Gary Johnson: "And what is Aleppo?"

[Anonymous]

Google the Checkpoint Charlie Museum to see how well a wall works at keeping people contained, even when there are armed guards watching it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While it's strange for anybody following current event not having heard of Aleppo... We really should not know or care. Let alone fight there.

? We shouldn't know or care about world events and that there is a humanitarian crisis? Okaaay.

No, Americans should not care about humanitarian crises elsewhere.

In point of fact, "we should mind our own business" used to be the basic Libertarian foreign policy platform.

Well, I'm thankful that the Libertarians aren't ruling this country. So, if there is a humanitarian crisis the US shouldn't help. We should not be involved in NATO or the UN. We should build a wall around this country and stick our heads in the ground. Can you name me one successful country that has this kind of foreign policy, where they are not involved in the UN or provide humanitarian assistance?

Libertarian is short-hand for selfish a-holes who were picked on in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if Hillary had done the exact same thing, you'd be screaming that she isn't qualified to tour the Intrepid as a tourist.

Hillary wouldn't make that mistake.

Trump would, though. Difference is Trump would try to answer it instead of admitting he didn't know what it was.

Trump would respond by saying that it's really terrible and he would fix it in his first 30 days.

He would build a wall to keep Aleppo out. Bad guy.

Bad? Sounds awesome to me. Doesn't go far enough, though. We need a wall big enough to keep ALL of Syria out.

I'm thinking now it should be a dome

[Anonymous]

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/08/media-and-pundits-dont-know-what-aleppo-is-but-they-try-to-explain-it-to-gary-johnson/

"Media and pundits don’t know what Aleppo is, but they try to explain it to Gary Johnson
NY Times, ex-U.S. ambassador to Iraq and longest U.S. spokesman at U.N. all falsely described Aleppo as an ISIS hub"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

http://www.salon.com/2016/09/08/media-and-pundits-dont-know-what-aleppo-is-but-they-try-to-explain-it-to-gary-johnson/

"Media and pundits don’t know what Aleppo is, but they try to explain it to Gary Johnson
NY Times, ex-U.S. ambassador to Iraq and longest U.S. spokesman at U.N. all falsely described Aleppo as an ISIS hub"

Regardless of how these other people described it, Johnson's interviewer described it correctly as the "epicenter of the refugee crisis."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a carefully chosen gotcha question - no doubt. They prob have data that shows Johnson is stealing more votes from Hillary than from Trump.

The way MB repeated "ALEPPO" and seared into him with his eyes tells me it was an intentional attempt to expose Johnson for his ignorance.

Um, This is what it means to have Aleppo seared into you:

It means a transparently fake photo staged for political purposes?

OMG -- do some of you people really think that photo was staged? Really???

[Anonymous]

In case you missed it, the NY Times has had to issue a series of corrections because it, well, has even less of a clue than Gary Johnson:

http://www.motherjones.com/contributor/2016/09/new-york-times-just-issued-funniest-and-most-embarrassing-correction-ever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While it's strange for anybody following current event not having heard of Aleppo... We really should not know or care. Let alone fight there.

? We shouldn't know or care about world events and that there is a humanitarian crisis? Okaaay.

No, Americans should not care about humanitarian crises elsewhere.

In point of fact, "we should mind our own business" used to be the basic Libertarian foreign policy platform.

Well, I'm thankful that the Libertarians aren't ruling this country. So, if there is a humanitarian crisis the US shouldn't help. We should not be involved in NATO or the UN. We should build a wall around this country and stick our heads in the ground. Can you name me one successful country that has this kind of foreign policy, where they are not involved in the UN or provide humanitarian assistance?

Libertarian is short-hand for selfish a-holes who were picked on in high school.

You sound as if you could have been one of the bullies who picked on them.

[Anonymous]

Mike Barnicle: "What would you do if you were elected about Aleppo?"
HRC: "BleachBit"
MB: "You're kidding. You'd BleachBit a city?"
HRC: "No. Cough. I'd BleachBit you. Cough. I didn't know you were a reporter. Cough, cough, cough ..."

[Anonymous]

That is the name of dog food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Google the Checkpoint Charlie Museum to see how well a wall works at keeping people contained, even when there are armed guards watching it.

Um, that doesn't prove what you think it proves.

Before the Wall went up, 3.5 million East Germans defected to the West.

After it went up, 5,000 defected.

The Wall reduced crossings from 218,000 people a year to 178 people a year. THAT WALL WORKED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a carefully chosen gotcha question - no doubt. They prob have data that shows Johnson is stealing more votes from Hillary than from Trump.

The way MB repeated "ALEPPO" and seared into him with his eyes tells me it was an intentional attempt to expose Johnson for his ignorance.

It was an intentional gotcha. A normal question would have provided some context to introduce the subject matter area. I'm sure Johnson knows what the city of Aleppo is, what the Syrian crisis is -- he answered about ending the civil war after all. But the sound ah-lep-po came out of nowhere, and it didn't immediately register.

Uh, no. I was watching live. Mike Barnicle is not a gotcha guy. And he's not a reporter. He's an independent/moderate columnist/pundit. This was a softball question on a panel discussion that this guy just completely whiffed on.

You could tell watching that nobody expected this guy to whiff like that. Everyone on the panel was thunderstruck.

If, in September 2016, you don't recognize the word "Aleppo" as a war-torn city in Syria right out of the gate, that means you don't read the paper daily, let alone prepare yourself to be President of the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a carefully chosen gotcha question - no doubt. They prob have data that shows Johnson is stealing more votes from Hillary than from Trump.

The way MB repeated "ALEPPO" and seared into him with his eyes tells me it was an intentional attempt to expose Johnson for his ignorance.

Um, This is what it means to have Aleppo seared into you:

It means a transparently fake photo staged for political purposes?

OMG -- do some of you people really think that photo was staged? Really???

Yes it was staged. All those "boo hoo hoo poor Syrians" photos are staged.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-wounded-boy-in-orange-seat-another-staged-white-helmets-stunt/5541662

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In point of fact, "we should mind our own business" used to be the basic Libertarian foreign policy platform.

Well, I'm thankful that the Libertarians aren't ruling this country. So, if there is a humanitarian crisis the US shouldn't help. We should not be involved in NATO or the UN. We should build a wall around this country and stick our heads in the ground. Can you name me one successful country that has this kind of foreign policy, where they are not involved in the UN or provide humanitarian assistance?

Yes. The USA from 1789 to 1945.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Google the Checkpoint Charlie Museum to see how well a wall works at keeping people contained, even when there are armed guards watching it.

Um, that doesn't prove what you think it proves.

Before the Wall went up, 3.5 million East Germans defected to the West.

After it went up, 5,000 defected.

The Wall reduced crossings from 218,000 people a year to 178 people a year. THAT WALL WORKED.

You're conflating total border crossing defections from the DDR to West Germany with defections from East Berlin to West Berlin.