DescentBB

....just shot the Libertarian ticket in the ass. Damn! I'd expect the regular participants of this board to be able to find Aleppo and know why it matters. Given that Libertarians feel that defense is ALL that government should do for us,it is sort of alarming that the Presidential candidate seemingly cannot show more awareness of global events that impact that defense:
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/ ... 0358979962




meanwhile, Jill Stein is out vandalizing construction equipment. Leaving us with only one rational, competent candidate for President. One.

What does Syria have to do with national defense? I guess that somehow makes sense according to your neocon ideology.

You're still holding the other presidential candidates to a double standard. When your candidate has a scandal, you justify it with rationalizations. When another candidate does, it is campaign ending.

The real problem is that we have zero competent candidates running for president.

Jeff250 wrote:What does Syria have to do with national defense? I guess that somehow makes sense according to your neocon ideology.

awareness of what is going on around the world DEFINITELY plays a role in a plan for defense. It's a small world. I'm not suggesting he not wish to get involved OVER THERE, but damn, there ought to be a more coherent expression that he's aware of matters.

You're still holding the other presidential candidates to a double standard. When your candidate has a scandal, you justify it with rationalizations. When another candidate does, it is campaign ending.

nonsense. I do have an issue with false equivalency.

The real problem is that we have zero competent candidates running for president.

no one can look at Clinton's resume and say that. Like her or not, she's competent as hell.

Jeff250 wrote:What does Syria have to do with national defense?

It would've been great if this was the rhetorical point Johnson was making. It seems like a valid libertarian point of view. But from the video it looks more like simple ignorance of something a Presidential candidate, even a libertarian, should probably know.

now, I am hearing from decent, libertarian leaning sorts that he was simply asking for clarification of what they meant by shorthanding the discussion with the word Aleppo. If so, I can see that, but then one wonders about whether he is ready for the sound-bite machine which is American retail politics.

callmeslick wrote:meanwhile, Jill Stein is out vandalizing construction equipment. Leaving us with only one rational, competent candidate for President. One.

At least she's following her Green Party convictions.

Competent isn’t the same as experienced.

callmeslick wrote:...he was simply asking for clarification of what they meant by shorthanding the discussion with the word Aleppo.

That's exactly what it looks like to me. I'm actually irritated by the speaker for phrasing it that way. Completely idiotic. No one refers to problems over there are Aleppo, not without first defining context. Also, Aleppo is one of those names you rarely hear but see often, so I think any one of us would react in the exact same way.

Stupid, manufactured, non-story. Move on.

I would disagree insofar as I pretty much understood what was meant, more or less precisely, given news from recent weeks around brutality and likely war crimes. Thus, I would hope a person running for President would at least try to keep up.

callmeslick wrote:Thus, I would hope a person running for President would at least try to keep up.

Jesus Christ, Slick, did you even watch the video or are you just spamming for Hillary? He clearly spoke about what he thinks is the best way forward. I've never heard anyone refer to issues related to the Syrian Civil War as "Aleppo" and holy crap that panel was clearly designed to confuse and infuriate the man. They didn't spend any time getting into his ideas, just simply "you don't know aellepo why don't you know aeleppo shouldn't the president know aeleppo..." So ★■◆●ing stupid.

A lot of pundits and media outlets didn't know what Aleppo is, and you're giving him ★■◆●, Slick?

/tagline for an incredulous laugh.

bottom line is that the sound bite looks like ★■◆●, and moreover, Johnson even admitted his answer was a blunder.

I guess the point really is that running for POTUS is a contact sport, combined with a naked run through a minefield. Johnson inadvertently walked into a mine, whether technically proper or not, and shows that despite calls that he be on the center stage, he's still an amateur. Then again, so is Trump......

callmeslick wrote:bottom line is that the sound bite looks like ★■◆●, and moreover, Johnson even admitted his answer was a blunder.

And it's up to you and everyone else to look past "sound bytes." Threads like this perpetuate the problem of sound byte culture. You basically posted "wow everyone look at dumbass Gary." And why even bring Stein into it? She's totally qualified to be the president and is a much better speaker than Clinton.

I'm never going to look past campaign blunders. It's in my blood. I've pointed out when Obama slipped up, when Romney made mistakes, Bernie's lost opportunities, Hillary's slip ups and the entirety of the Trump campaign, which has lurched from one blunder to the next. I'm a political geek. All I was commenting on here was the geek fail that Johnson just pulled, at a time his sort of candidacy SHOULD have a window at least towards that magic 15% mark that gets federal funding and a debate position. The fact the HE is publicly calling his response a 'mental lapse' and 'major screw up' implies that the mainstream narrative may actually be pretty accurate. A look-see at the entire interview shows a man clearly uncomfortable dealing with specifics regarding international threats, but I'd avoid deep discussion of that, as it is for Johnson's supporters to sort out.

callmeslick wrote:I'm never going to look past campaign blunders. It's in my blood. I've pointed out when Obama slipped up, when Romney made mistakes, Bernie's lost opportunities, Hillary's slip ups and the entirety of the Trump campaign, which has lurched from one blunder to the next.

But this isn't a slip up. This is a case of poor and shoddy interviewing, or intentionally obtuse interviewing to cause a gottcha moment. No one talks about Aleppo. People will sometimes refer to Damascus, but most only know there is a problem in Syria. And what was the context? What was being talked about before this question? Does anyone have that on hand or are we supposed to take this edited video as is? (I won't because that's what sheep do.) Slick, walk down the street and ask random people "What do you think about Aleppo?" and see what they say. Get back to me when you can start holding presidential candidates to the same standard as other human beings.

did you watch the ENTIRE interview, or at least the entire sequence from which the 'gaffe' was culled? He clearly is NOT on comfortable footing discussing current events. At all. Now, Vision, I'd agree that Joe and Jane Average on the street might not know what Aleppo is related to current events, nor likely be able to pick Assad out of a lineup(hell, I doubt half could pick Justice Roberts out of a lineup). The bar to be Commander in Chief of the US armed forces and de facto leader of the Western World should be far higher. That is the core of my issue with Trump and his supporters. He is far more clueless and FAR more reckless than Gary Johnson, yet some percentage(likely no more than 20 percent when the dust settles) find him eminently qualified(the rest of his support simply doesn't like Hillary and/or 'liberals').

vision wrote:And what was the context? What was being talked about before this question? Does anyone have that on hand or are we supposed to take this edited video as is?

The full transcript is here: http://time.com/4483779/gary-johnson-aleppo-transcript/

The question was immediately preceded by this:

BARNICLE: But do you worry about the Nader effect in 2000?

JOHNSON: I don’t worry one bit about it. I really do think that the two-party system is broken. I don’t think Democrats are able to balance a checkbook these days. That’s it’s all about bigger government and higher taxes. And then Republicans with, I think, the social agenda. Look, whatever your social inclinations are just don’t force it on me. And I think the Republican Party has gotten really extreme in that category.

callmeslick wrote:I guess the point really is that running for POTUS is a contact sport, combined with a naked run through a minefield. Johnson inadvertently walked into a mine, whether technically proper or not, and shows that despite calls that he be on the center stage, he's still an amateur.

I don't like how our elections optimize for people who are good at running for president instead of people who are good at being president.

vision wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I'm never going to look past campaign blunders. It's in my blood. I've pointed out when Obama slipped up, when Romney made mistakes, Bernie's lost opportunities, Hillary's slip ups and the entirety of the Trump campaign, which has lurched from one blunder to the next.

But this isn't a slip up. This is a case of poor and shoddy interviewing, or intentionally obtuse interviewing to cause a gottcha moment. No one talks about Aleppo. People will sometimes refer to Damascus, but most only know there is a problem in Syria. And what was the context? What was being talked about before this question? Does anyone have that on hand or are we supposed to take this edited video as is? (I won't because that's what sheep do.) Slick, walk down the street and ask random people "What do you think about Aleppo?" and see what they say. Get back to me when you can start holding presidential candidates to the same standard as other human beings.

So were you as forgiving Towards Palin when "glasses on the tip of his nose" Charlie Gibson?

woodchip wrote:So were you as forgiving Towards Palin...

The only thing I ever thought about Palin was that she was an odd fit for Vice President and McCain's campaign in general. I didn't agree with some things she said, but I have friends who view the world as she does (none of them should be Vice President either).

I'm reminded of the late, great Media Whores Online, and their Barnicle Vaccine bit.

Jeff250 wrote: I don't like how our elections optimize for people who are good at running for president instead of people who are good at being president.

oh, that's at the crux of my observation, to be sure. Many greats wouldn't have gotten past the primary process in this day and age.