The General Election

While I'd like there to be a viable third-party option, Gary Johnson is not it:

Gary Johnson: it’s good to not know stuff about other countries

Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson thinks knowing stuff about foreign countries is a bad quality in a president, because it means you're more likely to launch wars. That is a thing that he actually said, in an MSNBC interview on Tuesday afternoon picked up by ThinkProgress’s Alice Ollstein.

"The fact that somebody can dot the i’s and cross the t’s on a foreign leader or a geographic location then allows them to put our military in harm’s way," Johnson said to a skeptical-seeming Andrea Mitchell.

This is an odd theory, to say the least. Does Johnson really think uninformed people are more likely to be pacifists? Donald Trump seems like a good counterexample. Does Johnson expect anyone to believe ignorant people should run US foreign policy? It’s hard to see how he could.

But Johnson has put himself in an impossible position on foreign policy through a series of gaffes, and is now desperately making up excuses to try to cover his tracks.
Click to expand...
 
knapplc said:
While I'd like there to be a viable third-party option, Gary Johnson is not it:

Gary Johnson: it’s good to not know stuff about other countries
Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson thinks knowing stuff about foreign countries is a bad quality in a president, because it means you're more likely to launch wars. That is a thing that he actually said, in an MSNBC interview on Tuesday afternoon picked up by ThinkProgress’s Alice Ollstein.

"The fact that somebody can dot the i’s and cross the t’s on a foreign leader or a geographic location then allows them to put our military in harm’s way," Johnson said to a skeptical-seeming Andrea Mitchell.

This is an odd theory, to say the least. Does Johnson really think uninformed people are more likely to be pacifists? Donald Trump seems like a good counterexample. Does Johnson expect anyone to believe ignorant people should run US foreign policy? It’s hard to see how he could.

But Johnson has put himself in an impossible position on foreign policy through a series of gaffes, and is now desperately making up excuses to try to cover his tracks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, you are probably correct.

I guess I'm left with writing myself in so someday I can tell my grandkids I received a vote for President of the United States of America.

They will be in such awe of their Grandfather.

 
knapplc said:
While I'd like there to be a viable third-party option, Gary Johnson is not it:

Gary Johnson: it’s good to not know stuff about other countries
Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson thinks knowing stuff about foreign countries is a bad quality in a president, because it means you're more likely to launch wars. That is a thing that he actually said, in an MSNBC interview on Tuesday afternoon picked up by ThinkProgress’s Alice Ollstein.

"The fact that somebody can dot the i’s and cross the t’s on a foreign leader or a geographic location then allows them to put our military in harm’s way," Johnson said to a skeptical-seeming Andrea Mitchell.

This is an odd theory, to say the least. Does Johnson really think uninformed people are more likely to be pacifists? Donald Trump seems like a good counterexample. Does Johnson expect anyone to believe ignorant people should run US foreign policy? It’s hard to see how he could.

But Johnson has put himself in an impossible position on foreign policy through a series of gaffes, and is now desperately making up excuses to try to cover his tracks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, that unfortunately has become too clear in recent weeks. My whole argument to friends to vote GJ has lost its appeal. GJ is starting to sound duffus like Trump in foreign policy. Gov Weld, again the 2nd on the ticket, may have been a better selection for the top of the ticket just as in the case of Pence and Kane. So, I've been thinking of not voting for the top of the ticket - 1st time ever. Can't vote for Hillary or Trump and Stein is way to wackobird. Maybe like BRB says, write in myself, or my grandson, or Marco Rubio who I was favoring ( to send a powerful message for 2020 LOL).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TGHusker said:
knapplc said:
While I'd like there to be a viable third-party option, Gary Johnson is not it:

Gary Johnson: it’s good to not know stuff about other countries
Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson thinks knowing stuff about foreign countries is a bad quality in a president, because it means you're more likely to launch wars. That is a thing that he actually said, in an MSNBC interview on Tuesday afternoon picked up by ThinkProgress’s Alice Ollstein.

"The fact that somebody can dot the i’s and cross the t’s on a foreign leader or a geographic location then allows them to put our military in harm’s way," Johnson said to a skeptical-seeming Andrea Mitchell.

This is an odd theory, to say the least. Does Johnson really think uninformed people are more likely to be pacifists? Donald Trump seems like a good counterexample. Does Johnson expect anyone to believe ignorant people should run US foreign policy? It’s hard to see how he could.

But Johnson has put himself in an impossible position on foreign policy through a series of gaffes, and is now desperately making up excuses to try to cover his tracks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, that unfortunately has become too clear in recent weeks. My whole argument to friends to vote GJ has lost its appeal. GJ is starting to sound duffus like Trump in foreign policy. Gov Weld, again the 2nd on the ticket, may have been a better selection for the top of the ticket just as in the case of Pence and Kane. So, I've been thinking of not voting for the top of the ticket - 1st time ever. Can't vote for Hillary or Trump and Stein is way to wackobird. Maybe like BRB says, write in myself, or my grandson, or Marco Rubio who I was favoring ( to send a powerful message for 2020 LOL).
Click to expand...
And Weld, this week (yesterday I think) said there's nobody better qualified on paper to serve than Clinton. Clarified a few hours later that he meant "on paper".

 
Johnson has kind of come off the rails the last few weeks. I couldn't believe that map quote was real when I saw it today.

Shame they didn't get Weld on top of the ticket. He's imminently better positioned and more qualified in my mind than his running mate. He's a much better speaker too, obviously.

Alas, he couldn't win a Libertarian nomination. He's more Republican-lite and not really Libertarian enough for that crowd.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Post-debate polls continue to shine for Clinton. I doubt the actual margins change much after the next two debates, but I also don't think Trump does any better. At this point there's very few people who will change their minds and vote for the other candidate.

The big takeaway from this chart is how much more blue Florida is. Trump has no path to the presidency without Florida. It has leaned Clinton over the past week. Another debate performance like that could seal the Sunshine State for Clinton. Compare Florida in today's chart to one just two weeks ago: http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/79182-the-general-election/page-64&do=findComment&comment=1737766


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pence's legit defense for complaining about "that Mexican thing" was that Kaine left out Trump saying "and some of them, I assume, are good people."

Although I believe Pence paraphrased that into "many of them are good people." Slick move.

BigRedBuster said:
Wow.....
Click to expand...
Did you hear the part where he was encouraging his supporters to go be vigilantes at polling stations?

Intimidation in the name of protection. I don't expect his exhortations to be very successful, but if they are, this will look a lot more like an election in Afghanistan or Russia than one in the United States.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

This judgment is not limited to the editors of The Atlantic. A large number—in fact, a number unparalleled since Goldwater’s 1964 campaign—of prominent policy makers and officeholders from the candidate’s own party have publicly renounced him.
Click to expand...
That's about where I'm at.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

This judgment is not limited to the editors of The Atlantic. A large number—in fact, a number unparalleled since Goldwater’s 1964 campaign—of prominent policy makers and officeholders from the candidate’s own party have publicly renounced him.
Click to expand...
That's about where I'm at.
Click to expand...
Still pretty amazing this guy got nominated. I think from here out, it will be anti-climatic. I don't see Donald changing his image between now and election day. Start to get use to Madam President Hillary Clinton.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top