Gary Johnson: I Will End the War in Afghanistan and Bring Our Troops Home Now

[Douger]

If he were to get in that office he'd do exactly as told by your masters or_____________.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you're obviously going to hold out for a TRUE non-interventionalist -- like Obama or Romney...

Good Plan... BTW -- define non-intervention.

That doesn't even make sense.

Of course not.. That's why I pointed it out. You said you wouldn't vote for Johnson because he's not dovish enough.. Which leaves the alternative of sitting home or voting for the DemReps...

I get the part where you think the Libertarian Party ought to have a purity test and shouldn't run candidates with tons of administrative experience. But SOME of us have waited YEARS to have candidates on the Lib ballot who don't think that Marijuana is an entire platform....

You implied that if I wasn't supporting Johnson I must be supporting Obama or Romney, which is what didn't make sense. Only now are you mentioning there are other alternatives.

I don't have a problem with them running people with executive experience, per se. I don't even have a problem with them running former Republicans in and of itself. My problem is them running candidates who can barely be considered libertarian at all, such as Bob Barr. Now Johnson isn't as bad as Barr, but his foreign policy leaves much to be desired. As for not running people who think marijuana is an entire platform, are you serious? Have you listened to Johnson at all? The only time he sounds comfortable speaking is when he's talking about legalizing marijuana, and he's not even all that good on that issue.

 

[California Girl]

And that pretty much sums up why Libertarians are so damned dangerous.

 

[flacaltenn]

And that pretty much sums up why Libertarians are so damned dangerous.

the danger stems from the fact that we can't compromise on what our candidates actually believe. As tho the purity of the message would be ruined by a "borrowed republican" with actual work experience in balancing a state budget for 8 years. As a governor, Johnson had to pay for 10s of thousands of people incarcerated for petty marijane violations every year. Perhaps he knows best what a waste of taxpayer dollars that actually represents.

Whether or not he thinks that a social issue or economic issue is pretty irrelevant. It needs to get fixed. He is the MOST qualified for president that we've fielded in many many years. You SHOULD be frightened. I am NOT the Repubs biggest fan...

 

[flacaltenn]

That doesn't even make sense.

Of course not.. That's why I pointed it out. You said you wouldn't vote for Johnson because he's not dovish enough.. Which leaves the alternative of sitting home or voting for the DemReps...

I get the part where you think the Libertarian Party ought to have a purity test and shouldn't run candidates with tons of administrative experience. But SOME of us have waited YEARS to have candidates on the Lib ballot who don't think that Marijuana is an entire platform....

You implied that if I wasn't supporting Johnson I must be supporting Obama or Romney, which is what didn't make sense. Only now are you mentioning there are other alternatives.

I don't have a problem with them running people with executive experience, per se. I don't even have a problem with them running former Republicans in and of itself. My problem is them running candidates who can barely be considered libertarian at all, such as Bob Barr. Now Johnson isn't as bad as Barr, but his foreign policy leaves much to be desired. As for not running people who think marijuana is an entire platform, are you serious? Have you listened to Johnson at all? The only time he sounds comfortable speaking is when he's talking about legalizing marijuana, and he's not even all that good on that issue.

Yeah -- you're right.. Cynthia McKinney would be FAR more likely to get us out of Afghan sooner and empty the jails of drug offenders.... A virtual ICON of libertarian thinking..

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Gary Johnson will have my vote in November.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Of course not.. That's why I pointed it out. You said you wouldn't vote for Johnson because he's not dovish enough.. Which leaves the alternative of sitting home or voting for the DemReps...

I get the part where you think the Libertarian Party ought to have a purity test and shouldn't run candidates with tons of administrative experience. But SOME of us have waited YEARS to have candidates on the Lib ballot who don't think that Marijuana is an entire platform....

You implied that if I wasn't supporting Johnson I must be supporting Obama or Romney, which is what didn't make sense. Only now are you mentioning there are other alternatives.

I don't have a problem with them running people with executive experience, per se. I don't even have a problem with them running former Republicans in and of itself. My problem is them running candidates who can barely be considered libertarian at all, such as Bob Barr. Now Johnson isn't as bad as Barr, but his foreign policy leaves much to be desired. As for not running people who think marijuana is an entire platform, are you serious? Have you listened to Johnson at all? The only time he sounds comfortable speaking is when he's talking about legalizing marijuana, and he's not even all that good on that issue.

Yeah -- you're right.. Cynthia McKinney would be FAR more likely to get us out of Afghan sooner and empty the jails of drug offenders.... A virtual ICON of libertarian thinking..

I see I wasted my time typing that post.

 

[Paulie]

I like Johnson. His foreign policy is far from perfect, but who's isn't? I don't see him being a war monger initiating preemptive conflicts, which at this point in the game is something I'll gladly take.

And let's be real, the fact that he wouldn't is why he's still a nobody. Short of Paul running around the country stumping for him, no one will ever know who he is and the MSM will provide no help there.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I like Johnson. His foreign policy is far from perfect, but who's isn't? I don't see him being a war monger initiating preemptive conflicts, which at this point in the game is something I'll gladly take.

And let's be real, the fact that he wouldn't is why he's still a nobody. Short of Paul running around the country stumping for him, no one will ever know who he is and the MSM will provide no help there.

In an interview with the Daily Caller, presumptive Libertarian Party nominee for president Gary Johnson tries heartily to describe his foreign policy…or at least a foreign policy. Plainly put, the man is confused.

He says he supports U.S. military intervention in Uganda to root out the Lords Resistance Army and kill its leader, Joseph Kony. He thinks the drone war in Pakistan and Yemen creates more enemies than it eliminates, but doesn’t want to take drone strikes off the proverbial “table.” He wants to “completely withdraw our military presence” from Afghanistan, but wants to keep our military bases there. In fact, U.S. military bases should be maintained throughout the Middle East, he says, even though America faces “no military threats.” He supports “humanitarian intervention.” He wants to cut military and defense budgets by 43 percent, but only reduce national security spending to 2003 levels, “and just wring out the excess.”

Gary Johnson – “Libertarian” Candidate – is Out of His Element « Antiwar.com Blog

 

[Paulie]

I like Johnson. His foreign policy is far from perfect, but who's isn't? I don't see him being a war monger initiating preemptive conflicts, which at this point in the game is something I'll gladly take.

And let's be real, the fact that he wouldn't is why he's still a nobody. Short of Paul running around the country stumping for him, no one will ever know who he is and the MSM will provide no help there.

In an interview with the Daily Caller, presumptive Libertarian Party nominee for president Gary Johnson tries heartily to describe his foreign policy…or at least a foreign policy. Plainly put, the man is confused.

He says he supports U.S. military intervention in Uganda to root out the Lords Resistance Army and kill its leader, Joseph Kony. He thinks the drone war in Pakistan and Yemen creates more enemies than it eliminates, but doesn’t want to take drone strikes off the proverbial “table.” He wants to “completely withdraw our military presence” from Afghanistan, but wants to keep our military bases there. In fact, U.S. military bases should be maintained throughout the Middle East, he says, even though America faces “no military threats.” He supports “humanitarian intervention.” He wants to cut military and defense budgets by 43 percent, but only reduce national security spending to 2003 levels, “and just wring out the excess.”

Gary Johnson – “Libertarian” Candidate – is Out of His Element « Antiwar.com Blog

I probably wouldn't vote for him even though I like things about him. I like enough about him that if for some crazy reason he somehow got elected president over Obama or Romney, I wouldn't necessarily lose sleep over it.

I've come to the point where I want fiscal and monetary sanity so badly, that I'd be willing to give at least a little on other areas. As long as the guy didn't initiate preemptive strikes and stomp on our liberties here at home, I could live with it.

If he were to take the hardline approach fiscally that we need, actually do something about the big 3 entitlement debacle, get rid of NDAA and other liberty destroying pieces of legislation, I could almost live with small scale "humanitarian intervention" as long as it wasn't straight up acts of war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I like Johnson. His foreign policy is far from perfect, but who's isn't? I don't see him being a war monger initiating preemptive conflicts, which at this point in the game is something I'll gladly take.

And let's be real, the fact that he wouldn't is why he's still a nobody. Short of Paul running around the country stumping for him, no one will ever know who he is and the MSM will provide no help there.

In an interview with the Daily Caller, presumptive Libertarian Party nominee for president Gary Johnson tries heartily to describe his foreign policy…or at least a foreign policy. Plainly put, the man is confused.

He says he supports U.S. military intervention in Uganda to root out the Lords Resistance Army and kill its leader, Joseph Kony. He thinks the drone war in Pakistan and Yemen creates more enemies than it eliminates, but doesn’t want to take drone strikes off the proverbial “table.” He wants to “completely withdraw our military presence” from Afghanistan, but wants to keep our military bases there. In fact, U.S. military bases should be maintained throughout the Middle East, he says, even though America faces “no military threats.” He supports “humanitarian intervention.” He wants to cut military and defense budgets by 43 percent, but only reduce national security spending to 2003 levels, “and just wring out the excess.”

Gary Johnson – “Libertarian” Candidate – is Out of His Element « Antiwar.com Blog

I probably wouldn't vote for him even though I like things about him. I like enough about him that if for some crazy reason he somehow got elected president over Obama or Romney, I wouldn't necessarily lose sleep over it.

I've come to the point where I want fiscal and monetary sanity so badly, that I'd be willing to give at least a little on other areas. As long as the guy didn't initiate preemptive strikes and stomp on our liberties here at home, I could live with it.

If he were to take the hardline approach fiscally that we need, actually do something about the big 3 entitlement debacle, get rid of NDAA and other liberty destroying pieces of legislation, I could almost live with small scale "humanitarian intervention" as long as it wasn't straight up acts of war.

Don't get me wrong, I would find it much easier living with a President Gary Johnson over Obama or Romney, but his foreign policy is such a mess that I can't bring myself to support him. I just don't think he really even knows what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[Paulie]

Gary Johnson – “Libertarian” Candidate – is Out of His Element « Antiwar.com Blog

I probably wouldn't vote for him even though I like things about him. I like enough about him that if for some crazy reason he somehow got elected president over Obama or Romney, I wouldn't necessarily lose sleep over it.

I've come to the point where I want fiscal and monetary sanity so badly, that I'd be willing to give at least a little on other areas. As long as the guy didn't initiate preemptive strikes and stomp on our liberties here at home, I could live with it.

If he were to take the hardline approach fiscally that we need, actually do something about the big 3 entitlement debacle, get rid of NDAA and other liberty destroying pieces of legislation, I could almost live with small scale "humanitarian intervention" as long as it wasn't straight up acts of war.

Don't get me wrong, I would find it much easier living with a President Gary Johnson over Obama or Romney, but his foreign policy is such a mess that I can't bring myself to support him. I just don't think he really even knows what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy.

There's always going to be areas where a certain candidate might be weaker than on others, and that's why it's nice to know that there are a plethora of really great minds out there that can be advisers. Give him a Michael Sheurer, and throw in a Douglas McGregor and you got yourself a stronger president on foreign policy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I probably wouldn't vote for him even though I like things about him. I like enough about him that if for some crazy reason he somehow got elected president over Obama or Romney, I wouldn't necessarily lose sleep over it.

I've come to the point where I want fiscal and monetary sanity so badly, that I'd be willing to give at least a little on other areas. As long as the guy didn't initiate preemptive strikes and stomp on our liberties here at home, I could live with it.

If he were to take the hardline approach fiscally that we need, actually do something about the big 3 entitlement debacle, get rid of NDAA and other liberty destroying pieces of legislation, I could almost live with small scale "humanitarian intervention" as long as it wasn't straight up acts of war.

Don't get me wrong, I would find it much easier living with a President Gary Johnson over Obama or Romney, but his foreign policy is such a mess that I can't bring myself to support him. I just don't think he really even knows what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy.

There's always going to be areas where a certain candidate might be weaker than on others, and that's why it's nice to know that there are a plethora of really great minds out there that can be advisers. Give him a Michael Sheurer, and throw in a Douglas McGregor and you got yourself a stronger president on foreign policy.

I'm not saying a candidate has to be a wonk on every issue, but I can't support somebody whose ideas are so contradictory. Drones are bad, but he might still use them. Wants to leave Afghanistan, but might have to keep a base or two there. Didn't support taking out Gaddhafi, but wants to go after the LRA. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Paulie]

Don't get me wrong, I would find it much easier living with a President Gary Johnson over Obama or Romney, but his foreign policy is such a mess that I can't bring myself to support him. I just don't think he really even knows what he's talking about when it comes to foreign policy.

There's always going to be areas where a certain candidate might be weaker than on others, and that's why it's nice to know that there are a plethora of really great minds out there that can be advisers. Give him a Michael Sheurer, and throw in a Douglas McGregor and you got yourself a stronger president on foreign policy.

I'm not saying a candidate has to be a wonk on every issue, but I can't support somebody whose ideas are so contradictory. Drones are bad, but he might still use them. Wants to leave Afghanistan, but might have to keep a base or two there. Didn't support taking out Gaddhafi, but wants to go after the LRA. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I agree. Gaddafi was a petrodollar move, not really about humanitarian issues. So maybe he's at least smart enough to know WHY he would favor one intervention over another. Who knows though.

 

[jillian]

Johnson already has a running mate, Judge Jim Gray.

I like that guy, he has some pretty interesting sand good stances.

Primary Issues - Judge Jim Gray - Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed - End War On Drugs, Orange County Arbitration,

Unfortunately the Libertarian Party is more interested in running Republican castoffs than genuine libertarians in an attempt to moderate themselves and appeal to the masses. The trouble with that strategy is that we've already got one Republican Party, and the people looking to vote for the Libertarian Party already don't like that one.

is there such a thing as a goldwater libertarian... you know, when they were actually smart and didn't spend all their time trying to legislate what people do with their bodies or who they love?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's always going to be areas where a certain candidate might be weaker than on others, and that's why it's nice to know that there are a plethora of really great minds out there that can be advisers. Give him a Michael Sheurer, and throw in a Douglas McGregor and you got yourself a stronger president on foreign policy.

I'm not saying a candidate has to be a wonk on every issue, but I can't support somebody whose ideas are so contradictory. Drones are bad, but he might still use them. Wants to leave Afghanistan, but might have to keep a base or two there. Didn't support taking out Gaddhafi, but wants to go after the LRA. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I agree. Gaddafi was a petrodollar move, not really about humanitarian issues. So maybe he's at least smart enough to know WHY he would favor one intervention over another. Who knows though.

He was on Fox months ago, and when asked why he favored one and not the other he said that Obama wasn't "transparent" enough about Libya.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I like that guy, he has some pretty interesting sand good stances.

Primary Issues - Judge Jim Gray - Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed - End War On Drugs, Orange County Arbitration,

Unfortunately the Libertarian Party is more interested in running Republican castoffs than genuine libertarians in an attempt to moderate themselves and appeal to the masses. The trouble with that strategy is that we've already got one Republican Party, and the people looking to vote for the Libertarian Party already don't like that one.

is there such a thing as a goldwater libertarian... you know, when they were actually smart and didn't spend all their time trying to legislate what people do with their bodies or who they love?

Who's "they?"

 

[Paulie]

I'm not saying a candidate has to be a wonk on every issue, but I can't support somebody whose ideas are so contradictory. Drones are bad, but he might still use them. Wants to leave Afghanistan, but might have to keep a base or two there. Didn't support taking out Gaddhafi, but wants to go after the LRA. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I agree. Gaddafi was a petrodollar move, not really about humanitarian issues. So maybe he's at least smart enough to know WHY he would favor one intervention over another. Who knows though.

He was on Fox months ago, and when asked why he favored one and not the other he said that Obama wasn't "transparent" enough about Libya.

It's kind of hard for the president to come out and admit he undertook a military mission to remove a foreign leader because he was a threat to US Dollar hegemony. The guy was abandoning USD in oil trade in favor of gold.

God forbid, right?

 

[Paulie]

I like that guy, he has some pretty interesting sand good stances.

Primary Issues - Judge Jim Gray - Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed - End War On Drugs, Orange County Arbitration,

Unfortunately the Libertarian Party is more interested in running Republican castoffs than genuine libertarians in an attempt to moderate themselves and appeal to the masses. The trouble with that strategy is that we've already got one Republican Party, and the people looking to vote for the Libertarian Party already don't like that one.

is there such a thing as a goldwater libertarian... you know, when they were actually smart and didn't spend all their time trying to legislate what people do with their bodies or who they love?

Could you point me to somewhere...anywhere...where libertarians are trying to legislate morality?

 

[Liability]

Gary Johnson: I Will End the War in Afghanistan and Bring Our Troops Home Now

Since he IS not President and he will not be President, however, he really won't be doing any such thing.