Brent Budowsky Quotes

The presidential debates should offer the American people an opportunity to evaluate the candidates for president and make an informed choice about the future direction of the nation. The debate commission should respect the , but should not be used as a vehicle for stifling dissent and silencing voices when many voters conclude the two-party system makes them choose the "lesser of two evils."

Johnson makes a major contribution to our national debates, as did Paul before him. The libertarian perspective is valuable, important and deserves to be considered by all voters. It is also fair to note that Johnson, like Paul before him, has won a fair share of support from younger voters who are the future of the nation. If someone had asked me to predict who would emerge as the leading alternative to Clinton in a poll of respected economists, I would never have guessed that the runner-up to Clinton would be Johnson, and not Trump.

Trump has no coherent organizing economic philosophy, spent decades acting like and supporting traditional liberal Democrats, has repeatedly shifted his positions on major issues and has little more trust from economists than he has earned among the general electorate.

I support Clinton (Hillary) for president because she is well-qualified for the office and would be a competent, skilled president and commander in chief.

Trump is that he is a , who now states that he supported the Clintons and other liberals with donations for so long because he wanted to obtain influence with them while they were in power. He has led several businesses to bankruptcy. He has called himself the "king of debt," a description that Johnson or Paul and other leading libertarians would never use to describe themselves.

Rules are made to be broken and exceptions can be made.

I do not support Trump (Donald), and believe he would be a disastrous president and .

Johnson represents a clear and coherent economic and political philosophy that conservative and libertarian economists can understand and support if they choose.

Johnson (Gary) offers a principled voice for the libertarian philosophy, which has much to contribute to American political discourse whether we agree with every libertarian proposal or not. While I do not agree with the huge cutbacks in defense proposed by Johnson, I strongly agreed with his opposition to the Iraq War under President George W. Bush. While I would not agree with the full scope of his advocacy for the legalization of drugs, I agree with his support for the legalization of pot, his long-held view that the drug war has always been a fiasco and that drug use should be treated as a medical issue, not a criminal one.

Economists live in a world of economic data, facts and opinions informed by their experiences.

I agree with the libertarianism offered by candidates from former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to Johnson, and on other issues I do not. For example, I agree with the libertarian opposition to infringement on civil liberties in the Big Brother state that has grown with widespread eavesdropping from big government, and I agree with libertarians on their opposition to what is called the , and I believe pot should be legalized (and Jack Daniels should always remain legal!). I do not agree with the degree of laissez-faire advocated by libertarians in an economy that I believe is rigged by big business and their lobbyists and campaign donations.

While the viewpoints offered by Johnson are rooted in a long-held and consistent philosophy that can be evaluated by those who agree with him, and those who do not, the viewpoints offered by Trump seem to change like the leaves that change their colors when summer gives way to fall. We know what Johnson believes today, and will believe tomorrow. Can anyone suggest we know what Trump will believe tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow?