Presidential Candidate Health: The Untold Story

Image result for gary johnson pictures

Today in the breakroom at work I walked in to see a “Breaking News” banner across the television: “Clinton say Trump should release tax returns.”

Later I walked in with different “Breaking News”: Trump: “I’ve always had good blood pressure.”

Where can you find a real issue in this campaign? Yes, I know it came up because of the 9/11 episode with Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia, but really, all the media time devoted to it.

I came home this evening and tried to search news about it: and found a glaring hole, at least in the news searches I could find. Story after story compared Trump and Clinton: their health, how they shared the news, their personal styles, the fact of their advancing age as presidential candidates.

But what they missed is that these two candidates are the decrepit dinosaurs of the race. Trump at least defeated candidates younger than himself. And one story claimed that if Trump won the presidency he would be the healthiest president we have had.

Except there is one candidate that is almost assuredly healthier than either Clinton or Trump, and yet this candidate does not show up in any of the stories. about presidential health This is the big hole.

The media is blaring stories about the the health problems of the presidential candidates, and not one that I found mentions the triathlete candidate: Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson.

Back in 2012 when running for president, Johnson had an ad that ended with a shot of him at the top of the mountain he had just climbed. Johnson, at 63, is obviously more fit than Trump. Trump doesn’t do any sort of exercise besides campaigning and playing golf. Johnson has climbed Mt. Everest, run triathlons, and marched in the 26-mile Bataan Memorial Death March.

Trump during the campaign has constantly ribbed Clinton about her “stamina.” I don’t think he has the stamina to climb Everest. If we want a candidate with stamina, we need to think Libertarian.

Libertarians are fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and, in this case at least, the healthiest.

Image result

6 thoughts on “Presidential Candidate Health: The Untold Story

  1. There’s no question Johnson is more physically fit than either Clinton or Trump. Even if he didn’t have such superior exercise habits, one would assume his comparative youth is a factor in his favor. Now, if only he had the policies I could agree with…

      1. I agree with the Libertarian view of limiting military intervention in foreign affairs, and only Johnson agrees with me about that. However, that is one issue of many, and I’m not a single issue voter. I think his flat tax plan benefits the rich, and I utterly reject framing the problems of governing in terms of “big vs small” government, when the real problem is “better vs worse” governmental decision-making. Therefore I’m also opposed to Johnson’s desire to eliminate the IRS, Medicare and the VA while privatizing Social Security.

        As policies go, I most closely agree with the Democrats on most issues both domestic and foreign. Though I dislike Mrs. Clinton’s personality, it’s not enough to disqualify her in my eyes. I respect her resume. In addition, Trump really must be stopped, and only Clinton is in a mathematical position to do it. His hateful and exclusive philosophy must be repudiated by as large a defeat as possible.

  2. Mikey, I agree the question is “better vs. worse” governmental decision-making. I think where you and I divide is on the definition of better decision making. Like the Libertarians, I don’t think government is very capable of making most decisions,

    A belief in bigger better government decision making has an underlying assumption that the government can know better than the individual what is best for him. Ultimately this leads to the concept of a class of people who know what is better for other people. That nasceant elitism is what I reject in both the Trump/Republican and Clinton/Democratic stances.

    I also have a question for your comment about the flat tax benefiting the rich. My question, Is that at the expense of the poor, or to the mutual benefit of the poor? I have no problems with policies that benefit the rich, as long as they are equitable to benefit the poor as well. I see the flat tax in the latter category, though I am a “fair tax” person myself…

    1. Johnson’s is a version of the “fair tax” too. He’s proposing a pre-bate type of national sales tax, but it’s at such a high rate, about 17% above EU VAT tax rates, The rich benefit by the shift to any form of flat tax, because we currently have progressive rates upon higher incomes. So the change means a windfall for them. Here’s an article that explains the various problems similar to the way I see it:
      https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-02/gary-johnson-s-unfair-expensive-national-sales-tax

      1. That’s basically the same “Fair Tax” that Mike Huckabee put forth in that book I read back in 2008 (?). One of the big benefits of the program is that it removes the incentives for tax shelters. All those rich people that put their money in crazy places that don’t generate wealth just to save it? There’s no incentive for that. Instead the incentive is to invest the money to generate more wealth. Only when you spend it do you get taxed. It will bring back cash hidden in foreign countries to the United States.

        And the tax removes income taxes from the production of all our goods, making them cheaper when they are sold in countries that have income tax. It makes us more competitive.

        The implementation and administrative issues, I see that as a wash, they just move from one system to another.

        One of the things I have had to accept in my life is that I have a middle class, not blue collar mentality, but I am not really middle class. My income is a lot lower than most blue collar jobs, but it doesn’t prevent me from socially thinking of myself in a middle class way. I think that is true of many Americans.

        Why do I bring that up? Because I find these appeals to how things will hurt the middle class at the benefit of the rich ring to me as appeals to a class envy that I just can’t get into. Yes, this tax “hits” the middle class, but it encourages “us” to do exactly what we don’t do now, save and invest.

        So, we changed the constitution for the 16th amendment. Why not change it back? Apologies, but as an “original intent” type, that really appeals to me.

        TY for your dialogue. I really appreciate it. Hopefully you see that I respect, and understand what you are saying, and treat your views with respect as I explain why I don’t see it the same way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.