That's a pretty low bar to compare Johnson to.
I'm not hated by 50% of America, but they also don't know who I am.
That doesn't make his responses any better.
But at least she's competent enough to be president and interact with an international world.
His 8% support, give or take, is going to support him roughly no matter what. Look at you.
I doubt it. Likewise it probably will be where a good amount will drop off to support a big two party member come November. Plus I remember reading that only 3/10 or so third party supporters (Johnson, Stein, McMullins and so on) are completely set on their canidate while the rest are open to voting Big 2. I doubt 8% are Johnson till they die.
Isolationist Johnson vs. Clinton? I go with Johnson on FP since unlike Clinton he is more of an isolationist while Hilliary is very much open to war historically and is one of the more hawkish democrats. Regardless I do worry about the idea of giving either Nuke em up Trump or 4-wars Hilliary control of the military.
You are also an example of a Johnson-supporter unphased by his idiocy.
I'm not fan of hawkish attitudes, but isolationism is just as stupid. At least Clinton knows at least one foreign leader by name.
One of those is infinitely better than the other, and I would trust Clinton over Johnson when it comes to foreign policy and international relations anyday. It's like he knows nothing about the rest of the world.
Is somebody forcing you at gunpoint to read this thread and my posts? If not, then give us a break from your shitposts.
I could of said the same about you and Hilliary but I didn't ;O . No truth be told I also really like Stein as well and would have considered Rand Paul or Ted Cruz if they had won.
Regardless our millitary presence in the ME in the last 50+ years really have made it worst. Regardless I would rather have someone who made a slip up then who wanted intervention 4 times (if not secretively more).
But it seems Clinton does not really know how blow back works
When did Hillary make a fool of herself?
Then policy is apparently irrelevant to you.
While still a little hawkish, Clinton has acknowledged her previous mistakes. Johnson doesn't even know what's going on in the Middle East. They're two different issues. Bringing up another candidate's past and unrelated shortcomings doesn't reduce the other candidate's idiocy.
What?
I was referring to the part that you most likely would vote for Hilliary no matter what and that you are by no means on the fence of picling who to vote for. But I would add the whole email situation is embarrassing for what it is worth since as she said it was a mistake on her part which in turn blew up.
I am a Libertarian in terms of my ideas and leanings. Out of Trump, Clinton, Stein and Castle my Isidewith is more with Stein then the other 3 and likewise after looking at their proposed policy, I must say that Stein is more inlined with my Libertarian views then the rest. Rand Paul likewise is very popular woth the libertarians and was the most libertarian of the big two parties and perhaps other then Johnson. Cruz? Well I am not fond of him but if I was in a true swing state sith a small margin I would pick him out of the big two.
It is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the US government's international activities.
The email situation was a garbage non-story that was blown out of proportion. However, due to Clinton and Trump being my only actual options, you are right that I would give Clinton a lot of leeway if she were to do something silly.
Johnson wasn't asked to name a foreign leader, he was asked to name one he looked up to. Johnson is a libertarian in a world full of socialists. Who's he supposed to look up to?
First, he wasn't asked to pick a foreign leader he agrees with 100%; he was asked to pick a foreign leader whom he likes. Is he so much of a politician that he can't say a name without fear that he will ruffle some Libertarian feathers? Second, and by Johnson's admission, there are foreign leaders he likes but doesn't know their names, so your defense of him is moot.
The email story was hardly a disqualifying incident. The foreign leader story was, in my opinion. It shows at the very least that he's not at all prepared to be president.
Of course. Ignoring the rules and doing whatever the fuck you want is to be encouraged, but not naming a foreign leader you look up to is damning. Too bad he couldn't tell us how much he loves Putin, then people wouldn't be able to say he doesn't know any foreign leaders!
What she did wasn't unpresented, she didn't break any laws, and it didn't compromise security. So, I'm not sure what you're point is. It wasn't a great idea, but it certainly doesn't disqualify someone to be president.
It's pretty bad when you cannot name a single foreign leader on the heels of not knowing what Aleppo was.
Then he would have a different set of problems.
The email story along with the other issues we discussed validate solid reason that Clinton to be disqualifying. The leader story? It was a slip up which Clinton has also made many of. I could use those past experiences of Clinton and say they are disqualifying and have no problem. To say you can overlock those faults of hers and then condemn Johnson is absurd.
See above. They don't.
I would like it very much if you could find something comparable to what Johnson said, preferably something within the last, say, four years.
It was against policy. Fact. She did it anyways. Fact. Her claim was because she didn't want to carry two devices. The next week she was on Oprah beaming with joy at all the devices she loves to carry. Now she's feigning that it happened because she's technologically illiterate. And also was saying that she had Bill's old email server sitting in the cellar or something along those lines, so just had that hooked up; simple, right? Wrong, maintaining a private email server is a fucking pain in the ass. I'd looked into hosting my own private email server and even after all the pains of setting it up, it requires constant maintenance to keep up with security. It's not something you do on a whim and it's not something that just happens due to technological illiteracy.
Oh, look, the spin doctor's still at it claiming he can't name a foreign leader when that was not the case.
You can go back and read my previous posts on the email story, because I'm not going to do it again just because a Johnson-support is sad his candidate makes idiotic mistakes and needs to spin away from that. I've responded to I think each of these points. Some of your points are fair, albeit not disqualifying, and other points are garbage.
I was very clear what I meant before that.
The Real Jdbye
Dumpflam
@
BakerMan:
@
BakerMan:
