Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

jwfocker wrote: First time anyone has described me as passionate but yeah at least know where and what it is. I honestly don't think that's asking too much.

It's not. I just don't think it justifies the current ZOMG level response the internet and media have given it. It reeks of the "protect the Hilldog" mindset.

tragabigzanda wrote:From Gary Johnson's campaign website:

Many senior military and foreign policy analysts have concluded that the rise of ISIS can actually be traced back to instability created by our meddling in the affairs of others. This is because the last several administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have used our military resources to pursue undemocratic regime changes, embark on impossible nation-building exercises, and to establish the United States as the policeman of the world.

This imperialistic foreign policy makes it easier for ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other violent extremists to recruit new members. We need to build a strong military. But we should not use our military strength to try to solve the world’s problems. Doing so creates new enemies and perpetual war.

Besides, we have enough problems to solve right here at home.

As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to cut off the funding on which finance violent extremist armies depend. He will repair relationships with our allies. And he will only send our brave soldiers to war when clearly authorized by Congress after meaningful, transparent deliberation and debate.

The idea that we can defeat terrorism by simply putting more boots on the ground or dropping more bombs ignores the reality that this expensive tactic simply hasn’t worked. In fact, it’s made the situation worse.

No Nation Building. No Policing the World. More Security Here at Home.

From the Libertarian Party website:

The foundation of libertarianism is mutual respect. It is a principle that extends to our relationships with people throughout the world.

In his first inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson cited the essence of a libertarian foreign policy, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." This echoed the advice of President George Washington that "the great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

The twin pillars of a sane foreign policy are:

(1) Building positive relationships, with an emphasis on free trade, and

(2) Avoiding negative relationships, with an emphasis on military non-intervention.

All I'm saying is, if this guy wants to run as a third-party candidate with a strong focus on domestic issues and an explicit focus on non-engagement with "nation building," -- and if, as a third-party candidate, he is not privy to the same sorts of financial backing (--> foreign policy experts) nor intelligence briefings, then immediately discounting his credibility as a viable option because he didn't know Aleppo is a close-minded way to digest our current political climate.

Sure, let's raise some questions: should this guy know Aleppo if he wants to be President?
Probably yes.

Was that sort of knowledge relevant to his previous political career?
Not really, no.

Does he have an enormous team of foreign policy experts whispering in his ear all day?
No.

I don't like any attitude that potentially discounts him from getting on a debate stage this fall. He's got a lot of good ideas that will, at the very least, force the other two to better define themselves as potential leaders. Bi_3's argument resonated with me a lot: Different people have different priorities. Johnson is trying to appeal to people whose priorities are not in the middle east right now. I think it makes sense to continue to hear him out.

Strat wrote:If we're going to dismiss an experienced fella like Gary Johnson for not being clear on this item here, then we must dismiss, ban, and throw shit at trump for not knowing most anything that he will confront.

Bi_3 wrote:Where do we stand on the Hillary in-ear-receiver controversy?

Strat wrote:If we're going to dismiss an experienced fella like Gary Johnson for not being clear on this item here, then we must dismiss, ban, and throw shit at trump for not knowing most anything that he will confront.

McParadigm wrote:

Strat wrote:If we're going to dismiss an experienced fella like Gary Johnson for not being clear on this item here, then we must dismiss, ban, and throw shit at trump for not knowing most anything that he will confront.

Do you feel like the people who have a problem with presidential candidate Gary Johnson not knowing key fact-points (not even talking about conceptual or historical knowledge...just a simple fact in the form of the name of an important location) are mostly also the people who lerve Donald Trump?

Strat wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Strat wrote:If we're going to dismiss an experienced fella like Gary Johnson for not being clear on this item here, then we must dismiss, ban, and throw shit at trump for not knowing most anything that he will confront.

Do you feel like the people who have a problem with presidential candidate Gary Johnson not knowing key fact-points (not even talking about conceptual or historical knowledge...just a simple fact in the form of the name of an important location) are mostly also the people who lerve Donald Trump?

Of course not. I dont think any trump supporter actually knows who Gary Johnson is to begin with?

I did find it funny that CNN had a headline about this. Every fucking headline should be about trump not knowing something, btu for some reason Gary Johnson not knowing this was headline worthy. We really have set the bar low for Donald Trump

theplatypus wrote:Also I don't think Trump has had a flub like this one recently. I think if he said he didn't know what Aleppo was it'd be all over the news. Like his gaffe about Crimea a few weeks ago.