[dragonwriter]

> He's a little less of a warhawk

Given that he's criticized Obama/Clinton for being insufficiently aggressive in several areas, and praised Putin's aggressiveness, I'm not sure where that conclusion comes from, besides his after-the-fact claims to have opposed the Iraq War before it started (his only public statement on the war before it started appears to have been grudging support, not opposition, on the Howard Stern show in 2002, and stating that a decision on the war one way or another was important on Fox News in January 2003, without expressing support or opposition.)

[13years]

He has criticized John McCain and Lindsey Graham over their pro war stances. In the debates he has mentioned problems with the interventionist foreign policy.

Surprisingly he even attracted support of Michael Scheuer ( a huge critic of our interventionist foreign policy), although I believe he has pulled back a bit on that recently.

However, yes he has also made somewhat contradictory statements as well. So, it is hard to draw any definitive conclusions what his actual policy would look like.

[sp527]

Honest question: if that's really what you believe (that he's fundamentally unpredictable), why would you vote for him?

[13years]

I don't find him credible enough to vote for him. However, what I have observed is that some feel that Clinton is a certainty in continuing our existing foreign policy and that the choice is between certain more war and maybe less war and they are opting for the maybe less war. The one facet he has been mostly consistent on to my knowledge is at least he is not trying to push an aggressive provoking stance against Russia.

It will be very interesting of Gary Johnson can succeed in getting into the debates. If he has a good performance, that could really change everything.