MMMers - I Now Present The Real True Life Reasons to Vote for Hillary Clinton

[MrStash2000]

Members of the MMM Community:

You may have read about various DNC conspiracies to get Hillary elected or you may have heard about an alleged sex crime cover-up that Hillary enabled and you might be thinking, “Is this who I want to represent our National Brand?” Please proceed to throw that cognitive dissonance out because I am here to set you straight and guide you toward the land of milk and honey.

Consider the fact that Hillary has a goal of a Borderless America. Speaking with a Brazilian bank Hillary stated that her “dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and borders.” Now, I don’t know about you but that sounds absolutely glorious for people in our position. Imagine a world where American workers that make $2800 per month compete directly against Peruvian and Chilean workers that earn approximately $550 per month. Hillary will help make this dream a reality by urging congress to sign TPP into law just as she did with NAFTA. Remember, Obama sought to expedite TPP by placing it on fast track status. It will be Hillary’s job to see it through.

Now all of this might sound like legalese but just know this will be great news for our shares of VTSMX. Lower wages and outsourced jobs = Higher corporate profit margins. Don’t believe me? Well, just watch super-liberal Robert Reich explain how shareholders like us will make off like bandits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O_Sbbeqfdw

Some of you might be all high and mighty thinking, “Building wealth at the expense of blue-collar Americans. I have a problem with that.” For the people with a conscience I think you need to reframe your perspective. Wage class earners are just like the one-dimensional stereotype that you see on the tee-vee. Ignorant and foolish portrayed as President Obama himself once said, “clinging to their guns and religion.” Deplorable? Sure whatever. Just insert any self-serving dogma as you please because the sneering mockery of the blue-collar worker is DESERVED.

Ok, so now that you have gotten past the “feeling guilty thing.” Let’s get back to the bottom-line. Start imagining dollar signs right now because IT GETS EVEN BETTER. You see Obama signed a little known law into effect called “Obamacare.” It is the crown jewel for those of us that on the path to FIRE. If you haven’t figured it out yet: You can retire with an extremely high net worth but you will receive heath-care for absolutely FREE. Famed blogger MMM can explain it better than I so I won’t go bother into all the details (see link below). Some of you might say, “Technically it’s not free” because it is subsidized by wage earners but remember these are the same people clinging to silly ideas like religion and patriotism. They practically have it coming!

You might be thinking that this is just too good to be true because Hillary herself has said she is against signing TPP on a debate stage numerous times and that she is going to go after the wealthy. Well, have no fear fellow MMMers because those are just words for The Third Estate, in front of wall-street bankers Hillary said that to be “successful, politically” you “need both a public and private position” on policy.

Hillary is with US.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillarys-nafta-lie/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/24/barack-obama-fast-track-trade-deal-tpp-senate

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/28/obamacare-friend-of-the-entrepreneur-and-early-retiree/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/wikileaks-releses-excerpts-clinton-wall-street-speeches-article-1.2822032

[ender]

I'm sure this will end well.

[SeaEhm]

I think you should add

"Vote for Hillary so that millions of Americans can see a white person in office for the first time in their lives."   - adapted quote from Between Two Ferns

[jim555]

Since I am FIREd I could care less about jobs and wages, I want low priced imports.  I want free trade without tariffs and trade wars.
My investments will do better in the environment of unfettered competition.
Obamacare is a gift and want it kept, as should all ERers who are not high income people.
I want to preserve Social Security and Medicare.
So based on the above, Hillary is the best pick.

[Glenstache]

I'm sure this will end well.

Probably. Honestly, I'm just trying to figure out where the OP post falls on the spectrum from troll to attempt at humor.

[sol]

I'm sure this will end well.

Probably. Honestly, I'm just trying to figure out where the OP post falls on the spectrum from troll to attempt at humor.

I'm about 70% certain it was attempted satire.

But much like The Colbert Report originally thrilled conservatives, I might be persuaded into taking it at face value based on my own partisan wish fulfillment fantasy.  I'm like the last American who actually supports the TPP and more immigration.

[LeRainDrop]

I'm sure this will end well.

Probably. Honestly, I'm just trying to figure out where the OP post falls on the spectrum from troll to attempt at humor.

I'm about 70% certain it was attempted satire.

But much like The Colbert Report originally thrilled conservatives, I might be persuaded into taking it at face value based on my own partisan wish fulfillment fantasy.  I'm like the last American who actually supports the TPP and more immigration.

Oh, you are not the last -- Gary Johnson/Bill Weld also support the TPP and more immigration.

[nobodyspecial]

Not just South Americans, what about all those competitors from other states?
Decent hard working Seattle bands struggle to afford $1M houses with garages to practice in are being undercut by Southern banjo players who make $10-20/year
 

[swiper]

yes, less religion, protectionism, nationalism all sound pretty good.  Add more efficient trade, better health coverage for the poor and freedom of movement, oh yeah! And since we're dreaming now, icing on the cake would be creation & acceptance of worldwide environmental, human rights and tax/(wealth redistribution) regulation. *swoon

[MrStash2000]

yes, less religion, protectionism, nationalism all sound pretty good.  Add more efficient trade, better health coverage for the poor and freedom of movement, oh yeah! And since we're dreaming now, icing on the cake would be creation & acceptance of worldwide environmental, human rights and tax/(wealth redistribution) regulation. *swoon

Ahhhhh yes let's call it "efficient trade" you are speaking my language.

It's like how much more efficient can you be than slave labor in Central And South America?

With this frame of mind Worldwide environmental regulations will be right around the corner.

[Roland of Gilead]

I think Hillary will back off a bit on the pharma attacks so I am ok now with her gaining office.  I have about $400,000 in various pharma stocks and need those high drug prices to keep rolling on.

We also get about $15,000 a year in ACA subsidies ($100 a month silver plan policy with a $250 a year deductible for married couple late 40s).  Yes we are millionaires, but HRC don't give a shit about that.

I am now voting for Hillary. 

Once you stop actually working for a living, being a democrat is kind of fun.

[Metric Mouse]

Once you stop actually working for a living, being a democrat is kind of fun.

Haha.  I may be inclined to agree with that. :D

[LeRainDrop]

But what about the children???

[Metric Mouse]

But what about the children???

Hillary's been fighting for them for years, according to the commercials.

[nobodyspecial]

But what about the children???

Hillary's been fighting for them for years, according to the commercials.

For them?
Damn I was hoping for an ally against the germ-ridden screaming little horrors

[Metric Mouse]

But what about the children???

Hillary's been fighting for them for years, according to the commercials.

For them?
Damn I was hoping for an ally against the germ-ridden screaming little horrors

Now I imagine Hillary in an MMA-style cage match against school children. Perhaps that's the real reason millionaire investors pay her large sums of money for things she can't reveal...

[marty998]

Putting aside the satire for a moment, these 'revelations' reflect incredibly poorly on HRC.

Advocating open borders does not go down well with anyone these days, unless you are a misguided wide-eyed soul who thinks it'll help save the world.

If it were anyone else besides Trump she'd be sunk pretty quick.

The scary thing is, I don't think this'll be the worst thing to come out in the next few weeks. One wonders what else is still lurking in dark closets.

[Roland of Gilead]

If it were anyone else besides Trump she'd be sunk pretty quick.

The scary thing is, I don't think this'll be the worst thing to come out in the next few weeks. One wonders what else is still lurking in dark closets.

That is probably the key thing that makes this whole election so crazy.   The fact that any person should have no problem beating Trump and yet Hillary is having to fight to win.   If they could just change the ballets to "Which candidate makes you a little less sick to your stomach?" it would be a lot easier to go out and vote.

[nobodyspecial]

Advocating open borders does not go down well with anyone these days, unless you are a misguided wide-eyed soul who thinks it'll help save the world.

Or Adam Smith,

[sol]

Advocating open borders does not go down well with anyone these days, unless you are a misguided wide-eyed soul who thinks it'll help save the world.

Or Adam Smith,

Or Friedrich Hayak, or Ayn Rand, or Milton Friedman.  Those crazy liberals!

[marty998]

Advocating open borders does not go down well with anyone these days, unless you are a misguided wide-eyed soul who thinks it'll help save the world.

Or Adam Smith,

Or Friedrich Hayak, or Ayn Rand, or Milton Friedman.  Those crazy liberals!

With the greatest of respect to all of those deep thinkers and contributors to the wealth of humanity's knowledge, they are all dead and they will not have to live with the consequences of an open boarders policy :)

I concede my comment was overly dramatic. I meant it in the context of Did You See Why The Brexit Vote Got Up. There are a lot of angry Brits out there. Whether the people of the North of England are correct in their assertions that the reasons for their economic decline are due to unchecked globalisation and mass immigration is beside the point. The fact is, the experts, academics and political classes have manifestly failed to prove to them the merits of current economic orthodoxy, and that the benefits flow to all and not just the 1%.

The Brits voted against open boarders. Australia effectively did in 2013. It would not be a stretch to say similar sentiments are bubbling away in much of Europe in response to the tide of Arabs and Africans seeking a safe and better life.

Judging by the popularity of "the Wall" policy in the US, a significant proportion of your people support the sentiment too.

[GuitarStv]

The greatest strength of democracy is also it's greatest weakness.  With a democratic government, the people of a country get exactly the leaders they deserve.

[Jack]

I'm like the last American who actually supports the TPP and more immigration.

Oh, you are not the last -- Gary Johnson/Bill Weld also support the TPP and more immigration.

Immigration is fine. Free(er) trade is fine. The problem with the TPP is that it's using our desire for those things as an excuse to push through a whole bunch of bullshit that gives CEOs hard-ons but is way too unpopular to ever pass as a real law on its own. TPP underhandedness includes clauses that would erode national sovereignty, fuck up copyright law (even more), roll back environmental protections, etc.

[Scandium]

I concede my comment was overly dramatic. I meant it in the context of Did You See Why The Brexit Vote Got Up. There are a lot of angry Brits out there. Whether the people of the North of England are correct in their assertions that the reasons for their economic decline are due to unchecked globalisation and mass immigration is beside the point. The fact is, the experts, academics and political classes have manifestly failed to prove to them the merits of current economic orthodoxy, and that the benefits flow to all and not just the 1%.

Kinda hard to prove something to someone when any attempt is either ignored, or dismissed as part of a conspiracy. Almost like it's a perfect scare-mongering argument.. Heck, can just look at Japan. A rapidly shrinking and aging population and extremely limited immigration leads to pathetic investment and no economic growth. The economy, and wages, grow with a) increased population, or b) increased productivity. Europe is heading for a the japan syndrome of a smaller and older population which is the opposite of both of these. Not hard to see how hard-working immigrants are good for them. And good for America too.

So yes I too have to come out of the closet and support immigration and fewer trade barriers.

[nobodyspecial]

With the greatest of respect to all of those deep thinkers and contributors to the wealth of humanity's knowledge, they are all dead and they will not have to live with the consequences of an open boarders policy :)

I concede my comment was overly dramatic. I meant it in the context of Did You See Why The Brexit Vote Got Up. There are a lot of angry Brits out there. Whether the people of the North of England are correct in their assertions that the reasons for their economic decline are due to unchecked globalisation and mass immigration is beside the point. The fact is, the experts, academics and political classes have manifestly failed to prove to them the merits of current economic orthodoxy, and that the benefits flow to all and not just the 1%.

The Brits voted against open boarders. Australia effectively did in 2013. It would not be a stretch to say similar sentiments are bubbling away in much of Europe in response to the tide of Arabs and Africans seeking a safe and better life.

Judging by the popularity of "the Wall" policy in the US, a significant proportion of your people support the sentiment too.

It's a bit complicated by the fact that the USA is basically a continent rather than a country and so can be more protectionist if it wanted.

But imagine europe as if the individual US states had trade barriers.
Washington would have a quota for the number of TV shows and movies imported from Hollywood, who in return would put a tarrif on Boeing aircraft bought by Ca airlines. States in the midwest would have to pay a fortune for any foreign goods that had transited through several other states each imposing taxes and tarrifs. A small startup in SF selling a fruit named computer would have to deal with 52 different sets of electrical standards and tax authorities.

It's hard to see how this makes everyone better off, even if it would protect Utah's own aircraft or computer companies from California competition.

[Jeremy E.]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

[Scandium]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

But is there a way to get more free trade and retain regulations against dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, because profits?

[Jeremy E.]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

But is there a way to get more free trade and retain regulations against dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, because profits?

For a while Johnson considered a carbon tax, but I think he decided against it. He has considered ways to deal with these things but I don't think he has a clear position on it yet, although he is a part of the libertarian party, he is his own person. Yes he wants to increase personal freedoms, but he is aware that climate change is real, caused by humans and wants to try to stop it. He has sadly also said things like "the rest of the world isn't trying to stop climate change, so maybe it doesn't make sense for us to try and stop it and have our economy take a dip while the rest of the world fluorishes." I'm not sure what his position is exactly but I think it's much more likely for TPP related things to need signed by him than a reduction of EPA regulations to need signed by him.

[MonkeyJenga]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

But is there a way to get more free trade and retain regulations against dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, because profits?

For a while Johnson considered a carbon tax, but I think he decided against it. He has considered ways to deal with these things but I don't think he has a clear position on it yet, although he is a part of the libertarian party, he is his own person. Yes he wants to increase personal freedoms, but he is aware that climate change is real, caused by humans and wants to try to stop it. He has sadly also said things like "the rest of the world isn't trying to stop climate change, so maybe it doesn't make sense for us to try and stop it and have our economy take a dip while the rest of the world fluorishes." I'm not sure what his position is exactly but I think it's much more likely for TPP related things to need signed by him than a reduction of EPA regulations to need signed by him.

Well, probably.

From the Johnson Weld website:

Protect the Environment. Promote Competition. Incentivize Innovation.
We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President.

Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe.

Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market.  Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests. Too often, when Washington, D.C. gets involved, the winners are those with the political clout to write the rules of the game, and the losers are the people and businesses actually trying to innovate.

When it comes to global climate change, Johnson and Weld believe that the politicians in Washington, D.C. are having the wrong debate.

Is the climate changing? Probably so.

Is man contributing to that change? Probably so.

But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations. Governors Johnson and Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda.

Personally, I strongly disagree with this opinion:

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests.

And of course, the famous global warning quote:

Should we take the long-term view when it comes to global warming? I think that we should. And the long-term view is that in billions of years, the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right. So global warming is in our future.

[Jeremy E.]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

But is there a way to get more free trade and retain regulations against dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, because profits?

For a while Johnson considered a carbon tax, but I think he decided against it. He has considered ways to deal with these things but I don't think he has a clear position on it yet, although he is a part of the libertarian party, he is his own person. Yes he wants to increase personal freedoms, but he is aware that climate change is real, caused by humans and wants to try to stop it. He has sadly also said things like "the rest of the world isn't trying to stop climate change, so maybe it doesn't make sense for us to try and stop it and have our economy take a dip while the rest of the world fluorishes." I'm not sure what his position is exactly but I think it's much more likely for TPP related things to need signed by him than a reduction of EPA regulations to need signed by him.

Well, probably.

From the Johnson Weld website:

Protect the Environment. Promote Competition. Incentivize Innovation.
We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President.

Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe.

Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market.  Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests. Too often, when Washington, D.C. gets involved, the winners are those with the political clout to write the rules of the game, and the losers are the people and businesses actually trying to innovate.

When it comes to global climate change, Johnson and Weld believe that the politicians in Washington, D.C. are having the wrong debate.

Is the climate changing? Probably so.

Is man contributing to that change? Probably so.

But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations. Governors Johnson and Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda.

Personally, I strongly disagree with this opinion:

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests.

And of course, the famous global warning quote:

Should we take the long-term view when it comes to global warming? I think that we should. And the long-term view is that in billions of years, the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right. So global warming is in our future.

Okay, well Clinton is for fracking, against nuclear, and has changed her mind about keystone multiple times. I don't see that as a much better option.
Edit: she's also received $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry for her campaign.... So there's that

[Kris]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

But is there a way to get more free trade and retain regulations against dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, because profits?

For a while Johnson considered a carbon tax, but I think he decided against it. He has considered ways to deal with these things but I don't think he has a clear position on it yet, although he is a part of the libertarian party, he is his own person. Yes he wants to increase personal freedoms, but he is aware that climate change is real, caused by humans and wants to try to stop it. He has sadly also said things like "the rest of the world isn't trying to stop climate change, so maybe it doesn't make sense for us to try and stop it and have our economy take a dip while the rest of the world fluorishes." I'm not sure what his position is exactly but I think it's much more likely for TPP related things to need signed by him than a reduction of EPA regulations to need signed by him.

Well, probably.

From the Johnson Weld website:

Protect the Environment. Promote Competition. Incentivize Innovation.
We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President.

Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe.

Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market.  Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests. Too often, when Washington, D.C. gets involved, the winners are those with the political clout to write the rules of the game, and the losers are the people and businesses actually trying to innovate.

When it comes to global climate change, Johnson and Weld believe that the politicians in Washington, D.C. are having the wrong debate.

Is the climate changing? Probably so.

Is man contributing to that change? Probably so.

But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations. Governors Johnson and Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda.

Personally, I strongly disagree with this opinion:

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests.

And of course, the famous global warning quote:

Should we take the long-term view when it comes to global warming? I think that we should. And the long-term view is that in billions of years, the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right. So global warming is in our future.

Okay, well Clinton is for fracking, against nuclear, and has changed her mind about keystone multiple times. I don't see that as a much better option.
Edit: she's also received $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry for her campaign.... So there's that

But it's still a better option. Because at least she has an energy policy that takes climate change into account and tries to act accordingly.

[Jeremy E.]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

But is there a way to get more free trade and retain regulations against dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, because profits?

For a while Johnson considered a carbon tax, but I think he decided against it. He has considered ways to deal with these things but I don't think he has a clear position on it yet, although he is a part of the libertarian party, he is his own person. Yes he wants to increase personal freedoms, but he is aware that climate change is real, caused by humans and wants to try to stop it. He has sadly also said things like "the rest of the world isn't trying to stop climate change, so maybe it doesn't make sense for us to try and stop it and have our economy take a dip while the rest of the world fluorishes." I'm not sure what his position is exactly but I think it's much more likely for TPP related things to need signed by him than a reduction of EPA regulations to need signed by him.

Well, probably.

From the Johnson Weld website:

Protect the Environment. Promote Competition. Incentivize Innovation.
We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President.

Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe.

Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market.  Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests. Too often, when Washington, D.C. gets involved, the winners are those with the political clout to write the rules of the game, and the losers are the people and businesses actually trying to innovate.

When it comes to global climate change, Johnson and Weld believe that the politicians in Washington, D.C. are having the wrong debate.

Is the climate changing? Probably so.

Is man contributing to that change? Probably so.

But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations. Governors Johnson and Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda.

Personally, I strongly disagree with this opinion:

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests.

And of course, the famous global warning quote:

Should we take the long-term view when it comes to global warming? I think that we should. And the long-term view is that in billions of years, the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right. So global warming is in our future.

Okay, well Clinton is for fracking, against nuclear, and has changed her mind about keystone multiple times. I don't see that as a much better option.
Edit: she's also received $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry for her campaign.... So there's that

But it's still a better option. Because at least she has an energy policy that takes climate change into account and tries to act accordingly.

Well, anyone that can see the negatives of fracking and the negatives of modern nuclear and say that nuclear is unacceptable but fracking is okay.... Is not smart in my book. My guess is that she is either
A. Stupid
B. Uneducated on the subject
or most Likely C. Too selfish to associate herself with something that most Americans are uneducated on and thing is bad, and rather than trying to educate them, just avoiding it.

As for getting $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry, I think you are versed well enough with Bernie Sanders where I shouldn't have to quote him on this.

[Kris]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

But is there a way to get more free trade and retain regulations against dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, because profits?

For a while Johnson considered a carbon tax, but I think he decided against it. He has considered ways to deal with these things but I don't think he has a clear position on it yet, although he is a part of the libertarian party, he is his own person. Yes he wants to increase personal freedoms, but he is aware that climate change is real, caused by humans and wants to try to stop it. He has sadly also said things like "the rest of the world isn't trying to stop climate change, so maybe it doesn't make sense for us to try and stop it and have our economy take a dip while the rest of the world fluorishes." I'm not sure what his position is exactly but I think it's much more likely for TPP related things to need signed by him than a reduction of EPA regulations to need signed by him.

Well, probably.

From the Johnson Weld website:

Protect the Environment. Promote Competition. Incentivize Innovation.
We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President.

Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe.

Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market.  Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests. Too often, when Washington, D.C. gets involved, the winners are those with the political clout to write the rules of the game, and the losers are the people and businesses actually trying to innovate.

When it comes to global climate change, Johnson and Weld believe that the politicians in Washington, D.C. are having the wrong debate.

Is the climate changing? Probably so.

Is man contributing to that change? Probably so.

But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations. Governors Johnson and Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda.

Personally, I strongly disagree with this opinion:

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests.

And of course, the famous global warning quote:

Should we take the long-term view when it comes to global warming? I think that we should. And the long-term view is that in billions of years, the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right. So global warming is in our future.

Okay, well Clinton is for fracking, against nuclear, and has changed her mind about keystone multiple times. I don't see that as a much better option.
Edit: she's also received $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry for her campaign.... So there's that

But it's still a better option. Because at least she has an energy policy that takes climate change into account and tries to act accordingly.

Well, anyone that can see the negatives of fracking and the negatives of modern nuclear and say that nuclear is unacceptable but fracking is okay.... Is not smart in my book. My guess is that she is either
A. Stupid
B. Uneducated on the subject
or most Likely C. Too selfish to associate herself with something that most Americans are uneducated on and thing is bad, and rather than trying to educate them, just avoiding it.

As for getting $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry, I think you are versed well enough with Bernie Sanders where I shouldn't have to quote him on this.

None of that negates the fact that she's still better on the environment than Gary Johnson, and especially Donald Trump.

[Jeremy E.]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

But is there a way to get more free trade and retain regulations against dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, because profits?

For a while Johnson considered a carbon tax, but I think he decided against it. He has considered ways to deal with these things but I don't think he has a clear position on it yet, although he is a part of the libertarian party, he is his own person. Yes he wants to increase personal freedoms, but he is aware that climate change is real, caused by humans and wants to try to stop it. He has sadly also said things like "the rest of the world isn't trying to stop climate change, so maybe it doesn't make sense for us to try and stop it and have our economy take a dip while the rest of the world fluorishes." I'm not sure what his position is exactly but I think it's much more likely for TPP related things to need signed by him than a reduction of EPA regulations to need signed by him.

Well, probably.

From the Johnson Weld website:

Protect the Environment. Promote Competition. Incentivize Innovation.
We need to stand firm to protect our environment for our future generations, especially those designated areas of protection like our National Parks. Consistent with that responsibility, the proper role of government is to enforce reasonable environmental protections. Governor Johnson did that as Governor, and would do so as President.

Governor Johnson believes the Environmental Protection Agency, when focused on its true mission, plays an important role in keeping the environment and citizens safe.

Johnson does not, however, believe the government should be engaging in social and economic engineering for the purpose of creating winners and losers in what should be a robust free market.  Preventing a polluter from harming our water or air is one thing. Having politicians in Washington, D.C., acting on behalf of high powered lobbyists, determine the future of clean energy innovation is another.

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests. Too often, when Washington, D.C. gets involved, the winners are those with the political clout to write the rules of the game, and the losers are the people and businesses actually trying to innovate.

When it comes to global climate change, Johnson and Weld believe that the politicians in Washington, D.C. are having the wrong debate.

Is the climate changing? Probably so.

Is man contributing to that change? Probably so.

But the critical question is whether the politicians’ efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective – or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations. Governors Johnson and Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda.

Personally, I strongly disagree with this opinion:

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests.

And of course, the famous global warning quote:

Should we take the long-term view when it comes to global warming? I think that we should. And the long-term view is that in billions of years, the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right. So global warming is in our future.

Okay, well Clinton is for fracking, against nuclear, and has changed her mind about keystone multiple times. I don't see that as a much better option.
Edit: she's also received $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry for her campaign.... So there's that

But it's still a better option. Because at least she has an energy policy that takes climate change into account and tries to act accordingly.

Well, anyone that can see the negatives of fracking and the negatives of modern nuclear and say that nuclear is unacceptable but fracking is okay.... Is not smart in my book. My guess is that she is either
A. Stupid
B. Uneducated on the subject
or most Likely C. Too selfish to associate herself with something that most Americans are uneducated on and thing is bad, and rather than trying to educate them, just avoiding it.

As for getting $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry, I think you are versed well enough with Bernie Sanders where I shouldn't have to quote him on this.

None of that negates the fact that she's still better on the environment than Gary Johnson, and especially Donald Trump.

I think they are both terrible when it comes to the environment(and both better than Trump), but that Gary Johnson believes he is doing the right thing while Hillary is trying to win an election. Also that Johnson has better stances on most other issues. But we can just agree to disagree.

[MrStash2000]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

Gary Johnson just doesn't have the contacts Hillary has on Wall Street.

He is a nobody. Like, how many paid speeches has he given to Goldman Sachs?

[hoping2retire35]

Advocating open borders does not go down well with anyone these days, unless you are a misguided wide-eyed soul who thinks it'll help save the world.

Or Adam Smith,

Or Friedrich Hayak, or Ayn Rand, or Milton Friedman.  Those crazy liberals!

The problem with a lot of libertarian ideas, especially the economic related stuff, is its implementation. I like the idea of open borders and free trade but it has been recently implemented poorly. NAFTA could have worked (perhaps) had we had wage growth or reduced inflation/deflation of the dollar AND not as much open trade with the rest of the world. Too much too fast.

to the OP. Yep if you are a low to medium asset retiree and you don't want much to change(esp in the short term) then Hillary is your best bet.

[sailinlight]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

But is there a way to get more free trade and retain regulations against dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, because profits?

Well you could use the Swiss model where nearly every policy issue is decided via a referendum so party politics doesn't really exist.

[Scandium]

You want open borders and free trade? Then vote Gary Johnson, he is a far bigger proponent of it than Hillary, he is even down with TPP as he says it's a step in the right direction. He was also a very successful governor of a border state.

But is there a way to get more free trade and retain regulations against dumping toxic waste in our drinking water, because profits?

Well you could use the Swiss model where nearly every policy issue is decided via a referendum so party politics doesn't really exist.

Or in CA where they vote themselves a billion dollar high-speed rail line, but no money to pay for it. It would also be fun to see people in Hawaii voting on whether we should do fracking under Manhattan.

[cheapass]

None of that negates the fact that she's still better on the environment than Gary Johnson

Unless your environment happens to be in the Middle East where you can expect continued hospital bombings and blown up children, thanks to Bush/Obama/Hillary style foreign policy.

[TexasRunner]

...
Some of you might be all high and mighty thinking, “Building wealth at the expense of blue-collar Americans. I have a problem with that.” For the people with a conscience I think you need to reframe your perspective. Wage class earners are just like one-dimensional stereotype that you see on the tee-vee. Ignorant and foolish portrayed as President Obama himself once said, “clinging to their guns and religion.” Deplorable? Sure whatever. Just insert any self-serving dogma as you please because the sneering mockery of the blue-collar worker is DESERVED.

Ok, so now that you have gotten past the “feeling guilty thing.” Let’s get back to the bottom-line...

...

I know you're attempting satire but this really is (in effect) how many people feel...  I recall a recent thread that said "anybody could make 100,000$ a year, or even 300,000$ a year if they weren't lazy". 

Maybe I could make 100,000$ a year if you were willing to pay 3$ more for your iPhone or other outsourced, overseas made POS.

Nice post OP.

[Kris]

None of that negates the fact that she's still better on the environment than Gary Johnson

Unless your environment happens to be in the Middle East where you can expect continued hospital bombings and blown up children, thanks to Bush/Obama/Hillary style foreign policy.

Yes, I completely agree.

Unfortunately, the alternatives -- the absolute incompetence and impetuousness of Trump, or the self-indulgent, prideful ignorance of Johnson -- seems even worse to me. Which is fairly stunning.

[cheapass]

Yes, I completely agree.

Unfortunately, the alternatives -- the absolute incompetence and impetuousness of Trump, or the self-indulgent, prideful ignorance of Johnson -- seems even worse to me. Which is fairly stunning.

Agree on Trump - instigating a nuclear war doesn't seem like a good time.

I'd rather vote for someone who needs a little catching up on their geography than someone who is complicit in murdering foreign citizens and is the literal embodiment of the "status quo"

[jrhampt]

Yes, I completely agree.

Unfortunately, the alternatives -- the absolute incompetence and impetuousness of Trump, or the self-indulgent, prideful ignorance of Johnson -- seems even worse to me. Which is fairly stunning.

Agree on Trump - instigating a nuclear war doesn't seem like a good time.

I'd rather vote for someone who needs a little catching up on their geography than someone who is complicit in murdering foreign citizens and is the literal embodiment of the "status quo"

Johnson does need more than a little catching up on his geography, , but I see no evidence that he's interested in doing so.

[MrStash2000]

Russia and US tensions have been rising lately.

Does anyone see a war between the two countries as a good thing?

Think about it like this:

If we blow everything up, what kind of growth will we look forward too in the future? This could be good for my portfolio that holds Raytheon, Haliburton and Lockeed-Martin.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/us-russia-tensions-cold-war/index.html

I think at 36 I will be too old to be drafted. I say let the youngsters fight while we sit back and watch the gains come in! 

[ender]

Russia and US tensions have been rising lately.

Does anyone see a war between the two countries as a good thing?

Think about it like this:

If we blow everything up, what kind of growth will we look forward too in the future? This could be good for my portfolio that holds Raytheon and Lockeed-Martin.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/us-russia-tensions-cold-war/index.html

I think at 36 I will be too old to be drafted. I say let the youngsters fight while we sit back and watch the gains come in!

Yeah I really love watching people die to satisfy politician egos.

[nobodyspecial]

Russia and US tensions have been rising lately.

Does anyone see a war between the two countries as a good thing?

Think about it like this:

If we blow everything up, what kind of growth will we look forward too in the future? This could be good for my portfolio that holds Raytheon and Lockeed-Martin.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/us-russia-tensions-cold-war/index.html

I think at 36 I will be too old to be drafted. I say let the youngsters fight while we sit back and watch the gains come in!

That was a common joke in the UK in the 1970s
We were going to declare war on Germany, bomb our own factories and immediately surrender
Then let Germany rebuild everything.

[Jeremy E.]

Russia and US tensions have been rising lately.

Does anyone see a war between the two countries as a good thing?

Think about it like this:

If we blow everything up, what kind of growth will we look forward too in the future? This could be good for my portfolio that holds Raytheon, Haliburton and Lockeed-Martin.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/us-russia-tensions-cold-war/index.html

I think at 36 I will be too old to be drafted. I say let the youngsters fight while we sit back and watch the gains come in!

I hope you're joking, that's disgusting

[sol]

I hope you're joking, that's disgusting

He's joking exactly as much as he was in the opening post. He's trying to be disgusting.

[Metric Mouse]

Russia and US tensions have been rising lately.

Does anyone see a war between the two countries as a good thing?

Think about it like this:

If we blow everything up, what kind of growth will we look forward too in the future? This could be good for my portfolio that holds Raytheon and Lockeed-Martin.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/us-russia-tensions-cold-war/index.html

I think at 36 I will be too old to be drafted. I say let the youngsters fight while we sit back and watch the gains come in!

Yeah I really love watching people die to satisfy politician egos.

If Russia loves Trump as much as the democrats say, might be a reason to vote for Trump. At least we'll have better relations with them - less chance of war.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Russia and US tensions have been rising lately.

Does anyone see a war between the two countries as a good thing?

Think about it like this:

If we blow everything up, what kind of growth will we look forward too in the future? This could be good for my portfolio that holds Raytheon and Lockeed-Martin.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/us-russia-tensions-cold-war/index.html

I think at 36 I will be too old to be drafted. I say let the youngsters fight while we sit back and watch the gains come in!

Yeah I really love watching people die to satisfy politician egos.

If Russia loves Trump as much as the democrats say, might be a reason to vote for Trump. At least we'll have better relations with them - less chance of war.

Or just cut out the middleman and write in a vote for Putin. At least he has a proven record as an effective politician.