Gary Johnson

Foreign Policy Magazine Sees Through the Gaffes to Gary Johnson's Smart, Popular Foreign Policy Vision

|

Libertarian Party presidential hopeful Gov. Gary Johnson may seem less than erudite when specific targeted questions about foreign hotspots and foreign leaders are dropped on him on live TV. Still, he has an overall foreign policy vision that has impressed even the foreign policy mavens at Foreign Policy magazine.

Gary Johnson facebook

There, Emma Ashford provides some useful context on Johnson's foreign policy acumen, focusing not on minutia but on the importance of principles.

She first points out, as Anthony L. Fisher did first here at Reason, that Johnson is far from unique in making ignorant-sounding gaffes about foreign policy. And Ashford notes that:

the foreign-policy approach offered by the Johnson-Weld campaign is not only a compelling alternative to the current orthodoxy, but is increasingly popular among Americans. A more restrained approach to foreign policy would see the United States involved in fewer unnecessary conflicts around the world, and a much stronger emphasis on diplomacy and other non-military solutions to global problems.

In contrast to Clinton's liberal interventionist approach, it would avoid getting bogged down in civil wars like Libya and Syria. In contrast to Trump's curiously aggressive isolationism, a restrained foreign policy sees trade as a positive, security-enhancing factor.

She's exactly right that that is what an intelligent, balanced outside observer should understand and consider about the Libertarian foreign policy option. But she is also right that the salesmen the Party picked need to up their game:

in order to make a coherent case for restraint in America's foreign policy, you have to explain why it will work better. Johnson, it turns out, is generally correct in his approach to Syria: U.S. intervention to alleviate suffering, in Aleppo or elsewhere, is unlikely to work and may well make the situation worse. ….But without knowledge of detail, he struggles to explain why.

Ashford pulls together some of the facts showing that, rather than a punchline, Libertarian foreign policy should be a great political selling point:

Polling throughout the election campaign suggests that many of these ideas resonate with voters. In one recent Chicago Council survey, only 27 percent of Americans believed that the United States does too little around the world, while 41 percent of respondents think the United States does too much. More than half of respondents think that other countries should solve their own problems rather than relying on the United States."

Indeed, it's likely that some of Johnson's strongest bases of support come from his foreign policy leanings. Polls show that 36 percent of active-duty troops, many of whom have witnessed first-hand the foreign policy follies of the last decade, intend to vote for Gary Johnson, while 29 percent of millennials — a generation with a strong tendencies towards restraint — are planning to vote for him.

The Foreign Policy writer's takeaway for Johnson is similar to Matt Welch's here: that he has a powerful and resonant foreign policy message, and should try harder in the future to not give opponents or the general public a cheap, easy reason to doubt that.

NEXT: Jerry Brown Just Signed a Tough-on-Rape Bill That's So Bad, Even Feminists Hate It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. RE: Foreign Policy Magazine Sees Through the Gaffes to Gary Johnson’s Smart, Popular Foreign Policy Vision

    How stupid can Foreign Policy get?
    One only has to examine the wonderful results of war, interventionism and protectionism has done for our country to realize that Mr. Johnson’s ideas about foreign policy are insane.
    …and Foreign Policy wonders why it has a credibility problem.

    1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6570 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. Go to this website and go to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/GoJob92

  2. I FIND IT IRONIC THAT THE LP CHOSE JOHNSON BECAUSE HE’S SUPPOSEDLY SUCH A POLISHED POLITICIAN, AND YET HE KEEPS FUCKING UP SIMPLE THINGS.

    Like, it’s actually not ironic but entirely predictable. Cue people calling me a closet Republican for saying the obvious as they trip over themselves to vote for a ticket of…former Republican governors.

    1. McAfee is a much better speaker. Petersen or whatever his name was, also… but we had to have Johnson because he tagged some washed up old east coast democrat for a running mate. You know that tired looking old dude who just sits around looking at the floor while Gary stumbles and bumbles along.

      1. I think Petersen will do well in 2020.

      2. You should be more respectful when talking about the next POTUS.

        1. Ok, she’s a wretched old cunt.

      3. Petersen is the best candidate I’ve heard. Somebody who can actually parse coherent thoughts and speak in complete sentences and stay on the fucking point about things.

        1. The Repubs had a couple of those, but they nominated Trump anyway. There is no evidence to suggest that logic has ever been a winning election strategy against mindless emotional appeals.

      4. The media would be just as happy to show any gaffes they made (and there would be something; nobody can be perfect 24/7 in a way that can’t be spun negatively somehow) and would be assuring you right now that McAfee was a nutcase or Petersen an inexperienced child. Yes, Johnson needs to step up his game, but that doesn’t mean the Clinton propaganda corps wouldn’t have found something to attack no matter who got the nomination. Anybody threatening “their” votes must be destroyed. If you think the palace guard wouldn’t be working overtime to trash any Libertarian getting double digits in the polls you haven’t been paying attention to politics as it is played in this country.

        1. There’s some truth to this. It’s not even just the media being in bed with Clinton either. It’s about profit. MSNBC gets a big ratings boost from a Clinton or even Trump interview, so they have to agree to terms in order to get them on the show, like letting them know ahead of time what they’ll ask.

          For a third party candidate, there’s far les if an incentive to try to get them on, so the candidate isn’t in a position to negotiate and has to put up with the gotcha questions.

    2. Omg I just realized it: GJ is a plant for Hillary! once he sabotages the LP she’ll put him in charge of storing and disposing of all confiscated marijuana.

  3. Spin it up all you want but he looked like a moron to me. Why can’t we do better than this? If there was ever a year for libertarians to have a horse in the race – it’s when we have a crook and a clown on stage… But nope. GJ is proof that you have to be a world class douche to even put your name in a hat for this job – and in typical media fashion someone comes to his rescue when they should just be laughing with the rest of us. Face it. He’s another turd which deserves no effort to polish. Spin it up Reason. Join the club.

    1. After that Samantha Bee debacle, any sane party would have yanked his ass and just grabbed some homeless guy off the street to fill in.

      1. What Samantha Bee debacle?

    2. Reason is not masquerading as an impartial national information service. There is an obvious and blatant ideological slant here.
      It would someone be more honest to stand aside and slam eggs on the head of your messanger with everyone else than to say something in his defense?
      I give Johnson a D- as a communicator. And as a person of genuine curiosity about the sausage making process and wonkish arcana another D-. Those two things aside I give him an A+ across the board. The right message, with the right tone, with a compelling delivery. He has the right judgement, problem solving skills, reflexes and disposition.
      It its not lipstick on a pig. Its lipstick on a pretty girl with rotten teeth.
      I have seen one amazing effect in all this though. Johnson/Weld brought attention and credibility to the movement. Tge campaign buoyed the movement in the beginning. But now your seeinf an energized movement that is buoying the campaign.
      It’s really awesome.

  4. The troops like Trump more than GayJay. Especially the Marines

    Officers and Navy-Fags love the Johnson.

    1. Trump is a candidate of one of the two major parties. With the R by his name, he should be winning the military vote 80-20. If you think Johnson picking up equal votes with Trump is good for him, well…

      Beyond that, SIV, were you ever even in the military? I know a shit ton of vets who refuse to vote Trump.

      1. And to be clear, they weren’t officers or “Navy fags.”

        1. Wouldn’t a real member of another service call our seamen “squids?”

    2. I don’t have time to read the whole thing, but the graphs showing the difference in support between officers and enlisted is pretty intriguing.

    3. If Trump is so good and Clinton so bad – why isn’t he doing better? How has Johnson gotten so close?

      Face it, no matter how much lipstick you put on it and how much you spend for the dress, all the candidates are pigs. Johnson’s just the least ugly one.

      1. And the thinnest.

  5. Foreign policy is for saps.

    The only thing that really matters is was Robby sees happening on the quad.

    Dicks out for Mugabe!

    1. Did Trump call out Hillary as a war monger and foreign policy disaster in that debate? I didn’t watch it, but it sounds like he just passed on every opportunity to hammer the old bag.

      1. No, he screwed the pooch on that point, too.

        You’d think that would be a biggie, but since he whiffed on so many other even softer pitches, . . .

      2. And pass on a chance to talk about himself?

  6. MSNBC ,in particular Morning Joe [ whose a major ass ],and his blonde harpy, ensure us Johnson has no policy on anything. See,if you don’t want AMERICA to jump into every hot spot your unqualified.

    1. It’s very obvious. Not having an immediate buddy who runs a country means you can’t have the job.
      We need another GWB and Blair combo to go to some shit hole and bomb it for 15 years.

    2. It’s very obvious. Not having an immediate buddy who runs a country means you can’t have the job.
      We need another GWB and Blair combo to go to some shit hole and bomb it for 15 years.

    3. See,if you don’t want AMERICA to jump into every hot spot your unqualified.

      And an isolationist.

      1. We trade live munitions for something. Rebuilding contracts? That doesn’t sound right.

  7. I was encouraged until I found out the author works for Cato, so it’s not really a neutral perspective.

  8. OT: SJW attempts to steal booby-trapped Trump sign; hilarity ensues

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_2R41BNnuI

    1. Should have had the wires rigged to drop a bucket of pig poop on her head.

      1. “He called the shit ‘poop’!”

        1. Is that a micro-aggression?

    2. I saw video of one the other day wired to an electric fence.

    3. The Trump Sign belongs to the People!

    4. WTF was that link? I watched someone click on a youtube video in a youtube video why?

      1. Because it’s meta

  9. OT: holy fuck, this Nick Cage Netflix series is obsessed with blackness. Shit’s borderline racist. Was the comic like this?

    1. DID YOU KNOW NICK CAGE IS BLACK? HE’S BLACK!

    2. You mean Luke Cage?

      And yeah. It’s a comic that came out during the peak of Blaxploitation, and was basically a superhero-ized version of Shaft, which had only came out a year prior, and was specifically geared towards the Black market (no pun).

      Seriously, what did you expect?

                1. Ok, never heard of Brother Charles. That’s too obscure even for me.

                  1. Well, I won’t spoil it then….

          1. “Monroe Feather”!?

            *goes to change screen name*

      1. I watched the first few last night. It seemed like the premise was kinda libertarian. The bad guys are a dirty business owner teaming up with an elected official.
        I liked it so far. Where do I know shades from? He looks super familiar.

        1. Um… they all look alike?

          1. Well he’s white, so yeah.

      2. I just wish they’d brought Iron Fist along for this series…in the green suit.

    3. I thought Dead Pool and Wolverine had the invulnerability beat covered.

    4. It’s OK though. Every other show is white. All about whitey. That’s why BET is cool. Get with the times you racist. This is what equality looks like.

    5. Ok, there is an attempt at universal conflict between good and evil. The acting is Sooo ham fisted

  10. I think I’ll watch FUBAR tonight.
    The drinking game is easy for it, just do what Terry and Deaner do.
    You might die, just don’t dive in.

  11. Man confronts and talks sense into Trump sign stealer:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLfVL4f3CG4

    “Trump is literally basically Hitler”

  12. Johnson is a goofus, doesn’t matter. Vote for him, Stein is a commie, I don’t care. Vote for her, Castle is a god-botherer. None-the-less vote for him. Vermin Supreme? Deez Nuts? Alamanian? Vote. Vote. Vote. Trump or Hillary will be the next president, but every vote they don’t get is one less vote that the eventual winner can point to as ‘the people have spoken’ bullshit. Not that I believe either one of these narcissists will admit that he or she only got elected because the other guy or gal scared more people. But maybe, just maybe if he or she only wins by the thinnest of margins and the smallest number of total votes, some principled congress critters will take solace in the lackluster outcome and actually oppose her or his or cis imperial presidency.

    1. is one less vote that the eventual winner can point to as ‘the people have spoken’ bullshit.

      This.

      1. I just want to have a record low turnout for both Clinton and Trump so the others have a higher percentage. It would scare some of the lower people in power back to some sense.

        1. It’s certainly proving that gun control is more important and needed than ever. The natives are getting restless.

        2. They love the ‘You’re a spoiler” type questions for Johnson, Stein,et al ..but you never hear Donny or Hill asked- ‘Suppose you win, how much your support will have actually been ‘not the other guy’, as opposed to for you?”

      2. is one less vote that the eventual winner can point to as ‘the people have spoken’ bullshit.

        yeah, that’s a pretty good line to throw in the face of the people who claim “your 3rd party vote is “wasted”

    2. But maybe, just maybe if he or she only wins by the thinnest of margins and the smallest number of total votes, some principled congress critters will take solace in the lackluster outcome and actually oppose her or his or cis imperial presidency.

      *Holds breathe

      1. I’ve been arguing the eventual winner should be denied a popular vote majority, and if we could make it the lowest popular vote plurality in a long time, even better. Future Pres will try to claim a mandate, but that’ll be another lie.

    3. Spoiler votes change the law of the land. The socialists and prohibitionists amended the Constitution to create a Prohibitionist Kleptocracy with vote counts smaller than the difference between winner and loser on average. The Prohis averaged something like 1.4% of the vote and made light beer a felony! The Kleptocracy cares about its jobs and its tentacles in the till, not personalities or principles. But it fears spoiler votes more than nuclear weapons.

  13. Woman repeatedly vandalizes Trump signs and attempts to run over Trump supporter.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvoiEWW3R2c

    1. Is there no end to the violence that Trump brings upon your country? *insert crying Statue of Liberty*

      1. He brings it out of people! It’s not their fault!

    2. Crazy bitch

    3. So. Out of curiosity. Are Trump supporters going around vandalizing property like progressive, left-wing loons?

      Jesus, 3am? These people need a life. WELL RESTED LIVES MATTER.

  14. Asshat teenagers caught stealing Trump signs, proceed to smugly lecture owner why they are justified:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11l01_aehK4

    1. You guys can laugh, but these children are the future Brown Shirts of American totalitarianism.

      1. The only upside is that they have voluntarily disarmed themselves,

    2. My God. That’s no laughing matter.

      These idiots believe they hold the moral high ground so as to not be held accountable?

      How do you get through someone like that before it’s too late?

  15. Gary Johnson’s ‘Aleppo Moments’ Don’t Undo a Smart, Libertarian Foreign-Policy Platform

    The problem is that the thing described as “Libertarian foreign policy”…… isn’t actually what Johnson-Weld have ever offered.

    They haven’t really offered anything. They’ve both made some various (sometimes contradictory) remarks which leave a lot of potential wiggle room. Which Brian had himself noted

    What Cato describes as “Smart” is really just some congratulatory back-patting = suggesting that what Johnson-Weld *really* means… is the stuff *they* recommend, which is smart! because they recommend it.

    I don’t disagree that the “stay away from foreign muckymuck” sentiment of the Johnson-Weld camp is way better than other candidates …

    its just that i think everyone’s projecting a bit by pretending GJ/BW somehow hold doctrinaire libertarian positions on Foreign Policy… despite lacking any doctrinaire libertarian positions on *anything else*

    Which leads to a second point – the pretention there’s any such thing as as “libertarian foreign policy

    I don’t believe there is such a thing.

    I think there are “foreign policy views” which a majority of libertarians *coincidentally* hold. they may partly derive from libertarian views… (and usually defending on pragmatic grounds) but they aren’t necessary to them in any way.

    1. *I’m willing to be pointed to any argument that says, “If you’re a libertarian, you MUST hold X view on international relations”, if it exists somewhere.

      Most of what i’ve seen are things like Rothbard’s arguments about the Foreign Policy of the “Old Right”, which he believed libertarians should adopt. But even that was an open admission that these particular views were borrowed from others and strapped on because they were appealing to his POV, rather than derived entirely from some imagined “libertarian theory of foreign relations”.

      I’ve also read 1 or 2 “libertarian foreign policy theorists”; but the cases they make (as noted above) seem to start with the NAP alone, but then progress the argument almost entirely on pragmatic terms…. that its simply “less likely to lead to the sort of problems that other approaches have led to”.

      Which are generally true = but based only on a superficial backward historical analysis, and never on any detailed theory of how a single non-interventionist nation is supposed to function in perpetuity in a world full of self-interested actors with no such concern for self-restraint.

      1. Well, one approach is to realize that a free people can’t play foreign occupier and still stay free. By empowering the government to forcefully subjugate one population, you are teaching them how, and conditioning them to, subjugate their own population.
        Or: when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

        1. one approach is to realize that a free people can’t play foreign occupier and still stay free.

          what you’re expressing there is simply an argument* against “occupations”, not any argument why libertarianism necessitates any particular international relations theory.

          one could be interventionist as fuck, and be consistently “against occupations”. Indeed, why not just wipe any adversaries entirely off the map, a la Leonard Peikoff’s recommendations? Occupation would be entirely uncessary.

          *i also don’t think its an argument that has any basis in fact or even theory. Germany and Japan both endured occupations by the US post-WWII, both had the US meddle pretty seriously in the initial postwar reformations, and yet both those countries are the strongest economies in the world after the US… and both freer in myriad ways than they were *before* US occupation. I think the history of the British empire presents a similar problem for your claim – where many of the nations which were “occupied” and ruled over by the british actually were “freer” in many ways during their time as a colony, and still benefited afterwards from the institutions the brits left behind.

          I understand your opposition to the concept of occupation, and i share it. I just don’t think the argument is actually *true*.

          1. *i committed a sin here of using the term “interventionist”

            Something i routinely say is a terrible libertarian term for “everything not Non-interventionist“, and should be avoided entirely.

            Sargon of Akkad made a similar bitch about the term “Statist” in his ‘answers to libertarians’ thing the other day. He objected to the idea that there’s any such group of people who self-identify as “statists”, and that its just a libertarian sneer-term for “not us”.

            He had a point there, although i did disagree with a lot of other things he also said.

            1. Well, a couple of points. First, I think that the majority of the German and Japanese citizenry were ashamed or felt guilt over the actions of their war-time governments, although I admit that I have no evidence of this.
              Second, we were occupying nations that had declared war on us, we weren’t “playing empire”. Third, immediately after the war was over, the US drastically downsized the military, and would have done so more if the threat of communism hadn’t reared its ugly head.
              I guess I’m not actually answering your premise that there is no per se libertarian foreign policy, but I think there are clues as to what might make a foreign policy more libertarian than not.

              1. Well, a couple of points. First,…

                Oh, sorry, i didn’t realize when you made your argument, that there were “exceptions and caveats” that needed to be assumed.

                Look, either your statement was true on the face of it, or not.

                If the “specifics” of every occupation potentially put your theory in doubt, its not much of a theory then, is it?

                e.g. “”a free people can’t play foreign occupier and still stay free….[UNLESS THEY MEET CERTAIN ARBITRARY CONDITIONS, IN WHICH CASE WELL I GUESS ]…

                My same point above hasn’t changed; nothing you’ve said is actually about any “libertarian foriegn policy theory”

                there’s no set of guideline-ideas which apply to all forms of international relations which derive directly from the basic ideas of libertarianism…

                ….which as i point out anytime this subject comes up, are mainly about “The Citizen in relation to the State” – NOT about “The State (yours) in relation to Other States”

                There are certainly *some* libertarian ideas which *can* apply, but they’re completely insufficient to provide for huge swaths of relations-theory; most importantly, in accounting for “how other states can/do/may act on their own”. It suffers from the same problems that the NAP often does – it works up until it doesnt, and has zero provision for its own failures.

                The illustration that Frankie helpfully provided once, was that a ‘real’ libertarian foreign policy would have never allowed a blockade of Cuban missiles.

              2. *additional to the longer point @10:28

                there’s plenty of good arguments why a country – libertarian or not – would want to not engage in military occupations of other people’s countries. there’s pragmatic arguments, there’s strategic arguments, there’s purely moral arguments, etc.

                none of them matter all that much. the subject of ‘occupation’ is a tiny fraction of what libertarians tend to mean by “intervention”.

                The case for ‘non intervention’ isn’t just a set of rules about “how to make war without being an occupier”. the case for “non-intervention” is an expansive set of claims about how countries should behave BEFORE any sort of conflict ever comes about. And frankly i’m not even sure non-interventionist theory goes to great lengths bothering about “how to behave” once conflict has begin.

                Many (*like peikoff above, who isn’t ‘libertarian’ but Objectivist) go as far as to say once Aggression has been initiated, any “rules of war” are so much limiting nonsense which should be ignored. Go ahead and annihilate your foes, and salt the earth! Occupation is so much easier when there’s no enemy left to worry about ever oppressing.

                So i’m not sure why your fixation on “occupation” is even all that relevant to my basic critique – which is more that the “libertarianism” i take from people like hayek, friedman, von mises, etc. isn’t about “international relations” at all.; it basically has little/nothing to say about it.

                1. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America’s] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force?. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

                  – John Quincy Adams

                  That libertarian enough for ya?

                  1. Nope. Unless your working definition of libertarianism = “John Quincy Adams Sez =_______”

                    Its a cute phrase, and i like it as a poetic concept, but it has pretty much nothing to do with any explanation for libertarian foreign policy “theory”, where the entire spectrum of potential foreign relations postures is logically derived from the same principles as basic libertarian thinking versus one’s governing state.

                    But then maybe you didn’t understand my question in the first place.

                    And, just to put the monsters to bed…. saying, “DON’T DO X” ….where X is so vaguely defined? isn’t even a good guideline for practical purposes.

                    in case you’re interested in applying your “monsters” concept = take the example i mentioned above:

                    – Does a libertarian NAP-derived foreign policy allow Russia to ship nuclear weapons to cuba, on the principle that we should not ‘intervene’ unless actually attacked?

                    even tho we know full well that cuba has every intention of threatening the US with those weapons, and that we would have zero ability to defend or react to any attack from a location so close? (*whether a true historical situation or not, just ignore and deal with the hypothetical)

                    – or does it suddenly decide that the “idealized principles” are always subject to immediate conditions?

        2. It’s better to be the guy with the hammer.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHYq_37y5lg

      2. You might start by treating nation-states as legal persons, and imposing the same standards on them in foreign policy as you do on natural persons.

        Namely, the NAP. No initiation of aggression, but defense of self or others is allowed.

        The nuances might have to do with disproportionate response (not necessarily good in an individual situation, but the standards are different in a war), and perhaps whether “defense of others” is recognized as justification for attacking someone who hasn’t attacked you.

        There is a difficulty, as well, created by the way modern warfighting inevitably has collateral damage, which sure looks like attacking someone who, at an individual level, hasn’t attacked you. Since collateral damage is inevitable, this comes down to a choice between accepting collateral damage or not fighting any wars at all, ever.

        Post-war occupations? Tough one. I’ll have to think about that one.

        1. “Klaatu barada nikto”

  16. Philosopher-King videotapes himself running over Trump sign and posts it on Facebook; is promptly arrested:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvpDwtYl5TA

    1. What’s sort of funny about these incidents… is that it would take only a single example of some kids defacing Hillary campaign materials? And you can be sure it would be run on CNN the same day, with breathless comparisons to Hitler’s Sturmabteilung, suggesting that this was a new and extreme example of Right-Wing terror, and that more “violence” like this should probably be expected from the New Right Wing, (*cue montage of kkk, nazis, medieval inquisition)…

    2. Do people not realize they’re identifiable on Facebook?

      I know, I’ll put it up on Facebook page, and that way no one will know it was me!

      1. You’re surprise at their stupidity surprises me.

  17. Berniebot tricked into being photographed with Trump sign; hilarity ensues:
    https://youtu.be/9ntq4VbXEKk?t=2m12s

    1. I feel very uncomfortable having watched that…. passive-aggressive bro-wrestling “fight” thing,

      where they pushed each other around while laughing and trying to pretend that they’re not really fighting…which they weren’t. I think if you grab someone and throw them to the ground, you should pretty much be prepared to punch or be punched at that point. Instead they thumb-wrestled and talked trash like they were 5yr olds

      I have a great deal more respect for this sort of thing. Its unambiguous. *wrong!*, but unambiguous. Its no doubt assault. But what those bro-fags were doing was too, just assault while pretending to not cross some imaginary line.

  18. Thricely/Thirdly…

    Foreign Policy Magazine Sees Through the Gaffes to Gary Johnson’s Smart, Popular Foreign Policy Vision

    meh, technically “Foreign Policy Magazine” sees no such thing = they simply hosted a writer who happened to make that case.

    I’m pretty sure they’ll also host a few dozen people in the near future (if they haven’t already) who will make the opposite argument, that Johnson is a dangerous incompetent who threatens “global stability” with his narrow minded and simplistic views.

    *i would also like to add that i stopped reading FP about 2-3 years ago when they redesigned their website (*i think TIME magazine bought them? or something like that)… and turned it into one of the single worst formatted web-pages on earth. I still marvel at their front page, which seems like an attempt to turn every single thing you look at into a multilayered menu. Wave your cursor around and it nearly explodes. I’ve always thought it was consistent with the typical “Foreign Policy academic worldview” = a complex inconsistent mess produced by a committee of of “experts”, none of whom have ever run a business in their lives.

  19. Gov. Gary Johnson
    may seem less than erudite when specific targeted questions about foreign hotspots and foreign leaders are dropped on him on live TV.

  20. My Uncle Brandon recently got a new gold Mercedes S-Class Coupe just by parttime work from a home computer
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  21. Foreign Policy Magazine Sees Through the Gaffes to Gary Johnson’s Smart, Popular Foreign Policy Vision

    Kind of like I’m seeing the coffee pot through the hangover this morning?

  22. Millennials are no stupider than we were at that age. Remember when all we had were jerks like Nixon, Ford, Humphrey, Johnson, Wallace, Rockefeller and Agnew? The DemoGOP want to bust those millennials over victimless bullshit, confiscate their assets, draft them into military platoons on the other side of the planet, destroy their economy and put them out of business when they go for free enterprise instead of grovelling at urine tests for jobs. Thanks to the LP there is no excuse for not casting a spoiler vote with 30 times the law-changing clout!
    It’s a hard rain’s a gonna fall!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.