Military Times' Q&A with Gary Johnson: How he'd lead as commander in chief - Polidicks

[quote]MILWAUKEE — Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson has spent much of his campaign struggling to get noticed in the shadow of his major party competitors, but appears to be making inroads with at least one segment of the population: American military personnel and their families. The 63-year-old former governor of New Mexico in recent months has polled better with veterans and service members than the general population, including earning support from 13 percent of respondents to the most recent Military Times reader survey. He credits that in part to his “not isolationist, but non-interventionist” foreign policy platform, and to his willingness to speak honestly about reform throughout government. He has been working with the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank in Washington, to help refine and expand his defense platform. Military Times met with Johnson on Thursday, during a campaign stop here in Milwaukee. The discussion focused on his views about military spending, reforming the Department of Veterans Affairs, and what type of leadership he would install at the Pentagon in order to balance national security with his goal of avoiding disastrous conflicts overseas. [/quote] [url]http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/military-times-q-a-with-gary-johnson-how-hed-lead-as-commander-in-chief[/url]

So, on an unrelated note, is it confirmed that he will not be invited to the debates?

I think it just shows GJ voters have no idea what they're voting for when people who's jobs he'll be cutting are some of his top voters. Either that or they're masochists.

[QUOTE=Ctrl;51008162]So, on an unrelated note, is it confirmed that he will not be invited to the debates?[/QUOTE] Not confirmed officially but as they draw near I think it's safe to assume he won't be going to them. At least not the first one.

Good interview. Man is clearly more qualified than Trump on foreign and defense matters. He is absolutely right that military spending is a complex combination of things that really shouldn't be cut and fat that needs to be gone yesterday. I also like how he simultaneously wants to hold up obligations to NATO and other treaties while putting pressure on European countries to hold up their end of the bargain. Goddamn Johnson seducing me into libertarianism. Were this election between him and Clinton I'd have to weigh the pros and cons and probably still go with Clinton but as it stands I'm just trying to mitigate the damage Trump would do at home and abroad.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51008315]Cutting jobs isnt a definitive hostility, and cutting military spending isnt cutting army jobs. It would be funny if this was defense contractors.[/QUOTE] Well army jobs would arguably be at risk; closing down overseas bases as Johnson proposes would result in fewer army jobs. The point is that it's kind of ironic that people employed by the public sector seem to massively support someone who is the figurehead of an ideology which wants to see the fewest number of public sector jobs possible.

[QUOTE=sb27;51008682]Well army jobs would arguably be at risk; closing down overseas bases as Johnson proposes would result in fewer army jobs. The point is that it's kind of ironic that people employed by the public sector seem to massively support someone who is the figurehead of an ideology which wants to see the fewest number of public sector jobs possible.[/QUOTE] quiet you, you are disrupting the echo chamber.

Alternate title: US military members vote for unemployment.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;51008824]Agreed. My vote goes to whoever wants to increase the military budget.[/QUOTE] why?

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;51008824]Agreed. My vote goes to whoever wants to increase the military budget.[/QUOTE] We have a ridiculous military budget with ridiculous waste. It would be far more effective to streamline the budget instead so random huge sums of money don't go missing

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51008752]Alternate title: US military members vote for unemployment.[/QUOTE] Last time we had voluntary separation because of our new military budget, we got way more people wanting to get out than we needed. The people that need to get out of the military will get out and it will be more than enough. The ones that want to stay, will stay in. Johnson seems very understandable on what needs to be cut and he knows who to talk to about suggestions as well rather than just having his own preconceived thoughts on the matter. He's taking in all the elements and knows he needs more information to perform the process. It's the smartest talk I've seen on the matter in the subject of presidential candidates this year, especially his concern on improving VA benefits and he takes into heart the respect for those who are serving and have served. I would put him as the best the position of what to have for a presidential candidate thus far in terms of what he as discussed in this interview as it was all very agreeable, but it still is all very touchy. Being in the military its really hard to think how to cut it, even though I know hundreds of ways to save millions, but it wont ever happen due to commanders, but getting rid of unwanted service members and bases is a good start. I hope there are no cuts to our benefits as some of them have really affected me already and I've heard of some cuts that would very much hurt me financially and hopefully they can find cuts in logistics rather than military personnel support. But I think the cut to our benefits is going to happen regardless.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51008876]My vote will go to whoever can realize the military isn't magic. Either reduce the op-tempo when cutting the budget, or leave the damn thing alone. Stop asking for more with less.[/QUOTE] Exactly this as well. Last cut we got rid of people, but INCREASED flying hour requirements at bases. So we spent more money to fly more with less people. We ended up needing to work more with less. Jet upkeep alone costs a large amount. I wouldn't know how that would match to a person but with the combined support equipment, jet fuel, parts, and other expendables it racks up a large sum of money in a single week per aircraft. We need to lower our op-tempo for sure. We are already the best military in the world, but I think our upkeep to stay that way is over saturated.

[QUOTE=da space core;51008869]We have a ridiculous military budget with ridiculous waste. It would be far more effective to streamline the budget instead so random huge sums of money don't go missing[/QUOTE] US military budget is fine, no need to lower nor increase it. There is a dire need of reform as money spend on US military used very inefficiently as you said. Financial miss-management and corruption need to be weeded out.

[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51008935]US military budget is fine, no need to lower nor increase it. There is a dire need of reform as money spend on US military used very inefficiently as you said. Financial miss-management and corruption need to be weeded out.[/QUOTE] Lol the military budget isn't fine. The military overspends and just recently is missing a lot of money. We spend more money on our military then dozens of countries combined. The majority of money goes into contractors and contracts. Military enlisted numbers will stay the same, military contracts will be less and the people who have power are being lobbied by military contractors.

[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51008935]US military budget is fine, no need to lower nor increase it. There is a dire need of reform as money spend on US military used very inefficiently as you said. Financial miss-management and corruption need to be weeded out.[/QUOTE] Best way to hinder inefficient spending is to hinder the amount of money they have to inefficiently spend.

I read the article but did I miss something? I know he said he wants to streamline the military budget and not cut the VA budget, but was there any mention of dedicating more money to the VA or atleast a stronger reform of it?

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;51009029]I read the article but did I miss something? I know he said he wants to streamline the military budget and not cut the VA budget, but was there any mention of dedicating more money to the VA or atleast a stronger reform of it?[/QUOTE] He mentions reform and how he will find out exactly what the issue is rather than placing blame without all the info. Just dumping money or enacting reform without knowing the issue can cause adverse consequences.

[QUOTE=choco cookie;51009489]He mentions reform and how he will find out exactly what the issue is rather than placing blame without all the info. Just dumping money or enacting reform without knowing the issue can cause adverse consequences.[/QUOTE] Cheers, also help me out, the last major VA hiccups involved fuck up with patient records or something with management within the past two years?

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51008315]Cutting jobs isnt a definitive hostility, and cutting military spending isnt cutting army jobs. It would be funny if this was defense contractors.[/QUOTE] Yes it is. When you cut the military budget, the troops are the first to be hit. You really think Officers or Contractors would take a pay cut? Hell no, they'll just boot out a few thousand troops.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;51009496]Cheers, also help me out, the last major VA hiccups involved fuck up with patient records or something with management within the past two years?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't exactly remember, but on the surface a majority of the problems are due to speed of service, quality and quantity of service, and bad patient record collection. VA service is severely lacking the quality service it needs to give as it puts veteran's lives on hold as any other civilian service would if it was crippled by these problems. [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51009545]Yes it is. When you cut the military budget, the troops are the first to be hit. You really think Officers or Contractors would take a pay cut? Hell no, they'll just boot out a few thousand troops.[/QUOTE] The officers were actually hit the hardest last cut due to the staggering unbalance of officers to enlisted and they share all the benefits as we do. They just get paid more. Contractors though do not feel any of the repercussions of the cuts and still profit off our spending regardless. Contractor cost is an extremely large amount of our spending due to their exuberant price tag on goods and services and they also cripple our work performance because of it. This is the nature of enterprise business most of the time, but military business means taking advantage of the large military budget and creating costs on things much more than needed, a bolt costing 5 bucks for instance when it is less than a dollar at a home depot.