Gary Johnson On The Issues

[Kathianne]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

[NightTrain]

He's got some... different... ideas.

- Ending the Fed

- Legalized prostitution

- Pro Gay Marriage

- Eliminate corporate taxes

- Visited Occupy Wall Street; we need radical surgery (???)

- Legalize drugs

- Scripts for Heroin & Methadone at local pharmacies

- Needle exchanges for druggies

- Supports evolution

- Delete Dept of Education

- No student loans

- Accepts Global Warming & supports reducing greenhouse gas

- Kyoto must enforce reductions by all countries

- Focus on prevention on states for Endangered Species

- Federal involvement in Fatherhood initiatives (???)

- NAFTA great, New Mexico didn't want those jobs anyway

- No tariffs

- 43% reduction in military spending

- No border control.

- Naturalize all illegals



I'm only halfway down the page... gotta run.

This guy is a loon.

[Black Diamond]

He's got some... different... ideas.

- Ending the Fed

- Legalized prostitution

- Pro Gay Marriage

- Eliminate corporate taxes

- Visited Occupy Wall Street; we need radical surgery (???)

- Legalize drugs

- Scripts for Heroin & Methadone at local pharmacies

- Needle exchanges for druggies

- Supports evolution

- Delete Dept of Education

- No student loans

- Accepts Global Warming & supports reducing greenhouse gas

- Kyoto must enforce reductions by all countries

- Focus on prevention on states for Endangered Species

- Federal involvement in Fatherhood initiatives (???)

- NAFTA great, New Mexico didn't want those jobs anyway

- No tariffs

- 43% reduction in military spending

- No border control.

- Naturalize all illegals



I'm only halfway down the page... gotta run.

This guy is a loon.

Ron Paul's illegitimate child??

[Kathianne]

and then there are those issues you'd agree with, both of you. LOL!

Libertarian on many of the 'social issues' are not my thing. Most though should be determined at the state level, not federal.

Then there is the whole issue of the size of the federal government and protection of both checks and balances between the three branches at all levels. Those are positions I agree with.

[jimnyc]

- Legalized prostitution
- Pro Gay Marriage
- Scripts for Heroin & Methadone at local pharmacies
- Accepts Global Warming & supports reducing greenhouse gas
- Federal involvement in Fatherhood initiatives (???)
- 43% reduction in military spending
- No border control.
- Naturalize all illegals


I cut out the rest and left these here, these are things that make you scratch your head and truly go WTF?

Legalized prostitution is probably the only one you can almost talk me into, because I'm a perv and all that. But it's still wrong for our country. I can almost understand how someone can come up with an argument for methadone at pharmacies, but even then you're asking for a disaster. But heroin? Can't wait to see the parking lots of these places! Involvement in fatherhood? Not motherhood? I kid, I kid. But my kid, my kid, so I'm the parent, not the government. Sure, reduce the military spending. No need for it if everyone is doing heroin and then getting laid by who only knows. And since heroin will become accessible, it will increase on the streets, and since there is no border control, more will come from Mexico. Oh, and those bringing it across the border illegally will become citizens. :)

[Abbey Marie]

He's got some... different... ideas.

- Ending the Fed

- Legalized prostitution

- Pro Gay Marriage

- Eliminate corporate taxes

- Visited Occupy Wall Street; we need radical surgery (???)

- Legalize drugs

- Scripts for Heroin & Methadone at local pharmacies

- Needle exchanges for druggies

- Supports evolution

- Delete Dept of Education

- No student loans

- Accepts Global Warming & supports reducing greenhouse gas

- Kyoto must enforce reductions by all countries

- Focus on prevention on states for Endangered Species

- Federal involvement in Fatherhood initiatives (???)

- NAFTA great, New Mexico didn't want those jobs anyway

- No tariffs

- 43% reduction in military spending

- No border control.

- Naturalize all illegals



I'm only halfway down the page... gotta run.

This guy is a loon.


Wow. I'll actually take Hillary over this. And that is really saying something.

[Black Diamond]

Wow. I'll actually take Hillary over this. And that is really saying something.

Join in.
Get on the Trump train.

(Humming ojays tune).

[Abbey Marie]

Join in.
Get on the Trump train.

(Humming ojays tune).

Haven't been on anyone's train since Dr. Carson and Rubio. But I've consistently said I will vote for the R candidate whoever it is.

[Black Diamond]

Haven't been on anyone's train since Dr. Carson and Rubio. But I've consistently said I will vote for the R candidate whoever it is.

You're down to Trump. That's close enough for being on the train for me. And I am pleased.

[Abbey Marie]

You're down to Trump. That's close enough for being on the train for me. And I am pleased.

Yup, that's where we are. :laugh2:

[NightTrain]

and then there are those issues you'd agree with, both of you. LOL!

Libertarian on many of the 'social issues' are not my thing. Most though should be determined at the state level, not federal.

Then there is the whole issue of the size of the federal government and protection of both checks and balances between the three branches at all levels. Those are positions I agree with.


There's a couple of things that I like... but he wants to decimate our military, overrun us with illegals -now legals- and run amok with a hardcore Greenie agenda. He's all over the map.

I'll get into the rest of his points later when I have time, but he'd be almost as weird as Bernie from what I looked at so far.

The military, drugs and illegals are deal breakers on their own, let alone stacked.

[Elessar]

He's got some... different... ideas.

I'm only halfway down the page... gotta run.

This guy is a loon.

OH, My Gawd!

Is he bedding up with Ron Paul?

Personally - I reject this moonbat completely. Anyone who
wants to follow this should buy an island in the South Pacific
and form a colony.

Legalizing addicting drugs and cutting the military further yanked my chain...
the rest is just moonbat bullshit.

[Elessar]

You're down to Trump. That's close enough for being on the train for me. And I am pleased.

I've been on that Train for a long time..been sweeping compartments!

[Russ]

Ron Paul's illegitimate child??

Why are some people on this board in favor of Ron Paul's illegitimate child, when Ron Paul's legitimate child ran for President during this campaign and nobody talked about him much? :smoke:

[Russ]

Haven't been on anyone's train since Dr. Carson and Rubio. But I've consistently said I will vote for the R candidate whoever it is.

I totally agree on all 3 points - Carson, Rubio, and the R. (and before anyone says anything, I'm not just saying that for the obvious reasons )

[Elessar]

Why are some people on this board in favor of Ron Paul's illegitimate child, when Ron Paul's legitimate child ran for President during this campaign and nobody talked about him much? :smoke:

Because he had a big mouth that ended up an unpopular puff of smoke.

[PixieStix]

I cut out the rest and left these here, these are things that make you scratch your head and truly go WTF?

Legalized prostitution is probably the only one you can almost talk me into, because I'm a perv and all that. But it's still wrong for our country. I can almost understand how someone can come up with an argument for methadone at pharmacies, but even then you're asking for a disaster. But heroin? Can't wait to see the parking lots of these places! Involvement in fatherhood? Not motherhood? I kid, I kid. But my kid, my kid, so I'm the parent, not the government. Sure, reduce the military spending. No need for it if everyone is doing heroin and then getting laid by who only knows. And since heroin will become accessible, it will increase on the streets, and since there is no border control, more will come from Mexico. Oh, and those bringing it across the border illegally will become citizens. :)

I watched one of their "debates" and Gary Johnson reached over and kissed McAfee :laugh: That was a weird debate and those guys all of them are loons. I have a few libertarian friends and they are loons as well :coffee:

[PixieStix]

Because he had a big mouth that ended up an unpopular puff of smoke.

Yeah he is very condescending.

[PixieStix]

Haven't been on anyone's train since Dr. Carson and Rubio. But I've consistently said I will vote for the R candidate whoever it is.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHcaP1-4Wbk

[Kathianne]

About Trump, I have listened, I've watched. I've listened and read to his supporters reasons, I'm afraid we are 'hearing' very differently his proclamations. I don't buy what he says one minute, then backs off of a few minutes or seconds later. I do find his behavior beyond civil, though that alone would not be enough for me to totally write him off. I cannot buy into his 'found conservatism' of the past few years or just laugh at his admitted buying of 'the system' now to be used as an object lesson of its existence.

I was never a Cruz supporter, though as a last resort would have voted for him against Hillary. I think it is obvious he wouldn't be able to just 'have his way' with Congress, he had too many that would check him. That isn't true of Trump. We don't have a clue to what he has or doesn't have on those members, that he's been paying and threatening for a very long time. Unlike Cruz, I think Hillary is extremely corrupt and her arrogance as SOS truly deserves prison. While that may not happen, for many of the same reasons as Cruz, I think the overwhelming dislike of her from the right and left in Congress and the people, would keep her in check. For these reasons I do fear Trump presidency more than Clinton's. I won't vote for her though, just can't. So it will be for the social liberal, but fiscal and constitutional conservative-Gary Johnson.


I hope my gut is wrong. I think there is a very good chance that Trump is going to win and then we'll see.

[jimnyc]

Here's some questions to those that refuse to support Trump, but willing to support Johnson.

Do you not trust/believe Trump on illegal immigration, or does it just not matter?
Do you support gay marriage?
Do you support legalization of all drugs, and heroin of all drugs being at pharmacies, or anywhere for that fact?
Do you believe in and think monies should be spent on global warming initiatives?
Do you think legalizing prostitution is a good thing?
Would you nearly cut military spending in half as well?
Do you support abortion?
Border agents pulled back and no border control?
Naturalize all illegals?

[Kathianne]

Here's some questions to those that refuse to support Trump, but willing to support Johnson.

Do you not trust/believe Trump on illegal immigration, or does it just not matter? Do not trust him, not my #1 issue either.
Do you support gay marriage? Marriage should be in the states purview, like abortion.
Do you support legalization of all drugs, and heroin of all drugs being at pharmacies, or anywhere for that fact? Should be up to states.
Do you believe in and think monies should be spent on global warming initiatives? There's nothing Trump has consistently said that makes me think he is against. OTOH, Johnson says it may be real, government should get out of the way and let private business develop alternative methods.
Do you think legalizing prostitution is a good thing? I think if legalized it would be morally bad, but safer. It's a state issue.
Would you nearly cut military spending in half as well? I believe Trump would do the same.
Do you support abortion? No, again I don't believe Trump and it should be a state issue.
Border agents pulled back and no border control? No.
Naturalize all illegals? I think a touch back is the same thing.

[Black Diamond]

Yeah he is very condescending.

Christie woild have sent the Gestapo after any parent who provided cannabis oil to their child. That was my favorite story.

[jimnyc]

Do you not trust/believe Trump on illegal immigration, or does it just not matter? Do not trust him, not my #1 issue either.
Do you support gay marriage? Marriage should be in the states purview, like abortion.
Do you support legalization of all drugs, and heroin of all drugs being at pharmacies, or anywhere for that fact? Should be up to states.
Do you believe in and think monies should be spent on global warming initiatives? There's nothing Trump has consistently said that makes me think he is against. OTOH, Johnson says it may be real, government should get out of the way and let private business develop alternative methods.
Do you think legalizing prostitution is a good thing? I think if legalized it would be morally bad, but safer. It's a state issue.
Would you nearly cut military spending in half as well? I believe Trump would do the same.
Do you support abortion? No, again I don't believe Trump and it should be a state issue.
Border agents pulled back and no border control? No.
Naturalize all illegals? I think a touch back is the same thing.

Fair enough. But simply saying it's a "state issue" doesn't answer as to whether or not you agree with such things. For example, you say it should be up to the states as to whether or not heroin should be at pharmacies. Ok, so now it's within your state - so you then have no issue with herion in your state at the pharmacies? Don't care about gay marriage if it's in your state? Don't care about abortion if your state approves? You get the idea. I understand that lawmakers can put things back to the states, which I agree with - but that doesn't answer to ones personal stances. And while I mentioned "those that won't support Trump", I thought we were discussing Johnson. I don't think, for example, saying "I believe Trump would do the same"- I don't think that tells me much about YOUR personal stance.

While I fully understand your hatred of Trump, as we've obviously discussed that quite often, I'm trying to see why these issues being discussed are OK to some.

[Kathianne]

Fair enough. But simply saying it's a "state issue" doesn't answer as to whether or not you agree with such things. For example, you say it should be up to the states as to whether or not heroin should be at pharmacies. Ok, so now it's within your state - so you then have no issue with herion in your state at the pharmacies? Don't care about gay marriage if it's in your state? Don't care about abortion if your state approves? You get the idea. I understand that lawmakers can put things back to the states, which I agree with - but that doesn't answer to ones personal stances. And while I mentioned "those that won't support Trump", I thought we were discussing Johnson. I don't think, for example, saying "I believe Trump would do the same"- I don't think that tells me much about YOUR personal stance.

While I fully understand your hatred of Trump, as we've obviously discussed that quite often, I'm trying to see why these issues being discussed are OK to some.

I don't hate Trump, if he wasn't running for president I wouldn't give him a thought. I've never watched his programs; when he'd appear on a news program I changed channels. Never took him as a factor in my life.

I answered the questions that you asked, including
Do you not trust/believe Trump, re-reading I see you left it to one question, sorry.

[jimnyc]

I don't hate Trump, if he wasn't running for president I wouldn't give him a thought. I've never watched his programs; when he'd appear on a news program I changed channels. Never took him as a factor in my life.

I answered the questions that you asked, including , re-reading I see you left it to one question, sorry.

Perhaps you thought you did and perhaps it was my poor wording. But I followed up with my explanation and further questions. I guess you don't want to answer/participate, or you're saying for a large part, that we should assume your opinions are always the same as what the states choose.

Just one example. You say you answered my questions, but I still have no idea what your stance is on making heroin more accessible. I don't see how saying this decision is left up to the states - tells me anything about YOUR stance on the issue. Or do you not want to answer the follow up questions?

[Kathianne]

Perhaps you thought you did and perhaps it was my poor wording. But I followed up with my explanation and further questions. I guess you don't want to answer/participate, or you're saying for a large part, that we should assume your opinions are always the same as what the states choose.

Just one example. You say you answered my questions, but I still have no idea what your stance is on making heroin more accessible. I don't see how saying this decision is left up to the states - tells me anything about YOUR stance on the issue. Or do you not want to answer the follow up questions?

I'm at work, I'll answe whe5 home, my texting being what it is.

[jimnyc]

I'm at work, I'll answe whe5 home, my texting being what it is.

Wasn't aware you were on your phone. I can barely get one sentence out at all from my phone before I want to place it in my blender. :)

[jimnyc]

Just a few more to add from Johnson. He does in fact look pretty darn good on some issues, but on others he is just too far out there. Almost all of the issues I don't like, are a lot of issues that were carried by Ron Paul as well.

Johnson apparently stated that half of crime is drug related, and legalizing drugs cuts crime. I can't go with that. Hell, legalizing ANY type of criminal offense, will of course reduce crime. And while drugs, marijuana for example, certainly can be discussed and be legalized on various fronts, to go from that to things like heroin is absolutely insane. Same with other 'chemical' based drugs that are abused. Any talk of legalization, to me, is just insane.

Open the border; flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers. Seriously? The influx of folks across our southern border has been out of control for the past 5-6 years. Where are all of these taxpayers? Where do they work on the books? IMO, any talk of just opening any of our borders and just letting folks flood across, also insane. In fairness, those comments were apparently made in 2001, and of course an awful lot has changed since that time. But he's still dead set against any border fences, still for just letting them come when they please, and thinks we educate "some of the best and brightest" out of those sneaking in.

He says we should cut ALL support and aid for Israel. I disagree entirely with this.

[Black Diamond]

Just a few more to add from Johnson. He does in fact look pretty darn good on some issues, but on others he is just too far out there. Almost all of the issues I don't like, are a lot of issues that were carried by Ron Paul as well.

Johnson apparently stated that half of crime is drug related, and legalizing drugs cuts crime. I can't go with that. Hell, legalizing ANY type of criminal offense, will of course reduce crime. And while drugs, marijuana for example, certainly can be discussed and be legalized on various fronts, to go from that to things like heroin is absolutely insane. Same with other 'chemical' based drugs that are abused. Any talk of legalization, to me, is just insane.

Open the border; flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers. Seriously? The influx of folks across our southern border has been out of control for the past 5-6 years. Where are all of these taxpayers? Where do they work on the books? IMO, any talk of just opening any of our borders and just letting folks flood across, also insane. In fairness, those comments were apparently made in 2001, and of course an awful lot has changed since that time. But he's still dead set against any border fences, still for just letting them come when they please, and thinks we educate "some of the best and brightest" out of those sneaking in.

He says we should cut ALL support and aid for Israel. I disagree entirely with this.

That, it could be argued, makes him worse than Hillary.

[jimnyc]

That, it could be argued, makes him worse than Hillary.

I don't know about all of that, kinda hard to overcome that psycho. I think he's socially sounding a little like someone in college currently being brainwashed like some of today's young'uns. But I don't think he would nominate left SC judges. And I don't think he would mess with the 2nd. Those 2 issues are HUGE.

[Kathianne]

Fair enough. But simply saying it's a "state issue" doesn't answer as to whether or not you agree with such things. For example, you say it should be up to the states as to whether or not heroin should be at pharmacies. Ok, so now it's within your state - so you then have no issue with herion in your state at the pharmacies? Don't care about gay marriage if it's in your state? Don't care about abortion if your state approves? You get the idea. I understand that lawmakers can put things back to the states, which I agree with - but that doesn't answer to ones personal stances. And while I mentioned "those that won't support Trump", I thought we were discussing Johnson. I don't think, for example, saying "I believe Trump would do the same"- I don't think that tells me much about YOUR personal stance.

While I fully understand your hatred of Trump, as we've obviously discussed that quite often, I'm trying to see why these issues being discussed are OK to some.

I have an issue with abortion, hard drugs-it should be a state decision-it's nuts that marijuana is against the fed. codes, but states are legalizing.

As for gay marriage, while I think it should have been left at 'civil unions' with same benefits as married, I'll not lose sleep over it.

I think more money should be allocated to the military, though I don't see anyone really pushing for that and the tax increases. It's on foreign interventions that I most leave the Libertarian thought processes.

I don't find illegal immigration the #1 problem facing the country, though others disagree. I do think that the ability to cross without any vetting is very problematic regarding terrorists. It should be addressed and then true immigration reform should be enacted.

I don't think anyone is going to deport all the illegals, IF the borders were dealt with something has to be done regarding getting them into the system legally.

[Kathianne]

Just a few more to add from Johnson. He does in fact look pretty darn good on some issues, but on others he is just too far out there. Almost all of the issues I don't like, are a lot of issues that were carried by Ron Paul as well.

Johnson apparently stated that half of crime is drug related, and legalizing drugs cuts crime. I can't go with that. Hell, legalizing ANY type of criminal offense, will of course reduce crime. And while drugs, marijuana for example, certainly can be discussed and be legalized on various fronts, to go from that to things like heroin is absolutely insane. Same with other 'chemical' based drugs that are abused. Any talk of legalization, to me, is just insane.

Open the border; flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers. Seriously? The influx of folks across our southern border has been out of control for the past 5-6 years. Where are all of these taxpayers? Where do they work on the books? IMO, any talk of just opening any of our borders and just letting folks flood across, also insane. In fairness, those comments were apparently made in 2001, and of course an awful lot has changed since that time. But he's still dead set against any border fences, still for just letting them come when they please, and thinks we educate "some of the best and brightest" out of those sneaking in.

He says we should cut ALL support and aid for Israel. I disagree entirely with this.


First off, not afraid of him winning. Let's pretend he did. Think any of those 'harebrained' ideas would get through Congress? I'm not. Obviously Johnson isn't threatening anyone in DC, even if hell froze over and he got elected.

Aid to Israel? It would continue.

Legalizing all drugs? Would fail.

Bringing all our troops out of harm's way? Not going to happen, not under Johnson anyways.

[Black Diamond]

I don't know about all of that, kinda hard to overcome that psycho. I think he's socially sounding a little like someone in college currently being brainwashed like some of today's young'uns. But I don't think he would nominate left SC judges. And I don't think he would mess with the 2nd. Those 2 issues are HUGE.
Yeah I agree you don't mess with those. You mentioned brainwashed youngsters. They may be more dangerous than Hillary. I still think Sanders would be. A pragmatic liberal vs another ideologue???

Anyway. I'm voting for Trump. Again. :cool:

[jimnyc]

I would say that all told, these are my issues that would concern me about him. And while I know the immigration is not issue #1, it certainly ranks in the top 10 of things that I feel needs to be addressed. I could certainly ignore a few of them, as I know the president doesn't have his hands in everything, that congress does much more.... But I couldn't go with someone openly supporting abortion, but that's another issue that really won't matter. But the heroin is a huge issue for me, knowing several folks who have died, and watching their families lives destroyed. I can't go with someone wanting to gut our military. I can't find much of anything on him and plans for the VA. Even outside of regular illegal immigration issues, just outright opening the borders is crazy talk. And then lastly, and huge, his disregard for Israel. Just way too many things for me to have to look past. But while I have things that are important to me in this election, I fully understand and respect that others don't have the same outlooks and the same prioritization of those issues that I have.

- Legalized prostitution
- Pro Gay Marriage
- Scripts for Heroin & Methadone at local pharmacies
- Accepts Global Warming & supports reducing greenhouse gas
- Federal involvement in Fatherhood initiatives (???)
- 43% reduction in military spending
- No border control.
- Naturalize all illegals

Johnson apparently stated that half of crime is drug related, and legalizing drugs cuts crime. I can't go with that. Hell, legalizing ANY type of criminal offense, will of course reduce crime. And while drugs, marijuana for example, certainly can be discussed and be legalized on various fronts, to go from that to things like heroin is absolutely insane. Same with other 'chemical' based drugs that are abused. Any talk of legalization, to me, is just insane.

Open the border; flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers. Seriously? The influx of folks across our southern border has been out of control for the past 5-6 years. Where are all of these taxpayers? Where do they work on the books? IMO, any talk of just opening any of our borders and just letting folks flood across, also insane. In fairness, those comments were apparently made in 2001, and of course an awful lot has changed since that time. But he's still dead set against any border fences, still for just letting them come when they please, and thinks we educate "some of the best and brightest" out of those sneaking in.

He says we should cut ALL support and aid for Israel. I disagree entirely with this.

[jimnyc]

First off, not afraid of him winning. Let's pretend he did. Think any of those 'harebrained' ideas would get through Congress? I'm not. Obviously Johnson isn't threatening anyone in DC, even if hell froze over and he got elected.

Aid to Israel? It would continue.

Legalizing all drugs? Would fail.

Bringing all our troops out of harm's way? Not going to happen, not under Johnson anyways.

If those things are bypassed because they cannot or will not pass - wouldn't it be fair to assume the same about some things with Trump? At least as to the things that a sitting president doesn't normally change, and that some don't trust him over?

I think there are a fair amount of things that the president doesn't really have anything to do with. I brought that up in the past over some issues with Trump but I don't think it mattered to anyone. I said similar about him and his past on abortion and current stance. He won't be doing anything and we all know it's continuing. But some will never vote for him based on that, even though nothing will change.

[Abbey Marie]

First off, not afraid of him winning. Let's pretend he did. Think any of those 'harebrained' ideas would get through Congress? I'm not. Obviously Johnson isn't threatening anyone in DC, even if hell froze over and he got elected.

Aid to Israel? It would continue.

Legalizing all drugs? Would fail.

Bringing all our troops out of harm's way? Not going to happen, not under Johnson anyways.

I suppose we should have these same assurances then, about what anyone we elect might do, including Trump.

[Kathianne]

I would say that all told, these are my issues that would concern me about him. And while I know the immigration is not issue #1, it certainly ranks in the top 10 of things that I feel needs to be addressed. I could certainly ignore a few of them, as I know the president doesn't have his hands in everything, that congress does much more.... But I couldn't go with someone openly supporting abortion, but that's another issue that really won't matter. But the heroin is a huge issue for me, knowing several folks who have died, and watching their families lives destroyed. I can't go with someone wanting to gut our military. I can't find much of anything on him and plans for the VA. Even outside of regular illegal immigration issues, just outright opening the borders is crazy talk. And then lastly, and huge, his disregard for Israel. Just way too many things for me to have to look past. But while I have things that are important to me in this election, I fully understand and respect that others don't have the same outlooks and the same prioritization of those issues that I have.

- Legalized prostitution
- Pro Gay Marriage
- Scripts for Heroin & Methadone at local pharmacies
- Accepts Global Warming & supports reducing greenhouse gas
- Federal involvement in Fatherhood initiatives (???)
- 43% reduction in military spending
- No border control.
- Naturalize all illegals

Johnson apparently stated that half of crime is drug related, and legalizing drugs cuts crime. I can't go with that. Hell, legalizing ANY type of criminal offense, will of course reduce crime. And while drugs, marijuana for example, certainly can be discussed and be legalized on various fronts, to go from that to things like heroin is absolutely insane. Same with other 'chemical' based drugs that are abused. Any talk of legalization, to me, is just insane.

Open the border; flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers. Seriously? The influx of folks across our southern border has been out of control for the past 5-6 years. Where are all of these taxpayers? Where do they work on the books? IMO, any talk of just opening any of our borders and just letting folks flood across, also insane. In fairness, those comments were apparently made in 2001, and of course an awful lot has changed since that time. But he's still dead set against any border fences, still for just letting them come when they please, and thinks we educate "some of the best and brightest" out of those sneaking in.

He says we should cut ALL support and aid for Israel. I disagree entirely with this.


Well your candidate has basically stated that if our 'allies' don't pony up, he'll stop being the 'world's policeman.' What does that mean to you? Oh yeah, he'll negotiate with them. How much will they be willing to pay if he doesn't carry through with the threat? Lots of problems with what he's saying, as the specifics really aren't to be found.

Think he's going to get some boots into Iraq after what he said about it in the first place with Bush? Logic problem in that, though I suppose he could claim that the beginning of the war under Bush-which he actually agreed with contrary to what he says-then Obama's premature withdrawal necessitates re-entry, though he's not said that.

ISIS? He'll 'take the oil' though they are still growing and they are not getting the oil any longer. So then what?

Anyways, I'm not going to argue Trump's positions or even Johnson's. I'll vote and hope that whichever wins-Trump or Clinton is somehow held back from their worst inclinations.

[Black Diamond]

Well your candidate has basically stated that if our 'allies' don't pony up, he'll stop being the 'world's policeman.' What does that mean to you? Oh yeah, he'll negotiate with them. How much will they be willing to pay if he doesn't carry through with the threat? Lots of problems with what he's saying, as the specifics really aren't to be found.

Think he's going to get some boots into Iraq after what he said about it in the first place with Bush? Logic problem in that, though I suppose he could claim that the beginning of the war under Bush-which he actually agreed with contrary to what he says-then Obama's premature withdrawal necessitates re-entry, though he's not said that.

ISIS? He'll 'take the oil' though they are still growing and they are not getting the oil any longer. So then what?

Anyways, I'm not going to argue Trump's positions or even Johnson's. I'll vote and hope that whichever wins-Trump or Clinton is somehow held back from their worst inclinations.
I am pretty sure we are going to have Iraq War III no matter who wins. Even current idiot has sent troops but that will escalate (or is it accelerate? What did LBJ do?).

[jimnyc]

Well your candidate has basically stated that if our 'allies' don't pony up, he'll stop being the 'world's policeman.' What does that mean to you? Oh yeah, he'll negotiate with them. How much will they be willing to pay if he doesn't carry through with the threat? Lots of problems with what he's saying, as the specifics really aren't to be found.

Think he's going to get some boots into Iraq after what he said about it in the first place with Bush? Logic problem in that, though I suppose he could claim that the beginning of the war under Bush-which he actually agreed with contrary to what he says-then Obama's premature withdrawal necessitates re-entry, though he's not said that.

ISIS? He'll 'take the oil' though they are still growing and they are not getting the oil any longer. So then what?

Anyways, I'm not going to argue Trump's positions or even Johnson's. I'll vote and hope that whichever wins-Trump or Clinton is somehow held back from their worst inclinations.

You're the one who keeps trying to argue Trump's positions, I'm not bringing them up in such a manner. I thought this thread was about Johnson, and that's why I posted a long list of issues that you just quoted, but seems like all of your replies just now are about Trump. You started this thread, not me, and I simply asked questions about issues, which is even the title. Why you thought this was about Trump or that he somehow needed to be debated is beyond me. I as more than happy to just discuss Johnson, but Trump's name keeps coming into things. My only mention was whether or not we should make the same excuses for Trump that are being made in here for Johnson.

But I do see it was a mistake to try and simply discuss his issues, which you posted about, and in which it seems like I am being dismissed over. I won't make that mistake again.

Seems you like a candidate that wasn't even around before, but don't want to answer any questions as to why you would suddenly back someone who supports such things. I ask about those things, and the 'tude comes out. :dunno:

[jimnyc]

I am pretty sure we are going to have Iraq War III no matter who wins. Even current idiot has sent troops but that will escalate (or is it accelerate? What did LBJ do?).

Not if someone wants to cut the military in half, and doesn't believe in any aggression abroad whatsoever. He also seems to think Al Qaeda was off and killed off 10 years ago. Very naive.

[jimnyc]

Stole this from another forum, the link anyway to the story.

I did not know that he was CEO of marijuana marketer Cannabis Sativa at one point. He also planned on banning Muslim women from wearing burqas. He has resigned from his position as CEO at the marijuana place, and also changed course on his plans to ban the burqas. I honestly didn't have much of an issue with either one, personally. But I don't think they would have flown very well with the majority of the people. But I'll give him credit for taking some tough stances, would have preferred he stuck to his guns, but understand that with political ambitions that this sometimes happens.

I've noticed that he states that he is not a libertarian either, which is rather odd for someone running for the libertarian nomination.

He's a racist!! I kid, I kid. :)

Been doing some reading on him here and there. Not a bad guy. I like him even though I disagree on the majority of his stances.

[fj1200]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

A bit more up to date here:

https://garyjohnson2016.com/issues/


He's got some... different... ideas.

I'm only halfway down the page... gotta run.

This guy is a loon.

He's a Libertarian.


Ron Paul's illegitimate child??

He's a Libertarian.


I cut out the rest and left these here, these are things that make you scratch your head and truly go WTF?

Most of it is called small government. You know; conservatism.


Wow. I'll actually take Hillary over this. And that is really saying something.

You're reading what you want to read. ;)


Join in.
Get on the Trump train.

Try reading some trump positions from 15 years ago and you won't like him either.


There's a couple of things that I like... but he wants to decimate our military, overrun us with illegals -now legals- and run amok with a hardcore Greenie agenda. He's all over the map.

I'll get into the rest of his points later when I have time, but he'd be almost as weird as Bernie from what I looked at so far.

The military, drugs and illegals are deal breakers on their own, let alone stacked.

Many of those positions are probably state-level decisions and are not POTUS level issues.


OH, My Gawd!

Is he bedding up with Ron Paul?

It's called being a Libertarian and is probably closer to the Founding Fathers then anyone else running.


Why are some people on this board in favor of Ron Paul's illegitimate child, when Ron Paul's legitimate child ran for President during this campaign and nobody talked about him much? :smoke:

There was talk.

[jimnyc]

Most of it is called small government. You know; conservatism.

- Legalized prostitution
- Pro Gay Marriage
- Scripts for Heroin & Methadone at local pharmacies
- Accepts Global Warming & supports reducing greenhouse gas
- Federal involvement in Fatherhood initiatives (???)
- 43% reduction in military spending
- No border control.
- Naturalize all illegals
- Cut all aid and support for Israel

All your greatest conservative issues since the 80's probably. :)

[LongTermGuy]

I've been on that Train for a long time..been sweeping compartments!


:beer:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

- Legalized prostitution
- Pro Gay Marriage
- Scripts for Heroin & Methadone at local pharmacies
- Accepts Global Warming & supports reducing greenhouse gas
- Federal involvement in Fatherhood initiatives (???)
- 43% reduction in military spending
- No border control.
- Naturalize all illegals
- Cut all aid and support for Israel

All your greatest conservative issues since the 80's probably. :)

When a man tells me that he knows horses better than anybody else but I ask him , while pointing at a mule --if that horse would be worth
500 or a thousand dollars and he replies -"why yes it looks fine to me, a thousand dollars for sure".
I immediately know two things for sure about such a guy--
1. HE IS A DAMN LIAR
2. HE IS A DAMN FOOL.

NOW WHAT ELSE DOES ONE NEED TO KNOW AFTER THAT I ASK??--Tyr

[Black Diamond]

- Legalized prostitution
- Pro Gay Marriage
- Scripts for Heroin & Methadone at local pharmacies
- Accepts Global Warming & supports reducing greenhouse gas
- Federal involvement in Fatherhood initiatives (???)
- 43% reduction in military spending
- No border control.
- Naturalize all illegals
- Cut all aid and support for Israel

All your greatest conservative issues since the 80's probably. :)

And his name isn't Donald Trump.

[jimnyc]

And his name isn't Donald Trump.

And his name, is Dalton.

[fj1200]

Here's some questions to those that refuse to support Trump, but willing to support Johnson.

Do you not trust/believe Trump on illegal immigration, or does it just not matter?
Do you support gay marriage?
Do you support legalization of all drugs, and heroin of all drugs being at pharmacies, or anywhere for that fact?
Do you believe in and think monies should be spent on global warming initiatives?
Do you think legalizing prostitution is a good thing?
Would you nearly cut military spending in half as well?
Do you support abortion?
Border agents pulled back and no border control?
Naturalize all illegals?

Those aren't things he'll be working on every day so it doesn't concern me. :shrug:

[fj1200]

- Legalized prostitution
- Pro Gay Marriage
- Scripts for Heroin & Methadone at local pharmacies
- Accepts Global Warming & supports reducing greenhouse gas
- Federal involvement in Fatherhood initiatives (???)
- 43% reduction in military spending
- No border control.
- Naturalize all illegals
- Cut all aid and support for Israel

All your greatest conservative issues since the 80's probably. :)

In some respects you're cherry picking, in some respects you're wrong, in some respects you're pulling quotes from 15 years ago. You should compare against his current positions and the actual context from ontheissues.org.

[jimnyc]

Those aren't things he'll be working on every day so it doesn't concern me. :shrug:

To an extent I agree with you. But your stances still need to be in somewhat of an alignment of what the American people would like to see. While he's polling well for a libertarian, he's not going to do any better by pushing heroin and hookers.

[fj1200]

And his name isn't Donald Trump.

Yes, trump who endorsed hillary for Senate and recently stated we could print dollars to pay off the debt. And Johnson is the loon. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

In some respects you're cherry picking, in some respects you're wrong, in some respects you're pulling quotes from 15 years ago. You should compare against his current positions and the actual context from ontheissues.org.

My first list was from going down the page on the link that Kath had provided. I will also go down the list that you have provided. Being that I was trying to point out the negatives about his campaign, of course it would appear I was cherry picking, as that was kind of the goal. I've also added that I thought he wasn't so bad of a guy, just not for me is all.

[fj1200]

To an extent I agree with you. But your stances still need to be in somewhat of an alignment of what the American people would like to see. While he's polling well for a libertarian, he's not going to do any better by pushing heroin and hookers.


Yet, today, simple possession and use of marijuana remains a crime — despite the fact that a majority of Americans now favor its legalization.

Maybe the American people would like to see someone who challenges the current orthodoxy.

[fj1200]

My first list was from going down the page on the link that Kath had provided. I will also go down the list that you have provided. Being that I was trying to point out the negatives about his campaign, of course it would appear I was cherry picking, as that was kind of the goal. I've also added that I thought he wasn't so bad of a guy, just not for me is all.

That means less if you make a decision based on what you cherry pick.

[jimnyc]

That means less if you make a decision based on what you cherry pick.

That's what you make of it based off of limited knowledge of me and my posting in this thread, but I assure you, there's a lot more to it than that. But I WILL be honest... I WOULD have been more than fair and go down the entire line of issues for every single candidate running, and I did in fact. But in his case, no matter what I would have seen, no matter what may have been changed, I cannot support him, or anyone, who has such a stance on heroin and/or similar drugs. I don't care if this is legalization, or scripted and monitored which I think is his stance. The best I can still find from the other day was him calling them 'health problems' (wikipedia). Any way, shape or form of helping anyone to get any type of drug like that is completely insane. That alone drops him off of my card. The rest just makes it easier for me to support that call.

[Black Diamond]

Yes, trump who endorsed hillary for Senate and recently stated we could print dollars to pay off the debt. And Johnson is the loon. :rolleyes:

Wharton school of finance is a good school. And you're supporting Hillary now.

[fj1200]

That's what you make of it based off of limited knowledge of me and my posting in this thread, but I assure you, there's a lot more to it than that. But I WILL be honest... I WOULD have been more than fair and go down the entire line of issues for every single candidate running, and I did in fact. But in his case, no matter what I would have seen, no matter what may have been changed, I cannot support him, or anyone, who has such a stance on heroin and/or similar drugs. I don't care if this is legalization, or scripted and monitored which I think is his stance. The best I can still find from the other day was him calling them 'health problems' (wikipedia). Any way, shape or form of helping anyone to get any type of drug like that is completely insane. That alone drops him off of my card. The rest just makes it easier for me to support that call.

It's not about helping anyone get any type of drug like that.


Q: Your many opponents believe that legalization would exacerbate the problem. First, they say more people would do drugs if they were legal.A: Kids who have been surveyed say it's easier to get illegal drugs than beer. The evidence shows that more people won't do drugs if they're legal. Holland, where marijuana is decriminalized and controlled, has 60% of the drug use--both hard drugs and marijuana--the US has. They have a quarter the crime rate, a quarter the homicide rate, a quarter the violent crime rate and a tenth the incarceration rate. It suggests that more people don't do drugs because they're legal. But let's just say that the number of users would go up: I still would say it was worthwhile. Look at the trade-off.
Q: What trade-off?
Half of all crime is drug-related. Half. Half of what we spend--on law enforcement, on the courts, on prisons--is drug-related. If we legalized drugs, we would destroy the environment that allows and even encourages all those crimes.

Source: David Sheff interview in Playboy Magazine , Jan 1, 2001


(Drug Use and Crime Indicators - Comparison Between The US and The Netherlands)
<tbody style="border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">
Social Indicator
Comparison Year
USA
Netherlands








Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use
2009
41.5% (ages 12 and up)1
25.7% (ages 15-64)2


Past year prevalence of marijuana use
2009
11.3% (ages 12 and up)1
7.0% (ages 15-64)2


Lifetime prevalence of heroin use
2009
1.5% (ages 12 and up)1
0.5% (ages 15-64)2


Prison Population Rate per 100,000 population
Dec. 31 2011 (US) / Sept. 30 2012 (Netherlands)
716 3
82 3


Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros)
1998
€379 4
€223 4


Homicide rate per 100,000 population
2012
4.75
0.95

</tbody>
- See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Netherlands_v_US#sthash.ZohBMPoL.dpuf
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Netherlands_v_US#sthash.ZohBMPoL.dpbs

[fj1200]

Wharton school of finance is a good school. And you're supporting Hillary now.

Not if that's what their opinion is on paying back a country's debt. I've always supported conservatism; that hasn't changed.

[Black Diamond]

Not if that's what their opinion is on paying back a country's debt. I've always supported conservatism; that hasn't changed.

It isn't.

[fj1200]

It isn't.

I'm not sure the relevance of your comment then.

[Black Diamond]

I'm not sure the relevance of your comment then.

Do you know what pandering is? He knows you don't pay off the debt by printing money. Think of the intelligence of the general populace. And you don't get where trump is by believing something like that. Anyone who has been through Wharton would know that.

[Black Diamond]

I'm not sure the relevance of your comment then.

It isn't Wharton's opinon and it isn't Trump's. I assure you.

[Russ]

Here's a list of 5 things in history that have proven to be of absolutely zero worth, whatsoever:

1. Attempting to bail out the Titanic as it was sinking
2. Calming down Islamic militants like ISIS by being nice and not attacking them.
3. Electing Barack Obama as President
4. Trying to explain the difference between right and wrong to Hillary Clinton
5. Voting for a 3rd-party candidate like Gary Johnson in a general election.

(No offense to you Gary Johnson-ites, but voting for him makes no sense. And nobody cares about the symbolism)

[Black Diamond]

Here's a list of 5 things in history that proven to be of absolutely zero worth, whatsoever:

1. Attempting to bail out the Titanic as it was sinking
2. Calming down Islamic militants like ISIS by being nice and not attacking them.
3. Electing Barack Obama as President
4. Trying to explain the difference between right and wrong to Hillary Clinton
5. Voting for a 3rd-party candidate like Gary Johnson in a general election.

(No offense to you Gary Johnson-ites, but voting for him makes no sense. And nobody cares about the symbolism)
Resentment is a powerful thing.

[Perianne]

Here's a list of 5 things in history that proven to be of absolutely zero worth, whatsoever:

1. Attempting to bail out the Titanic as it was sinking
2. Calming down Islamic militants like ISIS by being nice and not attacking them.
3. Electing Barack Obama as President
4. Trying to explain the difference between right and wrong to Hillary Clinton
5. Voting for a 3rd-party candidate like Gary Johnson in a general election.

(No offense to you Gary Johnson-ites, but voting for him makes no sense. And nobody cares about the symbolism)

But, but, but..... National Review really likes Gary Johnson. What to do? What to do?

[Elessar]

But, but, but..... National Review really likes Gary Johnson. What to do? What to do?

Simple...ignore them.

This is a Ron Paul on steroids.

Use the National Review to start your wood stove or fireplace,
but clean the chimney afterwards.

[Perianne]

Simple...ignore them.

This is a Ron Paul on steroids.

Use the National Review to start your wood stove or fireplace,
but clean the chimney afterwards.

There was a discussion about National Review here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?53087-Dastardly-National-Review&highlight=). It was entertaining.

[Black Diamond]

There was a discussion about National Review here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?53087-Dastardly-National-Review&highlight=). It was entertaining.

Is National Review supporting Hillary I mean Johnson over the Republican nominee?

[Perianne]

Is National Review supporting Hillary I mean Johnson over the Republican nominee?

I don't check that rag every day, but the last time I checked it was orgasmic over Gary Johnson. You call sorta tell what's going on there by reading certain threads that get started here.

[Kathianne]

Is National Review supporting Hillary I mean Johnson over the Republican nominee? Actually I think there's one or two that are for Johnson, a couple more for a 3rd party. The rest hoping their can be some 'pulling together.' I think there's no unity to be had.

[fj1200]

It isn't.

Good on Wharton.


Do you know what pandering is? He knows you don't pay off the debt by printing money. Think of the intelligence of the general populace. And you don't get where trump is by believing something like that. Anyone who has been through Wharton would know that.

A thought exercise: If I'm right he is ignorant on the subject. If you're right then he is a pandering politician who think the voters are stupid. Neither of those make him look good. Your posit is not proven.


It isn't Wharton's opinon and it isn't Trump's. I assure you.

Can you assure me as to why he says things that he does not mean?

[jimnyc]

Good on Wharton.



A thought exercise: If I'm right he is ignorant on the subject. If you're right then he is a pandering politician who think the voters are stupid. Neither of those make him look good. Your posit is not proven.



Can you assure me as to why he says things that he does not mean?

Good Afternoon, Mr. FJ! :wraparms:

[fj1200]

Good Afternoon, Mr. FJ! :wraparms:

:cool:

[fj1200]

Say three words, say a lot. Just don't go camping in the middle of it. :shrug: Anyway I thought we were discussing free trade then all of a sudden there's a data dump on Johnson.

[NightTrain]

Say three words, say a lot. Just don't go camping in the middle of it. :shrug: Anyway I thought we were discussing free trade then all of a sudden there's a data dump on Johnson.

/wavehand

This isn't the thread you're looking for.

[fj1200]

/wavehand

This isn't the thread you're looking for.


vBulletin MessageSorry! This thread is closed!

:dunno:

[revelarts]

Ron Paul's illegitimate child??
Not really.
constitutionally, economically and drug wise he's very different

[fj1200]

Gary Johnson: Fiscally conservative. :)


Paul Gessing of the free market think tank the Rio Grande Foundation from New Mexico appears in National Review today with a more nuanced defense of Johnson (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435804/gary-johnson-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-election-2016). Highlights:
Spiller “credits” Johnson with spending money he had little control over. His spending numbers include federal dollars that flow into the state for everything from Medicaid to education. Including just the General Fund that the legislature and governor must agree to each year, Johnson’s first budget was $2.7 billion and his final budget, eight years later, was $3.9 billion (an increase of about 41 percent). Thus, under Johnson, New Mexico’s General Fund spending grew by 4.67 percent annually, not the outrageous 7.29 percent rate cited by Spiller....
....Johnson too pushed tax cuts while in office, but [his successor as New Mexico Governor Bill] Richardson was able to follow through, taking the state’s top income-tax rate from 8.2 to 4.9 percent. Richardson succeeded where Johnson failed in cutting taxes in large part because during Johnson’s tenure the New Mexico legislature was controlled entirely by Democrats. These were no razor-thin margins either: Democrats held approximately 60 percent of all legislative seats.....
Gessing explains how the legislature Johnson faced stymied him from doing as much good as he would have liked to, including that "Every year Johnson proposed school-choice vouchers and every year the Democrats in the legislature killed them." Gessing agrees the filmmaking tax credit is a terrible idea.
While Johnson had the veto and used it around over 700 times—he thinks that's more than all his fellow governors at the time combined—the legislature ultimately has the power of the purse. On his way out Johnson vetoed an entire budget for 2003 but got overridden. What New Mexico spent during his administration was somewhat, but by no means ultimately, up to him.
For more context, the Cato Institute in its grading of the fiscal records of the governors during Johnson's administration had these positive things to say in their 2002 report (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa454.pdf):

Johnson....favors school vouchers, term limits, privately run prisons, lean budgets, and deep tax cuts.... In his first term, he vetoed 200 bills—many of them spending bills, which he labeled as profligate. The state Democrats made defeating Johnson their top priority in 1998, but he won anyway. ....
Through determination and wearing down the opposition, he has had legislative successes. He has cut the state income tax, the gasoline tax, the state capital gains tax, and the unemployment tax. In 2001, he wanted a further 7 percent reduction in income tax rates. The legislature cut the tax less than he wanted, so he vetoed the bill. In 1999, he vetoed a 12 cent per pack cigarette tax hike because he opposes all tax hikes. (He recently did sign off on a tobacco tax with the condition that the revenues be used to offset other tax cuts.) In 2000, he signed a residential property tax cap that will limit increases in valuations to 3 percent per year. Johnson has successfully sponsored other government reform initiatives such as an electricity deregulation bill, a 10 percent reduction in state payrolls, and a Medicaid cost-cutting plan....
The Speaker of the House in New Mexico, Ben Lujan, recently noted after an override of a Johnson veto: “There is no executive fiat in this state. The governor must have the consent of the legislature for fiscal action.” That explains why Gary Johnson’s grade is not even higher in this report card. [He received a "B" that year.]
http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/25/gary-johnsons-new-mexico-fiscal-record-d

[Kathianne]

Gary Johnson: Fiscally conservative. :)


http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/25/gary-johnsons-new-mexico-fiscal-record-d

I've been following some that are currently dealing with FEMA following the LA floods. They are shocked that there are so many hoops to jump for, before and after receiving the 'help.' Reminded that the FED always has traps following their dangling carrots, whether it's to the state or to universities or to hospitals or to private schools-oh yeah! Yet, they are for the two 'big government' types.

[gabosaurus]

The Intelligence of Gary Johnson (continued):


On Wednesday, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld were being interviewed by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who posed the question: “Who’s your favorite foreign leader?”

“Anybody,” he added.

Johnson exhaled hard.

“Mine was Shimon Peres,” Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts, interjected.

But Matthews pressed Johnson. “You gotta do this. Anywhere. Any continent. Canada, Mexico, Europe over there, Asia, South America, Africa – name a foreign leader that you respect.”

“I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” Johnson said.

:lame2:

[Abbey Marie]

The Intelligence of Gary Johnson (continued):



:lame2:


Yikes. Perhaps he was intelligent before he fried his brain with drugs? :dunno:

[sundaydriver]

On Wednesday, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld were being interviewed by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who posed the question: “Who’s your favorite foreign leader?”

“Anybody,” he added.

Johnson exhaled hard.

“Mine was Shimon Peres,” Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts, interjected.

But Matthews pressed Johnson. “You gotta do this. Anywhere. Any continent. Canada, Mexico, Europe over there, Asia, South America, Africa – name a foreign leader that you respect.”

“I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” Johnson said.


I would have awarded bonus points if he had said; Kate Middleton.

[fj1200]

And he's still better than the alternatives. :eek:

[Abbey Marie]

And he's still better than the alternatives. :eek:


:laugh2: You are losing all credibility.

[fj1200]

:laugh2: You are losing all credibility.

The bar is set pretty low this time around. If this were trump someone would be complaining about a gotcha question. :scared:

Still, he should be knocking these things out of the park. Perhaps the ramifications of not having to endure a long primary process that most candidates who get this far go through.

[gabosaurus]

On Wednesday, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld were being interviewed by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who posed the question: “Who’s your favorite foreign leader?”

“Anybody,” he added.

Johnson exhaled hard.

“Mine was Shimon Peres,” Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts, interjected.

But Matthews pressed Johnson. “You gotta do this. Anywhere. Any continent. Canada, Mexico, Europe over there, Asia, South America, Africa – name a foreign leader that you respect.”

“I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” Johnson said.


I would have awarded bonus points if he had said; Kate Middleton.


Always good to know who is blocking me on here. :laugh: :laugh:

[pete311]

I am surprised what a dud he's become. Now I get why he wasn't invited to the debate.

[jimnyc]

I am surprised what a dud he's become. Now I get why he wasn't invited to the debate.

None of it was somehow new this month, he's always been this way. If anything, he may have brought further light to the libertarian party for the future, which is a good thing. But "dud" for a candidate is a compliment for Sam the Stoner. :)

[Bilgerat]

Watching "Morning Joe", you really get to see just how bad they are in the tank for the Hildabeast.

When they discovered that Johnson was cutting into votes for her, they've gone off on a non-violent "kill Johnson" Pogram.

Ah the laughs at the table when they play this;



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOT_BoGpCn4

or this one;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhR41lsEJY


and this one;



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXFb0eSYjEA





Mika almost wets herself with joy watching these. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Munchies boy makes it easy for them though. :(

[revelarts]

The Detroit News endorsed Gary Johnson today.
Endorsement: Libertarian Gary Johnson for president (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/09/28/endorse-johnson-president/91254412/)

[jimnyc]

So Assad DELIBERATELY attacks citizens. And Johnson sees our involvement as the same?

-----

Gary Johnson equates Syrian civilians killed by Assad, US

Washington (CNN)Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, in an interview published Wednesday, discussed the massive loss of human life in Syria and equated killings from the government of Bashar al-Assad and those caused by the United States.

Johnson, pressed in his interview with The New York Times, on whether he viewed deaths caused deliberately by Assad's forces as the same as those caused by the United States, Johnson indicated he did.

"Well, no, of course not. We're so much better than all that," Johnson said with sarcasm, according to the report. "We're so much better when in Afghanistan, we bomb the hospital and 60 people are killed in the hospital."

Johnson was referring to a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders that the United States admitted it bombed in 2015. The Pentagon said after a military investigation that the action was not a war crime, although it did not allow an independent, international investigation into the killings.

Johnson has made skepticism of foreign interventions a mainstay of his campaign, ensuring to highlight it in almost every interview he does. But he has had several embarrassing incidents that demonstrated his shortcomings in that area.

At the beginning of September, Johnson failed to recognize Aleppo, a city at the heart of the Syrian civil war. The embarrassing moment underscored Johnson's lack of foreign policy chops, and he compounded the mistake in a late September interview when he struggled to name a foreign leader he respected, conceding he was having another "Aleppo moment."

Johnson also specifically slammed Democrat Hillary Clinton, calling her a foreign policy hawk who contributed to bloodshed overseas.

"Because Hillary Clinton can dot the i's and cross the t's on geographic leaders, of the names of foreign leaders the underlying fact that hundreds of thousands of people have died in Syria goes by the wayside," Johnson said.

The Libertarian nominee's criticism of Clinton appears at odds with his running mate, Bill Weld, who told CNN Wednesday he would focus his criticism on Republican Donald Trump.

"I guess my role will be Hillary, and his role will be Donald Trump," Johnson said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/politics/gary-johnson-syria-us/index.html

[fj1200]

So Assad DELIBERATELY attacks citizens. And Johnson sees our involvement as the same?

-----

Gary Johnson equates Syrian civilians killed by Assad, US

...

Johnson has made skepticism of foreign interventions a mainstay of his campaign, ensuring to highlight it in almost every interview he does. But he has had several embarrassing incidents that demonstrated his shortcomings in that area.

...

You missed the key bold. I guess it would be similar to not going into Iraq for example.