• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gary Johnson’s Aleppo gaffe was bad. But Trump’s consistent ignorance is worse.

Anything she wants to do Obama can do right now. They are no different, both of them.

Why isn't he doing anything about anything right now?

Ya know, this brings to mind something that Carlin used to always say: The elite aka our owners want us stupid, they need us to be stupid, because too many smart citizens running around spoils the con.

Thinking for yourself, being able to add for yourself....

You might just get arrested for that!

NOT. COOL.

*SARCASM*
 
Last edited:
So because she has the powers that be either bought and paid for or scared, then she is innocent?

You need to use your brain and look at the evidence for yourself.

To be a crook you have to have perpetrated a crime. A crime is more than just butthurt allegations of a crime.
 
But are those things worse than almost certain criminality and a lack of respect for security?

Could you enlighten us as to the number of crimes for which Hilary Clinton has been convicted? Oh hell, I'll make it easy for you. Just list the number of times she has been indicted.

But the answer to your question is yes, those things are worse. Given a choice between an ignorant, misogynistic, racist demagogue who may be a sociopath and a crook, I'll take the crook every time.
 
Sure he is.

Nobody knows what he stands for other than legalizing drugs.

Why would you think this man can be President?

Because an isolationist stance on foreign policy is not anywhere near as bad as Trump's or Clinton's.

Mr. Miller added that Mr. Johnson’s flub about Aleppo did not make him a riskier bet on foreign policy matters than is Mr. Trump. But, he said, it does highlight the problem that many Republicans have with Libertarians. “It reinforces my top policy difference with him, which is his relative isolationism” on foreign affairs, he said.

It is also quite clear what he stand for: Libertarianism. Freedom.
 
Gary Johnson Has Just Lost at Jeopardy. So What?

My heart goes out to Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor and Libertarian candidate for the U.S. presidency. He's made more headlines by sincerely asking a TV host, "And what is Aleppo?" than by anything else he's said or done during the campaign.
This is wrong on a number of levels.

I suspect a lot of this is media hubris: Journalists expect a candidate for political office to be up to speed on the agenda they set. "Crazy idea: When running for president, occasionally look at a newspaper," political journalist Alec MacGillis tweeted. Questions often test a candidate's ability to keep up with news coverage, and a passing grade is given for answers in line with the media orthodoxy on the matter. This rule is captured by a spur-of-the-moment cartoon in which Johnson asks, "Who does know what Aleppo is?" and the grimy Syrian boy rescued from the city's rubble, known to millions from an iconic news photo, raises his hand. The implication is, you're not qualified to be U.S. president if you haven't seen the image and internalized the narrative that went with it.

It could be argued that being versed in these narratives might actually be an impediment to a top office-holder. I've actually been to Aleppo, and I have no idea what it's like today. The numerous warring factions' views on the drama unfolding in what used to be Syria's biggest city and commercial center differ greatly, and even to someone with extensive contacts in the area, it's difficult to get a bird's-eye view. I would fear Johnson if he had a competent-sounding answer to the question of what he'd do about Aleppo. People on the ground and current leaders receiving information from lots of different sources have spent years looking for solutions and haven't found good ones, and the little boy's memetic image is proof of that.

Trivial knowledge is overrated.

It may be completely wrong, too.

It's much more important from a leader to exhibit cool common sense and an ability to ask the right questions to get to the bottom of a situation. If the public wants to test candidates' aptitude, it would be best served not by quizzing them but by asking them to solve cases about which they have no previous knowledge, the way consulting companies do when interviewing job applicants. "As governor, there were many things I didn't know off the top of my head," Johnson said in his defense. "But I succeeded by surrounding myself with the right people, getting to the bottom of important issues, and making principled decisions." That's the claim that should be tested, not Johnson's necessarily superficial knowledge of the Syrian conflict.
 
Last edited:
Gary Johnson Has Just Lost at Jeopardy. So What?





Trivial knowledge is overrated.

It may be completely wrong, too.

It's much more important from a leader to exhibit cool common sense and an ability to ask the right questions to get to the bottom of a situation. If the public wants to test candidates' aptitude, it would be best served not by quizzing them but by asking them to solve cases about which they have no previous knowledge, the way consulting companies do when interviewing job applicants. "As governor, there were many things I didn't know off the top of my head," Johnson said in his defense. "But I succeeded by surrounding myself with the right people, getting to the bottom of important issues, and making principled decisions." That's the claim that should be tested, not Johnson's necessarily superficial knowledge of the Syrian conflict.

When what is suspected turns up in our daily newsfeed the mind decides that it knows. The suspicion was that this guy is an out of touch vanity stoner, "What is Aleppo" rings true.

He is toast, though he always was.

Dont waste your vote!

Vote TRUMP.
 
And so begins the squabbling of Trump- and Hillary-Bought's attempts to convince Libertarians to vote against their own interests despite the blatant mainstream media discrimination against third-party candidates since it was born.
 
And so begins the squabbling of Trump- and Hillary-Bought's attempts to convince Libertarians to vote against their own interests despite the blatant mainstream media discrimination against third-party candidates since it was born.

Johnson never was a John B Anderson, somebody with actual ideas and charisma.

A hometown hero, them and Cheap Trick.

You knew that right?


EDIT: I just checked "Gary Johnson" + "Charisma" gets 68,000 hits VIA Google....Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.

He's certainly not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I'll take that over a non-choice between a stark-raving lunatic and a corrupt crook any day.
The choice is blatantly obvious.
 
He's certainly not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I'll take that over a non-choice between a stark-raving lunatic and a corrupt crook any day.
The choice is fairly obvious.

I do not wish to bear the moral burden of voting for either Clinton or Trump.
 
I don't think Gary Johnson's slip was that bad of a gaffe. I think it was a gotcha moment so the interviewer could make "point and laugh" situation rather than actually do any digging on issues.

This whole election thus far I've seen little to no actual reporting on issues and platforms. They instead spend all their time creating non-issues to bitch about.

They should stick with "How will you handle ______________?" so that the electorate just might get to be become informed voters.

This election has been about, "Your candidate sucks more than my candidate." "Does not" "Does too." "Not." "Too." Who cares if the guy didn't know what Aleppo was? Hell, it sounds like a good name for a moisturizer.

I know that Clinton is a crook and a liar. I know that Trump is a huge self propelled ego. Other than that I don't know what either one of them stands for. I know what they say they stand for at this moment but that doesn't mean squat. It's like the weather, wait five minutes and it will change.
 
Gary Johnson’s Aleppo gaffe was bad. But Trump’s consistent ignorance is worse.

But let’s be fair to Mr. Johnson: In the context of the 2016 presidential campaign, he’s far from winning the cluelessness contest. Following his gaffe, the former New Mexico governor offered a relatively cogent summary of U.S. support for various Syrian factions. Later, he apologized, saying that he thought “Aleppo” was an acronym. “I feel horrible,” he said to Bloomberg Politics. “I have to get smarter, and that’s just part of the process.”

It’s refreshing, at least, to hear a national candidate acknowledge error and vow to do better. Contrast that with Donald Trump, who in a televised national security forum Wednesday offered a staggering array of ignorant and mendacious assertions — and acknowledged no regrets about any of them. In addition to repeating his false claims to having opposed the U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya, Mr. Trump defended a tweet saying that military sexual assault was the result of men and women serving together, and he suggested the solution was to “set up a court system within the military” because “right now, the court system practically doesn’t exist.” Does he really mean to replace the U.S. military justice system?

In a choice between Trump and Johnson as alternatives to Clinton, the choice is obvious.

It's a choice between the frying pan and the fire. Or more precisely, a man who indulges in fantasy, and a man who indulges his ego, to the exclusion of much else.

Libertarianism urges a goofy Hollywood model of society. Trump offers a highly cynical one, in which he assumes everyone is as crass and ignorant as he is. If it were me, I'd go with the least worse of the three.
 
Yes, the Gary Johnson gaffe is small potatoes in the larger scheme of things. He was caught by a gotcha question. All true. But 3rd party candidates must be able to weather a gotcha gaffe to ever hope to compete with the two parties.

In fact, if we compare Johnson's miscues with some of the famous gaffes in the past, he got off light. Sarah Palin couldn't name a single newspaper she regularly read despite getting several opportunities by the journalist. Rick Perry forgot an entire government department that he promised to eliminate. Al Gore invented the internet, while George Bush surfed the internets. These gaffes and others dwarfed the Johnson mistake. I give credit to Johnson for at least owning his error and not playing the usual gotcha question victim card.

I fault Johnson for not doing what Trump does so well with negative press--use it to generate more press. Do more interviews with MSNBC and show some knowledge about national security, particularly ISIS and then pivot to his stronger issues. Go on the attack against Hillary and Trump. Johnson seems too timid. Fight back!

No president in my lifetime has won an election without suffering a horrible gaffe or similar mistake and fighting back. Why should third party candidates expect better treatment?
 
It's a choice between the frying pan and the fire. Or more precisely, a man who indulges in fantasy, and a man who indulges his ego, to the exclusion of much else.

Libertarianism urges a goofy Hollywood model of society. Trump offers a highly cynical one, in which he assumes everyone is as crass and ignorant as he is. If it were me, I'd go with the least worse of the three.

Yeah...

sad.jpg


Me too.
 
Still emoting instead of dealing with hard facts. When she's arrested, get back to me. Until then I'd like to know how she'll handle healthcare, foreign policies, economy, etc... etc... etc...

That is a really silly way of employing people and is exactly the type of thinking that gave us Nixon and put VW in such hot water recently.
 
Could you enlighten us as to the number of crimes for which Hilary Clinton has been convicted? Oh hell, I'll make it easy for you. Just list the number of times she has been indicted.

But the answer to your question is yes, those things are worse. Given a choice between an ignorant, misogynistic, racist demagogue who may be a sociopath and a crook, I'll take the crook every time.

There can be no doubt as to the negative qualities of her competitor. But that is not the topic here.
When you are employing a person, the question is quite different from that of in dubio pro reo. You do understand that?
 
Gov. Johnson had no gaffe. He did get suckered by a liberal.
 
Media Slams Gary Johnson's Aleppo Gaffe, Ignores Even Worse One From Hillary

Why did myself and nearly every single other member of DP miss this one?
Because the media capitalized on Johnson's Aleppo gaffe as a form of distraction out of desperation.

No, because there was nothing to miss. The term boots on the ground refers to an intervention by conventional ground forces. Special forces and CIA spooks are all over the place, probably in some locals that would surprise many. Sending a few dozen, or even a few hundred, on a covert and temporary mission is light years away from committing an army division on a long term defined project. And when asked about her policy, clearly her answer would refer to her possible future administration, not what any trend is now. Given the events of this election campaign, the "trend" seems to be that people are getting stupider by the minute. Hopefully that is a trend that can be reversed.

One may agree or disagree with a troop commitment to the Middle East. The point is that at least Clinton is talking about the issues, while Johnson is stumped on the basic geography. That is news.
 
Back
Top Bottom