Gary Johnson

57Brave

57Brave

Well-known member
Threw out the other day the thought that maybe (R) and Gary Johnson getting together

Politically it makes perfect sense. A squeaky clean candidate without the social policy baggage and a political infrastructure that would serve Johnson well.

Wondering anyone else's thought on what percentages he could pull with the (R) analytics,ground game, contacts and money behind him

Top of my head says 45% floor

Saw this last night

Matthew Yglesias Verified account

‏@mattyglesias

Would it be so hard for GOP elected officials to salvage some dignity and endorse Gary Johnson?
 
I read a while back that Romney was considering supporting Johnson, but marijuana legalization was his big sticking point. Which made me chuckle, considering it came after he had just gotten done ripping Trump as a racist and misogynist.
 
I saw Gary Johnson on Bill Maher the other night and I thought he did a good job, I would actually consider voting for the guy after that interview. I'll tell you this though, he'll NEVER get the Repub establishment to either support him or allow any of their minions to support him either and it isn't because of the pot thing.

Who can tell me why the Repub establishment would rather have Trump OR Hilldog than Johnson? Watch this 8 minute video and you'll know the answer, if you didn't already.

 
Most republicans I've talked to have a big problems with Johnson's view on drugs and abortion.

I think drugs are changing regardless, and abortion will never change.. so it's silly not to support someone based on that.

I do wish he was more articulate though... I cringe the way he talks. Bill Weld shows well, though
 
acesfull86 said:
I read a while back that Romney was considering supporting Johnson, but marijuana legalization was his big sticking point. Which made me chuckle, considering it came after he had just gotten done ripping Trump as a racist and misogynist.
Click to expand...

The joke sets itself up: "You mean legalization of dope is holding up a dope's endorsement?" Send it to joke clinic, but I think everyone here gets the idea. I'm alright with Johnson. If Sanders had been the Democratic nominee, I would have seriously considered voting for him.

I think a large portion of the more secular side of the Republican party would have no trouble with Johnson, but the Dobson/Family Research Council side would have big time problems with him.
 
sturg33 said:
Most republicans I've talked to have a big problems with Johnson's view on drugs and abortion.

I think drugs are changing regardless, and abortion will never change.. so it's silly not to support someone based on that.

I do wish he was more articulate though... I cringe the way he talks. Bill Weld shows well, though
Click to expand...

Did you guess the #1 wart he has that will cause Repubs to run from him like he has the plague? I would think if anyone would be able to it would be you, probably without even watching that interview.
 
50PoundHead said:
The joke sets itself up: "You mean legalization of dope is holding up a dope's endorsement?" Send it to joke clinic, but I think everyone here gets the idea. I'm alright with Johnson. If Sanders had been the Democratic nominee, I would have seriously considered voting for him.

I think a large portion of the more secular side of the Republican party would have no trouble with Johnson, but the Dobson/Family Research Council side would have big time problems with him.
Click to expand...

Those might be the folks who were loudest against him, but that's not the bunch that would NEVER allow their people to support him.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Did you guess the #1 wart he has that will cause Repubs to run from him like he has the plague? I would think if anyone would be able to it would be you, probably without even watching that interview.
Click to expand...

He's a wuss? When I used to watch Red Eye on fox, I enjoyed Johnson when he would regularly appear on the show.
 
Most (R) are out of touch with mainstream Americans. Both abortion and marijuana poll 180degrees from (R) stances.

Funny thing to me is, I proposed to Bedell after watching Sarah Palin win the who has the biggest dick contest that was the (R) in the 2008 general that what (R) needed was a Charley Crist type candidate. Granted Crist per se might not have been the ideal but I think you get the point.
Someone that doesn't live in an isolated bubble where white is the only color and far right Christianity is the only religion .

Reagan has been gone for close to 30 years and it really is time to move on

I disagree with Johnson on most everything in his platform -- but good lord he would be a breath of fresh air.
Pretty sure he wouldn't announce his candidacy in Philadelphia , Mississippi then shrug and say, "who, me !!"

In other words, though we disagree on virtually everything I feel like Johnson would treat me with respect. No (R) since 1960 comes to mind that has given me that sense.

Question, in Obama's 8 years, has he been respectful to his disagree ers ?
I think he has given them too much respect
 
Krgrecw said:
He's a wuss? When I used to watch Red Eye on fox, I enjoyed Johnson when he would regularly appear on the show.
Click to expand...

Nope, but you are on the cusp of the right answer. Just keep going in that direction. Honestly I have no idea if he's a wuss or not, I don't know that much about him, but since he's a Libertarian that would make him, generally speaking, against getting involved in foreign wars, etc., just because of his beliefs. So if he was against these things whose sugar daddy relationship would he be effing with big time?
 
Oklahomahawk said:
but since he's a Libertarian that would make him, generally speaking, against getting involved in foreign wars, etc., just because of his beliefs.
Click to expand...

Being for or against foreign wars is such a broad and easy way out concept, Generally no one wants to go to war.
Foreign policy is such an easy and hard topic at the same time because events dictate policy as opposed to policy dictating events

My feelings about (L) remain
"everyone is a (L) until their house is 10 feet under water
 
57Brave said:
Being for or against foreign wars is such a broad and easy way out concept, Generally no one wants to go to war.
Foreign policy is such an easy and hard topic at the same time because events dictate policy as opposed to policy dictating events

My feelings about (L) remain
"everyone is a (L) until their house is 10 feet under water
Click to expand...

I would agree that most people are against going to war unless it's unavoidable but there are exceptions, that's why I brought up the Vlad Cheney mention by Fitty. His protege Tom Cotton (mouth) would be another example. There are even people who I'd consider "hawks" from a foreign policy standpoint that wouldn't take the decision to go into a war lightly, but then there are those like Vlad. That's why I brought them up as the precursor to the #1 reason BY FAR why the Repub hierarchy will NEVER support GJ.
 
JW: Speaking to that, her solution to ISIS, the interventionist solution, would be to invade. What would be the non-interventionist, the libertarian, solution to ISIS?

GJ: Well let’s start with that idea military intervention. Let’s say that that’s an option. That should be instigated by Congress. That’s a mechanism that’s been lost and Congress should modernize a mechanism for actually weighing in on military interventions. That’s first and foremost. Right now, it’s something that’s become an administrative prerogative, an executive prerogative, in conjunction with the military. Well that’s not right.

GJ: The alternative is to cut funding off to ISIS to contain what’s happening over there and make sure it stays over there. Brains not bombs. Cut off their funding and involve Congress for declaring war if that’s what we’re gonna do. If we’re going to put boots on the ground that’s war.

JW: So either fully go to war with Congressional approval or don’t go at all?

GJ: Well, get Congressional approval. It would be a terrific dialogue for Congress to be having. That would also be a terrific debate that would be going on nationwide. Here are the reasons for, here are the reasons against, and see how the American public weighs in on it all. As President I still would perhaps disagree with those outcomes if we do in fact militarily intervene. But, when do we militarily intervene? When attacked. And you could argue that we have been attacked by ISIS, you could argue that.
 
A little off-topic, but since we've broached the subject of modern warfare, I caught a little bit of the Showtime documentary The Spymasters: CIA in the Crosshairs while eating my Cracklin' Oat Bran this morning. I only watched the last half hour, but I am going to watch the whole thing at some point. Appeared to be a very interesting documentary. Say what you want about Michael Hayden, but that guy's got a real set on him.
 
Krgrecw said:
JW: Speaking to that, her solution to ISIS, the interventionist solution, would be to invade. What would be the non-interventionist, the libertarian, solution to ISIS?

GJ: Well let’s start with that idea military intervention. Let’s say that that’s an option. That should be instigated by Congress. That’s a mechanism that’s been lost and Congress should modernize a mechanism for actually weighing in on military interventions. That’s first and foremost. Right now, it’s something that’s become an administrative prerogative, an executive prerogative, in conjunction with the military. Well that’s not right.

GJ: The alternative is to cut funding off to ISIS to contain what’s happening over there and make sure it stays over there. Brains not bombs. Cut off their funding and involve Congress for declaring war if that’s what we’re gonna do. If we’re going to put boots on the ground that’s war.

JW: So either fully go to war with Congressional approval or don’t go at all?

GJ: Well, get Congressional approval. It would be a terrific dialogue for Congress to be having. That would also be a terrific debate that would be going on nationwide. Here are the reasons for, here are the reasons against, and see how the American public weighs in on it all. As President I still would perhaps disagree with those outcomes if we do in fact militarily intervene. But, when do we militarily intervene? When attacked. And you could argue that we have been attacked by ISIS, you could argue that.
Click to expand...

This sounds pretty reasonable to me, though with the current Congress and their absolute hatred/loathing for the current president I'm not sure they could even get together to talk about something like another good old war. But with that said, GJ sounds like a fairly constitutional guy, unlike most of the usual suspects the R's trot out there who have to try and act like badasses.

Who's JW by the way?
 
as a lifelong pragmatic peacenic I find his response sophomoric.

Of course the administration has cut off whatever funding they can and this Congress cant keep Puerto Rico from defaulting, pass a highway bill or effectively find funds to combat a deadly mosquito virus.
I read an article last night about how John Boehner is laughing into his sleeve when he reads about the travails of Paul Ryan.
Over (R) sponsored legislation !!

By the time they come to a resolution on something this serious we could all be bowing to the east 5 times a day.
Like I was saying about 10' of water
 
50PoundHead said:
A little off-topic, but since we've broached the subject of modern warfare, I caught a little bit of the Showtime documentary The Spymasters: CIA in the Crosshairs while eating my Cracklin' Oat Bran this morning. I only watched the last half hour, but I am going to watch the whole thing at some point. Appeared to be a very interesting documentary. Say what you want about Michael Hayden, but that guy's got a real set on him.
Click to expand...

I'll have to check that out, IF I ever get any spare time. For anyone who's interested in US-Middle Eastern relations, especially those involving Al Qaeda, there's a GREAT book by an Lebanese born former FBI agent named Ali Souffan (not sure about the spelling) called The Black Banners. It tells about how they formed, when they formed, the major players, etc. Souffan did a great job, and since he is a Muslim he would just go in and start talking to those guys and they start talking about religion and so on and before long they'd be giving him their Facebook password, and pretty much everything else. He even got Saddam to tell him a bunch of stuff after he was captured. He did our first profile on bin Laden, which he was working on before 9/11. Did you guys know one of bin Laden's top assistants (non military stuff, just a really important gopher so to speak) turned on them for $500? It really is good stuff, fascinating. I prefer it on audio book but that's just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top