The Johnson Thread

[/dev/null]

I love how former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who has been out of elected office for over a decade, flubs foreign policy questions and is derided as unqualified for President. Meanwhile former US Senator and Secretary of State Hiliary Clinton's vote for the Iraq War and failures as SecState are considered meh

[ALF]

Washington (CNN) Libertarian vice presidential hopeful Bill Weld said Friday that he's "not sure anybody is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States," the latest misstep in what's been a painful week for the third-party ticket.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/bill-weld-hillary-clinton-qualified/index.html

[Doc]

I love how former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who has been out of elected office for over a decade, flubs foreign policy questions and is derided as unqualified for President. Meanwhile former US Senator and Secretary of State Hiliary Clinton's vote for the Iraq War and failures as SecState are considered meh

 

As a 3rd party candidate polling below 10%, Johnson has ZERO margin for error. But LIAR's been the chosen one for years now and nothing is going to stop the MSM from helping her get elected.

Washington (CNN) Libertarian vice presidential hopeful Bill Weld said Friday that he's "not sure anybody is more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States," the latest misstep in what's been a painful week for the third-party ticket.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/politics/bill-weld-hillary-clinton-qualified/index.html

 

If Johnson's flubs weren't enough to lose him all support...

[B-Man]

MATT WELCH: The Media’s Hypocraisy On Gary Johnson.

Is Gary Johnson qualified to run for president? Let’s talk about that, but first let’s talk about this:

 

Two weeks ago, the foreign affairs select committee of the British House of Commons released a detailed, damning report about one of Hillary Clinton’s signature achievements as secretary of state: The 2011 US/UK/French-led military intervention into Moammar Gadhafi’s Libya, which was sold as a necessity to prevent (in President Barack Obama’s words) “a massacre that would have reverberated across the region.”

 

“This policy,” the conservative-led committee concluded, “was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the [british] Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-(Gadhafi) Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of (Gadhafi) regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa.”

You might think that a deeply sourced report from an allied government about trumped-up intelligence leading to yet another destabilizing Middle East war might make some headlines in the country where the administration’s leading proponent of said intervention is poised to become the next leader of the free world.

 

But you would be wrong.

 

Aside from a handful of mostly ideological outlets,

the US news media declined to even note that the Democratic presidential nominee suffered a comprehensive rebuke to her oft-repeated assertion that Libya represented American “smart power at its best.”

As The Atlantic delicately put it, “The British public has been engaged in a debate about war that has been largely absent from the U.S. presidential election.”

 

Ah, yes,

but did you hear the one about Gary Johnson not being able to come up on the spot with the name of his favorite foreign leader?

Disqualifying! And also, oddly, nearly ubiquitous in the same media that couldn’t be bothered to reexamine a Hillary Clinton policy that has adversely affected countless human lives.

 

 

 

 

Well, once it became clear that he takes more votes from Hillary than Trump, this was inevitable.

[snafu]

MATT WELCH: The Media’s Hypocraisy On Gary Johnson.

 

 

 

Is Gary Johnson qualified to run for president? Let’s talk about that, but first let’s talk about this:

 

Two weeks ago, the foreign affairs select committee of the British House of Commons released a detailed, damning report about one of Hillary Clinton’s signature achievements as secretary of state: The 2011 US/UK/French-led military intervention into Moammar Gadhafi’s Libya, which was sold as a necessity to prevent (in President Barack Obama’s words) “a massacre that would have reverberated across the region.”

 

“This policy,” the conservative-led committee concluded, “was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the [british] Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-(Gadhafi) Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of (Gadhafi) regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa.”

You might think that a deeply sourced report from an allied government about trumped-up intelligence leading to yet another destabilizing Middle East war might make some headlines in the country where the administration’s leading proponent of said intervention is poised to become the next leader of the free world.

 

But you would be wrong.

 

Aside from a handful of mostly ideological outlets, the US news media declined to even note that the Democratic presidential nominee suffered a comprehensive rebuke to her oft-repeated assertion that Libya represented American “smart power at its best.” As The Atlantic delicately put it, “The British public has been engaged in a debate about war that has been largely absent from the U.S. presidential election.”

 

Ah, yes, but did you hear the one about Gary Johnson not being able to come up on the spot with the name of his favorite foreign leader? Disqualifying! And also, oddly, nearly ubiquitous in the same media that couldn’t be bothered to reexamine a Hillary Clinton policy that has adversely affected countless human lives.

 

 

 

 

Well, once it became clear that he takes more votes from Hillary than Trump, this was inevitable.

 

Too bad none of her opponents can clearly articulate this and everything else in her sad record of public service in pursuing their respective campaigns. Too bad the media is bought and sold. Too bad we are citizens at this time in our great country's history. Effin sad.

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

I'd rather be led by a person who doesn't know all these foreign leaders than by a person who is openly on the take with them in a money-laundering scheme.

 

But that's just me.

Sigh. Yes that's where I am as a voter. I put more faith in his moral compass than his navigation skills.

[Nanker]

The immoral Hillary Clinton.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Robot, clone? Or just someone who claps strangely....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f6AOVoSfwM

[B-Man]

Johnson’s Third-Party Run Hasn’t Lived up to the Hype

Despite all the hype, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson has earned less than 10 percent of the electorate’s support. He has also failed to convince elected representatives that the Johnson–Bill Weld ticket is worthy of an endorsement, even when framed as an alternative to Clinton and Trump — two of the most unfavorable candidates in history. With 33 days until the election, Johnson’s support among elected representatives is nearly nonexistent.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

[Magox]

 

Johnson’s Third-Party Run Hasn’t Lived up to the Hype

Despite all the hype, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson has earned less than 10 percent of the electorate’s support. He has also failed to convince elected representatives that the Johnson–Bill Weld ticket is worthy of an endorsement, even when framed as an alternative to Clinton and Trump — two of the most unfavorable candidates in history. With 33 days until the election, Johnson’s support among elected representatives is nearly nonexistent.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

 

 

I'm not a Rand Paul sort of guy, but if he had run as a third-party candidate, he would have ended up getting past the 15% threshold to make the debate stage. In hindsight, he probably regrets not giving it a go.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I'm not a Rand Paul sort of guy, but if he had run as a third-party candidate, he would have ended up getting past the 15% threshold to make the debate stage. In hindsight, he probably regrets not giving it a go.

I think he does it in 4 years.

 

Johnson is a lousy candidate, and Weld isn't even a libertarian.

 

What Johnson/Weld will accomplish, however, is getting the Libertarian Party access to the Federal Election Funds Grant.

[Magox]

I think he does it in 4 years.

 

Johnson is a lousy candidate, and Weld isn't even a libertarian.

 

What Johnson/Weld will accomplish, however, is getting the Libertarian Party access to the Federal Election Funds Grant.

 

I think he'll soon find out if he already hasn't that his brand of politics is not what the Republican party want as their nominee. I believe you are right, he'll go on his own 4 years from now, which most likely won't be a good time go. This was the year to do it.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I think he'll soon find out if he already hasn't that his brand of politics is not what the Republican party want as their nominee. I believe you are right, he'll go on his own 4 years from now, which most likely won't be a good time go. This was the year to do it.

I think it really depends.

 

If Clinton wins, and Republicans haven't reformed their brand, I think it creates an opportunity.

 

If Trump wins and the Republican brand goes down in flames, I think it creates an opportunity.

[B-Man]

[Benjamin Franklin]

Johnson, for his faults, looks better and better every damn day.

[Boatdrinks]

Johnson, for his faults, looks better and better every damn day.

 

I had written off voting for Johnson because it's a throwaway. I'd be voting for him though if it somehow became just Johnson and Clinton running. I cannot vote for Clinton due to her giving credence to BLM. I'm still planning to vote Trump but fear others may shift. If all Trump voters shifted to Johnson I'd vote for him 100%.

[Benjamin Franklin]

I had written off voting for Johnson because it's a throwaway. I'd be voting for him though if it somehow became just Johnson and Clinton running. I cannot vote for Clinton due to her giving credence to BLM. I'm still planning to vote Trump but fear others may shift. If all Trump voters shifted to Johnson I'd vote for him 100%.

 

So you're a sheep. Good to know.

[Doc]

Did Johnson figure out the answer was "Kim Jong-Un" yet?

[Boatdrinks]

So you're a sheep. Good to know.

 

No , not a sheep. I just don't want Clinton to win and voting for Johnson is voting for Clinton in my eyes. Can't do it. I think Johnson is actually the best of the 3. I don't believe not wanting to influence the election to Hillary in any way makes one a sheep.

[sodbuster]

No , not a sheep. I just don't want Clinton to win and voting for Johnson is voting for Clinton in my eyes. Can't do it. I think Johnson is actually the best of the 3. I don't believe not wanting to influence the election to Hillary in any way makes one a sheep.

So you're making your decision based on how others are going to act?

 

That's literally how a herd of sheep functions.