Johnson/Weld 2016

[SB Shock]

I'm all for any Hillary supporters voting Johnson/weld. It a great choice. Get your dead friends to vote Johnson also. :eagerness:

[1972Shocker]

Well lets see ... Merkel (Germany), Cameron (Britain), Putin (Russia), Vicente Fox (former Mexican president), the pope, and the Dalai Lama. Wow - real hard. Personally I would have pushed for being allowed to choose a deceased world leader - Churchill.

The point of the question is pretty obvious - to determine Johnson's knowledge of foreign affairs (which is an important part of the presidency). It is ironic that you mention debt and government spending - those are things the president does not have direct control over. Ever hear of congress having power over the purse?

I don't particularly admire any of the current world leaders you listed. It is simply a matter of opinion. You obviously admire different people than do I. Although I would agree that Winston Churchill would have probably been my pick if the question wasn't limited to current leaders. The bottom line is I simply don't see why having admiration for a world leader is a prerequisite to being POTUS although I do have to admit Trump's admiration for Putin is a bit disconcerting but not necessarily disqualifying or surprising.

Yes I understand about the power of the purse but the executive branch does present a budget for the legislative branch for consideration. Trump and Clinton are both proposing the expansion of federal government. While I understand that the legislative branch has the power of the purse strings the legislative branch appears to have forgotten that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process

The United States budget process begins when the President of the United States submits a budget request to Congress.

Granted what Congress does with that request is up to them with the President's power being limited to his veto power (that Congress can override with enough votes) and the power of the bully pulpit. Most recently it seems like the Federal government is just operating on one continuing resolution after another with both the executive and legislative branches totally abdicating their duties and responsibilities.

[1972Shocker]

The more I'm finding out about this ticket, the more I like what they stand for. I've had problems with some previous Libertarian platforms because they seemed to endorse "businesses should be abvle to do whatever they want and the public and the environment just have to deal with it".

I can't go for that. We've tried it and that's why we have some of the regulations on businesses that we have.

Johnson's stance on the environment seems reasonable - and rather similar to my own

https://www.johnsonweld.com/environment

Johnson/Weld appear to be what you might call small L Libertarians. In fact, many in the Libertarian party have been attacking them (including Ron Paul as much as the D's and R's have been because they are not pure Big L, balls to wall anything goes Libertarians. Perhaps that is the best sign of all.

This will be the last go round for Johnson and Weld. They may bring some benefits to the Libertarian party if they capture 5% or more of the national vote which appears likely to be the case. However, it is very debatable whether or not the Libertarians as a party will ever amount to much without becoming a bit more pragmatic which is what I think Johnson and Weld are.

I don't think Johnson/Weld are perfect by any means. I do think they are far superior to Trump and Clinton although I understand that is a pretty low bar.

[jdshock]

The more I'm finding out about this ticket, the more I like what they stand for. I've had problems with some previous Libertarian platforms because they seemed to endorse "businesses should be abvle to do whatever they want and the public and the environment just have to deal with it".

I can't go for that. We've tried it and that's why we have some of the regulations on businesses that we have.

Johnson's stance on the environment seems reasonable - and rather similar to my own

https://www.johnsonweld.com/environment

That's because it was written to be so unclear that it could mean anything.

In a healthy economy that allows the market to function unimpeded, consumers, innovators, and personal choices will do more to bring about environmental protection and restoration than will government regulations driven by special interests.

To a true libertarian that might mean no government regulations and let the market decide. To a person that cares about the environment, a cap and trade system or carbon tax might fit within that definition. They don't really propose anything.

[1972Shocker]

That's because it was written to be so unclear that it could mean anything.



To a true libertarian that might mean no government regulations and let the market decide. To a person that cares about the environment, a cap and trade system or carbon tax might fit within that definition. They don't really propose anything.

Johnson/Weld do support keeping the EPA in place as they believe protecting the citizens from harm caused by polluters is a valid function of the Federal government. I suppose this is one area where they irritate the Big L members of the Libertarian Party. They probably would be considered Conservatarians which is kind of a bridge between the Republican Party (they were Republican governors) and Libertarians. They say they have always been small L Libertarians but neither has actually been a member of the Libertarian Party for that long. Johnson joined in 2012 I think and Weld just this past year. However, Ron Paul is still probably the icon of the Libertarians and he says he is not voting for Johnson/Weld.

I suppose it is all really academic as the chances of anyone other than Trump or Clinton winning the presidential election are very, very slim at best.

With the likelihood of Trump winning the Kansas electoral votes at 90%+ I understand my vote will be of little consequence in the Presidential election.

[1972Shocker]

I actually thought this foreign policy speech in Chicago by Gary Johnsnon was not too bad if anyone is interested in hearing more than spun gotcha sound bites.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/11/gary-johnson-lays-out-foreign-policy

It is unfortunate stuff like this gets no coverage but with the left-wing media being a surrogate for Hillary's campaign and the right-wing media either being very pro-Trump or very anti-Trump focused information like this simply gets crowded out making it more difficult to obtain objective information on national politics.

[1972Shocker]

I have no idea who reportedly conducted this poll for the Johnson/Weld campaign and no idea whether it is a well-conducted scientific poll or not. This was conducted on October 8-9 after the Trump's Locker Room Tape and before the 2nd Presidential Debate.

For whom would you vote for President if the choice was between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
Result: Clinton 46.4%; Trump 38.8%, Undecided 14.8%

For whom would you vote for president if the choice was between Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson?
Result: Clinton 45.6%; Johnson 37.0%, Undecided 17.4%

For whom would you vote for president if the choice was between Donald Trump and Gary Johnson?
Result: Gary Johnson 41.6%, Trump 37.3%, Undedicded 21.1%

Here is a related article from the same Libertarian web siite.discussing this poll.

[shockmonster]

I actually thought this foreign policy speech in Chicago by Gary Johnsnon was not too bad if anyone is interested in hearing more than spun gotcha sound bites.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/11/gary-johnson-lays-out-foreign-policy

It is unfortunate stuff like this gets no coverage but with the left-wing media being a surrogate for Hillary's campaign and the right-wing media either being very pro-Trump or very anti-Trump focused information like this simply gets crowded out making it more difficult to obtain objective information on national politics.

We have no good candidates. Johnson is not good either. During 3 different television interviews, he didn't know where or what Aleppo was, who the leader of North Korea was, and who the past two leaders of Mexico are. While he doesn't get much coverage, he isn't well informed anymore than Trump. He probably is more honest (who wouldn't be) than HC

[1972Shocker]

We have no good candidates. Johnson is not good either. During 3 different television interviews, he didn't know where or what Aleppo was, who the leader of North Korea was, and who the past two leaders of Mexico are. While he doesn't get much coverage, he isn't well informed anymore than Trump. He probably is more honest (who wouldn't be) than HC

Did you listen to the speech? Just curious if you agree or disagree with his proposed policy approach irrespective of his acknowledged weaknesses on foreign policy pop quizzes.

I do think one reason he picked Bill Weld as a running mate is that Weld does have more foreign policy experience and as their campaign has stressed is that they are running as a team. Weld would most likely be one of the more engaged VP's if they follow through on how they say they will govern.

Johson would not be my 1st choice either but among the choices we have the Johnson/Weld platform is the closest to my philosophy and I believe both gentlemen to be honorable and decent men.

That said he never really had much, if any, chance of winning and whatever those very slim chances were have been lessened significantly by Trump's recent struggles which making a Clinton electoral college landslide a distinct possibility at this point.

It would just be nice if some of the limited government, fiscal conservative, individual liberty ideas (constitutional ideas if you will) had more of a hearing. Mark Levin may be correct though. We may already be in a post-constitutional period and whether or not that can be restored is debatable.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/09/19/mark-levin-explains-why-we-now-live-in-post-constitutional-society/

[shockmonster]

Did you listen to the speech? Just curious if you agree or disagree with his proposed policy approach irrespective of his acknowledged weaknesses on foreign policy pop quizzes.

I do think one reason he picked Bill Weld as a running mate is that Weld does have more foreign policy experience and as their campaign has stressed is that they are running as a team. Weld would most likely be one of the more engaged VP's if they follow through on how they say they will govern.

Johson would not be my 1st choice either but among the choices we have the Johnson/Weld platform is the closest to my philosophy and I believe both gentlemen to be honorable and decent men.

That said he never really had much, if any, chance of winning and whatever those very slim chances were have been lessened significantly by Trump's recent struggles which making a Clinton electoral college landslide a distinct possibility at this point.

It would just be nice if some of the limited government, fiscal conservative, individual liberty ideas (constitutional ideas if you will) had more of a hearing. Mark Levin may be correct though. We may already be in a post-constitutional period and whether or not that can be restored is debatable.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/09/19/...ional-society/

I don't consider Aleppo a pop quiz. That is foreign policy 101 (basic stuff).

[1972Shocker]

I don't consider Aleppo a pop quiz. That is foreign policy 101 (basic stuff).

Fair enough.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I don't consider Aleppo a pop quiz. That is foreign policy 101 (basic stuff).

I follow politics closely. I've heard a ton about Syria. At the time of the "Aleppo moment", I literally didn't know what it was either. Maybe I had heard the name before. Actually, I probably had, but clearly I had forgotten it.

You could say a Presidential candidate should know more than I. That is true. I guess what I'm saying is that, in a world where Hillary is going to become President and Trump is going to receive 10s of millions of votes, I just can't get worked up about Gary having a brain fart on Aleppo when it was mentioned without any context. He wasn't discussing Syria and then asked about it. For all he knew, the next question coming was going to be his stance on abortion. "What do you think about Allepo?" It doesn't seem hard to imagine that being the perfect setup for a mere brain fart.

And I say that as someone who doesn't even like the guy.

[engrshock]

I follow politics closely. I've heard a ton about Syria. At the time of the "Aleppo moment", I literally didn't know what it was either. Maybe I had heard the name before. Actually, I probably had, but clearly I had forgotten it.

You could say a Presidential candidate should know more than I. That is true. I guess what I'm saying is that, in a world where Hillary is going to become President and Trump is going to receive 10s of millions of votes, I just can't get worked up about Gary having a brain fart on Aleppo when it was mentioned without any context. He wasn't discussing Syria and then asked about it. For all he knew, the next question coming was going to be his stance on abortion. "What do you think about Allepo?" It doesn't seem hard to imagine that being the perfect setup for a mere brain fart.

And I say that as someone who doesn't even like the guy.

Not sure how you can not like Johnson. He seems likeable enough. He was the "highest" elected leader in New Mexico. Weld seems much more knowledgeable and presidential. The Aleppo moment was bad but understandable although I knew what Aleppo was. Not being able to name a living leader of another nation was kind of worse. But in thinking about it while I could name some world leaders the first ones I thought of were ones I do not consider respectable. i.e. Putin, Kim Jung Un etc. He should have been able to come up with Merkel, Trudeau

[jdshock]

I follow politics closely. I've heard a ton about Syria. At the time of the "Aleppo moment", I literally didn't know what it was either. Maybe I had heard the name before. Actually, I probably had, but clearly I had forgotten it.

You could say a Presidential candidate should know more than I. That is true. I guess what I'm saying is that, in a world where Hillary is going to become President and Trump is going to receive 10s of millions of votes, I just can't get worked up about Gary having a brain fart on Aleppo when it was mentioned without any context. He wasn't discussing Syria and then asked about it. For all he knew, the next question coming was going to be his stance on abortion. "What do you think about Allepo?" It doesn't seem hard to imagine that being the perfect setup for a mere brain fart.

And I say that as someone who doesn't even like the guy.

I agree with this, but if you're Gary you have to know that, as a libertarian, people are going to be nervous about his foreign policy. It's assumed to be the area he knows the least about. He needed to be prepared.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Not sure how you can not like Johnson.

He's pro-choice. I could list plenty other dislikeable things about him, but that alone is enough for me.