'Gary Johnson Backs CO2 ‘Fee’ To Fight Global Warming'

[undergroundrr]

No, he doesn't.

No, it isn't.

Yes, he does. Yes, it is.

Right now, pollsters that include Johnson and, less frequently, Stein are showing Clinton with a slightly smaller lead than pollsters that test only Trump and Clinton. You can see this by looking at the national polls taken since June 1. According to the FiveThirtyEight polling database, 18 pollsters have taken a national poll that asked about the presidential race with only Clinton and Trump offered as an option and in a separate question asked about the race with at least Johnson included. Here is the average margin by which Clinton is ahead of Trump in those polls, with and without third-party options...

... The majority of pollsters (12) have Clinton’s margin over Trump shrinking when at least one third-party candidate is included. The difference in margins, however, varies among pollsters, and a few, such as Ipsos, have Clinton’s lead rising by the tiniest of bits when at least Johnson is included. Overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...on-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/

Do you for some reason want him to take more from trump?

 

[undergroundrr]

But doesn't Stein offer far more to these types than Johnson?

No, he's playing for moderates. She's playing for the far left.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Do you for some reason want him to take more from trump?

You're projecting. Again. I support Castle. In fact, I go out of my way to make that known. It's right there in my sig-line. Is it not? Sure it is. I know this becase I put it there.


The reality is that Clinton is leading Trump. What does that tell you? Hm? What?

By all means, though, keep pimping the liberals.

Heh. Actually that's something else about your pollsters. When November comes and goes, Johnson will be lucky to see 2% of the vote. Remember who told you that. Because when he does, I'm going to come back here and show you, the all-knowing, all projecting, undergroundrr, master of bullsht, that it's all that he got.

 

[undergroundrr]

Again. I support Castle.

Darrell Castle is awesome.

 

[euphemia]

Gary Johnson is not even a characature of a Libertarian. He is a socialist liberal along the lines of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

 

[dannno]

But doesn't Stein offer far more to these types than Johnson?

Not if Johnson actually has a chance of doing something.

 

[euphemia]

Johnson has no chance of winning over thinking liberty people. He has every chance of winning over liberals and socialists.

 

[undergroundrr]

Johnson has no chance of winning over thinking liberty people. He has every chance of winning over liberals and socialists.

A generalization, but correct.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[Johnson] takes more votes from Hillary than he does from trump. Consistently true.

Yes, he does. Yes, it is.

Right now, pollsters that include Johnson and, less frequently, Stein are showing Clinton with a slightly smaller lead than pollsters that test only Trump and Clinton. You can see this by looking at the national polls taken since June 1. According to the FiveThirtyEight polling database, 18 pollsters have taken a national poll that asked about the presidential race with only Clinton and Trump offered as an option and in a separate question asked about the race with at least Johnson included. Here is the average margin by which Clinton is ahead of Trump in those polls, with and without third-party options...

... The majority of pollsters (12) have Clinton’s margin over Trump shrinking when at least one third-party candidate is included. The difference in margins, however, varies among pollsters, and a few, such as Ipsos, have Clinton’s lead rising by the tiniest of bits when at least Johnson is included. Overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...on-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/

Do you for some reason want him to take more from trump?

According to that, it's a mere one percent difference on average - and that's with respect to the inclusion of any third-party candidates, not solely Johnson.

But even if it regarded Johnson only, one percent is well within the average margin of error of the polls from which this result was derived.

In other words: Johnson makes no statistically significant difference in the delta between Clinton and Trump.

In other other words: The citation you provided fails to support your assertion.

 

[Spikender]

Gary Johnson is a caricature of a libertarian. Carbon dioxide control? Has he gone mad? I could understand something about habitat preservation, but he's actually pushing carbon dioxide nonsense with no focus on solar activity?

He's not even a caricature. A caricature to me is overblown and ridiculous. Gary Johnson is a cardboard cutout of a libertarian with a scared statist cowering behind it puffing on a roach.

 

[Anti Federalist]

If a company dumps toxic waste into a river, the company can be sued out of business. But if a company dumps toxic waste into the air, everyone shrugs their shoulders and says "oh well"....

If CO2 is a "toxic waste" (it isn't), then you are emitting toxic waste every second you breathe.

CO2 taxes, fees and regulations will be the ultimate control on you.

Nothing you do, short of committing suicide, does not emit CO2.

That is why globalists and futurist liberals like Johnson, love them some CO2 regulations.

Everything you do will be subject to regulation, taxes and controls.

 

[euphemia]

The EPA (a legitimate use of government according to Johnson) dumped toxic waste into a river.

 

[Suzanimal]

It’s not exactly clear how a “fee” on CO2 would be different than a “tax,”

If he calls it a fee, he can say he didn't raise taxes.

 

[euphemia]

If he calls it a fee, he can say he didn't raise taxes.

And once he does away with the military, he will have more money for the legitimate use of government, according to Johnson, and more money to give back to the people.

 

[undergroundrr]

And once he does away with the military

Military troops favor Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president over Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, according to a new survey.

Johnson garnered 38.7 percent of the active duty vote, versus 30.9 for Trump, and 14.1 for Clinton, according to the survey, which was conducted via the popular military personality Doctrine Man.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...eating-trump-clinton-among-active-duty-troops

 

[euphemia]

I get that misused and overcommitted military people want to come home. They have misplaced their loyalty if they favor Johnson. He is as socialist as any candidate we have ever seen. He isn't hiding the fact that he would bring home the military to save money so we have more money to give back to the people.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Nothing you do, short of committing suicide, does not emit CO2.

And it gets worse - post-suicide, you're gonna start emitting other so-called "greenhouse" gasses.

But that's an easy fix. We just need to levy taxes fees on corpses ...

 

[Krugminator2]

Is a carbon tax in and of itself un-libertarian? No. You have to penalize or restrict pollution. No one owns the air or water so there is no incentive to take care of it. The problem is a carbon tax on top of the zillion other costly regulations already in place. There is zero chance that the EPA will be eliminated and replaced with taxation.

And it isn't even clear that a carbon tax will be effective. It will likely just make US business even more uncompetitive with the rest of the world.

A carbon tax is probably a horrifically bad idea but there are a lot bigger things to complain about with Johnson than this.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Is a carbon tax in and of itself un-libertarian?

It's not authorized. It's unconstitutional. Taxes are Limited for Liberty. Now you could try to make a case for Article 1, Section 8 about General Welfare, but congress isn't authorized to tax and spend as it pleases, regardless of what it "thinks" serves the General Welfare. Congress does not possess unlimited, sovereign power to tax the people. And, actually, General Welfare was put into context as a means to restrict arbitrary taxing and spending if you read it right.

 

[William Tell]

Is a carbon tax in and of itself un-libertarian?

Yes, incredibly so. Much like the property tax is un-libertarian. In a libertarian society, a person who grows his own food could live hypothetically live his life without having to be a part of the system. Even if you have sales tax, if he provides for himself and doesn't sell anything he wouldn't need money. Property tax makes this impossible, you need money to pay your yearly rent.

A carbon tax would likewise make everyone a slave. Of course all taxes have their negatives but it really doesn't get more evil than a carbon tax, except maybe having a tax on life itself. It basically is though.