Support NeoGAF

[decisions]

The rhetoric against third party candidates is unreasonably negative, you have the New York Times saying that he was unable to "name any foreign leader" - when that was clearly not the question he was asked.

Johnson didn't blank on naming a foreign leader, he blanked on naming one that he would want to be associated with and likened to, by saying that he "respected" them.

It is insignificant that he couldn't easily do that? No. Is the holier than thou, "he should drop out", overly insulting response unwarranted? Yes.

The media didn't care when he was well spoken on the second CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper, but they're trying to run him into the ground over human error, and it's not really right the way they exaggerate things, likely because he's third party.

Then again, if there was fairness among the candidates, him and Stein would've been on the debate stage.

 

[DorkLord54]

The rhetoric against third party candidates is unreasonably negative, you have the New York Times saying that he was unable to "name any foreign leader" - when that was clearly not the question he was asked.

Johnson didn't blank on naming a foreign leader, he blanked on naming one that he would want to be associated with and likened to, by saying that he "respected" them.

It is insignificant that he couldn't easily do that? No. Is the holier than thou, "he should drop out", overly insulting response unwarranted? Yes.

The media didn't care when he was well spoken on the second CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper, but they're trying to run him into the ground over human error, and it's not really right the way they exaggerate things, likely because he's third party.

Then again, if there was fairness among the candidates, him and Stein would've been on the debate stage.

...

He's a candidate running for a position which is heavily involved in foreign policy. He should be able to give an actual response (at the very least, as others have said, a statement saying "I don't believe any foreign leaders truly believe in the interest of the people/agree with me much"), much like he should've known what Aleppo is. It doesn't matter how well-mannered or well-spoken you are: when it's almost a given that the Fascist Orange can give you a coherent response, that says a lot.

And before you even rebut with this: I probably can't name you a foreign leader that I admire/respect. But I'm still a college student and am not running for the office of POTUS, an excuse Gary Johnson does not have.

 

[VendettaRed07]

The rhetoric against third party candidates is unreasonably negative, you have the New York Times saying that he was unable to "name any foreign leader" - when that was clearly not the question he was asked.

Johnson didn't blank on naming a foreign leader, he blanked on naming one that he would want to be associated with and likened to, by saying that he "respected" them.

It is insignificant that he couldn't easily do that? No. Is the holier than thou, "he should drop out", overly insulting response unwarranted? Yes.

The media didn't care when he was well spoken on the second CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper, but they're trying to run him into the ground over human error, and it's not really right the way they exaggerate things, likely because he's third party.

Then again, if there was fairness among the candidates, him and Stein would've been on the debate stage.

He couldn't name anyone and desperately said "ex president of mexico" and wasn't able to name the president he brought up in the first place.

At that point, instead of making the headline "Johnson unable to name ex President of Mexico or any current foreign leader he considers to be his favorite anywhere in the world", just go ahead and make it "Bonehead Johnson unable to name a single foreign leader to save himself from the embarrassment of not being able to answer the easiest question any Presidential candidate has ever been asked"

 

[thebloo]

Johnson didn't blank on naming a foreign leader, he blanked on naming one that he would want to be associated with and likened to, by saying that he "respected" them.

When you can't name the ones you like...

 

[MHWilliams]

Jesus Christ.

Weld should be running the Libertarian ticket.

Weld definitely showed himself as the more capable of the two.

 

[decisions]

...

He's a candidate running for a position which is heavily involved in foreign policy. He should be able to give an actual response (at the very least, as others have said, a statement saying "I don't believe any foreign leaders truly believe in the interest of the people/agree with me much"), much like he should've known what Aleppo is. It doesn't matter how well-mannered or well-spoken you are: when it's almost a given that the Fascist Orange can give you a coherent response, that says a lot.

Remember Trump's response to the Nuclear Triad question?

I mean I see what you're saying, but I don't think these are nearly as bad as people make them out to be, while significant.

After the Aleppo thing Johnson said he thought it was an acronym in the moment, and therefore temporarily blanked on his response to that question. The majority of the people voting for Trump or HIllary though, act like he had never heard of Aleppo before in his life, and that anything he says about foreign policy holds no weight.

That type of extreme thinking directed his way is what I'm disappointed in when I see it on the internet, not saying that these aren't significant things that should Johnson should be criticized for.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can see how Johnson gets into these positions, he doesn't utilize broad, typical "political" responses in these cases, he is just simply honest about his current thinking during these interviews, and I respect that - even if it doesn't look good to people who don't know much about his policies.

 

[makingmusic476]

This shit's trending like crazy on Facebook. I wonder if it'll swing any polls.

 

[oti]

Yeah. This is hardly surprising considering his party affiliation

What? What nonsense is this? Let's say he were to become POTUS what do you think he'd be doing all day? Interacting with other leaders. What a dumb excuse is that? Unless he wants to get the US off the international Diplomacy and trade grid. If that's what he wants then go ahead.

 

[jtb]

This shit's trending like crazy on Facebook. I wonder if it'll swing any polls.

This + Aleppo will kill any lingering chance he had at appearing at the remaining debates, and his support will likely collapse accordingly from being starved of visibility. It will be truly impressive if Libertarian ticket can crack that magic 5% threshold but, even then, I don't know that I see it.

 

[davepoobond]

"i didnt know any foreign leaders either. Johnson is so relate-able, unlike over-prepared Clinton."

 

[JordanN]

Weld definitely showed himself as the more capable of the two.

Considering he's already running Libertarian, do you really want someone who is more competent?

It's like if Cheney had replaced Bush when he was in office.

 

[Henkka]

Go home and be a family man, Gary

 

[benjipwns]

Considering he's already running Libertarian, do you really want someone who is more competent?

It's like if Cheney had replaced Bush when he was in office.

Weld is much less libertarian than Gary.

It will be truly impressive if Libertarian ticket can crack that magic 5% threshold but, even then, I don't know that I see it.

The 5% threshold is kinda moot, he'll raise more than the grant this cycle. It would get it for the 2020 candidate which is probably Austin Peterson or something but they aren't even going to be close to the real threshold of 2% that Gary hopefully gets this time.

 

[benjipwns]

If you prefer angry Gary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnARyWQWnkg

I want to stop with these military interventions! In my heart, I don't want to send our men and servicewomen to lose their lives, and I don't want to them to be responsible for what are ultimately thousands of innocent people being killed in these countries.

So Hillary Clinton dots the i's and crosses the t's on all the names and everything associated with this, but as a result of that, we have the foreign policy that we have now, that I have to tell you I think is horrible. Horrible!

And that's how I would answer it tonight. I would be mad. I would be angry. i would be angry that people would people would be calling me out on the names, geographic locations, names of foreign leaders, when the underlying policy has thousands of people dying. And that is unacceptable.

In a Facebook Live interview filmed on Tuesday morning after the debate, Johnson explained that his outbursts stem from the fact that U.S. servicemen and women "have to pull those triggers" and kill innocent people in misbegoten conflicts.

That's not their fault, that's the fault of political leadership. And these are the people I'm debating? And these are the people I'm debating? And I'm speaking specifically about Hillary Clinton...Somehow that makes her more qualified? Yeah, that just pisses me off, Matt. Really pisses me off.

scienceandliberty10 hours ago
Yes, Gary, you should drop out. Gary, you should've read Harry Browne's books, his hundreds of articles, watched a bunch of his videos, and then maybe you would've been prepared to properly present libertarian ideas in a more persuasive and impactful manner.

 

[MHWilliams]

Considering he's already running Libertarian, do you really want someone who is more competent?

It's like if Cheney had replaced Bush when he was in office.

Weld is less Libertarian on the issues than Johnson. Which is why he likely wouldn't have won the nomination. So it's really just random speculation.

 

[Loudninja]

Johnson response to Aleppo 2:

Nice!

Spoiler

/s

.

 

[chadskin]

Johnson response to Aleppo 2:

Nice!

Spoiler

/s

 

[Elandyll]

Merckel/ Blair/ Cameron were such low hanging fruits too (he eventually settled on Merckel, after a long and awckward moment and a lot of mumbling)...

Being a Libertarian doesn't mean you should be ignorant of basic world facts, particularly not when you are a national level politican (Governor/ Senator...), but SPECIALLY not when you are running for the office of POTUS.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Lol I love this guy

 

[Nivash]

If you prefer angry Gary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnARyWQWnkg

That's actually worse. That's him not even being aware of why "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" is a big deal in foreign policy: if you don't even know basic names of people and places, there's no chance at all that you know anything about them. It exposes an incredible degree of ignorance. And, amazingly, he appears to be ignorant even of why his ignorance is a damn big deal for a future commander in chief.

His position is evidently that the US should never intervene. Except for supporting their allies, apparently, if his previous comments about standing by NATO are to be believed. But the US is the worlds greatest military power and most people agree that there are times when intervention is a moral obligation. Korea in 1950, without which South Korea would not exist today. The Gulf in -90, without which Kuwait and maybe even other Arab states would have been conquered by Iraq. Kosovo in -99, without which the ongoing atrocities would likely have continued.

The US turning near-complete isolationist would be a complete global disaster and likely trigger multiple regional wars due to sheer destabilisation. Some degree of interventionism is simply necessary. But if you don't even know basic facts about the world, how are you supposed to determine what is and isn't the right time? That's Gary Johnson's fatal flaw in foreign politics. By all means, be anti-interventionist, that's a perfectly respectable position. But for God's sake, do it with some elemental understanding about the world beforehand.

 

[gutter_trash]

Trudeau was the easiest answer, because there were two of them while the elder (Pierre Trudeau) is probably to most well known Canadian Prime Minister outside of Canada

his son Justin making a splash in the media would make his name easy to pick up for even someone who is not knowledgeable about foreign leaders

+Justin Trudeau wants to legalize weed too

 

[benjipwns]

Not using military force globally for questionable interests and endeavors because they're trendy is not the same thing as isolationism.

Trudeau was the easiest answer, because there were two of them while the elder (Pierre Trudeau) is probably to most well known Canadian Prime Minister outside of Canada

his son Justin making a splash in the media would make his name easy to pick up for even someone who is not knowledgeable about foreign leaders

+Justin Trudeau wants to legalize weed too

But they'd disagree on everything else, so I don't know why Gary would like him.

I certainly couldn't answer the question truthfully and not get dinged for the response because my favorite foreign leader is a vile criminal who butchers his own people and states he's the embodiment of god. And you're supposed to take photos with those people at White House receptions, not shame people about the fact that a monster (and his even worse predecessor) is treated with great dignity in the absurdity that is statecraft.

 

[Veritigo_X]

If he couldn't think of anyone he should've just said he doesn't respect any foreign leader. Libertarians would eat that up.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Chris Matthews: "Mr. Johnson, who is best girl?"

Johnson: "I just... best girl?"

Matthews: "Just pick one. Any one."

Johnson: "I don't know... I'm having a brain freeze."

Weld: "Chie."

Sorry Hillary, Weld's got my vote

 

[Armaros]

If he couldn't think of anyone he should've just said he doesn't respect any foreign leader. Libertarians would eat that up.

It's the fact that he didn't have any answers and admitted he Blanked out, again. Even after some proding he still failed.

 

[BotoxAgent]

Then again, if there was fairness among the candidates, him and Stein would've been on the debate stage.

no that's not fairness.....fairness requires a responsible degree of a thing called "qualifications" for a position like this....which neither have.

Otherwise any bozo would feel entitled on the debate stage


sorry nope


nope

 

[Cromat]

The rhetoric against third party candidates is unreasonably negative, you have the New York Times saying that he was unable to "name any foreign leader" - when that was clearly not the question he was asked.

Johnson didn't blank on naming a foreign leader, he blanked on naming one that he would want to be associated with and likened to, by saying that he "respected" them.

It is insignificant that he couldn't easily do that? No. Is the holier than thou, "he should drop out", overly insulting response unwarranted? Yes.

The media didn't care when he was well spoken on the second CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper, but they're trying to run him into the ground over human error, and it's not really right the way they exaggerate things, likely because he's third party.

Then again, if there was fairness among the candidates, him and Stein would've been on the debate stage.

He could have said "well, in terms of current leaders there is no particular person but historically blabla was fantastic". He gave a cringe-worth answer and even said (!!!) he's having another "Aleppo moment". You don't remind people of your embarrassments when you run for president. Honestly he looks like he isn't taking it seriously because he's isn't, so why should others take him seriously?

 

[benjipwns]

fairness requires a responsible degree of a thing called "qualifications" for a position like this....which neither have.

Otherwise any bozo would feel entitled on the debate stage

Eight years as a State Governor and successful businessman/self-made millionaire?

I guess that doesn't compare to multiple bankruptcies off inherited money and a long running reality show but still.

Honestly he looks like he isn't taking it seriously because he's isn't, so why should others take him seriously?

He's taking it way too seriously. He needs to loosen back up and take more pot.

 

[Xe4]

The rhetoric against third party candidates is unreasonably negative, you have the New York Times saying that he was unable to "name any foreign leader" - when that was clearly not the question he was asked.

Johnson didn't blank on naming a foreign leader, he blanked on naming one that he would want to be associated with and likened to, by saying that he "respected" them.

It is insignificant that he couldn't easily do that? No. Is the holier than thou, "he should drop out", overly insulting response unwarranted? Yes.

The media didn't care when he was well spoken on the second CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper, but they're trying to run him into the ground over human error, and it's not really right the way they exaggerate things, likely because he's third party.

Then again, if there was fairness among the candidates, him and Stein would've been on the debate stage.

If Hillary had answered the way he had, she would be ripped to schreds. Aside from how Trump is treated, third party candidates are given far too much slack, because no one thinks they're going to be president.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

How do you actually answer this question? I mean, most of foreign policy is pretending you love everyone equally up until the point you need to hate them. I feel like "Hollande, and all them other mothers can fuck it" probably isn't the world's best answer. It doesn't help that there are no elected Libertarian heads of state or government in the Western world.

I actually sort of wonder how Obama would have answered this. There has to be a cool way to play this without snubbing people, but I'm not sure what it is.

 

[benjipwns]

Hillary getting the same treatment would be just as stupid. It's a silly question for signaling purposes.

Gary actually ran into this back in 2012 too in the first FOX News GOP debate. They asked Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty various policy questions or softballs to bash Obama with and then asked him "if you could have a reality show, what kind of reality show would you have?"

 

[Iksenpets]

He could have said "well, in terms of current leaders there is no particular person but historically blabla was fantastic". He gave a cringe-worth answer and even said (!!!) he's having another "Aleppo moment". You don't remind people of your embarrassments when you run for president. Honestly he looks like he isn't taking it seriously because he's isn't, so why should others take him seriously?

Yeah, if he had just been like "well, no one currently is up to snuff, but that Winston Churchill..." then people in the know would laugh a bit at the fact that he had clearly flipped the question to give the obvious default answer, but it wouldn't really stick with the average voter. This makes him look dumb to anyone.

And of course, had he blown everyone away with some nuanced answer about how he disagrees with leader X on x, y, and z but is really impressed with the progress they've made on this other issue, suddenly we'd all be talking about how Gary Johnson maybe isn't stoned out of his mind.

How do you actually answer this question? I mean, most of foreign policy is pretending you love everyone equally up until the point you need to hate them. I feel like "Hollande, and all them other mothers can fuck it" probably isn't the world's best answer. It doesn't help that there are no elected Libertarian heads of state or government in the Western world.

I actually sort of wonder how Obama would have answered this. There has to be a cool way to play this without snubbing people, but I'm not sure what it is.

He could have picked any right-wing leader though, and said that he disagrees with some of their social stances or nationalist views, but he really respects their reforms around economic liberalization. "I don't agree with some of the more nationalist stances of Shinzo Abe, but I do think his economic reforms have been great for Japan". Done! Acceptable libertarian answer.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Hillary getting the same treatment would be just as stupid. It's a silly question for signaling purposes.

Gary actually ran into this back in 2012 too in the first FOX News GOP debate. They asked Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty various policy questions or softballs to bash Obama with and then asked him "if you could have a reality show, what kind of reality show would you have?"

Yeah, I'm no Libertarian, but it is a stupid question and there's not really a super dignified way to answer it.

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah, if he had just been like "we'll, no one currently is up to snuff, but that Winston Churchill..." then people in the know would laugh a bit at the fact that he had clearly flipped the question to give the obvious default answer

Weld tried that and Matthews demanded a current politician in office.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

How do you actually answer this question? I mean, most of foreign policy is pretending you love everyone equally up until the point you need to hate them. I feel like "Hollande, and all them other mothers can fuck it" probably isn't the world's best answer. It doesn't help that there are no elected Libertarian heads of state or government in the Western world.

I actually sort of wonder how Obama would have answered this. There has to be a cool way to play this without snubbing people, but I'm not sure what it is.

Wouldn't whoever is president just pick either the Canadian or British PM probably since those are the US's traditional closest allies. Obama saying he and Trudeau are tight probably isn't that much of a snub to Hollande I don't think.

Though if the French political cartoons about Hollande and Obama my roommate told me about are accurate, then maybe it would be.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

Merckel/ Blair/ Cameron were such low hanging fruits too (he eventually settled on Merckel, after a long and awckward moment and a lot of mumbling)...

Being a Libertarian doesn't mean you should be ignorant of basic world facts, particularly not when you are a national level politican (Governor/ Senator...), but SPECIALLY not when you are running for the office of POTUS.

Merkel, the one who's bringing in millions of refugees, admired by a Libertarian candidate. LOL.

I've got no problems with Merkel personally, but honestly, if Gary Johnson defaults to her he'd look an even bigger moron

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Wouldn't whoever is president just pick either the Canadian or British PM probably since those are the US's traditional closest allies. Obama saying he and Trudeau are tight probably isn't that much of a snub to Hollande I don't think.

Though if the French political cartoons about Hollande and Obama my roommate told me about are accurate, then maybe it would be.

As someone who lives in Britain, I can guarantee you the fury of little England would burn with a thousands suns if we got snubbed by the President of the United States in favour of Canada. It's not even that we like the US that much, it's just a pride thing. It was weeks before people stopped getting pissy about the fact Obama took the Churchill bust out of the White House.

 

[Acorn]

As someone who lives in Britain, I can guarantee you the fury of little England would burn with a thousands suns if we got snubbed by the President of the United States in favour of Canada. It's not even that we like the US that much, it's just a pride thing. It was weeks before people stopped getting pissy about the fact Obama took the Churchill bust out of the White House.

I want it to happen.

Take middle England down a few notches.

 

[benjipwns]

Merkel, the one who's bringing in millions of refugees, admired by a Libertarian candidate. LOL.

i don't get it?

Libertarians aren't opposed to freedom of travel.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I want it to happen.

Take middle England down a few notches.

Yeah but that's 'cause you identify with Scotland, not the UK. If Obama said "Sturgeon's a right bloody arse, can't stand that woman" and it leaked to the press somehow, you'd be bruised too, methinks.

 

[Ecotic]

I love how this is a gotcha question, but it's the most softball gotcha question of all time.

 

[The Lamonster]

I love how this is a gotcha question, but it's the most softball gotcha question of all time.

Everyone on PoliGAF was predicting Matthews would somehow produce another Aleppo moment, but yeah this was an extremely easy bullet to dodge.

 

[Ecotic]

How do you actually answer this question? I mean, most of foreign policy is pretending you love everyone equally up until the point you need to hate them. I feel like "Hollande, and all them other mothers can fuck it" probably isn't the world's best answer. It doesn't help that there are no elected Libertarian heads of state or government in the Western world.

I actually sort of wonder how Obama would have answered this. There has to be a cool way to play this without snubbing people, but I'm not sure what it is.

He could pick a non-partisan answer, like say he admires Aung San Suu Kyi for her struggle for democracy.

 

[benjipwns]

He could pick a non-partisan answer, like say he admires Aung San Suu Kyi for her struggle for democracy.

Pandering bullshit, he picked the easy answer, that just proves he doesn't know anything.

 

[BlastProcessing]

The rhetoric against third party candidates is unreasonably negative, you have the New York Times saying that he was unable to "name any foreign leader" - when that was clearly not the question he was asked.

Johnson didn't blank on naming a foreign leader, he blanked on naming one that he would want to be associated with and likened to, by saying that he "respected" them.

It is insignificant that he couldn't easily do that? No. Is the holier than thou, "he should drop out", overly insulting response unwarranted? Yes.

The media didn't care when he was well spoken on the second CNN Town Hall with Anderson Cooper, but they're trying to run him into the ground over human error, and it's not really right the way they exaggerate things, likely because he's third party.

Then again, if there was fairness among the candidates, him and Stein would've been on the debate stage.

It's not just his lack of knowledge. It's that time and time again he has completely crumbled when subjected to moderate pressure. It's why he keeps Weld around like a damn security blanket.

I have never seen a national candidate who is so easily flustered. The dude folds faster than Superman on laundry day. I wouldn't trust him to manager a damn Applebee's. Hell, I wouldn't trust him to wait tables at a damn Applebee's.

 

[benjipwns]

It's because he's trying to take things seriously this time unfortunately. It's stupid and ruining his vibes.

 

[Acorn]

Yeah but that's 'cause you identify with Scotland, not the UK. If Obama said "Sturgeon's a right bloody arse, can't stand that woman" and it leaked to the press somehow, you'd be bruised too, methinks.

Nah, Obama snubbed Salmond and I didn't care. I know he's a dick and I was a unionist up until 2010ish.

 

[Elandyll]

Merkel, the one who's bringing in millions of refugees, admired by a Libertarian candidate. LOL.

I've got no problems with Merkel personally, but honestly, if Gary Johnson defaults to her he'd look an even bigger moron

He did default to her, after a long and embarrassing time.

It's not even about listing a leader that he could actually say he admire their policy or that they would be good example of mostly Libertarian leaders at that point, he literally had to list -1- foreign leader that could be admired for x, y or z, without completely embarrassing himself in the process (picking a war mongering one or a dictator per example).

There definitely were many low hanging fruits, including Trudeau, and that it took him so long to default back to Merkel is why it's so damaging to him (all the while saying he was having an Allepo Moment, to make sure to put attention back to that shining moment).

 

[zeemumu]

This is the "sun will encompass the earth" guy, right?

 

[Acorn]

This is the "sun will encompass the earth" guy, right?

Yup.