Chicago Trib. Endorsement of Gary Johnson?

I am confused. Is this list an explanation of why you would or would not vote for him?

I am guessing not because I found myself going "yes" a lot as I read through it.

Gary Johnson was a competent Governor of New Mexico.

He didn't recognize "Allepo" from a journalist who was trying to trap him.

If Berneke had said "What to you think about Syria?" he would have had a cogent answer.

His biggest mistake was to apologize for not knowing "Allepo" was in that question.

Once "Gotcha" Berneke explained what he was asking, Johnson gave a cogent answer.

The notion that our candidates have to be perfect in every interview they conduct is silly.

We are too used to them dodging questions with blather. That's a skill we value?

Johnson is a Libertarian. If you don't agree with general libertarian principles, you're not going to support Johnson, regardless of how he answers questions.

If you think the government should expand and not shrink, you are not going to support Johnson, regardless of how he answers questions.

The real question is who benefits from turning Johnson into a figure of ridicule?

Surprisingly, it's Clinton, but that explains a lot of the ridicule directed at Johnson.

I don't care if he knew Aleppo, so long as he knows they are fighting in that spot. I just posted a long list on his statements on other matters and I find little to recommend him.

Still not one specific example of why he's bad.

Big hat, no cattle...

EdgarB posted a list of examples with meaning to him, and myself, and, I hope, some others.
I'm not interested in arguing at any length: people differ; I'll read debates, occasionally swerve on one of my points of views.

I don't have time to delineate what I disagree with Gary Johnson about. I'm making backribs.

He's bad (for a lot of us) because he supports those positions.

He's also bad (for America) because he has little to experience in international affairs.

He's also bad (for America) because the guy is unprepared to run a campaign much less become president.

edgar has posted a list of Mr. Johnson's positions. edgar has confirmed that he does not support those positions.

there's nothing tricky going on.

you, and others, can certainly agree with Mr. Johnson's positions. *

playing that you don't understand that edgar has said he doesn't agree with Mr. Johnson's positions doesn't make you smart/amusing/witty.

* several months ago, I posted that if I was an American voter, in a non-swing state, I'd vote for Mr. Johnson. Recent events mean that wouldn't be true any more. Not because of any changes in Mr. Johnson's positions.

I think you've hit the nail there Osso. Attention span..

The length most Americans are willing to argue the issues is way too short. Edgar can't even look long enough to see why many of his points are compatible with Johnson's policies.

Points 1 and 3 are just your opinion, not reasoned answers why they are bad.

Point 2 is as well but it's a silly point because MANY US presidents started their terms with no direct foreign affairs experience. Actually, none of them do, because you only get one chance at being Commander in Chief.

Good foreign policy starts with good basic principles. Johnson has those. You don't get that with OJT.

Neither of the major party candidates have good basic principles. (That one's my opinion)

I probably have more big hats than you do, I'm a thrift shop enthusiast off and on over the years, and I bet ehBeth does too. My hats are an art display in two rooms (ok, not the whole room).
We are not the same people, could work up areas of disagreement if we tried.
We both have calves.

I'm sorry you don't seem to get it. I am as liberal/semisocialist as they come. The current crop of conservatives such as teaparty, are disassociated from reality and don't deserve to be called conservative. I have grudging respect for many conservatives, but not that specific brand.

My attention span is quite long if I am interested. Last night, I spent quite a stretched part of moon hours reading an old New Yorker article re Yanis Varoufakis, by Ian Parker, something like 14 complicated pages. August 3, 2015, if you have a smidge of interest. I need to reread to absorb all the complications.

I haven't been interested in Johnson since I understood his views. Roger, a friend with diff views, warned me I wouldn't like him, now years ago. He was right.

I don't somehow hate Johnson, I'm just not interested.
Trump, on the other hand, frightens me.

What really turned me off of conservatives is their efforts to suppress voting in many states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/republicans-and-voter-suppression.html?_r=0

That's one issue against them for sure.

He's bad because he is taking votes from Clinton

That's not edgar's reasoning but it is for others.

For sure, finn. That's not an issue with me.

Presidential candidates frequently make promises they cannot keep. Congress controls the purse strings, and there's just no way around that. The President may propose, but Congress disposes. The one area in which the President can exercise real power, and do so right away, is in foreign affairs. The notion that a presidential candidate has never heard of Aleppo, in the context of present, current events is just appalling. But more than that, anyone who is running for the most powerful office on the planet, who does not know that Obi-Wan Kenobi is a fictional character, is straight out of the Twilight Zone.

Not sure why you have concluded that Johnson never heard of Aleppo or that he thinks Obi Wan Kenobi is a real person.

I take it you mean you are not sure. I am not surprised. The Obi-Wan Kenobi meme is a joke based on his inability to name a single world leader when asked to do so in public. If you haven't heard of his gaff about Aleppo, i an only assume that you don't pay attention.

Trump's promises are meaningless. Why are Americans supporting this liar?