GARY JOHNSON FOR PRESIDENT

Gern Blansten

josevolution said:

Gern Blansten said:

Jesus christ he couldn't name ONE foreign leader in his town hall tonight. That's just stupid on a Trumpian level.

That was unreal not sure how he continues after this gaf .

I like the guy but damn....that's bad. Why in the helll would they let him on the debate stage when he can't answer simple questions.

He really needs to stop smoking weed.

Jason P

His biggest liability is that he isn't trained to spin or deflect questions that he isn't prepared to answer.

Hillary would have spun it into another topic because if you name someone, Trump's campaign would accuse you of endorsing the downfalls of that leader.

Trump would have just called him a dummy for asking.

Bentleyspop

He needs to stop doubling down on the edibles before these events

Gern Blansten

Jason P said:

His biggest liability is that he isn't trained to spin or deflect questions that he isn't prepared to answer.

Hillary would have spun it into another topic because if you name someone, Trump's campaign would accuse you of endorsing the downfalls of that leader.

Trump would have just called him a dummy for asking.

He shouldn't have to spin it. That's his problem.

Jason P

Gern Blansten said:

Jason P said:

His biggest liability is that he isn't trained to spin or deflect questions that he isn't prepared to answer.

Hillary would have spun it into another topic because if you name someone, Trump's campaign would accuse you of endorsing the downfalls of that leader.

Trump would have just called him a dummy for asking.

He shouldn't have to spin it. That's his problem.

He needs to give non-answers or launch into a pre-loaded topics like Hillary.

Jason P

He is honest and transparent, unlike Hillary

Gern Blansten

Jason P said:

He is honest and transparent, unlike Hillary

Yeah he honestly has no business running for President.

Go Beavers

It's fine to support Johnson, but let's not spin his deficits into a strength. I would expect a Libertarian to not know boo-squat about international relations. Not getting involved is part of the platform. Do you ask a vegan about the best cut of meat? This small government thing sure is fun and can channel peoples frustration, but don't act surprised when those candidates show their skill set.

PJ_Soul

Go Beavers said:

It's fine to support Johnson, but let's not spin his deficits into a strength. I would expect a Libertarian to not know boo-squat about international relations. Not getting involved is part of the platform. Do you ask a vegan about the best cut of meat? This small government thing sure is fun and can channel peoples frustration, but don't act surprised when those candidates show their skill set.

So from that I assume the Libertarian plan would be to .... what? Just throw out the White House Rolodex on Inauguration Day and dump the international community like a bad date?

Go Beavers

That's a very good question. I would imagine the foreign policy would be to pull out, cut funding, don't get involved, and observe.

PJ_Soul

Go Beavers said:

That's a very good question. I would imagine the foreign policy would be to pull out, cut funding, don't get involved, and observe.

I figure one might need to know a little about foreign policy and who leads which country to accomplish that.

lukin2006

Go Beavers said:

That's a very good question. I would imagine the foreign policy would be to pull out, cut funding, don't get involved, and observe.

And what's wrong with that, intervention in the Middle East has only made things a ton worse, no one has any solutions for the Middle East...so why not pull out and let them either get their act together or totally implode...

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

That's a very good question. I would imagine the foreign policy would be to pull out, cut funding, don't get involved, and observe.

And what's wrong with that, intervention in the Middle East has only made things a ton worse, no one has any solutions for the Middle East...so why not pull out and let them either get their act together or totally implode...

I support that idea completely... although we can assume it's a lot easier said than done, and don't forget about the oil factor. There seems to be a "from our cold, dead hands" kind of mentality happening when it comes to US involvement in the middle east. I don't think the US will start backing off until they literally run out of oil... and by then the middle east will be uninhabitable anyhow, since it will be so hot no one can live there anymore.

Go Beavers

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

That's a very good question. I would imagine the foreign policy would be to pull out, cut funding, don't get involved, and observe.

And what's wrong with that, intervention in the Middle East has only made things a ton worse, no one has any solutions for the Middle East...so why not pull out and let them either get their act together or totally implode...

There's a lot wrong with it, but it depends on your moral perspective. I would support a change in Middle East policy. Johnson seems to support the stance that basically says: sorry we played a huge role in effing things up, you're on your own now, good luck!

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

That's a very good question. I would imagine the foreign policy would be to pull out, cut funding, don't get involved, and observe.

And what's wrong with that, intervention in the Middle East has only made things a ton worse, no one has any solutions for the Middle East...so why not pull out and let them either get their act together or totally implode...

There's a lot wrong with it, but it depends on your moral perspective. I would support a change in Middle East policy. Johnson seems to support the stance that basically says: sorry we played a huge role in effing things up, you're on your own now, good luck!

His position will get many fewer U.S. soldiers killed. Sorry Middle East, we really fucked up. Sorry for creating power vacuums, sorry for our unwavering support of Israel, sorry for not allowing you all to have self-determination. Nothing we can do now will right those wrongs, so in the interest of fewer US casualties, we'll go ahead and let you guys solve your issues. Have at it. Once you're done, and balance has been established, let us know who we can talk to about new, mutually beneficial trade deals. We'll be your trading partner, but we won't be your enemy, your friend, your sugar daddy, or your hired gun.

Jason P

Go Beavers said:

It's fine to support Johnson, but let's not spin his deficits into a strength. I would expect a Libertarian to not know boo-squat about international relations. Not getting involved is part of the platform. Do you ask a vegan about the best cut of meat? This small government thing sure is fun and can channel peoples frustration, but don't act surprised when those candidates show their skill set.

Being honest and transparent is a weakness in politics. It's why Bernie never stood a chance (although he was a lot more sharp the ol' Gary)

Go Beavers

At least he is being honest about what he doesn't have knowledge of, but it's common that people want a president who can deal effectively with other leaders. No one would care if he's honest about his lack of in depth knowledge about thermodynamics.

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:

Go Beavers said:

That's a very good question. I would imagine the foreign policy would be to pull out, cut funding, don't get involved, and observe.

And what's wrong with that, intervention in the Middle East has only made things a ton worse, no one has any solutions for the Middle East...so why not pull out and let them either get their act together or totally implode...

There's a lot wrong with it, but it depends on your moral perspective. I would support a change in Middle East policy. Johnson seems to support the stance that basically says: sorry we played a huge role in effing things up, you're on your own now, good luck!

His position will get many fewer U.S. soldiers killed. Sorry Middle East, we really fucked up. Sorry for creating power vacuums, sorry for our unwavering support of Israel, sorry for not allowing you all to have self-determination. Nothing we can do now will right those wrongs, so in the interest of fewer US casualties, we'll go ahead and let you guys solve your issues. Have at it. Once you're done, and balance has been established, let us know who we can talk to about new, mutually beneficial trade deals. We'll be your trading partner, but we won't be your enemy, your friend, your sugar daddy, or your hired gun.

There's been few attempts to do something different there. If Americans are frustrated and cynical about a complicated issue, I don't think our leaders should necessarily reflect that. I want our leaders to be better than me, not be a reflection of me.

ledvedderman

So Governor Weld told Chris Matthews on the record last night that John Kerry deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the Iran arms deal.

PJ_Soul

ledvedderman said:

So Governor Weld told Chris Matthews on the record last night that John Kerry deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the Iran arms deal.

Never heard of Governor Weld. Is he relevant?