mrswdk wrote:They all suck. They either support pulling American troops out of other countries but then hate free trade deals and want to start a trade war with China (Sanders and Trump), or they support free trade but want to continue invading the rest of the world like it's 1955 (all the others).
Unless there is a third party candidate who both embraces free trade and is a non-interventionist?
Hmmm... Gary Johnson is the closest, but still not as close as Rand Paul was/is.
Wikipedia wrote:Johnson believes it "is important to have a strong defense both at home and abroad,"[21] and that the "military should remain the most potent force for good on Earth,"[22] but believes the greatest threat to national security at present is that "we're bankrupt." He would include a 43% cut to the military's budget in his proposed balanced budget by concentrating on defense, rather than offense.[7] He has stated: “When you talk about a 43 percent reduction in military spending, that’s going back to 2003 funding levels, not the end of the world".[23] He advocates making "better use of military alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests."[22]
Johnson says the United States "should resort to military action as the last option and only as provided in the Constitution."[22] He believes the continuing American military presence in Europe, in Japan and in South Korea should be reduced by at least 43%, and that the United States should end its military involvements in Afghanistan immediately. During the Iraq War, Johnson called for the end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Libya. He would propose cuts to the military's uniformed and civilian personnel, research and development, intelligence, and nuclear weapons,[7][24] all of which would be "carefully considered" rather than "across the board." He supports reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, saying, "Do we really need to blow up the world 23 times over, or would eight times be sufficient?"[25] Because Johnson has talked about humanitarian interventions, many libertarians have questioned if he is as committed to noninterventionism as congressman Ron Paul, who was running for president as a Republican.[26]
Johnson said in an April 2012 Daily Caller interview that he favors withdrawing or reducing American forces in Europe and East Asia, but not necessarily the Middle East. He also said he stood by comments to the Weekly Standard that he might support waging war for humanitarian reasons, saying he would not "sit idly by and watch something like the Holocaust go down." He also stated that while he thought drone attacks create more enemies than they kill, he would not necessarily stop the drone attacks in Pakistan or Yemen, leaving all options on the table.[23]
Johnson supports free trade and opposes tariffs, "period." He believes free market trade corrects inequities between trading partners, such as foreign countries' subsidies for certain industries.[7]
But with Johnson you have to deal with things like decriminalization, pro-choice, opposition to the death penalty, gun rights for all, and various fiscally conservative things.
In Clinton, you get the perfect blend of old school Republican values (pro-banks, pro-war) with traditional Democrat values (pro-choice).
In Trump, you get the perfect blend of whatever will get him the most popularity.
Posted: Tue May 17, 2016 7:36 pm