#letgarydebate

By: Joey Wren Havenner

Disclaimer: This is not intended to be a reactionary piece to the video released on October 7th. I started writing this well before that, but it’s lengthy and took some time to fine tune. In response to the recent news, it appears that Grudem’s original post in support of Trump has been removed. 

Do you remember studying the U.S. Constitution in the 8th grade and taking a, then paper, quiz to determine what political party you, as a non-voting 13 year old, were a part of? Well, I do. I was living in Wheaton, IL - you know the place famous for most churches per square block? I took the test and was right down the middle, neither Republican nor Democrat. Instead I was something I had never heard, but assumed was wrong after my teacher’s reaction. She quickly assured me that I was a Republican (it is conservative Wheaton afterall). When I questioned why, she told me we are either one or the other, and I definitely was Republican. Fast forward to Junior year American Government, when non-voting 16 year olds now take those quizzes on a computer. I was living in Bettendorf, IA (a city in a well-known swing state that tries to keep up with the progressive politics of Illinois). Again, this test showed me as financially conservative yet socially liberal - a straight up Libertarian. I had read about that in class. However, again my teacher was eager to tell me that I had to choose one of the two parties, and he informed me that I was clearly a Democrat.

I share this story because I have been being told for over half my life that I will have to compromise something I believe to make a choice come election time, because we are a two-party country. So every election, I pull a Rory Gilmore and make a pro-con list of the candidates to help choose which of the two options is most inline with my convictions and opinions on policy. I have learned that everyone in the media has an agenda and to be cautious to watch or read both sides; so if the media 100% supports (or disagrees) with candidate A on topic Y, I intentionally seek balance by finding the media that 100% supports (or disagrees) with candidate B on topic Y. It seems this year, that is what every last one of us should be doing, noting that the main party candidates are extremely polarizing and the media is failing to mask their bias. Instead, I am coming across post after post about party-line voting, or single-issue voting. But the most worrisome thing I have come across, is the anti-vote vote. The “lesser of two evils” argument. To quote C.S. Lewis:

“I have a strong desire to tell you -- and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me -- which of these two errors is the worse. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs -- pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking about which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them.”

Let me just state this: Choosing the lesser of two evils, is still choosing an evil. And choosing evil is NEVER morally good. (Sorry Grudem - For more on this, continue reading under the Trump section) Eating a pile of chocolate covered dung, is still eating dung no matter how you slice it. Ya, I said that. And for those that say, “well at least the chocolate will help it go down” - good luck with belching that up for four years, because it won’t settle well in your gut, or on your conscience. The motivation behind choosing the lesser of two evils is fear. Fear of a Trump-presidency or Fear of a Clinton-presidency should not be a reason to cast a vote for the other candidate. Casting an anti-vote is STILL casting a vote FOR someone, FOR someone’s policies. Fear should not be a primary motivation for our actions. Fear is claustrophobic. Fear clouds our judgement. Fear is blinding. Fear is hopeless. Fear is manipulated by politicians to bend us to their desires. We have the privilege to live in a country that gives us a vote. Our vote is our voice. Don’t let fear win your vote. (I’m fearful in writing this because cyber-bullying is INSANE - but I am not letting FEAR control me. “Do not be afraid. Do not be silent. Keep on speaking.” Acts 18:9) Check out these Reuters Polls if you don’t think people are voting an anti-vote. Steadily, about 50% of Trump voters are giving their primary reason of choosing Trump to being keeping Hillary out (while 39% agree with his policies). Similarly, about 51% of Clinton voters are giving their primary reason for choosing Clinton to being keeping Donald out (while 36% agree with her policies). By the end of this election, someone’s policies will still be implemented for at least 4 years, and by winning the election, they will argue they had the support of the people to implement the policies they campaigned on, even if the peoples’ vote was primarily cast out of fear.

For those of you who want to tell me that voting 3rd party is a wasted vote, or a vote for Trump (Great leadership Obama!) or for Hillary (again, I disagree Grudem!) - please don’t. I have thought long and hard about this. I refuse to be guilt-tripped into an anti-vote, and I refuse to be controlled by fear. Anyone who attempts to guilt you into a vote is asking you to suspend considering your own personal values, principles, or policy interests, and instead focus on your anxieties. In my opinion, the only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don’t believe in. We all get one vote to cast, and we should all intellectually research and think about how we want to cast it. We are blessed to live in a country that allows a peoples democracy, and we should be cautious to not squander it or take it for granted. There are times in our history that we need to wisely and deliberately use that vote, that voice, to change the conversation. This is one of those times. The only morally good choice for me, is to not vote for a candidate who I cannot support. In the past, I have compromised my ideal preferences to support one of the two-party candidates, but I will not compromise my integrity. If you wholeheartedly back Trump’s plans on immigration, or can trust Hillary’s plans on, well, anything she says - then by all means - vote your conscience. I am not trying to convince you otherwise. But if you are like me and the growing number of people unsatisfied with the main party options, and are thinking of casting an anti-vote or even sitting this election out: please consider reading why I cannot support either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump as President and why Gary Johnson gladly wins my vote! (So gladly in fact, that this is the first political post I have EVER and hopefully will ever write). Whether you think he stands a chance at winning or not, is not the point in voting for Johnson. Voting for Johnson tells the two major parties that you won’t stand with her as she’s being investigated by the FBI, and you don’t think bullying our neighbors into building a wall will make america great again. Voting for Johnson tells the media that you know they are in on it too. That they are partially to blame for the current election situation with their uneven coverage of certain candidates during the primaries. And now their almost complete media blackout of third party nominees - unless, of course, it is in their favor to oversell gaffes.

Here are 10 reasons why I cannot support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States :

1. Pro Hillary Reason Number One: the “She’s Not Trump” Argument 

My Reply? - That is voting the anti-vote. That’s a vote out of fear - and fear should never be the primary motivation for our actions. Fear clouds our judgment. Fear is claustrophobic. Fear is blinding. Fear is hopeless. Trump may not be in the White House, but she will be for four years. I will not be guilted into suspending my right to vote my conscience.

I don’t care that she is not the most likable person, but I do have pause for concern over glaring questions of character. How can I trust any of her political policies when the most consistent thing about Hillary Clinton is her Pattern of Lies (here are just a few of them) :

2. Rwanda Genocide - Over the span of 100 days in 1994, 800,000 men women and children were slaughtered during the Rwanda genocide. Many hold the Clinton Administration responsible for the extent of this atrocity. During Hillary’s first run for President, she tried to claim she urged Bill to military intervention; but, there are absolutely NO reports of this, and the first time she made this claim was coincidentally in conjunction with her campaign. There are eight books written about the Rwanda Genocide, and she is not mentioned once. Not only that, there are NO reports of any talk about U.S. military intervention. So even if she privately urged Bill to consider this, she did not argue the case urgently enough because it was never brought to the table in public to even debate or consider. To make matters worse, the Clinton administration INTENTIONALLY stonewalled the U.N.’s efforts. It is not simply their denial of sending troops, but they took efforts to REMOVE the U.N. peacekeepers from Rwanda which allowed the genocide to escalate to horrific numbers. So even if her unverifiable claims of urging Bill are true, she not only failed to urge him to military action, but she failed in convincing her husband to not advocate the withdrawing of the U.N. peacekeepers. If she can’t persuade her husband to stop genocide, I don’t trust her to be an effective advocate. So if she chooses to make claims of her advocacy during the genocide to distance herself from Bill’s biggest regret, then she must also claim her failures.

3. Those damn emails! : “So what? - She set up a private e-mail account, and sent classified documents using it.” First, that is dangerous! We have NO idea the lasting effects of that severe lapse of judgement. Online security is NOT a new topic, so to claim ignorance is not acceptable. (How can a Yale graduate be confused that “C” meant “classified”?) To lie about it? And destroy evidence? - well that is plain criminal. To think she is above the law, or answers to a different law than the rest of Americans, is a frightening reality and one that proves that she isn’t “for the people” but has her own personal agenda. I can’t support someone who lies repeatedly and then only tells a convoluted version of the truth, taking “full responsibility,” when all the facts are stacked against her. Why are we as a nation even entertaining the idea of someone being president who's being investigated by the FBI? The cover-ups, destroying phones and computers with hammers and bleach, the allegations of back-alley deals - are we watching House of Cards, or is this real life? Intentional or not - I don’t want an “extremely careless” person who makes decisions based on convenience as our President.

4. Bosnia - While running her first presidential campaign in 2007, she claimed that she was under sniper fire on the tarmac after landing during her 1996 trip and had to run to her car taking cover. Turns out she “misspoke” - she was warned of the protocols incase there was sniper attacks, and had a welcome ceremony on the tarmac. Translation - misspoke is political speak for being caught in a lie/embellishment. (And yet Brian Williams is forced to resign as the face of NBC after lying about being on a helicopter under attack in Iraq. And Lochte may be facing criminal charges in Brasil after embellishing being held at gun point. Do we seriously hold the media and athletes to higher standards than our nations leaders?)

5. Benghazi - Four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, were murdered in Benghazi under Clinton’s watch as Secretary of State on Sept 11, 2012. She failed to do her job. Somethings are unavoidable, but these four deaths were sadly avoidable. Her negligence to the unrest in Benghazi, and her unlawful decision to delegate security provisions, left Americans in harms way. She did not follow the laws and protocol set in place after the two Embassy bombings in 1998 during her husband’s presidency. She claims “this was not her ball to carry”, yet the security of all U.S. personnel on official duty abroad is the role of the secretary of state. Of course, she later changed her tune and “takes full responsibility”. So which is it? Are her hands clean, or should she be taking responsibility? The double talk is confusing, and yet lives are still lost. I cannot trust that she will be a reliable commander in chief if she unlawfully delegates her role as Secretary of State. She boasts of her foreign policy experience being the former Secretary of State - Benghazi, a tragic failure, is a part of her legacy and it is not something to be proud of.

6. Clinton Foundation - There are a LOT of reasons to be concerned over the transparency of the Clinton Foundation. It receives millions of dollars of donations from influential leaders, from international governments, even governments in violation of human rights issues. To avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, President Obama had Clinton sign an ethics agreement in which she agreed to distancing herself from the Foundation while Secretary of State. While she still claims to have abided by that agreement, there are email records from her State Department’s email address to foundation donors suggesting meetings and offering assistance. One donor even secured a new job. Of course, definitive facts in terms of bribery and breaking a law are hard to come by on this issue, but it is clear that Hillary did not abide by that ethics agreement and loves to hang out in that moral grey area. She is a trained lawyer, so knowing where the line is and not to cross it seems to keep her out of jail, but is that all we should ask from our President? So am I supposed to believe that if she becomes President, she will take a step back from the Foundation her family runs and that the international donations it receives will not influence her Presidential decisions? I’m not that naive.

7. Consistent Flip Flopper: Yes, politicians are notorious for changing their positions, but Clinton makes her career on it - literally! It is one thing to change or modify a position as you grow and learn more on an issue, or new variables are to be considered, but she obviously changes her stance for political gain and nothing else. Combine that with her inclination to habitually lie, and how can anyone expect her to make good on any political campaign promises? She was for the War in Iraq - then against it, Traditional Marriage Rights - then Same-Sex Marriage Rights, Supported TTP - Now opposes it, the Iran deal, the Pipeline, Sanctuary Cities, etc. The only way to reconcile her drastic change in policies is that she is a well-seasoned politician - and that wreaks of personal agendas to me. And personal agendas always usurp serving the people.

8. Syria - Hillary’s hands are not clean in the crisis occurring in Syria. To say that the Syrian war is complicated would be a major understatement. To explain the situation here, would have you reading well into the night. But to think Hillary as President will help resolve this conflict that we are otherwise involved in, is naive. She pushed for a CIA-led regime change in Syria, which has failed and left the country in absolute chaos with many factions fighting each other, using weapons supplied to both sides by the U.S.. Clinton has a record of supporting US-led regime changes; history shows that, even when done “successfully”, it does not solve any underlying problems.

9. Pro Hillary Reason Number Two: “But, the First Woman President!” Argument

My Reply? - That’s a vote out of sensationalism. I want to see the day when a woman becomes president like most people. But I want the RIGHT woman, and she is not it.  We’ve already seen how a vote out of sensationalism plays out with Obama. We were so excited as a nation for electing our first black president - hoping it would be a catalyst to end racism in America - but his presidency did little to change the racial climate and promote unity. Here’s an article in the Times on just this topic. Hillary’s brand is for the elite politician, not the everyday woman. The first woman President is going to be emblazoned in our history books - and I have high hopes that it will bring a new wave of equality for women. When looking at her policies, her being a woman, doesn’t change equality for women. Here are some thoughts from liberal-leaning feminists and why they don’t believe the sensationalism of the first woman President should convince you Hillary is the right woman. Here are some thoughts from conservative-leaning feminists.

10. Finally, it is one thing to not have the most likable personality, but a leader needs to not only unify the politicians when there is political discourse to make any progress, but a leader must also promote a healthy respect for the people’s differences to maintain peace. She’s proud of having Republicans as enemies. Talk about disunity. In an attempt to be witty or more likable, I believe the composed veil she portrays dropped and her true heart was revealed. How is she going to bring UNITY to this country if she is proud to have half the country as enemies. There will be gridlock in the House and Senate if she doesn’t care about unifying the people. There is enough disunity on our streets - we don’t need it encouraged from the White House.

And now, like I promised, here are 10 reasons why I cannot support Donald Trump for President of the United States :

1. Pro Trump Reason Number One: the “to keep Hillary out” Argument

My Reply? - That’s the anti-vote vote. And again, that’s a vote out of fear - and fear should never be the primary motivation for our actions. Fear clouds our judgment. Fear is claustrophobic. Fear is blinding. Fear is hopeless. Clinton may not be in the White House, but he will be for four years. I will not be guilted into suspending my right to vote my conscience.

2. Pro Trump Reason Number Two: the “He is the Morally Good Choice” Argument (or the persuasive way of saying “He’s not Hillary”) 

My Reply? - If you have read Grudem’s blog article, please read this for a balanced theological perspective. The author words the theological argument against Trump far better than I ever could (and no he isn’t proposing voting for Hillary instead) by asking questions like this: 

“Does God so desperately require our participation in the war against evil that He would ask us to vote for evil to save us from evil?” 

Grudem proposes that using the lesser of two evils argument is a rash characterization because claiming Trump to be evil is an exaggeration. The argument against this cliché phrase is that Trump isn’t evil, but a good candidate with flaws - that argument is flawed. We can accept character flaws. Who isn’t flawed? It is semantics over terminology in order to justify his decision to cast an anti-vote and to encourage evangelicals to do the same. If you disagree, then I will argue with the same logic that the word ‘good’ should not be applied to either candidate. Afterall, God created the earth and said “it is good.” So following that logic, using good over-praises the candidates. (Splitting hairs over words is a weak argument, don’t ya think?) I am not saying either is the spawn of Satan, but I also do not agree that either is a GOOD candidate - they are simply candidates who, like the rest of us, have flaws. (I am listing those flaws that shouldn’t be overlooked when choosing the next President) Voting for a flawed candidate is not morally wrong - but morality is a matter of ethics, and Christian ethics (like Grudem infers) cannot be discussed without talking about LOVE. And I don’t see how either Trump (or Clinton) embodies the love that Christ demonstrated. For Grudem to use his influence, and insight that one candidate is the moral candidate for Christians to support suggests that pursuing a political ideology is more important than the characteristics Christ called people to live out. For more on this, please read this article in response to Grudem. All this to say, Christians need to remember that they are not voting for a leader of the Church - we have that in Christ - they are voting for a leader of the American people. A candidate does not need to be “a Christian” for Christians to support them; likewise, just because a candidate claims to be “a Christian” should not warrant an automatic endorsement from the Christian community.

*Grudem’s article was removed yesterday, supposedly in light of the leaked hot-mic video*

3. One slip up? Sure, understandable. Two slip ups? Can be forgivable with the quantity of speeches and the pressing of questions from reporters (if repentant!) - But there have been too many gaffes for them to even be considered gaffes anymore. I could give a list of 10 inappropriate things Donald Trump has said and why I can’t vote for him, but instead I will combine his language into one reason. Too many times Trump has insulted, belittled, or berated groups of individuals for them to all be rationalized away. He’s brash, condescending, and defensive. Out of the overflow of the heart, does the mouth speak (Luke 6:45). He has insulted POWs, mocked a physically disabled reporter, reduced women’s value solely on appearances, and made racial slur after racial slur. His comments are recorded publicly at rallies or intentionally tweeted, not when he thinks no one is listening. He has been unapologetic in his repetitive insults. (Minus the most recent leak of his lewd R-rated conversation about dominating a woman, and his feeble attempt at an apology-turned-attack) And it is a huge stretch to suggest that every comment has been taken out of context by the media. Max Lucado wrote an article about how decency matters, especially if someone is claiming Christianity. We hold our children to higher standards on the playground, than we have been holding Donald Trump running for President. As Lucado writes: Trump has “tapped into the anger of the American people… ‘we are voting with our middle-finger’…anger fueled reactions have caused trouble ever since Cain and Abel.” All his words cannot be rationalized away, and I don’t want our President’s speeches to have to be censored for our children.

4. His immigration policies are divisive. His proposed ban on Muslim immigrants - which was now pivoted into any countries that have been compromised by terrorism, shows the danger of xenophobia. I understand people are fearful of potential terrorist attacks, but preying on this fear is irresponsible. We are a nation with religious freedom, so to ban people based on a religious identity is against what we were founded on. ALL religions have a history with extremists abusing their beliefs. We are a nation of immigrants, so to close our country goes against the building blocks of our nation. Just because his revised plan is now avoiding the word “Muslim” - doesn’t make it is any less detrimental to religious liberties.

5. Syria (A continuation of immigration): His position on the Syrian refugee crisis is under-educated. Everyone has seen the skittle bowl analogy. And probably the mathematical response to the analogies exaggeration. (Memes really get around social media) But the real exaggeration is Trump’s claims that Syrian Refugees pose a threat for being unknown. (Then, I daresay that you, Mr. Trump, are a threat to national security because your political decisions are unknowable.) But Syrian Refugees ARE known. They are the most vetted group of people entering the U.S. Furthermore, Syrian Refugees are the vulnerable individuals in the midst of the conflict. A conflict that the U.S. isn’t an innocent bystander in. They are trying to flee violence by embarking on a dangerous exodus to Europe instead of joining ISIS. ISIS has even condemned refugees for fleeing. So the fear that Syrian Refugees are ISIS sympathizers is illogical. The U.S. has a stronger vetting process than Europe, and an amazing resettlement record.

6. Pro Trump Reason Number Three: “Politicians are untrustworthy - and I’m fed up with politicians”

My Reply? - The line between politician and television personality is blurred in my opinion. Both pander to polls/ratings by adjusting their positions with the changing winds. What’s worse is, we have NO way of truly knowing what kind of president Trump would be because he has never held public office. Sure, having someone outside of Washington sounds wonderful in theory with how corrupt and flaky politicians have been with the people, but in reality - he has NO experience, and the little we do know of his leadership qualities, has left much to be desired. Whenever asked about how he would lead - his replies are tainted with arrogant strong arming and dictating (which drives further division), as opposed to reasoned diplomacy and compromise (which encourages unity). The President represents our country to the world. What does it say about the U.S. if we elect a leader who runs his mouth in front of the cameras with divisive speech? There are already plenty of people in this world who think “ugly American” - I don’t want to give any more reasons to the world to distrust or despise the U.S. If we are truly concerned about national security, then we ought to care how the U.S. is portrayed to the world.

7. Pro Trump Reason Number Four: “He’s a Businessman so assumedly good with money and we need someone good with money to help with our national debt crisis”

My Reply? - Yes, we have seen the reports that Trump businesses have filed bankruptcy four times, but those who have researched have found that sometimes filing bankruptcy is the smart business decision. Fine. However, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Trump’s (and, to be fair, Clinton’s) proposed tax plan will nearly double the publicly held debt. So his claims of being a successful businessman won’t translate into helping balance the budget and get the U.S. out of debt. The open investigation into the scams of Trump University (and his misleading portrayal of the truth) also make me question if his business success is trustworthy. I don’t want a con-man as my president.

8. For not being a seasoned politician, he sure knows how to evade answering questions. (To be fair, he and Hillary just have too much name calling and fact checking to do that real issues and policies take the back seat.) But for real, I have absolutely NO IDEA what Trump stands for other than promising to “Make America Great Again”. I have no idea how he actually plans to accomplish his campaign slogan. Sure, I can read his website that a hired writer has carefully edited. And that will tell me how terrible Obama and politicians are, and how we need to put America first (furthering my concerns over his xenophobia. His policies say “Americanism, not globalism, will be our new credo.” Excuse me, Trump, you do wear clothes from China, right? We live in a global world.) In all seriousness, yes, America has a lot of fixing to do, but Trump’s grandiose slogans have no legs to stand on. And instead of spelling out tangible action plans, he talks in hyperbolic circles while painting a picture of America in peril, furthering, Americans’ fear and anxiety, instead of offering hopeful solutions. (On ProCon.Org, his position is unclear on 36% of the issues - in comparison to Clinton’s 24% unclear and Johnson’s 9% unclear ratings)

9. He seems to know little about foreign affairs issues, nor does he seem to be concerned to learn about them. Take Syria for example. He originally said he would “sit back and watch what was going on.” - What is going on is innocent people are being raped, tortured and killed by Assad, ISIS and multiple militant groups - and you want to sit back and watch? All the while, refusing to give refugees asylum because you aren’t informed on the refugee vetting process in our country and fear they have been infiltrated. He then suggests that we let ISIS fight Assad in Syria and go in to “pick up the remnants” later. All the while, ISIS continues to grow as a threat, and innocent people are caught in the cross-fire of the weapons the U.S. has already supplied, and we continue to refuse asylum to refugees because Trump remains ignorant on the U.S.’s screening process for refugees.

10. And finally, Pro Trump Reason Number Five: “He’s the Republican Nominee- the only Pro-Life choice - so I have to vote for him” Argument

My Reply? - I urge anyone voting for a single issue to research and make sure that the candidate upholds that issue unilaterally across the board, in all facets of their policies. If you only choose to concern yourself with one issue (and that is your right to do so), please know that issue inside and out - and your chosen candidate’s record. It should be worrisome that Trump has changed his position on abortion with the same regularity that politicians change their suits. But what is more worrisome is that Trump-rhetoric makes me believe he is “pro-SOME-life” or “pro-AMERICAN-life”. No life - no matter the age, sex, ethnicity, or orientation - is more valuable than the next. If you are pro-life, do not place qualifications on what life you will protect. You should want to protect all life. His position on Syrian Refugees regards American life above abused, innocent, homeless, Syrians. I did not choose to be born in the U.S. anymore than the scared children in Aleppo chose to be born in war-torn Syria. Do not use your privilege as a weapon for the damnation of the innocent. Use your privilege to extend a helping hand.

I have read many articles making cases against both Trump and Clinton, with a sentence thrown in about voting third party, writing in your vote, or abstaining from voting this year. But what few have told you, is that Gary Johnson is the only other candidate on all 50 ballots - a not so easy task to accomplish. So he is the only independent candidate that stands a chance, no matter how slim. What’s even better? In this crazy 2016 election, you could even be proud to back this guy! The Chicago Tribune is! (a respectable paper with diverse endorsements: Bush in 2000, refused to endorse anyone in 2004, and endorsed Obama in 2008/2012)

So to close, here are 10 reasons why I can support Gary Johnson for President of the United States :

1. Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill weld are both Former Governors of their respective states. Johnson has experience creating jobs and balancing budgets. I wish I could link to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s report of his proposed plan so all three candidates could be compared with the same criteria, but of course, they, the nonpartisan committee, only reviewed the two major parties proposed budgets. According to the Chicago Tribune endorsement, Johnson plans to expand global trade which would simultaneously expand jobs. He plans to grow the economy, instead of taxes, to increase government revenue. And he has several proposed ideas on trimming government spending across the board to balance the budget.

2. Johnson believes in limiting the Federal Government and returning power to the state and local levels. People on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about their individual rights being infringed upon by the opposing side should take note that limiting the reign of the federal government is good for individual freedoms. Whether it is religious rights, stances on abortion, or same-sex marriage - Johnson believes that the government should protect civil liberties and not restrict them. So even if his stance differs from yours on certain personal beliefs and values, he doesn’t believe it is the federal governments right to infringe those views on the country.

3. He can unify the country as a fiscally responsible, socially tolerant candidate. He appeals to a broad voter base. Johnson is a two-term republican governor in a democratic state, which proves his ability to represent the people and not political parties. He does not run a campaign based on the fear of the other, but one of respect and cooperation. Johnson supporters are ideologically diverse.

4. He believes that the U.S. needs to accept “our fair share” of Syrian Refugees - especially considering the U.S. involvement in the conflict has exasperated it. He will not put a number on it as the conflict is ongoing, but would like to come up with a formula with other countries to determine what fair share really is.

5. There are Supreme Court nominations in the balance and Johnson’s nominations are thought to be the most widely accepted and supported. While it is thought that Hillary Clinton could nominate activist judges who would comply with her agenda, it is unclear who Donald Trump would nominate. Johnson believes in upholding the Constitution and will nominate justices who uphold the Constitution too. He thinks Congress is the place for “way-right” and “way-left” voices to be heard, but believes the courts are for moderates who are “tranquil of mind” to “analyze the issues and come to conclusions that make sense.”

6. Former Governor of New Mexico, Johnson has knowledge and experience with the current immigration climate in our country. He believes we need immigration reform in the ways of making it easier to get work visas, social security cards to pay taxes, and background checks. He doesn’t support the practice that the federal government can withhold federal funding from Sanctuary Cities (Clinton is not clear on her policy for sanctuary cities) He doesn’t want to build an expensive useless wall, or bully our neighbors to do it, because he knows that illegal immigration is a result of an out-of-date immigration system, and not security.

7. Johnson wants to decriminalize the war on drugs, noting that drugs are a health issue and not a criminal justice issue. He encourages drug rehabilitation programs and harm-reduction programs over incarcerations. He understands that the war on drugs has been used as an excuse to militarize the police and racially profile citizens. He argues that the Federal Government shouldn’t get in the way of states legalizing and regulating marijuana - and sees the benefit in creating an industry that contributes to the economy. I understand that for some people, the idea of legalizing marijuana is a deal breaker because you personally are against drug use. Let me say this - people use marijuana for both medical and recreational use; kids use marijuana; and in the majority of states, that marijuana is not regulated. Keeping marijuana illegal will not stop people from using it, but it will keep it from being regulated. I would rather someone buy and use marijuana from a regulated seller than a random drug dealer, who can either lace it with other things, or try to up-sell the buyer on meth or heroin, making it a true gateway drug. Allowing marijuana to be legalized, makes it safer. And instead of taxpayer dollars being used to incarcerate someone for possession of weed, tax revenue could be more effectively spent on drug rehabilitation and harm-reduction programs.

8. Johnson is a practical and principled candidate. He has a clean record. His life isn’t filled with scandal. He is a normal person, not the elite. He isn’t a part of the 1% like either Hillary or Donald. He went to a state university, has a healthy sense of humor, and a level head when it comes to difficult subjects.

And to be fair, I will briefly address the two gaffe’s (or con’s) against Gary Johnson.

9. “What is Aleppo?”

My Reply? - First, I would like to point out that Gary Johnson has been honest and humble in regards to his gaffes. He hasn’t attempted to rationalize or reduce his interview blunders and I find that refreshingly respectable. He could easily have blamed the media for not prepping him with interview questions like most candidates receive, or for only giving adequate coverage of his flaws as opposed to his campaign policies (but I will point that out having experience in the media). But I want to challenge you this, if you are honestly unwilling to consider voting for Johnson because of his confusion over the reference to Aleppo (even though he is well informed on the Syrian conflict despite what some news outlets want you to believe), how can you consider voting for Hillary Clinton who pushed for a CIA-led regime change that has left Syria volatile, and even encouraged arming the different factions with weapons that are now being used against civilians? This blunder shouldn’t disqualify Johnson to be President, but I think Clinton’s influence on the Syrian conflict should.

10. “What foreign leader do you admire?”

My Reply? - If you actually watched the interview, you would have seen that Johnson was considering this question as Chris Matthews bulldozed over him and assumed his pause was because of ignorance and not consideration. Johnson admits he has never been good at pop-quizzes and had a brain-fart on the name of the former Mexican President. So if you are unwilling to consider voting for Johnson because he missed an opportunity to name drop Boutros Boutros-Ghali while he hesitated on answering which foreign leader he admires, how can you consider voting for Donald Trump who wants to “give credit” to Kim Jong Un while simultaneously espousing he’s a maniac, or says that Saddam Hussein was “a bad guy, but effective”, or praises Vladimir Putin over President Obama? Again, this blunder should show that Johnson is considerate with his words, as opposed to reactionary and careless.