Gary Johnson Alepwnd again: cant name a foreign leader

[gorobei]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/gary-johnson-chris-matthews/index.html

it would be better for the libertarians if he could drop out and Weld took the candidacy.

 

[MongGrel]

He's been a joke to begin with, he's clueless.

 

[ivwshane]

He suffers from the same issue trump suffers from (if you ignored trump personality defects), he wants to be president but he hasn't done the homework to create actual plans that address the issues. He's got his guiding principals but nothing else. That's the big difference between Hillary and pretty much any and every candidate this year, she actually has detailed plans of not only what she wants to do but how to achieve those goals in today's political climate.

He had no specifics when he was asked questions about actual policies.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Has he stopped his marijuana usage on the campaign trail? Maybe he just needs to smoke a bowl and calm his nerves.

Weld is worse though. I'd take a guy that doesn't know anything over a guy that admires Merkel.

 

[Thump553]

It was an interesting question, though. My wife and I were discussing it at length and neither of us could come up with the name of a specific LIVING foreign leader that we admired. Angela Merkel was the closest either of us would come-she's certainly competent and exercises great common sense and is an excellent leader of her country but I don;t think she has done anything that makes her particularly admirable.

I do think Gary Johnson's sole role in this election is to be a Ralph Nader type spoiler, to divert young disaffected Sanders voters into throwing away their vote as a matter of protest, which is a de facto vote for Trump. If you want the GOP to control the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary for decades to come and control all three branches of the federal government as well as most state houses and have an erratic mentally suspect financial predator as President, then just be honest and vote for him directly. Just don't complain later about the US adopting so-called Christian sharia law, crumbling infra structure and laws biased towards the ultra wealthy.

Sometimes I feel like a German citizen in the 1920s watching my country slide over the edge. At least they had solid reasons for their anger.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'd have answered Jinping tbh. I always mess up and forget the name of Singapore's leader's name because Chinese names are backwards from English names and I can't shake the Kuan Yew of his daddy, and because at least Jinping has a memorable and longish birth name so from my POV it's ok to refer to him impolitely.

 

[ivwshane]

I can't think of a single one that I admire either.

 

[agent00f]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/gary-johnson-chris-matthews/index.html

it would be better for the libertarians if he could drop out and Weld took the candidacy.

Easy question for Trump.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I saw the clip. I like how alarms went off in Bill Welds head when he heard the question Gary was asked and he shouts out my favorite is...

 

[glenn1]

He suffers from the same issue trump suffers from (if you ignored trump personality defects), he wants to be president but he hasn't done the homework to create actual plans that address the issues. He's got his guiding principals but nothing else. That's the big difference between Hillary and pretty much any and every candidate this year, she actually has detailed plans of not only what she wants to do but how to achieve those goals in today's political climate.

He had no specifics when he was asked questions about actual policies.

The Presidency isn't a spelling bee where recalling facts is the sole objective. I'll take him having better principles than Clinton or Trump every day over him knowing the name of one more obscure country's capital city or Prime Minister. If that sort of thing is important to you in a President then vote accordingly but not everyone is going to care.

 

[feralkid]

The Presidency isn't a spelling bee where recalling facts is the sole objective. I'll take him having better principles than Clinton or Trump every day over him knowing the name of one more . If that sort of thing is important to you in a President then vote accordingly but not everyone is going to care.

Gee, Glenn, don't you think that anyone seriously running for the office of President of the United States ought to ask an advisor or two about whom he'd be dealing with on the world stage, if elected?


Furthermore, he wasn't asked to name some "Obscure country's capital city or Prime Minister"...he was asked to name his favorite.

Total softball question.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The Presidency isn't a spelling bee where recalling facts is the sole objective. I'll take him having better principles than Clinton or Trump every day over him knowing the name of one more obscure country's capital city or Prime Minister. If that sort of thing is important to you in a President then vote accordingly but not everyone is going to care.

Glenn, I know you like the libertarian party but somehow I think your response would be different if Hillary didn't have an answer to the question name a world leader you admire.
For the record I'm sure he knows someone he just collapsed under the pressure for whatever reason. What's going to happen if he has pressure like Obama had before the Bin Laden raid or NK or China trying to annex that island or Putin threatening Poland or any other international even that will be high pressure?

 

[glenn1]

Glenn, I know you like the libertarian party but somehow I think your answer would be different if Hillary didn't have an answer to the question name a world leader you admire.
For the record I'm sure he knows someone he just collapsed under the pressure for whatever reason. What's going to happen if he has pressure like Obama had before the Bin Laden raid or NK or China trying to annex that island or Putin threatening Poland or any other international even that will be high pressure?

Since Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State I would presume she could field this question without much issue. As for your "high pressure" question unless being able to cite the name of an admired foreign leader helps you resolve the island annexation or invasion of Poland I don't see how it's relevant. What would Hillary do with the information, say "Hey Mr. Putin, can you hold on for a minute while I put my favorite foreign leader President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski of Peru on the line to talk some sense into you about this whole Poland business"?

 

[fskimospy]

Since Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State I would presume she could field this question without much issue. As for your "high pressure" question unless being able to cite the name of an admired foreign leader helps you resolve the island annexation or invasion of Poland I don't see how it's relevant. What would Hillary do with the information, say "Hey Mr. Putin, can you hold on for a minute while I put my favorite foreign leader President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski of Peru on the line to talk some sense into you about this whole Poland business"?

It's more like a very simple test of your knowledge that signals larger things. There are a hundred things a leader needs to consider in some dispute between Russia and Poland and if you don't even know a foreign leader's name chances are good you don't know the other things either.

Also, why is Johnson a superior choice? He wants to return to the gold standard, which would probably cause a worldwide economic depression. That seems to be a pretty horrible principle to me.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Since Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State I would presume she could field this question without much issue. As for your "high pressure" question unless being able to cite the name of an admired foreign leader helps you resolve the island annexation or invasion of Poland I don't see how it's relevant. What would Hillary do with the information, say "Hey Mr. Putin, can you hold on for a minute while I put my favorite foreign leader President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski of Peru on the line to talk some sense into you about this whole Poland business"?

Its about "Grace Under Pressure".



He's folded twice in an interview and I'm supposed to believe his skills are so great he'll never be in a similar situation after being elected?


No Rush links Canadians I'm not a fan

 

[glenn1]

It's more like a very simple test of your knowledge that signals larger things. There are a hundred things a leader needs to consider in some dispute between Russia and Poland and if you don't even know a foreign leader's name chances are good you don't know the other things either.

Also, why is Johnson a superior choice? He wants to return to the gold standard, which would probably cause a worldwide economic depression. That seems to be a pretty horrible principle to me.

First, I'm not here to expound on the merits or demerits of any specific candidate (Johnson included) and am not soliciting votes for him. How about just accepting that's who I choose to vote for and accepting it like I will accept whoever you choose to vote for under whatever criteria you deem important.

Second, if you think that "simple tests of knowledge that signal larger things" is an important tool in vetting candidates then great, this question was very helpful for you. My opinion is that while citing rote memorized facts about names, etc. might be important for a contestant on Jeopardy it isn't a key attribute for the Presidency. I know that opinion differs from you on this and we'll leave it at that.

 

[glenn1]

Its about "Grace Under Pressure".

Sorta like the Grace Under Pressure about deciding whether to send reinforcements to protect our consulate and ambassador? Or grace to about the requirement that she turn over her emails when she left office, about which she said her failure might be due in part to a concussion she suffered in 2012. Or numerous other bad and self-serving choices she's made.

 

[fskimospy]

First, I'm not here to expound on the merits or demerits of any specific candidate (Johnson included) and am not soliciting votes for him. How about just accepting that's who I choose to vote for and accepting it like I will accept whoever you choose to vote for under whatever criteria you deem important.

What? I don't think a question of why you are voting for someone who has comically horrible economic ideas is out of line at all. Don't know why that would offend you.

Second, if you think that "simple tests of knowledge that signal larger things" is an important tool in vetting candidates then great, this question was very helpful for you. My opinion is that while citing rote memorized facts about names, etc. might be important for a contestant on Jeopardy it isn't a key attribute for the Presidency. I know that opinion differs from you on this and we'll leave it at that.

Do you think knowledge of the world is important for a president to have? If so, does this answer make you more confident or less confident that he has such knowledge?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Sorta like the Grace Under Pressure about deciding whether to send reinforcements to protect our consulate and ambassador? Or grace to about the requirement that she turn over her emails when she left office, about which she said her failure might be due in part to a concussion she suffered in 2012. Or numerous other bad and self-serving choices she's made.

While we may not agree about the process or outcome the years long grilling and 11 or 12(?) hour grilling have proven grace under pressure.

Your earlier point is very fair Glenn its your vote, I'm not here to bust balls.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorta like the Grace Under Pressure about deciding whether to send reinforcements to protect our consulate and ambassador? Or grace to about the requirement that she turn over her emails when she left office, about which she said her failure might be due in part to a concussion she suffered in 2012. Or numerous other bad and self-serving choices she's made.

The choice to send reinforcements comes from the military commanders, not the Secretary of State. Deferring to the experts in theater is actually the dictionary definition of a good choice.

 

[Genx87]

It's more like a very simple test of your knowledge that signals larger things. There are a hundred things a leader needs to consider in some dispute between Russia and Poland and if you don't even know a foreign leader's name chances are good you don't know the other things either.

Also, why is Johnson a superior choice? He wants to return to the gold standard, which would probably cause a worldwide economic depression. That seems to be a pretty horrible principle to me.

He doesn't want to start needless wars and kill US citizens with drones. And quite frankly of all his policies those is the most easy to implement as a president. Johnson isn't going to get either party to return us to the gold standard.

 

[dank69]

What I find most hilarious about all this is that a large number of Johnson supporters claim Hillary is blocking him from the debates because she is afraid he'd beat her handily.

 

[dullard]

Second, if you think that "simple tests of knowledge that signal larger things" is an important tool in vetting candidates then great, this question was very helpful for you. My opinion is that while citing rote memorized facts about names, etc. might be important for a contestant on Jeopardy it isn't a key attribute for the Presidency. I know that opinion differs from you on this and we'll leave it at that.

You are correct that rote memorization isn't important. But we aren't talking about rote memorization.

I can just picture this:
[Urgent Advisor] President Johnson, Putin has aimed his missiles at us.
[Gary] Who?
[Urgent Advisor] Putin is the leader of Russia.
[Gary] Where is that?
[Urgent Advisor] The northern portion of top of Eurasia.
[Gary] WTF?
[Urgent Advisor] We need to respond quickly.
[Gary] Are they our enemy?

Rote memorization isn't important. But damn you need to know about Aleppo, at least SOME foreign leaders, general knowledge of history, etc if you want to actually be able to lead in critical situations. The presidency isn't just about sitting back and thinking about your principles. It is about making crucial decisions in time of need. You have days to veto bills, weeks to write your speeches, you can ponder your principles then (and change parties/principles like Johnson did). But you can't take time to learn history in the heat of the moment.

If voters don't like Trump or Clinton. They still have Stein to vote for. At least she isn't that worthless Johnson.

 

[Svnla]

Foreign leaders that I admired? I would name a few. (past and present)... Dalai Lama, Winston Churchill, Suu Kyi, Shinzo Abe, Mohandas Gandhi.

 

[fskimospy]

He doesn't want to start needless wars and kill US citizens with drones. And quite frankly of all his policies those is the most easy to implement as a president. Johnson isn't going to get either party to return us to the gold standard.

I certainly appreciate those elements of his policies, especially the no extrajudicial execution of US citizens policy.

He would still have a lot of influence over budgetary and monetary policy anyway through having to sign them and Fed appointments. Even though he couldn't put us back on the gold standard he could still to a lot of damage.