Gary Johnson Would Make a Better POTUS Than Donald Trump

I'm going to make my case within my response to Pro's arguments== Electability ==This argument is nothing but a string of bare assertions; Pro has provided zero evidence that Trump is incapable of being diplomatic or thinking rationally. There have been countless instances in which Trump has demonstrated the ability to act professionally -- the idea that he could have survived in the business world for so long without that ability is ludicrous. Many marketing experts have argued that Trump *intentionally* projects his bombastic "entertainer" persona in order to cultivate mass-appeal [1][2] In other words, his 'offensiveness' is an (extraordinarily effective) act.Ben Carson -- a former political rival of his who has actually gotten to know Trump on a personal & professional level -- had this to say about him: "There's the Donald Trump that you see on television, who gets out in front of big audiences... and there's the Donald Trump behind the scenes... they're not the same person. One's very much an entertainer, and one is actually a thinking individual... Mr. Trump is more reasonable than people realize" [3].Contrary to my opponent's assertions, Trump has repeatedly acknowledged that he's not a policy expert. On numerous occasions, he has openly expressed his intent to recruit the most talented specialists he can find (regardless of their personal ideology, I might add) and actively seek their counsel in office [4]. The reason why Trump hasn't needed much 'expert' advice on the campaign trail is because he himself IS an expert in self-promotion.My opponent is also incorrect in her claims that likeability is necessary for effective bipartisan leadership. Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon were both widely disliked by their fellow politicians, yet they got more done than the majority of US presidents. Leadership ability is determined by confidence, assertiveness, intelligence, and adaptability -- not "likeability."The fact is that Trump has built and maintained a wildly successful business empire over the course of more than 40 years, which inevitably involves working with hundreds of different people on a daily basis -- that alone is sufficient reason to presume that he is an extremely competent leader, but on top of that, any impartial review of Trump's business record reveals that he has spectacular abilities when it comes to negotiating, pressuring, compromising, and political maneuvering [5].In stark contrast, Gary Johnson did virtually nothing as Governor of New Mexico -- he was primarily known for simply vetoing all increases in government spending [6]. That certainly isn't something which requires significant intelligence, executive talent, or leadership ability. Given the gridlocked nature of Congress and the unpopularity of many libertarian policies among constituents, it's likely that he would just be yet another obstructionist, 'do-nothing' president.Trump is a vastly superior leader to Johnson -- he will be much better at working with Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and his executive staff to do good for the country. Ultimately, that is far more important than the specific policies a candidate advocates, because the POTUS is not a legislator -- he is a diplomat, an agenda-setter, a negotiator, and an enforcer.== Foreign Policy ==Pro has completely misrepresented Trump's foreign policy. Trump does *not* support increasing military spending -- he has explicitly said he would like to decrease it by eliminating the enormous amounts of wasteful spending we engage in [7]. Building a stronger military is not synonymous with expanding the defense budget. Trump has also stated on numerous occasions that he wants to make our allies pay for the military protection we grant them, and that he is strongly against counter-productive efforts to dethrone secular autocrats (e.g. Iraq, Libya, Syria) [8].In other words, his policies would substantially *reduce* military spending. Trump's foreign policy actually shares some remarkable commonalities with Johnson's... however, Trump's is definitively better because he isn't isolationist -- he has made it clear that he intends to maintain (and exapdn) US hegemony, which is widely acknowledged among international relations scholars to be crucial for preserving global stability [9].Pro can criticize Trump's ISIS plan all she likes, but Gary Johnson's plan is much, much worse -- withdrawing from the Middle East is the most disastrous possible course of action. Firstly, it would mean letting the RSII coalition take out ISIS and gain control of the region, which is obviously problematic because none of the coalition's members (Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah) are very fond of us. Secondly, it wouldn't do anything to reduce anti-Western fervor -- new terrorist groups would still rise eventually (the Iraq War alone provides more than enough material for Islamist propaganda).At the very least, Trump's plan would allow us to maintain hegemony in the region, which would put us in a much better position to deal with the underlying problem of anti-Western fervor. This process would probably involve cooperating with influential regional authorities like Saudi Arabia & Turkey, and Trump has often expressed interest in doing precisely that.== War on Drugs ==Again, Pro has straw-manned Trump's position on this. At no point has Trump said that he supports maintaining the status quo on drug policy. In accordance with my opponent's own observations, Trump has consistently advocated reforming our approach to drugs. As recently as late 2015, he indicated support for decriminalizing drugs on the federal level (i.e. allowing each state to decide) and even said he'd be open to implementing full-fledged legalization eventually [10].== The Economy ==My opponent seems to take it for granted that balancing the budget is a pressing issue, but that's simply not the case. In fact, the consensus among economists is that budget deficit isn't a problem at all, because the US is currently able to repay its debts at a safe pace without any difficulty. "There is no magic level of debt that gets an economy in trouble... Debt is an issue only if you can't repay it or if other people believe you can't repay it... the US can literally print the money it needs to repay its debt, and it still maintains a high credit rating" [11]. Thus, Pro's argument turns against her -- Gary Johnson's economic policy is bad because he's massively cutting down on beneficial public services to solve a non-existent problem.But anyways, Trump's policies won't increase the deficit. He acknowledges that his tax plan is only a starting point for negotiations, and that top-bracket tax rates will probably end up being significantly higher than they are in his plan [12]. Moreover, Trump's proposed corporate tax cut to 25% would actually *increase* revenue due to economic growth and higher compliance rates [13]. So we won't lose that much revenue. As far as savings go, Trump's platform lists out several plans to eliminate unnecessary expenditures on defense, healthcare, and various bureaucratic inefficiencies.Pro also criticizes Trump's support of protectionism on the basis that it would result in price increases for American consumers. However, that trade-off is absolutely worth it as long as those price increases aren't burdening the lower class. If we place tariffs on goods which are primarily consumed by the middle-to-upper-class, we can bring back manufacturing jobs without significantly harming consumers. That's extremely beneficial because it reduces unemployment rates among uneducated males, which inevitably translates to lower violent crime rates and greater social stability in general.Economically illiterate? I think not.== Immigration ==The purpose of the wall is not to inhibit foreign labor. Trump has repeatedly acknowledged that our economy needs immigrants, stating that the wall's main purpose is to reduce crime rates -- it forces all immigrants to undergo the screening process involved in legal immigration, thereby preventing criminals from entering the country. Pro is correct in stating that immigrants as a whole commit less crime than natives, but if we shift the focus exclusively to illegal immigrants who crossed the Southern border, we find that they commit an enormously disproportionate share of violent crime [14]. The wall also hinders illegal trade (e.g. drugs, human trafficking), which is necessary to end the gang violence epidemic in border states [15]. Trump's immigration policy has massive benefits in terms of crime reduction.Trump has actually outlined a very plausible plan for making Mexico fund the wall, but even if we do end up having to pay the entire bill on our own, the costs are negligible. Let's say it will take $100 billion to build and maintain a wall over the course of 25 years (an outrageously high estimate). That's $4 billion p/year ... a whopping 0.1% of the federal budget.As for Syrian refugees, preventing their mass-migration is totally justified, given the havoc they've wreaked in Europe [16].== CONCLUSION ==In conclusion, Trump is obviously the superior candidate:-- The vast differential in executive ability between Trump and Johnson is sufficient reason on its own to prefer Trump.-- Trump's foreign policy maintains global stability and allows for the extermination of radical Islamic terrorism, whereas Johnson's would likely put us on the path to World War III.-- Johnson's economic policy involves completely unnecessary cuts to valuable public services, whereas Trump's reduces the budget deficit without incurring any such losses.-- Trump's policies on free trade & immigration (which Johnson refuses to even consider) would significantly mitigate social maladies like unemployment, welfare dependency, and violent crime.The resolution is negated.SOURCES: http://tinyurl.com...