My dilema (1 Viewer)

[WI Crippler]

I'm going to admit I am having a real hard time trying to decide what to do this election cycle, especially with regards to the Presidential election.

I never belonged to (and never will) a specific political party or ideology. I've toyed with different aspects of each, but in the end I cannot suscribe to embracing one ideal. I tend to take each issue and determine my stance on that. On some issues I am in firm agreeance with the right and on some I am with the left. Sometimes I take a moderate stance between the two.

I feel there is no true option for me. I won't vote for Trump because I simply do not believe a word that comes out of his mouth. While I will admit I do like his bombastic "in your face" demeanor, he's shown no knowledge of the issues, has no governing experience, and makes rash and idiotic decisions on the fly. I do not feel these are good qualities of a leader. I feel a Trump win sets us all back...

When it comes to Clinton, She has experience necessary. However I feel that she is patholigical and insincere. She's an opportunist the same as Trump. She just worked her way through the government system rather than private enterprise. My biggest reason I cannot vote for her is that she would hold the key to appointing the Supreme Court Justices. The Court was balanced pretty well till Scalia's death. I hate to think that it could shift left for generations to come. I prefer balance over ideology. Also I don't believe she has a healthy respect for our military, and being a veteran I am apprehensive to think she would be commander in chief.

So that leaves Libertarian as an option. While I like libertarian on a domestic range of issues, I never felt that Libertarians non-interventionalism is practical or realistic. I have huge issue with them on foreign policy and while I can agree marijuana legalization is fine, I do not agree that decriminalizing all drugs is a good idea.

What I want in a leader of our country is someone who is strong, yet moderate. Who loves this country more than their approval rating and wants to have a "big tent" approach. Don't exclude people. Invite people into growing together. Embrace the ideal that we challenge our nation to be better, not to accept mediocrity in life. Someone who will visit hell upon any group who dares to kill Americans, rather than blaming ourselves. Someone who looks at a situation for what it is, instead of applying blanket like ideology as a solution. Someone who doesn't give a **** about what Fox, CNN, Daily Kos, Huffington Post NY Times etc... thinks. And I want someone who is careful and thoughtful when making decisions. Our influence is wide, and has impact still. Someone who recognizes this country for the great place that it is, and inspires us to grow even stronger together.

I feel no one fits this bill

 

[ttwtt78640]

The basic problem with any multiple choice question where others have already limited your options.

 

[Beaudreaux]

...

You are not alone. There are many of us in the same situation - feeling as though we have topped the hill in the front car of an old style rollercoaster and we are hanging over the edge of the hill not knowing how we will feel about what happens next, just that right now, we have no control, and we know that the near future is frightening.

It gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

BTW, very well said. Sometimes it would be nice if we could give more than one like to a post.

 

[code1211]

I'm going to admit I am having a real hard time trying to decide what to do this election cycle, especially with regards to the Presidential election.

I never belonged to (and never will) a specific political party or ideology. I've toyed with different aspects of each, but in the end I cannot suscribe to embracing one ideal. I tend to take each issue and determine my stance on that. On some issues I am in firm agreeance with the right and on some I am with the left. Sometimes I take a moderate stance between the two.

I feel there is no true option for me. I won't vote for Trump because I simply do not believe a word that comes out of his mouth. While I will admit I do like his bombastic "in your face" demeanor, he's shown no knowledge of the issues, has no governing experience, and makes rash and idiotic decisions on the fly. I do not feel these are good qualities of a leader. I feel a Trump win sets us all back...

When it comes to Clinton, She has experience necessary. However I feel that she is patholigical and insincere. She's an opportunist the same as Trump. She just worked her way through the government system rather than private enterprise. My biggest reason I cannot vote for her is that she would hold the key to appointing the Supreme Court Justices. The Court was balanced pretty well till Scalia's death. I hate to think that it could shift left for generations to come. I prefer balance over ideology. Also I don't believe she has a healthy respect for our military, and being a veteran I am apprehensive to think she would be commander in chief.

So that leaves Libertarian as an option. While I like libertarian on a domestic range of issues, I never felt that Libertarians non-interventionalism is practical or realistic. I have huge issue with them on foreign policy and while I can agree marijuana legalization is fine, I do not agree that decriminalizing all drugs is a good idea.

What I want in a leader of our country is someone who is strong, yet moderate. Who loves this country more than their approval rating and wants to have a "big tent" approach. Don't exclude people. Invite people into growing together. Embrace the ideal that we challenge our nation to be better, not to accept mediocrity in life. Someone who will visit hell upon any group who dares to kill Americans, rather than blaming ourselves. Someone who looks at a situation for what it is, instead of applying blanket like ideology as a solution. Someone who doesn't give a **** about what Fox, CNN, Daily Kos, Huffington Post NY Times etc... thinks. And I want someone who is careful and thoughtful when making decisions. Our influence is wide, and has impact still. Someone who recognizes this country for the great place that it is, and inspires us to grow even stronger together.

I feel no one fits this bill

All things considered, and accepting that nobody will fit perfectly into you description and personal feelings, Trump is a closer fit than Hillary.

Like Obama, every decision she will make will be couched in the idea of what will further the position of the Democrat party.

Trump may not be the most thoughtful person in the world, but he will certainly NOT be beholding to the Republican Party or the Democrat Party or the Networks.

As far as making good decisions, he is an executive and as such depends on his advisors and negotiators to help define the issues and execute his decisions.

Making outrageous statements is not in and of itself a bad thing. Using the power of government to execute your personal ambitions is.

Obama makes outrageous statements with regularity.

 

[Moderate Right]

I'm going to admit I am having a real hard time trying to decide what to do this election cycle, especially with regards to the Presidential election.

I never belonged to (and never will) a specific political party or ideology. I've toyed with different aspects of each, but in the end I cannot suscribe to embracing one ideal. I tend to take each issue and determine my stance on that. On some issues I am in firm agreeance with the right and on some I am with the left. Sometimes I take a moderate stance between the two.

I feel there is no true option for me. I won't vote for Trump because I simply do not believe a word that comes out of his mouth. While I will admit I do like his bombastic "in your face" demeanor, he's shown no knowledge of the issues, has no governing experience, and makes rash and idiotic decisions on the fly. I do not feel these are good qualities of a leader. I feel a Trump win sets us all back...

When it comes to Clinton, She has experience necessary. However I feel that she is patholigical and insincere. She's an opportunist the same as Trump. She just worked her way through the government system rather than private enterprise. My biggest reason I cannot vote for her is that she would hold the key to appointing the Supreme Court Justices. The Court was balanced pretty well till Scalia's death. I hate to think that it could shift left for generations to come. I prefer balance over ideology. Also I don't believe she has a healthy respect for our military, and being a veteran I am apprehensive to think she would be commander in chief.

So that leaves Libertarian as an option. While I like libertarian on a domestic range of issues, I never felt that Libertarians non-interventionalism is practical or realistic. I have huge issue with them on foreign policy and while I can agree marijuana legalization is fine, I do not agree that decriminalizing all drugs is a good idea.

What I want in a leader of our country is someone who is strong, yet moderate. Who loves this country more than their approval rating and wants to have a "big tent" approach. Don't exclude people. Invite people into growing together. Embrace the ideal that we challenge our nation to be better, not to accept mediocrity in life. Someone who will visit hell upon any group who dares to kill Americans, rather than blaming ourselves. Someone who looks at a situation for what it is, instead of applying blanket like ideology as a solution. Someone who doesn't give a **** about what Fox, CNN, Daily Kos, Huffington Post NY Times etc... thinks. And I want someone who is careful and thoughtful when making decisions. Our influence is wide, and has impact still. Someone who recognizes this country for the great place that it is, and inspires us to grow even stronger together.

I feel no one fits this bill

No, you are not alone. I could have written your post. You are dead on with your analysis. If it makes you feel any better though, your post turned on a light for me. Maybe this election isn't about the next four to eight years. Maybe it is about decades of the Supreme Court. We need to vote for someone who will not appoint left judges, which leaves a choice between Trump and Johnson. I'm crossing my fingers that Trump will pick a VP that makes me feel a whole lot better about voting for him.

 

[robertblake60]

What I want in a leader of our country is someone who is strong, yet moderate. Who loves this country more than their approval rating and wants to have a "big tent" approach. Don't exclude people. Invite people into growing together. Embrace the ideal that we challenge our nation to be better, not to accept mediocrity in life. Someone who will visit hell upon any group who dares to kill Americans, rather than blaming ourselves. Someone who looks at a situation for what it is, instead of applying blanket like ideology as a solution. Someone who doesn't give a **** about what Fox, CNN, Daily Kos, Huffington Post NY Times etc... thinks. And I want someone who is careful and thoughtful when making decisions. Our influence is wide, and has impact still. Someone who recognizes this country for the great place that it is, and inspires us to grow even stronger together.

I feel no one fits this bill

I read this and immediately think Clinton would be your candidate. She's mine, and for many of the same reasons you just listed out.

 

[Patrickt]

I'm going to admit I am having a real hard time trying to decide what to do this election cycle, especially with regards to the Presidential election.

I never belonged to (and never will) a specific political party or ideology. I've toyed with different aspects of each, but in the end I cannot suscribe to embracing one ideal. I tend to take each issue and determine my stance on that. On some issues I am in firm agreeance with the right and on some I am with the left. Sometimes I take a moderate stance between the two.

I feel there is no true option for me. I won't vote for Trump because I simply do not believe a word that comes out of his mouth. While I will admit I do like his bombastic "in your face" demeanor, he's shown no knowledge of the issues, has no governing experience, and makes rash and idiotic decisions on the fly. I do not feel these are good qualities of a leader. I feel a Trump win sets us all back...

When it comes to Clinton, She has experience necessary. However I feel that she is patholigical and insincere. She's an opportunist the same as Trump. She just worked her way through the government system rather than private enterprise. My biggest reason I cannot vote for her is that she would hold the key to appointing the Supreme Court Justices. The Court was balanced pretty well till Scalia's death. I hate to think that it could shift left for generations to come. I prefer balance over ideology. Also I don't believe she has a healthy respect for our military, and being a veteran I am apprehensive to think she would be commander in chief.

So that leaves Libertarian as an option. While I like libertarian on a domestic range of issues, I never felt that Libertarians non-interventionalism is practical or realistic. I have huge issue with them on foreign policy and while I can agree marijuana legalization is fine, I do not agree that decriminalizing all drugs is a good idea.

What I want in a leader of our country is someone who is strong, yet moderate. Who loves this country more than their approval rating and wants to have a "big tent" approach. Don't exclude people. Invite people into growing together. Embrace the ideal that we challenge our nation to be better, not to accept mediocrity in life. Someone who will visit hell upon any group who dares to kill Americans, rather than blaming ourselves. Someone who looks at a situation for what it is, instead of applying blanket like ideology as a solution. Someone who doesn't give a **** about what Fox, CNN, Daily Kos, Huffington Post NY Times etc... thinks. And I want someone who is careful and thoughtful when making decisions. Our influence is wide, and has impact still. Someone who recognizes this country for the great place that it is, and inspires us to grow even stronger together.

I feel no one fits this bill

Other than liking Dishonest Donald's "in your face" rhetoric which I deem adolescent and simply rude and crude without an ounce of honesty I agree with your post.

 

[Moderate Right]

I read this and immediately think Clinton would be your candidate. She's mine, and for many of the same reasons you just listed out.

You can't be serious. That actually sounds like Trump more than Clinton, and I'm not even a Trump supporter.

 

[Dragonfly]

I'm going to admit I am having a real hard time trying to decide what to do this election cycle, especially with regards to the Presidential election.
...

I feel no one fits this bill

Welcome to the club.
Many of us have been members of this club for decades.

The best thing I can tell you is that you'll survive, whatever the outcome.
It's not the end of the world.

 

[Moderate Right]

Welcome to the club.
Many of us have been members of this club for decades.

The best thing I can tell you is that you'll survive, whatever the outcome.
It's not the end of the world.

Are you sure about that? Hillary is going to destroy America with her policies or Trump may get us into World War III. I'm not really sure which is worse. Anybody got a coin?

 

[Dragonfly]

Are you sure about that? Hillary is going to destroy America with her policies or Trump may get us into World War III. I'm not really sure which is worse. Anybody got a coin?

I'm sure.

People said those exact same things about Obama (both terms), and Bush (both terms) and B. Clinton, and Bush Sr., and Reagan.....

Yet here we are.

 

[Lafayette]

THE GERRYMANDER

What I want in a leader of our country is someone who is strong, yet moderate.l

Were it only that simple.

Didn't you learn in high-school that we employ a tri-partite governance in the US: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary? Do you know why?

Because our founding fathers NEVER EVER AGAIN wanted to have a monarch. And they were fearful, after centuries upon centuries of European monarchic dynasties, that the US would also adopt one.

So, they conceived of a Federal "balance of power" to be shared by the three entities named above. There is NO KING every four years. A president's powers are circumscribed by (first and foremost) the Legislature (both Chambers of Congress) and then, also, the Judiciary (in the form of the Supreme Court). Thus the "balance of power". Supposedly.

Where did we get "fair democracy" wrong? The answer to that question goes way, way back. It begins as our nation was just looking for its feet. It was a young nation in 1812, when the Boston Gazette first used the word "gerrymander" in an editorial. The word derives from the then governor of Massachusetts (Elbridge GERRY) who reapportioned the voting districts of the state. The result was a combination of the two words Gerry and "salamander".

And he did so in order to benefit electorally one party, of which (of course) he was a member. The resulting geographical representation of the districts looked like this:

(A winged salamander ...)

The ability to reapportion voting districts to favor one party or another has been the bloodline of our "democratic system" ever since. Some call it, "the original sin", since it is employed to this day to assure parties that they have sufficient votes to keep their own party representatives seated in local and national governments. Some people spend their entire adult lives in politics. Is that right or wrong. (Maybe, see here: The Net Worth of a Typical Member of Congress.)

The "system", I think, is unique to the US. Because, in politics, every ruse is fair-play, only the result counts!

Some think the system works because no change avoids abrupt surprises. Others think that it concretizes the balance of power such that no change can possibly happen.

What do you think ... ?
____________________

 

[robertblake60]

You can't be serious. That actually sounds like Trump more than Clinton, and I'm not even a Trump supporter.

I'm completely serious.

That paragraph screams Hillary Clinton to me.

 

[Patrickt]

All things considered, and accepting that nobody will fit perfectly into you description and personal feelings, Trump is a closer fit than Hillary.

Like Obama, every decision she will make will be couched in the idea of what will further the position of the Democrat party.

Trump may not be the most thoughtful person in the world, but he will certainly NOT be beholding to the Republican Party or the Democrat Party or the Networks.

As far as making good decisions, he is an executive and as such depends on his advisors and negotiators to help define the issues and execute his decisions.

Making outrageous statements is not in and of itself a bad thing. Using the power of government to execute your personal ambitions is.

Obama makes outrageous statements with regularity.

And Charles Manson would be a better date for your sister than Ted Bundy. Donald Trump has only one interest and that's Donald Trump. He will screw anyone to make a buck. He's desperate to make people believe that their is no such thing as too greedy. There is and he's one many who are too greedy. That doesn't have anything to do with how much you have or even how much you want. It's what you're willing to do to get more. Donald will do anything to get more.

 

[manise]

I'm going to admit I am having a real hard time trying to decide what to do this election cycle, especially with regards to the Presidential election.

I never belonged to (and never will) a specific political party or ideology. I've toyed with different aspects of each, but in the end I cannot suscribe to embracing one ideal. I tend to take each issue and determine my stance on that. On some issues I am in firm agreeance with the right and on some I am with the left. Sometimes I take a moderate stance between the two.

I feel there is no true option for me. I won't vote for Trump because I simply do not believe a word that comes out of his mouth. While I will admit I do like his bombastic "in your face" demeanor, he's shown no knowledge of the issues, has no governing experience, and makes rash and idiotic decisions on the fly. I do not feel these are good qualities of a leader. I feel a Trump win sets us all back...

When it comes to Clinton, She has experience necessary. However I feel that she is patholigical and insincere. She's an opportunist the same as Trump. She just worked her way through the government system rather than private enterprise. My biggest reason I cannot vote for her is that she would hold the key to appointing the Supreme Court Justices. The Court was balanced pretty well till Scalia's death. I hate to think that it could shift left for generations to come. I prefer balance over ideology. Also I don't believe she has a healthy respect for our military, and being a veteran I am apprehensive to think she would be commander in chief.

So that leaves Libertarian as an option. While I like libertarian on a domestic range of issues, I never felt that Libertarians non-interventionalism is practical or realistic. I have huge issue with them on foreign policy and while I can agree marijuana legalization is fine, I do not agree that decriminalizing all drugs is a good idea.

What I want in a leader of our country is someone who is strong, yet moderate. Who loves this country more than their approval rating and wants to have a "big tent" approach. Don't exclude people. Invite people into growing together. Embrace the ideal that we challenge our nation to be better, not to accept mediocrity in life. Someone who will visit hell upon any group who dares to kill Americans, rather than blaming ourselves. Someone who looks at a situation for what it is, instead of applying blanket like ideology as a solution. Someone who doesn't give a **** about what Fox, CNN, Daily Kos, Huffington Post NY Times etc... thinks. And I want someone who is careful and thoughtful when making decisions. Our influence is wide, and has impact still. Someone who recognizes this country for the great place that it is, and inspires us to grow even stronger together.

I feel no one fits this bill

I'm curious, did you vote for Obama in one of the last two elections? If not, then your concern about the Supreme Court was probably a top consideration, equaled or surpassed by the military issue. That would probably mean that Trump is your better pick, at least for the Supreme Court. I disagree with your analysis of Hillary and the military--she is one of the most hawkish candidates in the Democratic Party. And Trump for all his martial bluster evaded the Vietnam draft and has refused to be specific about his use of the military in Syria and elsewhere. He has supported the use of torture, something most if not all U.S. military/intel leaders oppose.

If you voted for Obama, then your Supreme Court concerns really aren't that serious. You took a chance on a liberal politician who was guaranteed to pick a liberal Supreme Court justice. Hillary is likely not to appoint justices more liberal than Obama's picks. And if you wanted a hawkish president, a vote for Obama would be the last thing you would do; again, a non issue in reality. In that case, vote for Hillary and avoid the kind of Brexit uncertainty that now threatens to cripple Britain after they took a chance on Trump-like policies.

And if you don't live in a swing state, it doesn't likely matter. Vote as you will; it won't matter in the end.

 

[Lovebug]

You are not alone. There are many of us in the same situation - feeling as though we have topped the hill in the front car of an old style rollercoaster and we are hanging over the edge of the hill not knowing how we will feel about what happens next, just that right now, we have no control, and we know that the near future is frightening.

It gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.

BTW, very well said. Sometimes it would be nice if we could give more than one like to a post.

Another like added for you.
I still can't make sense of what has gotten us where we are, and also can't think of any candidate, from the original panel of nominees to third party options, who make me very happy. Sanders came close in sincerity and thoughtfulness, but lacking as well. Still, preferable to others.
Third party candidates seem to be taking it in stride and asleep at the wheel, as if someone owed them a vote without making much of an effort.
Is it because of the cut throat business that our elections have evolved into that we are now being served with a high and mighty self serving crook and a spoiled self serving clown? Why is it that, out of over 300 mil people, only a few put themselves out there? Surely we could find a few who are more qualified than Clinton or Trump? I can't and won't identify myself with either.

 

[Wiggen]

I'm going to admit I am having a real hard time trying to decide what to do this election cycle, especially with regards to the Presidential election.

I never belonged to (and never will) a specific political party or ideology. I've toyed with different aspects of each, but in the end I cannot suscribe to embracing one ideal. I tend to take each issue and determine my stance on that. On some issues I am in firm agreeance with the right and on some I am with the left. Sometimes I take a moderate stance between the two.

I feel there is no true option for me. I won't vote for Trump because I simply do not believe a word that comes out of his mouth. While I will admit I do like his bombastic "in your face" demeanor, he's shown no knowledge of the issues, has no governing experience, and makes rash and idiotic decisions on the fly. I do not feel these are good qualities of a leader. I feel a Trump win sets us all back...

When it comes to Clinton, She has experience necessary. However I feel that she is patholigical and insincere. She's an opportunist the same as Trump. She just worked her way through the government system rather than private enterprise. My biggest reason I cannot vote for her is that she would hold the key to appointing the Supreme Court Justices. The Court was balanced pretty well till Scalia's death. I hate to think that it could shift left for generations to come. I prefer balance over ideology. Also I don't believe she has a healthy respect for our military, and being a veteran I am apprehensive to think she would be commander in chief.

So that leaves Libertarian as an option. While I like libertarian on a domestic range of issues, I never felt that Libertarians non-interventionalism is practical or realistic. I have huge issue with them on foreign policy and while I can agree marijuana legalization is fine, I do not agree that decriminalizing all drugs is a good idea.

What I want in a leader of our country is someone who is strong, yet moderate. Who loves this country more than their approval rating and wants to have a "big tent" approach. Don't exclude people. Invite people into growing together. Embrace the ideal that we challenge our nation to be better, not to accept mediocrity in life. Someone who will visit hell upon any group who dares to kill Americans, rather than blaming ourselves. Someone who looks at a situation for what it is, instead of applying blanket like ideology as a solution. Someone who doesn't give a **** about what Fox, CNN, Daily Kos, Huffington Post NY Times etc... thinks. And I want someone who is careful and thoughtful when making decisions. Our influence is wide, and has impact still. Someone who recognizes this country for the great place that it is, and inspires us to grow even stronger together.

I feel no one fits this bill

I agree with most of your post. However, I will vote for Clinton because, although she has some serious flaws, she isn't bat**** crazy or woefully ignorant. Trump is both.

 

[Erod]

I'm in the same boat.

I detest Trump, but Hillary is immensely dangerous, and the country will never heal if she wins.

I'm left to hold my nose, vote for Trump, and pray to God that he has enough sense to bring in good people to steer him.

Puke.

 

[Erod]

I agree with most of your post. However, I will vote for Clinton because, although she has some serious flaws, she isn't bat**** crazy or woefully ignorant. Trump is both.

She's Bernie Madoff with less integrity.

 

[Wiggen]

which is still better than a serial lying, racist, misogynistic demagogue.

 

[Moderate Right]

which is still better than a serial lying, racist, misogynistic demagogue.

Clinton isn't a serial liar? If you believe that then you are more than "slightly liberal".

 

[Erod]

which is still better than a serial lying, racist, misogynistic demagogue.

You mean the same person who lied a thousand times about her emails and is lecturing white people about our behavior?

 

[MTAtech]

For me, it always boils down to how any candidate falls with respect to policy, compared to my viewpoint.

I believe that the major domestic issue of our time is income inequality. The Trump tax plan would be a huge windfall for the wealthy, while Hillary Clinton would surely sustain President Obama’s significant tax hike on high incomes, and try to push it further. Trump's plan will increase the disparity between the top 0.1% and everyone else while Clinton's, will at worst, modestly decrease it. On other economic policy just about every factual assertion Trump makes is wrong. What I want to do, instead, is discuss the general thrust of Trump's rhetoric -- that he claims to be on the side of American workers.

Of course, that’s what they all say. But Trumponomics goes beyond the usual Republican assertions that cutting taxes on corporations and the rich, ending environmental regulation and so on will conjure up the magic of the marketplace and make everyone prosper. It also involves posing as a populist, claiming that getting tough on foreigners and ripping up our trade agreements will bring back the well-paying jobs America has lost. They won't. There is no question that rising imports, especially from China, have reduced the number of manufacturing jobs in America. China reduced U.S. manufacturing jobs by about two million. However, total employment exceeds 140 million. Shifting two million workers back into manufacturing would raise that sector's share of employment back from around 10% to around 11.5%. To get some perspective: in 1979, on the eve of the great surge in inequality, manufacturing accounted for more than 20% of employment. In the 1960s it was more than 25%. I'm not sure when, exactly, Mr. Trump thinks America was great, but Trumponomics wouldn't come close to bringing the old days back.

Falling manufacturing employment is only a small factor in the decline of the middle class. A bigger factor is suppression of worker wages and there are policies driving wages down even as top incomes soar: union-bashing, the failure to raise the minimum wage with inflation, austerity, financial deregulation, the tax-cut obsession. On those issues, Trump is on the wrong side.

 

[MTAtech]

You mean the same person who lied a thousand times about her emails and is lecturing white people about our behavior?

In terms of lies, Clinton is in the minor leagues compared to Trump, in which factcheckers have found that at least 75% of what he says isn't true.

 

[Brady Bunch]

Are you sure about that? Hillary is going to destroy America with her policies or Trump may get us into World War III. I'm not really sure which is worse. Anybody got a coin?

I couldn't have said it better myself. Hillary's pathological lies and policies vs Trump's bombastic statements and ever-changing opinions.

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson