Sure he did. Did you not see him in this interview last week making the case for being in the debates by creeping out a female interviewer when he tried to speak to her with his tongue stuck out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhR41lsEJY

But are those desires not coloured by the fact that the vast majority of the public has no idea there even are third party candidates, let alone what they stand for?

"What is Aleppo?" - Presidential candidate Gary Johnson, 2016

"We need to take our share, and I'm not sure what that share should be. I'd like to come up with a formula based on our coalition partners. I wouldn't say zero, but I don't know if 65,000 puts us in the category of 'our fair share.'" - Gary Johnson, November 2015

Gary has knowledge of Syria and the refugees per this 2015 quote. I chalk up the Aleppo gaffe to simply being a brain fart, unfortunately caught on TV. This post isn't to say his view on the Syrian refugees is good/bad/other, but to provide evidence that he has in fact given thought to the issue. The Aleppo soundbite is great for those who wish to paint him in a negative/ignorant light, but this is politics and I should consider it par for the course I guess.

After voting for Obama twice, I'll be voting for Johnson this year.

why?

why the hell anyone would not vote for Clinton is beyond me. Probably does boil down to internalised sexism. Trump winning is a global disaster and a disaster for America. Clinton is experienced, has a decent liberal platform, some good policy commitments, and would just definitely make a decent president. Gary Johnson seems like an ok guy, but this is just not a good moment in time to protest-vote your hokey libertarian sympathies. 2012 would have been a good moment.

But what if youre a libertarian? Also between her, Obama, and Bush they created ISIS by taking out (killing) leaders that had these nutjobs in check.. sorta.

It is just that kind of smug, unearned arrogance of Clinton kool-aid drinkers that drives votes to TRUMP. Clinton, by any objective measure, is corrupt, the candidate of the Establishment, and biased toward military aggression. Most have trouble over-looking those facts. You seem not to.

My bets are in and were in early.

so were mine.

This is true. I was like 90% to vote for Johnson a couple days ago but watching the pathetic attacks against Trump made by Clinton in the debate and by the media in general almost wants to make me vote Trump, even though I'm ideologically opposed to him on some stuff.

I thought the most ridiculous thing was her saying he probably pays no Federal income tax. Even if that is true (it's almost certainly not), he's certainly responsible for raising tons of money for all levels of government through property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, business licenses, etc. And I'm sure the people he's created jobs for have paid taxes. Meanwhile, this attack is coming from a career politician. Isn't it hypocritical to accuse a private citizen of not paying enough taxes when your entire salary is funded by the taxpayers?

Let me guess. I'm probably a sexist and a racist for saying that.

Libertarianism is a pretty out-of-touch political philosophy imo, but I have no problem with people holding it. However, the fact remains, y'all are the ones drinking koolaid if you think Donald Drumpf, who's not only an unapologetic liar, and a cruel and amoral human being (all by his own admission), but also has either terrible politics or no politics at all, and isn't even a successful businessman, is in any sense eligible for one of the most important positions in the world, let alone in politics.

Corrupt is a strong word for what can be objectively shown about Clinton afaik; I agree about the other two points. However, Trump's statements on foreign policy suggest a militarism of his own, only an insane one. And the Establishment that's really worth complaining about is the military-industrial complex that drives US warmongering, the Establishment that passed Citizens United, the Establishment that incarcerates teenagers for profit, etc. (one could easily go on...) Is "TRUMP" going to do anything about any of these situations?

I'm NOT a Hillary supporter, just a horrified Euro bystander. (Besides, Sanders was quite obviously by far the best presidential candidate.)

And CrazyLond, what seems sexist is your willingness to judge Drumpf and Clinton by a double standard. Yes, both are liars, and hypocrites (Drumpf more so on both counts, demonstrably, but that's beside the point). Many people seem to judge Clinton more cruelly for the same crimes, which implies a prejudice (in the proper sense of prejudice, favouring one side before impartial consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of each.) In fact, Drumpf seems to be basing his entire campaign on an invocation of a sexist trope, rather than any policy discussion. Which makes sense, because he gets wrecked in a policy discussion, so fair play to his campaign strategists.

The only fair comparison is comparing a candidate's flaws with that same candidate's flaws if that person was a different gender. For example, would people be judging Clinton less harshly if she was male? Or would the left have judged Sarah Palin less harshly if she was male?

Obviously people are going to have different opinions of different individuals and some will think Trump's flaws are more serious while some will think Clinton's flaws are. But just because you think one person is more flawed doesn't mean it has anything to do with that person's gender.

I saw a debate where Trump was relentlessly attacked based on not releasing his tax returns, a lawsuit one of his businesses was involved with in 1973, a payment dispute with a contractor, comments he made in his back and forth with Rosie O'Donnell, etc. And I find that pretty distasteful. If she had instead focused on areas where she felt Trump lacked knowledge, experience, a clear plan, etc. I would have found that much more appealing.

There was a lot Trump could have brought up concerning Clinton's character and he didn't do it, focusing instead on where he felt she and Obama had failed on policy. The only thing was where he briefly brought up the deleted emails but that was a retaliation for the attack concerning his tax returns.

What a terrible post.
"You must be sexist if you don't for this woman" is such an asinine comment.

It's cute that you think your vote matters though.

Voting for someone or against someone because of their gender is sexist- yet I'm sure you have zero problem with people being sexist and voting for her purely bc she's a woman-but god forbid someone doesn't vote for her bc they think she's a horrible human being,terrible candidate ,don't like her polices etc. then they're sexist!

Clinton is a terrible candidate. She is pretty much the worst (realistic) candidate the dems could've put up and there is no way she should ever become president. I believe pretty much every (resonable) bad thing she's being accused of and think she's the poster girl for the slick, immoral politician who'll do anything for power.

But the thing is - the alternative is Donald Trump. Donald Trump! The republicans have actually managed to find a candidate that not only makes Hillary a viable choice, but the only rational choice. It's not that Clinton is a good choice - it's that she's up against Trump. This isn't about Hillary anymore thanks to the moronic republicans putting Trump up there.

For Trump to even be in this at this point is so terrifying that it already shows that the US political system is completely ****ed.

The fact that people are actually considering voting for a cartoon-villain like Trump as the POTUS is beyond belief. Seriously - as a Euro who, along with the rest of the world, watched with mouth agape in shocked disbelief as you gave GWB a _second_ term and thought that was as low as it could possibly go, this just knocks the floor out of that and shows the bottomless pit beneath what we thought was the basement.

FFS US, we need you to up your game something serious here - and no, getting Hillary as president isn't good, but the alternative is way worse. Chose the lesser evil for now and get to work on actually fixing stuff going forward.

Thanks for not responding to the rest of the post. Of course I have a problem with the people who voted for her ahead of Sanders because hurr durr feminism. Can someone elucidate for me why she's such a terrible candidate?

Like it or not, it is a 2 horse race. It's hard to see an explanation for people claiming to prefer Trump's policies to Clinton's, or his personality to hers, without some element of misogyny imo. But I apologise for overstating slightly.

Dude is legit presidential material.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/781278922201718784

Very well said.

Just finished reading Truman (David McCullough), and it makes me sad for what's going on down there now. Not that he (or any president) was perfect, but it's quite incredible what a contrast the current candidates appear to be compared with many past presidents, of either political stripe.

I'm sure you're aware of the definition of a statesman.

Love the guy who's thinking of voting Trump just to spite those dumb libtards.

why does he not drop out already? my gosh what an idiot!

hurr durr

Locking since this derailed off the GJ topic. We have only one NVG 2016 politics thread.