Gary Johnson would make a better POTUS than Donald Trump

I'm going to make my case within my response to Pro's arguments== Likeability ==This entire argument is a giant bare assertion. Pro has provided zero evidence that Trump is incapable of being diplomatic or thinking rationally. In reality, there have been numerous instances throughout Trump's campaign where he's demonstrated the ability to project a more professional persona -- many marketing experts have argued that Trump intentionally crafts his boisterous "entertainer" persona specifically for the purpose of cultivating mass-appeal [1][2].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 figurehead, an agenda-setter, a negotiator, and an enforcer.== Foreign Policy ==Pro has completely straw-manned 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 expand) US hegemony, which is widely acknowledged among international relations experts 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 hegemony in the region, which is obviously problematic because none of the coalition's members (Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah) are 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 misrepresented 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 individual states 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]. So we won't lose that much revenue. As for savings... I've already shown that Trump will reduce military spending. He also plans to trim down on the wasteful inefficiencies of our federal bureaucracies. His free market healthcare reforms (many of which Johnson supports) will substantially reduce government healthcare spending [13]. And Trump's proposed corporate tax cut to 25% would actually *increase* revenue due to economic growth and higher compliance rates [14].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 -- in other words, place the tariffs on goods which are primarily consumed by the middle-to-upper-class. Properly-implemented protectionist policies would bring back manufacturing jobs without significantly burdening consumers. This is 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 ==Unfortunately, I don't have enough space left to fully elucidate the awesomeness of Trump's immigration policy, and looks like my opponent didn't finish talking about immigration either, so I'll save it for next round. == 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 aids 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 budget deficit without incurring any such losses. -- Trump's protectionist policies (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...