He is the most qualified, and the most well suited. I will vote for him in November. Why will you not? Just because of endorsements? To me, he is something different. Though some of his policies are a bit more radical, at least he represents something other than Ho Hum. Most of them actually make some sense, after research.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm He opposed thing like Tarp. Tarp ended up making money for this country. The point of the government is step in and stop the country from going to hell. Also growing the debt is not a bad thing. If it grows at 3% of the gdp that is fine. His voucher system is going to make educational system worse than it is. He is also against universal healthcare. Given every other 1st world nation has it and they spend less money then us why does he think he smarter than everyone else. If you want your libertarian ideals go to Ethiopia or Afghanistan or whatever state with no government.
If Gary Johnson was president any time after the 1960s through the 80s, we would have no internet or its progress would be severely hindered. The government has its usefulness especially in jump starting R&D.
I don't agree with everything he has done, or wants to do. That will never be the case with anybody. The healthcare thing is my big issue with him, but I don't have much hope for it in the country, ever, to be honest. There's too much invested in our capitalist system to make universal healthcare a reality. Lobbyists have killed this country.
I look at him as the non evil in the election where people are trying to decide between the lesser of the 2 evils when it comes to the major party candidates.
Anyone who opposed TARP is unfit for office. They either knowingly and willingly wanted to destroy the country for political benefit or were too stupid to know better. Either way, it's about as close to a disqualifying issue as there is, in my opinion.
I don't know about Johnson, but the Libertarian party has some cyanide pills in their published platform, defunding public education is probably the worst one as literacy would drop by about 25 - 30% in 20 years.
I'm legitimately curious....can you explain how the other two candidates support TARP? Didn't Hillary say that she would allow big banks to fail if it happened again, and Trump said that he would not support "too big to fail?" I know those things don't fully encompass TARP, and I don't fully understand it, but that's pretty much the gist of it, right? Genuinely curious to hear about your thoughts...
Sure, and now that the Republican party is the party of Trump, they should be the "third party" that is crushed.
The aftermath is certainly going to be interesting. I am hoping the obstructionist Republicans do not return and we basically get a new party.
Oh I'm all for them being as obstructionist as possible to try and contain the damage done but there's really not much that can be done with the SCOTUS swinging violently to the left and at least 2 years of Democrats controlling everything. It's almost certainly going to be pretty bad, but we can hope for the best. Having a strong Libertarian uprising would be pretty much the best case scenario.
Not true at all, but that has been the narrative that some have been pushing. Both parties were "obstructionists" when they were the minority party in recent history....it's what you do when one party is pushing for extremes you can't support and you believe will be harmful to the country. Both parties do it, and accuse the other of being an obstructionist or "party of no", and then they do the same damn thing when the tables are turned. The reason for Trump IMO is the extreme divisiveness that has gripped the country over the last several years. When people feel like things are "us vs them" they often look for "a fighter" to advocate for them. You then had a con man do his best to be that guy in order to gain political power (or at least publicity). Really stupid people bought into that nonsense, and now here we are.
