Jill Stein, hypocrite:

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein has largely based her campaign on her uncompromising positions on the environment, opposition to big banks and Wall Street, defense contractors, and the pharmaceutical industry. But an analysis of her financial disclosures, which she was required to file as a presidential candidate, show she is heavily invested in the very industries that she maligns the most and as a result of her investments, she has built significant wealth.

The Daily Beast did some digging and discovered that Stein and her husband are heavily invested in fossil fuels, big pharma, tobacco companies, giant banks, and defense contractors. Back to the Daily Beast...

While it’s true that Stein would not have control over the investments of the funds she invested in, she did have a choice of whether to invest in these funds to begin with. In the past, political candidates, in an effort to avoid a conflict of interest or have their judgment called into question, have invested their entire portfolios in U.S. Treasuries, cash/cash equivalents, in socially responsible index funds, or clean-energy funds. In her statement, Stein said that she has “explored” more socially responsible funds but “found their investments in fracking and large-scale biofuels not much better than the non-green funds. I have not yet found the mutual funds that represent my goals of advancing the cause of people, planet, and peace.”

Not investing in mutual funds at all—since she couldn't find any that weren't destroying the planet, ripping off the sick and dying, or building weapons of war (drones!)—apparently wasn't an option. (Has Stein has never heard of real estate?) This is hilarious and germane, considering that Stein's entire campaign is one big bullshitty, grandstanding, fault-finding, purity-testing, holier than thou-ing guilt trip designed to convince dimwitted lefties to vote for her/squander their votes/help elect Donald Trump.

And Stein, troll that she is, tweets this today...


You invest your vote in the Green Party while Jill invests her money in corporatist warmongers.


Gary Johnson, angry white man...

Johnson’s national poll numbers have plummeted since August, despite running in an election year in which the Republican and Democratic nominees have exceptionally low favorability ratings. The Libertarian was hovering around 10% in national surveys, but after a series of embarrassing interviews—including one in which he appeared not to have heard of the Syrian city of Aleppo, and another in which he could not name a foreign leader he respects – he is now languishing around 6%. In his interview with the Guardian, Johnson complained that interviewers were now treating him like “a dummy” and bristled when he was pressed on his decline in the polls. “Why are you even interviewing me? I don’t get it. If I’m doing so poorly, is this to preside over a funeral here? It’s not a funeral! It’s a celebration!”

William Weld, realist...

Bill Weld wants you to know that he really, really, really doesn't like Donald Trump. The Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee, who started off his ticket's media campaign by expressing an open preference for his "old friend" Hillary Clinton over the Republican nominee, and then spent the intervening months trying to walk back that sentiment and batting down persistent rumors that he was going to drop out or "exclusively" criticize Trump, took the unusual step yesterday of releasing a prepared statement "regarding the final weeks of this election."

In his statement Weld urged voters torn between Clinton and Trump—voters who aren't considering a third-party candidate—to vote against Trump. "Donald Trump should not, cannot, and must not be elected President of the United States," Weld said in his statement. So if you're not voting for Johnson or Stein, William Weld wants you to vote against Trump. Hm... who does that leave?

Margaret Flowers, debate crasher...

The start of a debate between U.S. Senate candidates in Maryland was delayed just a little bit this morning when Green Party candidate Dr. Margaret Flowers took the stage and stood between Republican Kathy Szeliga and Democrat Chris Van Hollen, insisting that she be allowed to take part anyway, because democracy and freedom and stuff. And really, why not? ... Sadly, her argument didn’t seem to carry much weight with the uniformed police officers who escorted her from the stage as she continued to protest, “I’m Dr. Flowers and I’m a candidate for US Senate in Maryland, and this is how I’m treated?” We have to admire her optimism — and considering how little attention Senate debates get, she probably garnered more attention and name recognition by being forcibly removed than if she’d been invited. Lord knows we wouldn’t be writing about the debate otherwise.

Gutsy move—I actually admire Flowers for crashing another debate (it wasn't her first time!).