The Case for Gary Johnson

[Tacachale]

The Hillary campaign is reportedly spending$18 million to discredit Gary Johnson. Somebody's scared....

Yes... scared of Trump.

Scared of trump but spending money on Gary?? Hmmm...

Trump never had a shot against the Clinton machine. The republicans missed a HUGE opportunity (again) by having a candidate un-electable. Really, the only person WORSE than Hillary is Trump.
Literally anyone but Trump could really beat Hillary. Hillary will win the election, no doubt, but it's mostly because of the hatred for trump, not because people like hillary.

Part of this is true: if either Clinton or Trump were up against a normal candidate, they'd get blown out of the water. For many voters, it's a matter of one or the other being the lesser of two evils.

That's where Clinton's strategy on the third parties comes in. She obviously isn't "scared" of Johnson per se. But polls are showing that Clinton is weaker against Trump when 3rd parties are included. That's because there's a contingent of voters who absolutely will not vote for Trump - "never Trump" Republicans and Republican-leaning voters, independents, some Bernie supporters, etc. - and a good number of them are voting for third parties instead of going over to Clinton. In a two-way race, they'd go for Clinton, or not vote. She's trying to convince those voters that she's the best anti-Trump vote.

[BridgeTroll]

My personal solution will be to leave the top section of the ballot unmarked.  I will not be voting for a president this election.  There are literally no candidates for me.   

[coredumped]

Surely we can criticise Johnson without it having to be a case of, "so is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying...."

Absolutely we can, and we should! Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any means. I don't agree with him on everything. It just seems that the media blasts him for minor things, when Clinton and Trump have done much worse. So when talking about the election you really have 3 choices (4 if you want to include Jill).

You must admit there's a large bias in the media, and this site. This site is obviously left leaning, and that's OK. But we shouldn't be blind to our candidates flaws.

My personal solution will be to leave the top section of the ballot unmarked.  I will not be voting for a president this election.  There are literally no candidates for me.   

MY 2 cents: you should write in who you prefer, or vote for a 3rd party (if you like any of them). That way you at least send a message to the establishment.

[finehoe]

The Chicago Tribune on Friday endorsed Libertarian Gary Johnson for president, joining a handful of other newspapers around the country that have rejected both the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees.

"We would rather recommend a principled candidate for president — regardless of his or her prospects for victory — than suggest that voters cast ballots for such disappointing major-party candidates," the editorial board wrote.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-gary-johnson-president-endorsement-edit-1002-20160930-story.html

[Tacachale]

Surely we can criticise Johnson without it having to be a case of, "so is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying...."

Absolutely we can, and we should! Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any means. I don't agree with him on everything. It just seems that the media blasts him for minor things, when Clinton and Trump have done much worse. So when talking about the election you really have 3 choices (4 if you want to include Jill).

You must admit there's a large bias in the media, and this site. This site is obviously left leaning, and that's OK. But we shouldn't be blind to our candidates flaws.

I've written elsewhere that MJ has a slant on political topics (and got blasted for it), and clearly the media in general is left-leaning. However, I don't think many around here are really blind to any of the candidates' flaws. As for Johnson, I expect that if either Trump or Clinton made serious gaffs like the above, it would get a lot *more* play than with Johnson. The media loves to report stuff like that.

[Adam White]

Surely we can criticise Johnson without it having to be a case of, "so is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying...."

Absolutely we can, and we should! Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any means. I don't agree with him on everything. It just seems that the media blasts him for minor things, when Clinton and Trump have done much worse. So when talking about the election you really have 3 choices (4 if you want to include Jill).

You must admit there's a large bias in the media, and this site. This site is obviously left leaning, and that's OK. But we shouldn't be blind to our candidates flaws.

As for Johnson, I expect that if either Trump or Clinton made serious gaffs like the above, it would get a lot *more* play than with Johnson. The media loves to report stuff like that.

Perhaps. But at the same time, Trump has said so much crazy shit that a comment like that might not seem like such a big deal!

[Tacachale]

Surely we can criticise Johnson without it having to be a case of, "so is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying...."

Absolutely we can, and we should! Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any means. I don't agree with him on everything. It just seems that the media blasts him for minor things, when Clinton and Trump have done much worse. So when talking about the election you really have 3 choices (4 if you want to include Jill).

You must admit there's a large bias in the media, and this site. This site is obviously left leaning, and that's OK. But we shouldn't be blind to our candidates flaws.

As for Johnson, I expect that if either Trump or Clinton made serious gaffs like the above, it would get a lot *more* play than with Johnson. The media loves to report stuff like that.

Perhaps. But at the same time, Trump has said so much crazy shit that a comment like that might not seem like such a big deal!

But the media still makes a big deal about all the crazy shit he says, he just seems to be immune from repercussions. Clinton would probably take some damage if she made a gaff like not recognizing what Aleppo is.

[Adam White]

Surely we can criticise Johnson without it having to be a case of, "so is forgetting/not knowing something worse than lying...."

Absolutely we can, and we should! Johnson is not my ideal candidate by any means. I don't agree with him on everything. It just seems that the media blasts him for minor things, when Clinton and Trump have done much worse. So when talking about the election you really have 3 choices (4 if you want to include Jill).

You must admit there's a large bias in the media, and this site. This site is obviously left leaning, and that's OK. But we shouldn't be blind to our candidates flaws.

As for Johnson, I expect that if either Trump or Clinton made serious gaffs like the above, it would get a lot *more* play than with Johnson. The media loves to report stuff like that.

Perhaps. But at the same time, Trump has said so much crazy shit that a comment like that might not seem like such a big deal!

But the media still makes a big deal about all the crazy shit he says, he just seems to be immune from repercussions. Clinton would probably take some damage if she made a gaff like not recognizing what Aleppo is.

I was kind of joking. But I agree that it would be considered a really big deal if Clinton did it.

[finehoe]

...clearly the media in general is left-leaning.

Yes, clearly the corporate behemoths that own the vast majority of US media outlets have an agenda that is virtually indistinguishable from a democratic-socialist party platform.

[coredumped]

But the media still makes a big deal about all the crazy shit he says, he just seems to be immune from repercussions. Clinton would probably take some damage if she made a gaff like not recognizing what Aleppo is.

The difference is that when Gary screws up it's the ONLY time the media talks about him.
They don't talk about his policies, his debt reduction plan, his thoughts on race relations etc. It's hard to get to know a candidate the way the media presents them.

[Tacachale]

by the way:  Happy Birthday.

Thanks. btw I'm saving the above post to show to my family, who otherwise won't believe someone has said I'm spinning for Republicans First time for everything, I suppose.

[Adam White]

But the media still makes a big deal about all the crazy shit he says, he just seems to be immune from repercussions. Clinton would probably take some damage if she made a gaff like not recognizing what Aleppo is.

The difference is that when Gary screws up it's the ONLY time the media talks about him.
They don't talk about his policies, his debt reduction plan, his thoughts on race relations etc. It's hard to get to know a candidate the way the media presents them.

And he still gets more coverage than Stein.

[coredumped]

Awesome article on the liberal bias:

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.

Full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/opinions/hypocrisy-about-gary-johnson-welch/index.html

[Adam White]

Awesome article on the liberal bias:

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.

Full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/opinions/hypocrisy-about-gary-johnson-welch/index.html

There are all sorts of problems with that piece. He'd have a point if Clinton got a free ride on Libya, whereas Johnson was criticized for being an architect of the military intervention in Libya. But since Johnson had no involvement, it's not possible. Johnson made some dumb mistakes on the campaign trail and the media reported them. They also reported when Clinton said half of Trump's supporters were racists or whatever.

[ben says]

Quite sick of the Johnson obsession of late. It reminds me of the Ron Paul obsession of years past.

People become obsessed with some of the more popular talking points, forgetting that there are vast ramifications of the not-so-discussed talking points.

I think Johnson wouldn't be able to get a damn thing done as president.

Also, his Aleppo moments should disqualify him right off the bat.