clinton's feet to the fire" to make sure she stops being the neocon she has always been if she's elected.

LOL

#13 | Posted by Sully at 2016-09-16 09:57 AM | Reply

A combined 2.5% seems generous.

#11 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE AT 2016-09-16 09:45 AM | FLAG:

Tracking 8%-9% on Gary. It's a banner year for the third party.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-09-16 10:15 AM | Reply

I suspect Johnson is pulling far more votes from Trump than from Clinton.

#15 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2016-09-16 02:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the welfare of the country.
#9 | Posted by danni

The country needs to stop being such blind, partisan sheep. This system needs to be torn down.

#16 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2016-09-16 02:35 PM | Reply

-This system needs to be torn down.

"Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one." - Sam Rayburn

Until one has a replacement plan that is acceptable to voters in a democracy, tearing things down is only tearing things down. Any jackass can do that.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2016-09-16 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This time of the year, you sure know the posters by their headlines.

#18 | Posted by homerj at 2016-09-16 05:34 PM | Reply

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism
"I agree, liberals and progressives should vote Jill, not Gary."

So, other than the fact that she's not Trump, Clinton, or Johnson, what makes Stein worth anyone's vote?

#19 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-09-17 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

...what makes Stein worth anyone's vote?

Well, if she gets more than the 0.36% she got in 2012 it would hailed as "building momentum".

#20 | Posted by REDIAL at 2016-09-17 05:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If we cut 20% off the budget across the board but institue UBI through the federal reserve a la QE but for everyone not only rich connected bankers it would be a net win for all but the poorest and while I don't know the math it would probably be a win for them as well. If you are getting $1000 a month in benefits and that gets cut to $800 but you begin getting $211 in UBI you come out $11 ahead.

Of course anyone getting more than $1000 a month comes out a loser but one would hope that increased economic activity would cause enough growth to benefit even those few.

Gary is far from perfect in my book but neither are the two major party candidates. Any way you slice it things will go to hell but at least with Gary he'll let me go to hell my own way.

#21 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-09-17 05:53 PM | Reply

"I suspect Johnson is pulling far more votes from Trump than from Clinton."

Actually, no. In fact the opposite is true. Listening to the POTUS channel on X Serius, one of the topics that has come up is how there are more Democrats leaning towards Johnson than Republicans. I'm not sure how that's quantified, I was never able to find a source document, but this isn't the first time this has happened. When Democrat Terry McAullife was elected as VA gov in 2014, more Dems than Repubs reported that their second choice would have been Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis.

I think it's a good thing. I imagine that there are lots of voters out there who are turned off by the Repub devotion to the Evangelical class, but at the same time don't want a progressive, top-down planned economy either. The Libertarian ticket offers them the opportunity to support social freedom without sacrificing economics freedom.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-09-18 08:14 PM | Reply

Where in the Democratic party platform are you in seeing a top-down planned economy? There is one place that Trump offered some Central planning it supposed to benefit the economy and its on immigration policy. Trump supporters sure love Central planning when it comes to that.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-18 08:33 PM | Reply

He's not but, you know. Many people bow before their Lord and Saviour Marijuana, so they'll vote for the utter monster anyway.

#24 | Posted by soheifox at 2016-09-19 02:32 AM | Reply

"Where in the Democratic party platform are you in seeing a top-down planned economy?"

I don't think there is one at this juncture, but that was kind of my point. It seems that more and more Dems hold views consistent with libertarian values, and if that's the case, they're not likely to vote for a Democratic candidate who supports a centrally planned economy. Honestly, I've been startled that so many voters who have previously identified with the Democrat party are supporting Libertarian candidates. It's typically been republicans that leaned that way.

"Trump supporters sure love Central planning when it comes to that."

Trump may be further to the left than Clinton on Economic policy. He's certainly not a free market candidate.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-09-19 08:26 AM | Reply

Our Democracy is a charade. You get Clinton or Trump, that's it. The count is rigged, beginning with gerrymandering and ending with computerized fraud. As far as policy goes, fogetaboutit.

scholar.princeton.edu

The US is an oligarchy

#26 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-09-19 11:03 AM | Reply

The libs unhappy with Hillary are either going to vote for him or sit out the election and I doubt many dem voters are going to be influenced by Newell.

#27 | Posted by MSgt at 2016-09-19 02:34 PM | Reply

Why would a Lib vote for Johnson when they have Stein? That makes no sense.

#28 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-09-19 04:50 PM | Reply

"Why would a Lib vote for Johnson when they have Stein? That makes no sense"

Stein is a progressive, but not necessarily "liberal." She would be a much more authoritarian choice, and many liberals reject authoritarianism. Even if it is left-leaning.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2016-09-19 07:13 PM | Reply

The title speaks the truth. Johnson is peddling a flat tax, drugs-for-all, do away with the EPA, privatize the schools, anti-government mish-mash of fringe crap to get anyone's protest vote. He ain't getting mine.

#30 | Posted by e1g1 at 2016-09-19 08:32 PM | Reply

"progressive" came into popular use because the mass media and Rethugs have been on an organized campaign to denigrate "liberals" for decades. These same a$$h*%&s even pretend to love Jesus.

Its ridiculous to claim that Stein is authoritarian. Neither is Johnson. Our two primary candidates fit that mold much better.

#31 | Posted by nutcase at 2016-09-19 08:47 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

Drudge Retort