The idea that you don't know what is happening in Syria or what should or could be done about it because you don't instantly recognize the name of a town in Syria is idiocy on it's face. A gotcha question. Johnson gave a well thought out answer to the question once he was reminded that it was actually about Syria.
My issues with Johnson stem more from open borders (can't have a libertarian society when people from non-libertarian societies are free to flood in and vote), religious freedoms (he doesn't appear to support them at all, vis a vis his stance on the gay wedding cake issue), and his running mate, Bill Weld's, anti-Second Amendment record and ongoing statements.
I know that this was titled as a post about Johnson, but if I'm going to suggest that voting for Johnson is not a solution then I guess I am obligated to mention the alternatives.
I doubt that anyone who is paying any attention at all is aware of Clinton's issues, from her illegal and reckless use of a private email server to transmit classified information, to her lack of response to the Benghazi issue that resulted in the deaths of several Americans, to her amassing of hundreds of millions of dollars at the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State from governments and organizations that benefited or stood to benefit from her decision; or to go back farther her secrecy when heading up a government funded commission on health care during her husband's tenure as President. Add to that her positions on the Second Amendment (the SCOTUS got it wrong when they said it was an individual right), her backing of an Australian style gun confiscation, her support for a Constitutional Amendment that would allow Congress to restrict the First Amendment in the matter of political speech (the primary type of speech for which the amendment was written, by the way), and the list goes on and on. Oh, and did I mention as many as three or four Supreme Court justices who could be making the type of Progressive policy decisions that Sotomayor and Kagan have been making for the past several years?
I will be voting for Donald Trump this year. He would not be my first (or second, third, ... thousandth choice) but this election isn't about who we would have voted for given the choice, it is about who, between Clinton and Trump will be the better President and do the least damage to the Constitution and the American way of life. Yes, he has flaws. Yes, he has issues. But he is not Clinton who has explicitly promised to gut the First and Second Amendments, to flood the country with low skilled immigrants from socialist leaning countries, and who has a record of secrecy and political intimidation that would put many a third world dictator to shame. For that reason I will be casting my vote for Trump as well as actively recommending him for the next month or so. I hate to do it, but...
I would love to vote for a libertarian candidate who could actually win and who wouldn't impose his religious values on us, restrict our Constitutional rights, and flood the country with immigrants from socialist countries, but there doesn't seem to be one. The Libertarian party is, in my opinion, wildly self destructive with their open borders policy and way to hung up on the drug legalization issue. As much as I support legalizing all drugs and getting the government out of the business of regulating what free people do to themselves, it seems that this is the main focus of the LP and has been for many years. If they would spend as much time publicizing their policy proposals for reforming welfare, the tax code, business regulation, foreign policy, etc; laying out a workable plan and showing the American people how they and the country would benefit from libertarian policies, we might well be in a much different and better position.