Gary Johnson is most appealing candidate

[GALTGULCH8]

Despite his showing in the Iowa straw poll he still is the most appealing candidate given his positions are most consistent with individual freedom and limited government.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

For one thing he is pro choice for a woman to determine whether to continue her pregnancy up until the point of "viability." Not perfect but better than the other Republicans.

[studiodekadent]

Agreed entirely.

He's actually a real libertarian; a very "Northern" libertarian (ideologically), devoid of the Paleocon streak that Ron Paul has. He's a Cosmotarian (Cosmopolitan Libertarian), and that's good.

[Dennis Hardin]

From Gary Johnson’s campaign website:

AMERICA CAN ACHIEVE OUR FOREIGN POLICY GOALS without sacrificing American values.

(1) No criminal or terrorist suspect captured by the U.S. should be subject to physical or psychological torture.

(2) Individuals incarcerated unjustly by the U.S. should have the ability to seek compensation through the courts.

(3) Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes.

He says foreign policy should be based on American "self-interest," and then he serves up this claptrap. No torture, no matter how many American lives might be saved by using such methods on the lowest bloodthirsty slime-balls imaginable. And let’s give all the would-be terrorist murderers throughout the globe full constitutional protection, with the American taxpayer footing the bill. Sheer libertarian Pollyanna wishful-thinking nonsense.

Of course, he wants to pull all the troops home from all the potential breeding grounds for terrorism, just like crazy ole Uncle Ron. And he says we should resort to military action as a last resort—without defining what he means. Does that mean after hundreds or thousands of our citizens are killed? And let’s not mention the daily disruptions to our lives which presently result from substituting “homeland security” for gunboat diplomacy.

I find that a very strange perspective on “American self-interest.”

I agree that we need to get our troops out of a lot of places where our soldiers are being sacrificed for no good purpose. But a wholesale withdrawal of all troops? That’s sticking your head in the Middle Eastern desert sands. It’s short-sighted and ultimately suicidal.

He avoids any mention of potentially taking preemptive military action where necessary—e.g, Iran. That’s paying lip service to “self-interest” when what you’re really advocating is tantamount to pacificism. Sure. Let’s wait until Israel is reduced to a blood-soaked cinder block and then take action.

I don’t buy it. And the American voter will not buy it. Just like the foreign policy nonsense advocated by Ron Paul, all it does is insure that libertarian economic ideas will be marginalized for decades to come.

[9thdoctor]

I already created a thread for him.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10702&view=findpost&p=135935

FWIW, I think he needs a visit to a new hairstylist. He looks as dorky as Dennis Kucinich.

[studiodekadent]

From Gary Johnson’s campaign website:

AMERICA CAN ACHIEVE OUR FOREIGN POLICY GOALS without sacrificing American values.

(1) No criminal or terrorist suspect captured by the U.S. should be subject to physical or psychological torture.

(2) Individuals incarcerated unjustly by the U.S. should have the ability to seek compensation through the courts.

(3) Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes.

He says foreign policy should be based on American "self-interest," and then he serves up this claptrap. No torture, no matter how many American lives might be saved by using such methods on the lowest bloodthirsty slime-balls imaginable. And let’s give all the would-be terrorist murderers throughout the globe full constitutional protection, with the American taxpayer footing the bill. Sheer libertarian Pollyanna wishful-thinking nonsense.

Torture is ineffective, full stop. People will say anything to make the pain stop. So no, torture isn't exactly in the interests of America.

I also notice you talk about "would-be terrorist murderers" but there's a little thing you're ignoring called the presumption of innocence. Until they are proven to be "would-be terrorist murderers" beyond reasonable doubt then we can't assume that they are.

Point (2) is there precisely because people have been wrongly incarcerated (and indeed, some of these have been tortured via rendition). The whole point of safeguards like Due Process etc. is to keep these wrongful incarcerations to a minimum and to prevent the Executive from just locking people up at its discretion (a prime cause of unjust incarceration).

I don't have any sympathy at all for actual Al Qaeda terrorists, but your understandable desire to prevent 9/11 from repeating itself has apparently overridden other considerations like "danger of over-empowered judicial systems," "risk of false incarceration" and "innocent until proven guilty." Your (understandable) desire for revenge is overpowering your rationality.

Of course, he wants to pull all the troops home from all the potential breeding grounds for terrorism, just like crazy ole Uncle Ron.

Plenty of Al-Qaeda operatives and other Islamic terrorists have actually been radicalized here in the West, so treating Iraq and Afghanistan as if they were the sole source of Jihadis is a mistake.

Turning someone into a terrorist is a primarily ideological process and this can happen anywhere in the world; should the US occupy every nation on the planet? After all, they are ALL potential breeding grounds for terrorism.

Also, ever considered the possibility that the presence of American troops in these nations might be potentially exacerbating (rather than mitigating) that nation's propensity to produce terrorists? Foreign occupation creates a lot of resentment, as plenty of historical examples (including many from contexts other than Islamic terrorism) demonstrate.

And he says we should resort to military action as a last resort—without defining what he means. Does that mean after hundreds or thousands of our citizens are killed? And let’s not mention the daily disruptions to our lives which presently result from substituting “homeland security” for gunboat diplomacy.

The definition of "last resort" is common knowledge and I'm honestly surprised you don't know what it means. The concept applies only to dealing with other nation-states, first, so its not like Johnson is advocating attempting to get a peace treaty out of Al Qaeda. That is clearly impossible.

As for hyperbole over "hundreds or thousands of our citizens are killed," "last resort" does NOT apply to parties that have already attacked. Credible, Immediate Threats are also a different matter.

I find that a very strange perspective on “American self-interest.”

Just as I find it strange that someone could believe endless wars in a vain attempt to remake a cesspool of pre-enlightenment religious barbarism in the US's image is even remotely in the self-interest of America. Especially since said wars are expensive as all hell.

He avoids any mention of potentially taking preemptive military action where necessary—e.g, Iran. That’s paying lip service to “self-interest” when what you’re really advocating is tantamount to pacificism. Sure. Let’s wait until Israel is reduced to a blood-soaked cinder block and then take action.

Iran is by no means a Credible, Immediate Threat to the US. And last I checked, Israel was a separate nation, not a part of the US.

And no, Johnson is NOT advocating pacifism. Pacifism is the belief that war is never justified, not even in self defense. What Johnson is arguing is that the interests of the US are best served by the employment of war exclusively for defensive purposes. And yes, there is such a thing as 'pre-emptive defense' if we're talking about a Credible, Immediate Threat.

[Fred Cole]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything here, I just wanted to comment on something

People will say anything to make the pain stop.

That is an accurate observation, but not especially useful.

Here is why. I'll give the example of the US and waterboarding. I'm not getting into the "Is it torture?" debate. I just wanna point out that you wouldn't use waterboarding to get information. You use it to break a guy. Yes people will say anything to get it to stop, but when you're waterboarding someone, you ask them questions that you already know the answer to.

Properly used, it's not used to get information, it's used to break a guy. Then once he's broken, you gather information from him.

[Fred Cole]

I also wanna say that we can nit pick Gov. Johnson's foreign policy positions, we may like some, disagree with others.

But is any of those disagreements a dealbreaker? Does it show a fatal flaw in his thinking?

Is is such a fatal flaw that the alternative of Romney-ism or Obama-ism is preferable?