Your conclusion is a non-sequitur, Jeff.
Tom Christy
31

Except you’re wrong. Laughably.

The major American political parties have drifted so far to the right that almost ANY third-party candidate is more progressive than the Democrats. For example:

—You can believe the manure about free-trade policy being shoveled by Hillary Clinton in an election year—spoiler alert: she also claimed to be against free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama while campaigning in 2008 and then worked aggressively to get them done while Sec State—but Johnson/Weld’s divergence in that regard is a matter of form, not function.

—The Johnson/Weld ticket’s stance on the war on drugs is much more in line with progressivism than Hillary Clinton’s, who only embraced somewhat-sensible marijuana policy in (again) an election year.

—The Johnson/Weld ticket’s stance on foreign interventionism is much more in line with progressivism than Hillary Clinton’s, who has been a staunch proponent of even more foreign interventionism than the Obama Administration would endorse.

—The Johnson/Weld ticket’s stance on corporate welfare is far more in line with progressivism than Hillary Clinton’s unless, of course, you believe huge corporations are giving her family and campaign tens of millions of dollars because they think she will NOT return the favor.

—The Johnson/Weld ticket’s stance on political transparency is far more in line with progressivism than Hillary Clinton’s unless, of course, you believe she maintained exclusive control over her official correspondence by housing a server in her damn home simply for convenience and lies repeatedly because, well, I don’t know.

And, believe it or not, but some progressives actually think downsizing the federal government wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world given the amount of time/money wasted at the federal level. Not to the degree to which Johnson/Weld suggest, but that isn’t happening, anyway.

Jill Stein is certainly more sincerely progressive than Gary Johnson, but pretending sexism is the only reason to eschew Clinton for Johnson is yet another tired and transparent attempt by the Clinton apologists to shame people into voting for the coronation that was supposed to happen in 2008.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.