Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
At least a spoonerism, Gary. Bow us a throne.
Parkinsons. It explains a lot!
Johnson and Weld, if they had Secret Service protection, their code names: "pot bong" and "beer bong," respectively."Weld then jumped in to say he admired Angela Merkel of Germany."Dear Lord.
All I know is Clinton people keep telling me a vote for GJ is a vote for Trump. Great! -- sounds like that would give me 2 votes against Clinton!
Hard to think of anyone, really. Orban came to mind but I remembered it as Corban before looking it up.But I'm not running, etc.
I'd have gone with Kim Jong Un.A satire of the MSM/government complex.I happen to like the fake department stores.
And yet if Trump bungled that question, you'd be going on about how it was a "gotcha" question and a biased media is out to get him. And then you'd ask "how many of us can name a current world leader we admire, off the top of our heads? At least Trump is more like us!"Please--at least make some effort towards not looking completely in the tank for Trump.
He should have said "The guy that makes your leg tingle Chris, Barack Obama!"
This could be the problem. I don't think that he stopped.
I'm not even sure what current world leader a libertarian American should admire. Theresa May? Don't really know enough about her yet, she just took office. Merkel and other EU leaders are probably too socialist by our standards. Ditto for Trudeau, and the guy running India. Duterte is a thug, scratch that. Who should he have picked? Who should Trump or Clinton have picked?I do like that we're holding a third party candidate to higher standards than the boobs running on the major party tickets.
Someone vandalized my daughter's JOHNSON WELD yard sign with two pieces of yellow tape, changing it to JOHNSON WEED.
Oh sure, he's going to legalize weed because it has no effect and then he gives it up because he wants the White House. But didn't give it up soon enough.
That is his brain on dope.
Traditionally, Libertarians are isolationists. They don't care about anything outside the US. They don't think the US government should either. Why should Johnson know anything about foreign affairs?
Its actually kind of a trick question for average Americans: most living world leaders only come to our attention for their un-American activities.
It's so odd because the L party finally had a real chance this time, and these guys are the best they could come up with? I know some people tout them as former successful governors, but why then are they coming across like Cheech and Chong? And why do they seem to have no concept of libertarianism (except presumably when it comes to drug legalization?) I can see trying to be more mainstream and less extreme on the ideology, but this seems more like cluelessness.
Althouse: "What is this man's problem?!"Other than the fact that he's wasting his time and money on a quixotic campaign for an election that he can't possibly win?
"I do like that we're holding a third party candidate to higher standards than the boobs running on the major party tickets."Yep, it's a phenomenon I've heard called the "Weird Man's Burden"... Though the term itself is a bit loaded.Something about the "D" or "R" labels grant their candidates a degree of immunity.
@ken- I actually thought about that but if you are an isolationist trying to win support in a country where voters are wary of that, it is highly ineffective to demonstrate that you think we can just ignore the rest of the world. To convince people, they need to demonstrate that there is a way to be well informed of the actions and intentions of people around the world, and interact in a way that allows us to be more inwardly focused.
I just went through the world leaders I can name in my mind. Got about a half-dozen and don't really like any of them. I definite would've chosen Merkel a couple years ago but her immigration policy has caused such chaos I have lost a lot of respect for her. Cameron is gone but he was meh. Holland is a socialist. Trudeau ... you've got to be kidding. Kim Jong Un? Ha ha. Berlosconi? Spain? Is he their leader? Putin? I kinda like him but you wouldn't dare say that. Grabasthwaite? I know I spelled that wrong but I do happen to know who the president of Lithuania is having lived there for a year. African leaders? I'm drawing a blank. Idi Amin. Kidding. Qaddafi's gone, thanks to Hillary. Oh, I know who I would've said ... Benjamin Netenyahu.
Yeah, I wouldn't be able to come up with any I ADMIRE either.Maybe Theresa May, but she's too new to really evaluate.Weld saying Merkel was sooper stupid, though.
I think that the way you get to be the Libertarian nominee for president, is if you fail to get your rejection in on time.
Yes, it's the 'that you admire' qualifier.Toomas Hendrik Ilves?
What is this man's problem?!Long term substance abuse (alcohol, weed). Proving that weed is no worse than alcohol.
The word is STONED.
I think he's far more likable than either Hillary or Trump. Sadly, we don't choose our presidents based on their detachment and gentle sense of whimsy about world problems.....,I think he must be more damaging to Trump than Hillary. I can't think of any scandals related to him.If he was hurting Hillary, we wouldt hear about his selling pot to underage girls or some such crap.
I might have said Benjamin Netanyahu. However, Chris Matthews makes it impossible to answer him. I might have said, if you'd shut up for a second I might be able to answer your question. I don't think I coukd suffer through an interview with Chris Matthews.
I guess I ain't having me no Aleppo moment: my brain is gushing out names/ideas/solutions to every problem there is.To start, calling things a problem that aren't problems is a big f*&%^&% problem, okay.Drinking and smoking is a problem the whole world wishes/dreams/desires it had, alright.And getting free meals and donations while being told how brave and great you are (all in hopes of someday selling some bullshit book or maybe scoring some crappy pundit job on a cable show nobody watches) ain't a problem for the dude or dude'ettes receiving nor for the donors. Everybody feels awesome and great and unique and by Golly it's the coveted "win/win" situation. Once you understand that, we will move on my friend to loftier topics ranging from "Free Bird" to Clint Eastwood's Breezy starring the nymphy Kay Lenz.
Haha. It made me laugh. I was yelling Trudeau at the computer screen while I was watching. Not that I admire him, but because it's so important to name someone, anyone. He could have BSed about how Trudeau has engaged young people or something like that. Or after saying you admired Fox and Peres, saying most of the current world leaders are less liberty than you care for. But oh man, that's a Palin moment for sure.
I don't think Johnson admires Netanyahu, though that's probably what I would say too.
Nothing wrong with didactic fund-raising; knock it not until you try it.
Johnson's "problem" might be . . . oh wait, what Eric said. Try and answer Matthews's question with Matthews sitting at your elbow virtually shouting, "what foreign leader do you most respect? Huh? Which one? Come on. Which one? Right now! Which one do you respect? Tell me. The audience wants to know. Come on. Name one. Just one. The foreign leader you most respect. Betcha can't. Cat got your tongue? Tell me. Foreign leaders. Which one do you most respect? You can name anyone you like. Or don't like. Foreign. Hurry. Running out of time. Name him. Or her. You can name a her. Merkel for example. Oops! Can't name Merkel cause I just did and that wouldn't be fair. Come on. Name just one. Or a country or a city in a country. Or Aleppo. Name Aleppo. It might be a foreign leader. Ya never know. Name one."
The go to names are always Lincoln, Gandhi, and Mandela. Washington is now kind of controversial. I like that Danish leader that Obama was flirting with. She's kind of hot. She's got a phone worth hacking if you catch my drift.
Agree with the first comment, "too mellow". That might work for being a governor, but not POTUS. Also, agree with all the weed references. Weed works well with artistic endeavors, but alcohol is the drug for politics.
But oh man, that's a Palin moment for sure.Haha, yeah I was thinking he might just as well have said, "Any and all of them, that have been in front of me all these years."I can appreciate the point about not actually admiring any of them, but there are ways to answer that without making it obvious that you are uninformed. Name a few and name a couple of specific traits without generally saying you admire the person overall, or express admiration despite differences of ideology..or say it would be inappropriate for you to display favoritism because geopolitics isn't personal...that all countries choose the leaders that suit them and you intend to work collegiality with people who represent their countries even if you don't always agree with or admire them. And while you are spitting that out you are mentally thinking of a couple of specific leaders you can refer to in the follow up question (because you are not a Democrat so there will be a follow up question.)
The correct answer would have been Donald Trump.
Libertarians are defective. Sort of like all people from Alabama.
"I can appreciate the point about not actually admiring any of them, but there are ways to answer that without making it obvious that you are uninformed. Name a few and name a couple of specific traits without generally saying you admire the person overall, or express admiration despite differences of ideology..or say it would be inappropriate for you to display favoritism because geopolitics isn't personal...that all countries choose the leaders that suit them and you intend to work collegiality with people who represent their countries even if you don't always agree with or admire them. And while you are spitting that out you are mentally thinking of a couple of specific leaders you can refer to in the follow up question (because you are not a Democrat so there will be a follow up question.)"The "admire" part is what trips me up. If I could use examples of leaders no longer in office, I could come up with many (always start with Churchill) but who does anyone admire now? Even if there are some things you admire about a leader (Merkel is great at bowling!) you'd come with the baggage of anything else they did that might overshadow it.I agree though that claiming "gotcha question!" is a Palinesque cop out--answer the question the way you prefer, just throw in a historical example or mention someone you don't really admire but think will be important to work with (e.g., Putin).I'm just a little surprised--or maybe I shouldn't be--that Althouse reacts to this and the Aleppo moment as though Johnson is clearly an unqualified nitwit, but nary a word about her Hero Trump when he promises under him Putin will never go into the Ukraine, or suggests TPP was implemented to help China, or gives a self-contradictory answer about first use of nukes.
Clearly, this man has fried his brain with too much dope.
not to physiognomize but the man has an extraordinarily small jaw (which is not something you notice except when someone visibily has no fight in them)
If he doesn't have an answer, then simply challenge the premise that the question should be answered as asked. Picking out someone he admires risks offending other leaders that he will have to work with. Then say, Chris, when did you stop beating your wife?
And what about Chris Matthews? He's a real tingle man but apparently not feeling the tingle with Johnson. Johnson needs to be destroyed or should I say assisted in his self-destruction so he doesn't get any of crooked Hillary's votes.
The media don't want Johnson getting any votes that they feel belong to that crooked woman, Hillary.
Asking a libertarian which foreign leader they admire is like asking a vegan what their favorite cut of steak is. 90% of world leaders are some degree of socialist and the other 10% are outright murderous dictators. But a two term governor with an outstanding record of actually governing is "disqualified" because he isn't a quiz show champ. The entire premise of the question was shallow and stupid. Like being president is the same thing as being a beauty pageant contestant. "What is your favorite color in the rainbow, governor" I understand why the Hillary flying monkeys are pushing this out there today - Gary Johnson is beating them with young people and independents and she can't win if they don't get those votes "back." What I don't get is why Althouse runs him down. Is she simply unaware of his record in office at all, or what?
He should have answered, "Aleppo".
$18 million the DNC is pouring into stopping the Johnson/Weld campaign. Because they're not worried about him at all. AT ALL. Nancy Pelosi seems to think Johnson voters support him because of his hairstyle or some such nonsense. It couldn't be that he's the least corrupt candidate with the most executive experience, could it? Not that! But I digress. I wouldn't have known how to answer that question either, since it's obviously a trap that's being set so the media can come back aghast at whatever choice he names. Netanyahu? Reagan? Thatcher? Horror! Churchill? Colonialist! Blair? War-monger! Washington, Jefferson? Slave owners! And on and on. Any answer that doesn't include a full-on fellating of President Obama would be open for critique. The smarter move would have been to tell the ever-slurring host that there are no foreign leaders who send a tingle down his leg, and just leave it at that.
"Bizarre" should be thrown n there somewhere.
ALEPPO [American Led Emergency Partial Peace Operation] is failing badly.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/world/middleeast/aleppo-syria.html Undeterred and infuriated by Western accusations of war crimes and barbarity in the aerial assault on Aleppo, the Syrian government and its ally Russia intensively bombed the city in northern Syria on Monday for the fourth consecutive day......Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, told reporters in Washington that diplomacy remained for now the only viable option for reducing the fighting in Syria and ending the war. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/world/middleeast/russias-brutal-bombing-of-aleppo-may-be-calculated-and-it-may-be-working.html Observers attribute Russia’s bombing to recklessness, cruelty or Moscow’s desperate thrashing in what the White House has called a “quagmire.”But many analysts take a different view: Russia and its Syrian government allies, they say, could be massacring Aleppo’s civilians as part of a calculated strategy, aimed beyond this one city.The strategy, more about politics than advancing the battle lines, appears to be designed to pressure rebels to ally themselves with extremists, eroding the rebels’ legitimacy; give Russia veto power over any high-level diplomacy; and exhaust Syrian civilians who might otherwise support the opposition.This approach could succeed even if pro-government forces never retake Aleppo. A yearlong siege of the city has not brought President Bashar al-Assad’s forces closer to victory. Too weak to win outright, they appear instead to be hedging, trying to weaken the rebels so that they cannot win either, and to ensure any final settlement would be more favorable for Moscow and its allies.Though killing civilians often backfires in war, in this case it may be all too effective.
LMAO @ these two bozos! Mortimer Snerd and W.C. Fields for president and VP! That exchange was fucking hysterical- Two clowns who look like they just got dragged out of a drunk-tank to answer questions under a hot light. Mortimer couldn't come up with a single name of a foreign leader, whole W.C. stage whispers "Shimon Peres...", a name they recall only because Peres was in the news for having died that morning. Then more hemming and hawing and dumb chuckles from Mr. Snerd, then Mr. Fields offers the kicker- "Psst! Merkel..." LMAO! Merkel! The architect of the Syrian migrant disaster causing havoc all over Europe. There's the leader these guys respect. Well, if Hillary wins, we know these two zeros are going to find important roles in her administration. Brain-dead know-nothing loyal lackeys with years of impressive political experience like this don't grow on trees.
Doug said...He should have answered, "Aleppo".9/29/16, 12:31 PMHe did!
Libertarians are defective. Sort of like all people from Alabama.I resemble that remark. But I'm not from Alabama.
It seems to me that the faults of the Donald are overlooked to a far greater degree than Johnson's honest responses to subjects that he cannot think of an answer but when Donald didn't know what the "nuclear triad" was, he rambled for several minutes showing his stupidity. Rubio followed him to the Mike and explained the subject but Trump supporters say he won the debate.Let me put forward a feat that Johnson accomplishes with ease that his opponents couldn't begin to even mimic:http://tinyurl.com/goagv4eNot too shabby for a 63 year old.
Post a Comment