Why I support Gary Johnson, but not Hillary Clinton

Note: “T” doesn’t even qualify as a candidate.  This election is Johnson vs Clinton.

Many of my friends beg to differ, seeing this as a Trump vs. Clinton race, of which you are either anti-Trump or anti-Clinton.  To them, you have to get out to vote to “stop” T from winning.

I do not think that that is a legitimate voting metric.  If that is how a person is choosing between the candidates, he/she should stay at home instead, or leave the presidential ballot blank.

There are basically 3 kinds of active votes.

  1. Voters who know the relevant issues, how they can be affected, and where the candidates stand on them.
  2. Voters who value “non-issues” and place their vote on candidates based upon issues that the candidate can not, or should not be even opening his/her mouth about, since it is not his-her power to do anything about it.
  3. Voters who “just like” the candidate because of his/her face, gender, party affiliation, friends support, or any other random non-reason.In this election, we’ve introduced a fourth degenerate category:
  4. Voters who “hate” the other candidate because of his/her face, gender, party affiliation, friends support.

In general, voter groups 2, 3, and 4 should stay home.  Their votes are polluting.  In #2, Their candidate cannot affect the issues they purport to care about, that candidate can only affect the issues that the voter didn’t care to know about, usually in an unpredictable way.  In #3, the voting booths are meant to be private, it is not supposed to be there for your need for social affirmation.  Voting is not voting for your sports team so that you can say “in your face” to supporters in the other camp.  Stay home.  Voting is not your civic duty. Getting informed is.

Number 4 is the worst of 2 and 3 and the total opposite of #1.  It is explicit not-support of relevant issues, while creating the illusion in the voting system that the candidate voted for will behave “correctly” on the relevant issues.  But if one doesn’t know what those are.  And one doesn’t know what the other candidate’s issues are.  What’s even more maligned, is that the thing that the anti-Clinton, anti-Trump vote have in common (besides their divisive uninformed hate) is the very incorrect idea that USA only has 2 parties.  This idea may be amplified by the winner-take-all laws of the electoral college, but if voters keep saying “there are only two parties, only one of the two can win, voting third is throwing away your vote”, they create only two parties.  It is a false-feedback loop, which is amplified by the anti-X, anti-Y voting strategy.

What’s more, buying into the anti-{X,Y} strategy is what creates the environment for either X or Y to win. Hate Clinton?  Stop talking about hating Clinton and voting for T because you hate Clinton.  Hate T?  Stop talking about T and voting for Clinton to stop T.  The only thing it does is amplify T’s vote.  It really becomes a competition of red vs blue.  I mean that.  It isn’t even competition of T v C or any of their issues.  This has become the least meaningful election ever.

So lets talk about the issues.


First, T has no platform.  Literally.  Just says a lot of loudmouth-halfwit-grotesque things and claims to do things that the executive branch does not have power over.  Is he going to threaten to bomb mexico if they don’t build his wall?  Or is he going to conscript our military into wall building?  As a person, T has been a failure at every single thing he has put his hand to.  The only thing he’s successful at is planting his name across buildings and filing bankruptcies.  Now he wants to plant his name across America before he dies.  Maybe his fiscal plan is for the US Treasury to file bankruptcy itself.  There’s some legitimacy to that idea, but I had to invent it to fill in the gaps of his platform.


Clinton pitches herself to be the anti-trump, but she and her campaign is more alike to Trump than different.  If she is the anti-trump, she’s on the opposite side of the same coin.  If you read her platform, voting history, and quotes, you’ll quickly find that she’s carefully not said anything at all, except about things that she knows that nothing can be done about.  So here they are:

Issue (straight from their website)Executive can do anything Assessment (& Do I support it)
 A fair tax system, taxing wealthy and corporations moreMaybe, only by urging congressNO. Not the problem.  I’m definitely not wealthy or even middle class, but if the IRS comes after me for 100x over an even plausible bill, it’s not rocket science to see that that “taxing the wealthy” isn’t the problem.  That’s even more pressure on the IRS to increase collections, which means they’ll more aggressively come after middle class and poor.
 LGBT rights No. <smokescreen to get more voters>
 Racial injustice No.<smokescreen to get more voters> Racial injustice?  WTF does she know about that??  I mean that.  Hillary has struggled with absolutely zero racial injustice.  As someone who has in this country, I know that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
 Substance abuse, more treatment PerhapsNO.   Expanding government into peoples’ lives even more is not the answer.  It is only going to result in an increase in the DEA’s power and the federal executive overextending it’s jurisdiction even more into state and local communities.  Really, absolutely NO.
 College debt free No. <smokescreen to get young voters> What?  Oh what a nice idea to get voters.  But again, misses the point.  Why is college debt so high?  It is because the “public, not for profit” schools are TAKING FEDERAL MONEY AND INVESTING IT IN PROPERTY, WHILE SHOWING A LOSS.  The fed’s special tax bracket and special loans through colleges have created the tuition inflation problem. How would she police it anyway?  The fed’s only leverage on schools is through the federal loan programs and tax code.  More regulation is the answer? NO. Stop giving money to colleges.  Then we don’t need a special Federal-money-college-police force too.
More fixes universal healthcare Yes/No Obama got traction here, not sure Hillary would.  But there’s a bigger problem.   Requiring everyone to have health insurance only benefits the insurance companies.  Health insurance != Health care.  Health Insurance == Insurance companies have a steady cash flow.  Gee I wonder who lobbied that one.  The best fix to our country’s healthcare is a total abolishing, by law, of the entire insurance industry.  So no, I wouldn’t vote for her until she talks about this issue.  Maybe next election.
 Increase minimum wage Maybe NO. Who benefits from increasing minimum wage?  Do the workers?  NO.  The beneficiary of an increase in minimum wage is THE FED.  Suddenly more people are forced into higher tax brackets, where the Fed can bleed them even more.   Abolish minimum wage, remove the employment taxes, esp for low income workers.  Get rid of laws requiring low-earning jobs to have INSURANCE!!  WTF??? It now costs more to pay someone to mow the lawn than it does to buy the exact same high power lawnmower and mow it yourself.  It costs more to send a child to daycare than rent, and as much as tuition in some places.
 Military Yes This is the executive purview, and Hillary’s record has been very pro deployment, pro military spending.  NO.
 Email issue WTF Seriously?  People are bringing this up?  What a non issue.  This isn’t the 1950′s, everyone has a home server logging their email.  I have 5.

Apart from lack of clear platform, Clinton is part of “the problem”, she’s part of the system, “outward looking”.  The problems in the US are always on the outside of the Fed, for the Fed to fix and blame. In truth, the problem IS THE FED (and not in a conspiracy theory way), if she’d turn her gaze inward to the administration, superfluous agencies, overstepping rights, amassing power, over-regulating every possible thing, distorting every market with monetary incentives, while the Fed fails to be competent at the one thing it gives itself total sovereign rights to (monetary policy and taxation), I think she’d find more support.  And protecting the ideals of the constitution.  That’s their absolute first job too.

Gary Johnson

Issue (straight from their website)Executive can do anything Assessment (& Do I support it)
Drastic and broad spectrum cuts in the Fed Maybe YES
 IRS re-evaluation and cut Maybe  ABSOLUTELY YES
DEA, TSA and other executive-”enforcement” (as in, police enforcement and rights trampling) cuts Yes YES
 Oversight of the Fed Reserve and reduction of money printing Maybe He can accomplish this through broad veto power.  YES YES YES
  Incarcerated foreigners must be given due process YesYES. The executive is holding the prisoners, and by holding them, the Fed is effectively making them into US citizens without rights.

Weakness: He has no real clue how to get to those objectives. Doesn’t speak clearly or eloquently or remain levelheaded.
Strength: At least he knows that those are problems with the Fed.