If the only choice was Gary Johnson/Bill Weld versus Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka...

[LLR]

ugh, Johnson. I've done a complete 180 on Stein and am considering changing my registration from Green to Independent after November. Johnson is much more capable to serve as President, whereas Jill Stein reminds me of Donald Trump in the sense that she has plenty of goals, but no feasible way of achieving them. Plus her running mate is completely nuts.

*has a -8, -8 PM score*
*votes for a fiscal conservative because EMAILLSSSS*
*will indirectly elect trump*

[HisGrace]

Definitely Johnson.

Surprised so many people are saying Stein is insane, particularly Democrats. What is different about her from Sanders that makes her insane and him not?

[Blue3]

Definitely Johnson.

Surprised so many people are saying Stein is insane, particularly Democrats. What is different about her from Sanders that makes her insane and him not?

Someone hasn't been keeping up with Jill Stein and her "ban WiFi for those under 18," vaccine-doubting lunacy and her visits to Putin and her running mate's conspiracy theories. Her fierce, unexplained flip-flopping on big issues. And of course her general inexperience.

[anthonyjg]

Definitely Johnson.

Surprised so many people are saying Stein is insane, particularly Democrats. What is different about her from Sanders that makes her insane and him not?

This sums it up.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/27/jill_stein_is_not_the_savior_the_left_is_looking_for.html

[Grumpier Than Thou]

ugh, Johnson. I've done a complete 180 on Stein and am considering changing my registration from Green to Independent after November. Johnson is much more capable to serve as President, whereas Jill Stein reminds me of Donald Trump in the sense that she has plenty of goals, but no feasible way of achieving them. Plus her running mate is completely nuts.

*has a -8, -8 PM score*
*votes for a fiscal conservative because EMAILLSSSS*
*will indirectly elect trump*

You're assuming that, because I answered the question that was asked, I'm voting for Johnson? That's awfully reductive of you, friend.

As of right now, this remains true in regards to who I will vote for:

I honestly don't know. Ask me on Election Day. I haven't ruled out voting for $hillary.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Johnson/Weld reluctantly

[Illiniwek]

lol, Johnson, no questions asked

[IceSpear]

Probably Johnson, simply because Stein has gone so far off the deep end and I'd prefer a sane president, but it would be a very bitter pill to swallow considering many of his views.

Honestly, in a sane world, the election would be Clinton vs. Johnson with Trump and Stein playing in the third party sandbox.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Johnson, easily. I'm not a fan of his economic views, but he is someone who could at least be reasoned with, and I am confident he could handle the duties of the office. I would only vote for Stein if the only options were her and Trump, because at least she's not a racist.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Johnson, clearly. Two credible ex-governors as opposed to a pair of gadfly conspiracy nuts, one of whom has ties to Holocaust deniers.

[Goldwater]

Honestly, in a sane world, the election would be Clinton vs. Johnson with Trump and Stein playing in the third party sandbox.

Agreed.

[Maxwell]

Johnson/Weld, of course. These are pretty much mainstream American politicians.

LOL, no.  I'm voting for the guy, but libertarianism is, almost by definition, not mainstream.

neither are especially authentic libertarians, especially Bill Weld.

[Blue3]

Johnson/Weld, of course. These are pretty much mainstream American politicians.

LOL, no.  I'm voting for the guy, but libertarianism is, almost by definition, not mainstream.

neither are especially authentic libertarians, especially Bill Weld.

What does this even mean?

[Miles]

Johnson.

I wasn't a fan of Stein before, but her tweet accusing Hillary of being a bad mother was douchy and classless.

[Goldwater]

Johnson/Weld, of course. These are pretty much mainstream American politicians.

LOL, no.  I'm voting for the guy, but libertarianism is, almost by definition, not mainstream.

neither are especially authentic libertarians, especially Bill Weld.

What does this even mean?

I think he mean to say "neither of them are especially authentic libertarians". Basically, he's saying that they aren't very extreme in their views.

[Blue3]

I got that.

It's good that they're not on the fringe.

But how are they not "authentic" libertarians?

[This account no longer in use.]

I'll take the socially awkward moderate libertarians over two far leftists who could quite possibly be legitimately crazy.

[VPH]

If I was not allowed to abstain, Stein. Johnson would dismantle the entire social safety net.

[nclib]

Stein, due to economic issues, even though I am not crazy about her, and Johnson/Weld are a much better ticket than Libertarians usually offer.

[Lyin' Steve]

Johnson/Weld by a mile.  Johnson seems vaguely competent if also awkward and perpetually stoned.  Weld seems extraordinarily capable.  Their extreme economic policies would be checked by Congress, and I trust them to do a reasonable job of managing the duties of the office, although I worry about their foreign policy.  Things like managing the large bureaucracy of the executive branch, selecting good candidates for various positions, responding to crises and representing the US on the world stage seem within their toolkit, if a bit of a stretch in some areas.  It wouldn't be a good four years, but it wouldn't be a complete disaster.

Stein, on the other hand, is absolutely unfit for office; we have every reason to believe that she is unable to do any of the tasks it requires with even the most marginal level of competence, the bully pulpit the White House would give her would be actively harmful to the fabric of this country, and her running mate is actually a madman. 

[IceSpear]

Dear Democrats and lefties who claim that they would vote for Johnson,

Johnson's past comments on vaccinations are as disturbing and ridiculous as Stein's:



It really speaks to the state of the difference between the American right and American left that we have third-party candidacies on either side of the spectrum, both of whom have said ridiculous things and aligned themselves with folks whom we should find disturbing, yet the one on the right looks normal in comparison to Republican Party's nominee and the one on the left has been utterly discredited. For example, everyone realizes that the Koch brothers would be perfectly comfortable - happy, even - supporting Johnson/Weld if there were no Republican ticket on the ballot, right?



Yet on the right we have folks who are described as "mainstream politicians" and on the left, apparently, total kooks. This is nonsense. Don't let Johnson's background as an elected official or the faux-respectability of the WASP-y, #NoLabels-pandering Bill Weld fool you. These guys are fringe, albeit fringe in a way that would not preclude, say, signing the kind of tax reform that you'd encounter in one of Paul Ryan's wet dreams.

If you still think that Johnson is more reasonable than Stein, that's defensible (although I, obviously, am unconvinced), but don't pretend that Johnson isn't a weirdo with strange policy views that would harm you and people whom you care about as much as most other non-Trump Republicans.

I mean, yeah, Johnson is a little nutty. Stein was a little nutty too in 2012, and I'd take her 2012 incarnation over Johnson easily, but she's clearly gone full lunatic since then. Talking about Wi-Fi signals rotting kids' brains, pandering to anti-vaxxers, being pro-Brexit until being confronted about it then suddenly becoming anti-Brexit, dining with Putin and being a useful idiot of the Kremlin, spreading other assorted conspiracy theories, insulting Hillary as a bad mother (seriously, not even Trump sunk this low. He complimented Chelsea's speech. Stein sunk even lower than Trump. Let that sink in.) From what I can tell her running mate is just as bad or worse.
 
I'd take a semi-sane Green over Johnson any day, but not Stein. It would be the height of hypocrisy for Democrats to ask people to put ideology aside in favor of voting for the sane and rational choice (Clinton over Trump), but then support Stein over Johnson.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

The one I'm actually going to vote for in November.

[The Dowager Mod]

Johnson/Weld with no hesitation.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Dear Democrats and lefties who claim that they would vote for Johnson,

Johnson's past comments on vaccinations are as disturbing and ridiculous as Stein's:



It really speaks to the state of the difference between the American right and American left that we have third-party candidacies on either side of the spectrum, both of whom have said ridiculous things and aligned themselves with folks whom we should find disturbing, yet the one on the right looks normal in comparison to Republican Party's nominee and the one on the left has been utterly discredited. For example, everyone realizes that the Koch brothers would be perfectly comfortable - happy, even - supporting Johnson/Weld if there were no Republican ticket on the ballot, right?



Yet on the right we have folks who are described as "mainstream politicians" and on the left, apparently, total kooks. This is nonsense. Don't let Johnson's background as an elected official or the faux-respectability of the WASP-y, #NoLabels-pandering Bill Weld fool you. These guys are fringe, albeit fringe in a way that would not preclude, say, signing the kind of tax reform that you'd encounter in one of Paul Ryan's wet dreams.

If you still think that Johnson is more reasonable than Stein, that's defensible (although I, obviously, am unconvinced), but don't pretend that Johnson isn't a weirdo with strange policy views that would harm you and people whom you care about as much as most other non-Trump Republicans.

I mean, yeah, Johnson is a little nutty. Stein was a little nutty too in 2012, and I'd take her 2012 incarnation over Johnson easily, but she's clearly gone full lunatic since then. Talking about Wi-Fi signals rotting kids' brains, pandering to anti-vaxxers, being pro-Brexit until being confronted about it then suddenly becoming anti-Brexit, dining with Putin and being a useful idiot of the Kremlin, spreading other assorted conspiracy theories, insulting Hillary as a bad mother (seriously, not even Trump sunk this low. He complimented Chelsea's speech. Stein sunk even lower than Trump. Let that sink in.) From what I can tell her running mate is just as bad or worse.
 
I'd take a semi-sane Green over Johnson any day, but not Stein. It would be the height of hypocrisy for Democrats to ask people to put ideology aside in favor of voting for the sane and rational choice (Clinton over Trump), but then support Stein over Johnson.

What is politics but the art of using hypocrisies in your favour?

And yeah, Stein over the social Darwinists. If it's any consolation to right wingers, generally the radicalness of Green parties last about five minutes into power.

[Pyro]

No self-proclaimed "progressive" Democrat should even consider Johnson as a viable option. Even if you have qualms over Stein's inexperience and her running mate, to prefer Johnson over her means you would be voting for eliminating corporate taxes, shutting down the Department of Education (along with federal loans/grants), privatizing social welfare programs, and allowing an unrestrained, unregulated "free market" system to crash the economy. And that's just the tip of the iceburg. The libertarian platform, overall, is so blatantly anti-humanitarian it's unbelievable. But I suppose if you've bought into the wifi/vaccine hysteria, then I guess you're fool enough to pick anyone.