Good Summary, Pro and Con on Gary Johnson
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
That's really awesome I wonder what president Hillary will think of him as she scrapes him off her shoe.
How could little Gary Johnson stop a force of nature like Donald, who is the greatest master of the media who ever lived?
It has nothing to do with him. He throws some red meat to conservative people who are able to live with Hillary as opposed to trump. Anybody could do that. He is nothing more than Richard Pryor in brewster's millions.
Look, trump is probably a terrible person personally. He obviously has a lot to learn about politics because duh he hasn't dedicated his life to kissing ass and selling his soul to get a cushy lifestyle in Washington. I know this will bring Hollywood out from under a rock but my favorite phrase is:
Thomas Jefferson fvcked his slaves and he is on our money!! Benjamin franklin being a drunken whore is the main reason we arent a colony right now. As a historian I am willing to see the big picture and compartmentalise his faults. I realize we need something different to save us. If Gary johnson had a shot in hell I would vote for him, but to attempt to love the guys wife that is having an affair with your wife isnt enough reason for me to cosign for Hillary.
My posts look like Johnny Vito's when he first started posting here.
Damn, maybe it's the beer, but you're on a roll. Next post, tell us what you really think!
I'm not "co-signing" for Hillary. No matter how many times you repeat it, you can't change reality. Jefferson and Franklin probably understood Trump's own policy statements and could probably expound on them better than he does.
Last edited:
"I’ve often wondered how a self-defense oriented libertarian would alter American policy once they received a full and complete national-security briefing. Libertarian purists would likely be surprised at the military aggression of a libertarian president."
This is an interesting thought. I imagine that he is right that the most isolationist candidate would still be pretty active as president. Still, a president who wants to put the brakes on generally speaking would be nice to have. Earlier this year, I read Eisenhower: In War and Peace, it was enlightening as to the forces that were consistently pushing for war, and even worse, dropping nukes at pretty much any threat. I would guess those forces are still in our defense infrastructure.
I really don't understand the idea that because one candidate is 5% less objectionable (maybe), I should vote for him as opposed to one I could support in good conscience. One that actually has a good record of governance.
This is an interesting thought. I imagine that he is right that the most isolationist candidate would still be pretty active as president. Still, a president who wants to put the brakes on generally speaking would be nice to have. Earlier this year, I read Eisenhower: In War and Peace, it was enlightening as to the forces that were consistently pushing for war, and even worse, dropping nukes at pretty much any threat. I would guess those forces are still in our defense infrastructure.
I really don't understand the idea that because one candidate is 5% less objectionable (maybe), I should vote for him as opposed to one I could support in good conscience. One that actually has a good record of governance.
Similar threads
