Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson May Not Know Aleppo, But He Does Know What's Wrong With America's Immigration System

TrumpTon, by contrast, are clueless jerks

|

Governor Gary Johnson is getting a lot of flack for not knowing what "an Aleppo" is — even as the former US ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, and the New York Times flub it themselves, erroneously

Gary Johnson
Gage Skidmore @Foter

calling it the capital of ISIS (and that too in the process of trying to explain it to him).

But it'll be a bigger snafu if Johnson's snafu is the final nail in his prospects for inclusion in the presidential debates. That's because on the subject that has (unfortunately) launched Trump's (unfortunate) candidacy and dominated this election season — undocumented workers — he is by far the most clear headed compared to TrumpTon, I note in my morning column at The Week. "If Trump has been hysterical on this issue, Clinton has been AWOL," I point out.

Johnson, by contrast:

[I]s the only candidate who wants the market — rather than bureaucratic "quotas" and "caps" — to regulate immigration flows, confining the government's role to conducting background checks and issuing Social Security numbers. He objects to the very term "illegal immigrant," because it implies that legality depends on papers issued by the government — an utterly offensive notion in a free society. (Come to think about it, how about calling these people "paperless workers?")

Go here to read the whole piece.

NEXT: Digital Privacy Shouldn't Depend on a Law Written in the Time of Stranger Things

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “””issuing Social Security numbers”””

    So a 65 year old can move from Aleppo to the US and collect social security?

    1. They wouldn’t have any work credits to qualify for Social Security. Not sure about SSI (Supplemental Security Income), though. It doesn’t require any work credits, and folks over 65 qualify based on age and lack of income or savings (vs. those under 65, who have to be disabled).

      1. It’s only right that America should be the welfare state to the world.

    2. No. Just as Johnson should familiarize himself with a map, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with how SS works.

    3. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for $25470 this 8-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least $92 per hour. Go to this website and click tech tab to start your own business…. http://goo.gl/LtI1C0

  2. “… confining the government’s role to conducting background checks and issuing Social Security numbers.”

    I wouldn’t use the term free market.

    “He objects to the very term “illegal immigrant,” because it implies that legality depends on papers issued by the government ? an utterly offensive notion in a free society. ”

    Yet he admitted it was correct, did he not? Seems like pandering more than anything.

    “(Come to think about it, how about calling these people “paperless workers?”)”

    They don’t all work.

    1. Should we also call burglars “paperless borrowers”

      1. Undocumented bank withdrawals?

      2. We certainly don’t want to offend. Trespassers will now be “titleless gambolers”.

        1. Why doesn’t reasonable like gambol?! Inquiring minds demand an answer!

          1. I think “gambol” was one of the infamous White Indian’s schticks. I have long ago removed it from the blacklist.

  3. I’ll tell you what: Johnson gaffes like a major party candidate.

    1. A major party candidate would be toast if she gaffed and flip-flopped half as much as GayJay.

      1. Are you out of your damn mind SIV? Trump thinks Cruz’s dad is an assassin and Hillary has flip-flopped on literally every issue in her platform. I’m not one to judge, but you need to lay off the crack pipe.

        1. lol, not judging at all…

  4. Dude. There’s no way to spin Johnson’s fuck-up. Not knowing what Aleppo is is completely disqualifying.

    1. No it isnt.

      Out of context, I was thinking some FDA drug controversy.

      1. Is Aleppo attacking us? No? Then fuck them. USA! USA!

      2. MacBeth Act I Scene 3:

        A sailor’s wife had chestnuts in her lap,
        And munch’d, and munch’d, and munch’d:–
        ‘Give me,’ quoth I:
        ‘Aroint thee, witch!’ the rump-fed ronyon cries.
        Her husband’s to Aleppo gone, master o’ the Tiger:
        But in a sieve I’ll thither sail,
        And, like a rat without a tail,
        I’ll do, I’ll do, and I’ll do.

        1. You, Ghitan of Aleppo.

          – Sherif?

          Where do we ride?

          – Damascus, sherif.

          Aye, but for what?

        2. Well then, Gary Johnson is not eligible for Thane of Cawdor.

      3. Just because you’re also not qualified to be president doesn’t mean Johnson is.

        1. If you’re a natural-born citizen of the United States, have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years, and are at least 35 years old, you’re qualified. It’s not that difficult.

          1. That’s “eligible” not “qualified”

      4. It is if you’re looking for any and all excuse to justify “jumping on the TEAM and com[ing] in for the big win”… by voting for Shrillary or Trump.

      5. Out of context, I was thinking some FDA drug controversy.

        If your erection persists for more than four hours after taking Aleppo, contact Doctor Johnson.

    2. There’s no way to spin Johnson’s fuck-up. Not knowing what Aleppo is is completely disqualifying.

      I don’t find not knowing what Aleppo is nearly as bad as how he stumbled through his ignorance. It would be dead simple to ask the interviewer to rephrase the question or what they mean and then get lost in the weeds about how, as a libertarian, you don’t dwell on foreign policy and war.

      But Gary almost seemed somewhere between a tight-lipped mafioso and a straight man interviewing with John Stewart,”What’s an Aleppo? Is it anything like updog?”

      1. “This morning, I began my day by setting aside any doubt that I’m human. Yes, I understand the dynamics of the Syrian conflict ? I talk about them every day. But hit with ‘What about Aleppo?’, I immediately was thinking about an acronym, not the Syrian conflict. I blanked. It happens, and it will happen again during the course of the campaign.” – GJ

      2. I don’t find not knowing what Aleppo is nearly as bad as how he stumbled through his ignorance.

        Agreed. It’s not the end of the world that he didn’t know it, although it’s not a great sign, but he should have intuitively known what kind of question it was to show his thought process and the bigger picture of his foreign policy approach. Instead he asked that follow up question like a dullard and then responded that Syria is a mess. No shit, my 7 year old niece knows that much.

      3. Like you said, it was a pretty amateur move.

        The original question was extremely brief. He could’ve simply asked for the question to be elaborated.

        Let’s not forget that the word ‘Aleppo’ is an Arab-to-English translation. It can sound very different depending on who’s saying the word.

        Nonetheless, it was very amateur of GJ to not ask for the question to be clarified.
        (The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the question was “What do you mean what I’d do with Aleppo?”)

    3. It’s kind of shocking, but he’s an even bigger fucking idiot than Bush or Obama. And that’s hard to pull off.

    4. God forbid we have a President who, when they don’t immediately know or recall something, simply asks for an explanation or more information. Apparently we’d rather have a President who, for matters of pride or to prevent looking weak, pretends to known and understand everything and then makes decisions even if they have to make some educated guesses as to what is being discussed.

      1. But he didn’t do that. I agree with you that there is nothing wrong about asking for some context to a question or what aspect of an issue the questioner is talking about, but GJ did neither of those. He just blanked out. It would have been easy to say “well, that red line warning sure worked out, didn’t it? Let me explain why a libertarian approach to foreign policy goes beyond tag lines and chest thumping.” He didn’t do that, either.

        1. No shit. It’s like the guy’s never watched Top Chef. Here’s how you win Top Chef – whatever challenge they throw at you, you find a way to bring it back into your wheelhouse. Same damn thing with politics.

  5. “Aleppo? I hardly know her!”

    1. “I didn’t inhaleexhale.”

    2. Aleppo? No, I only feed my dogs Iams.

    3. “Aleppo? What, like with a cloth?”

  6. Sheika would be excoriating him if the had an R or a D next to his name. It’s not the end of the world but he fucked up on something he should have known. Hell, most of the people here know it without having to Google it. Tribalism and excusing one’s preferred candidate’s faults isn’t ust for the major parties.

    1. I had to google it, but then again I don’t watch the news. Has it been a major discussion in interviews with Clinton and trump?

      1. I don’t think so but it is a focal point as far as Syria is concerned. It just shows a lack of foreign policy chops which isn’t really a huge deal for a Libertarian candidate.

        1. A lot of “well, I had to google it” comments, but we’re not running for President and doing interviews concerning current events and policy questions.

          We’re asked to ignore the fact that he and his Veep are not libertarians and don’t seem to understand fundamental freedom issues because there are serious contenders with experience in a year where there is a lot to be gained by not being crazy and evil.

          Well, he should do his f—ing homework, then. Perhaps spending too much time refining his nazi wedding cake enforcement squad positioning.

  7. They got him. They finally managed to stop the juggernaut, getting him out of the way for the serious candidates. Score one for the little guy.

    1. Keeping Johnson out of the debates is doing him a kindness. Draw the “curtain of charity” over his performance before it even starts.

  8. Aleppo? Never heard of the place.

    Of course, I don’t bother to track the details of the President’s bombing of a terrorist organization operating within the boundaries of a sovereign nation that we have not declared war against.

    1. Don’t you think you should if you’re running to replace him?

      1. I’m pretty sure there’s a long list of sovereign places where bombs have been dropped and people have been assassinated that we don’t even know about. Am I expected to know each and every one of them by name?

        1. The only way to win is not to play.

    2. Tony, go die in a fire.

      That said – you should know where Aleppo is if you are even remotely historically literate. Maybe you don’t know what’s going on there now, but at least know where it is.

    3. Wow, you’re a bigger fucking idiot than Johnson. And that takes talent. Well done, sir!

  9. “[I]s the only candidate who wants the market ? rather than bureaucratic “quotas” and “caps” ? to regulate immigration flows, confining the government’s role to conducting background checks and issuing Social Security numbers.”

    When I say I’m an open borders guy, to me that means we should have a treaty with Mexico whereby Mexico develops a reliable ID system, so we can verify that people aren’t convicted felons, aren’t terrorists, and that they’ve been immunized against certain diseases. Then they can legally go back and forth across the border at checkpoints–just like American citizens–and any American that wants to hire them should be free to do so.

    That’s the government doing its legitimate job of protecting our rights from foreign threats, and, ideally, that would be the market dictating the flow of immigration.

    However, American citizens move to different parts of the country for reasons that aren’t always about the market. I understand the schools in Virginia are better than California? Why wouldn’t we expect Mexican citizens to move to a different country for non-market reasons–like more and better social services?

    The theoretical treaty with Mexico that I described should address that. There’s no need to issue Mexican citizens a Social Security number, Mr. Johnson. Just the ID number on their treaty ID will do.

    1. However, American citizens move to different parts of the country for reasons that aren’t always about the market. I understand the schools in Virginia are better than California? Why wouldn’t we expect Mexican citizens to move to a different country for non-market reasons–like more and better social services?

      How is that not a market reason?

      Schools arent part of the market now?

      1. No, there’s very little market oriented about public schools paid for with property taxes, etc.

        That’s one of the reasons they should be replaced with private schools.

      2. Why would entitlement to better social programs being a market driven criteria?

        That’s something that would retard market incentives.

        I’d love to leave Virginia for a job in Utah, but the government’s social programs here in Virginia are so much better!

        That’s the opposite of a market driven reason to do something.

  10. At least 3 of us in this thread werent familiar with it without googling it.

    Florida, Kentucky, Iowa.

    Nope, cant connect them in any way.

    1. Apparently those of us who haven’t heard of it are historically illiterate morons who could never be qualified to run for president. Oh well, I guess knowing that I’m unqualified to be president (despite meeting the requirements laid out in the Constitution) will free up a lot of time since I now know that I’m out of the running, now and forever.

      So I got that going for me… which is nice.

  11. I’m usually the first guy to point out that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid aren’t the rights of American citizenship, but when you start tying open borders arguments to government services in people’s minds (by mentioning things like issuing them Social Security numbers), you cut the legs out from under your argument that it’s all about letting markets determine the flow of immigration.

    By tying open borders to Social Security numbers, you cut the legs out from under support for what we’re talking about when we talk about “open borders”.

    P.S. I wish I could opt out of Social Security.

    1. You can. When your checks start coming, send them to charity.

      1. “You can. When your checks start coming, send them to charity.”

        If you don’t pay your social security tax, eventually the IRS would seize your checking account and garnish your wages.

        If you don’t pay your social security tax and you’re self-employed, own a business, and make enough money, the IRS would send armed police to your home or place of business, drag you away in handcuffs, lock you in a cage for some arbitrary period of time, seize your assets and sell them at auction.

        Your assertion that I can opt out of Social Security is an ignorant lie. You’re an ignoramus.

        1. And for all of that, the government doesn’t even have to pay out. You aren’t owed a damn thing.

        2. Actually, you can opt out of social security.

          You just have to join a religion like the Amish. The court order allowing people to opt out for religious reasons only applies to religions extant in 1956 which were opposed to insurance in general.

          1. Certain types of pastors and priest can opt out as well. Because religion mumble mumble.

            1. We need to start a church, Sugarfree. A sect of Mennonites that embrace modern technology.

              1. “Techno-Amish”

                “The First Church of Christ, Quantum Scientist”

              2. The Amish rules on tech are governed by the elders, who review it based on how it will impact The Order, which is essentially their term for their way of life. That is why the tech levels vary between communities and why you sometimes see Amish with Rollerblades, even though they are made with high-tech plastics and materials.

                Why not an Amish community that is rather liberal with their definition of what would wreck “The Order”?

                1. Why not an Amish community that is rather liberal with their definition of what would wreck “The Order”?

                  It can’t be this simple. Because, personally, I can’t think of an Order that isn’t wrecked by women wearing clothes indoors.

                  Hand churned butter still makes sense though.

        3. Well you are no more justified in not paying in as you would be not paying taxes to pay for roads. It’s a universal system, and it’s meant to be. You’re not paying for your own future benefits.

          1. If it’s so great, why is it mandatory instead of voluntary?

            1. If you don’t understand the first thing about how Social Security functions, I don’t get how you think you’re entitled to criticize it.

              1. Wow. Great dodge. Caught me flat footed you did.

              2. Social Security is pretty easy to understand, actually.

                1. Social Security is far lazier than a ponzi scheme, at least they have to work to dupe people.

              3. Why can’t you answer a simple question?

                1. It’s mandatory because it is a social insurance program, not an individual savings account. You are paying for current retirees’ benefits. There are already plenty of voluntary options for people who want to save money on their own.

                  1. “It’s mandatory because it is a social insurance program”

                    “he’s a bachelor because he’s unmarried.”

                    1. Hey, for Tony, that’s pretty insightful.

                  2. Somebody doesn’t understand the way insurance works.

                    They also can’t explain why FedGov calls it a “contribution” when contributions are voluntary, not compulsory.

          2. You’re not paying for your own future benefits.

            Hey, retard, this is exactly how it was sold to the American people when FDR got it passed. Nor was it universal when passed.

            1. Well, it’s been 80 years since then. Plenty of time for you to have figured out how it works.

              1. Speaking of, I guess it has to be a massive success for a full century before we decide whether it worked or not? Or how long?

                1. Actually, since the thing is supposed to fund itself, it’s completely incapable of doing that and needs massive reform, perhaps it’s not such a smashing success. And since terms of social security have been redefined by the courts and bureaucracies.

                  Meanwhile, social security did little to alleviate poverty among the old as it was designed to do. It did little to help them retire as working rates remained high for half a century. All the while social security was dispersed to more groups and its costs multiplied exponentially. By what metrics is it some great success?

                  The entire program is unsustainable regardless without turning it into a straight up naked welfare program. Not that this concerns you.

                2. It was a success in buying elderly votes for FDR.

                  It’s stated purpose – freeing up the elderly from depending on their children for support in old age – nto so much. It sucks up 10% of every worker’s paycheck, and instead of providing them the comfortable retirement + life insurance + long term care + disability insurance that a person devoting 10% of their income to savings and insurance can purchase from any 23 year old commission-based financial adviser peddling Metlife of NY Life products, it provides them with pittances insufficient to live on.

                  So it makes it harder for workers to save for the future, while providing them with shitty payouts. IT’s also one hell of a regressive tax fucking over the working poor harder than anyone else.

                  It’s only a massive success for politicians who want to create a voting block dependent on their largesse.

                  And if you weren’t such a shill for the wealthy and politically connected classes, you’d admit that.

                  1. Data show that without SS, some 40% of old people would be living below the poverty line.

                    If you’re saying that it’s not generous enough, I quite agree.

                    1. Thank God for “Data”.

                      Is there anything Data doesn’t know?

                      http://tinyurl.com/jf4vj6d

                    2. Yes, because the tax lowered their wages and the promise of “we’ve got your retirement covered” created a huge disincentive for those people to save. You just proved Tarran’s point.

                    3. Absolute hogwash.

                    4. Tony thinks “NUH UH!” is an argument.
                      Yes, he really is that stupid.

                    5. Bookmark this thread as an eternal monument to Tony’s ignorance, mendacity and the like.

                      “Look upon my ignorance and despair!”

          3. “You’re not paying for your own future benefits.”

            The returns on Social Security have been negative for most workers for years, you ignoramus.

            http://tinyurl.com/zhocely

            I’d do better earning interest in a savings account.

            They’re forcing us to take losses to perpetuate the system–you ignoramus. The “benefits” I’m being forced to pay for are negative returns.

            P.S. When I call something “a fish” because it’s a cold blooded vertebrate with scales and gills and fins and a tail, that isn’t really name calling, is it?

            And when I call Tony “an ignoramus” because he knows absolutely nothing about what he’s saying, is that really name calling?

            1. It’s sort of insulting to hardworking ignoramuses to compare them to Tony, frankly.

              1. He cannot seem to fathom that the returns on Social Security are negative for most people!

                You tell him that most people get less out than they put in, and it’s like you’re speaking an alien language.

                He isn’t just impervious to reason. He’s impervious to facts.

                There’s a word for people who are fact deprived.

                That world is “ignoramus”.

                It’s like there’s a line between the ad hominem fallacy, on one side, and the appeal to pity fallacy on the other. If the truth is that Tony is an ignoramus, am I not supposed to tell the truth because the truth might hurt his feelings?

                Tony is wrong because he’s ignorant of the facts.

                He’s proven himself to be willfully ignorant of such facts.

                It isn’t off topic. I’m not saying that Social Security is bad because Tony is an ignoramus.

                I’m saying that Tony is wrong about Social Security because he is an ignoramus.

                Feels better to get that off my chest.

                1. If SS is so bad then Republicans should have no political problem with dismantling it as they’d love to do.

                  1. Sure Tony, the democrats would never stand in the way of SS reform!

                  2. Hey Tony, W’s first term called, they want their private accounts back.

                  3. How about “If the F-35 program is so bad then no politician should have a problem dismantling it”?

                    The same can be said for public education and the post office. Politicians do not bite the hand that writes checks to their campaign.

              2. He has more of a natural talent at ignorance, than having to work at it!

              3. Ignorance can be excused. Tony is mendacious and stupid.

                1. Sometimes, I suspect we think he’s mendacious because he’s so ignorant–and adamant!

                  I think Tony genuinely believed that I could opt out of Social Security and make charitable contributions instead.

                  I think Tony genuinely believed that people get more back from Social Security than they pay in.

                  I think Tony still believes most of these things–despite being shown that they’re false.

                  Does that make Tony a liar?

                  When George says, “It isn’t a lie if you believe it, Jerry”, that’s funny, in part, because Jerry can’t really believe it–it’s a lie.

                  In Tony’s case, the fact that he still believes things after facts have shown them to be untrue doesn’t necessarily mean he’s lying.

                  It may just be that he’s impervious to facts–a true ignoramus.

                  Tony is someone who cannot know facts. And don’t you have to know what you’re saying is false in order to be a liar?

                  It’s a philosophical question.

                  1. I’ll grant you this, there’s probably no objective way to tell the difference between a mendacious idiot and the kind of magnificent ignoramus I’m describing.

                    And in either case, at some point, Tony must have decided that the difference between fact and fiction was unimportant.

            2. Social Security is one of the many programs that allows an effective negative interest rate without actually coming out and saying that we have a negative interest rate.

              Of course, I don’t think Tony really knows or cares what that means for savings.

              1. 80 years. Through depressions and booms, wars and the advent of the modern age.

                I’m sorry the indisputable long-term success of SS is devastating for your silly little cult anarchy bullshit, but if it makes you feel better, libertarianism initially started with incorporating basic income schemes, its philosophers not being psychopathic morons who thought that poverty could be eliminated by deploying unicorn farts.

                1. The mendaciousness and lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

                2. I think we need to know what Tony’s measure of success is. I only say that because normally, with any investment, when you are literally losing money and there is no theoretical way to make the investment profitable, you would say it’s a bad investment.

                  However, when the government is losing money on your money and you’re unable to get out even your principle investment somehow this is a good thing.

                  As even you point out, there is evidence of 80 years worth of problems with the system that could virtually all be fixed by the one simple change the GWB administration put forward, but since it was George it must be evil, right?

                  Not that I’m even for that solution, but as a solution it’s actually logical and would work. Assuming, of course, that the government could keep their paws off that money which we already know they won’t do.

                  Also, last point, Social Security isn’t a ‘social insurance safety net’ it’s a literal entitlement since you are entitled to the amount of money you put into the system. If that promise isn’t met, the system is de facto a failure as that is the one measure that counts to the poor.

          4. Holy shit, Tony just went full “MUH ROADZ!”

      2. He wants to stop paying into the shitty ponzi scheme presenting itself as a low grade life annuity cum disability + funeral insurance, where you pay Cadillac prices for Yugo level returns, Tonykins.

      3. Government Programs. So good you have to be forced to participate at the end of a gun.

        1. +1 confiscate the farmer’s horses for his own good.

        2. Free rider problem. Look it up. You’ll find it in the poli-sci for kindergartners section.

          1. How could you be a free rider if you don’t want to use the program?

            1. Go easy on Tony, he learned about politics from a book intended for kindergartners, and it confused him.

          2. The returns on Social Security contributions are negative for most people, you ignoramus.

            1. And some people die before they see a penny. It’s not an investment account, it’s a social insurance program. It’s the most libertarian-friendly form of social welfare imaginable.

              So just say you want to see the old and disabled die of poverty in large numbers and that’s a better system.

              1. So just say you want to see the old and disabled die of poverty in large numbers and that’s a better system.

                Soup kitchens and food banks regularly throw away food because there aren’t enough people poor enough to eat it. It’ll be a long fucking time before a single elderly person dies of starvation or dehydration due to lack of available food and water.

              2. First Tony accused me of being a free rider–saying that I was getting back more than I paid in.

                Now Tony thinks I want to see the old and disabled die–because I’m against a system that took more from them when they were working than it gives back now that they need it most.

                You’re flailing, Tony.

                Caught out because of ignorance again.

                So, now you’re running around with the goalposts again while everyone laughs at you.

                Again.

                1. Now Tony thinks I want to see the old and disabled die–because I’m against a system that took more from them when they were working than it gives back now that they need it most.

                  Tony does not understand the time-value of money and then projects his mental deficiency onto everyone else.

              3. It’s not an investment account, it’s a social insurance program. It’s the most libertarian-friendly form of social welfare imaginable.

                And in just two short sentences Tony demonstrates that he doesn’t know what either insurance or libertarianism is.

                1. And in just two short sentences Tony demonstrates that he doesn’t know what either insurance or libertarianism is.

                  Hey, it is “insurance”. Every SS payment you make is “insurance” against the IRS fucking with you. Just like a protection racket is “insurance” against the mafia fucking with you.

              4. Why is it a good thing for the government to take your money now, only to give you less than what they took later? The government is removing your agency to get a better return, or even break even, on the money they take from you by force in the name of helping you later in life.

                You’ll have a hard time convincing people that a program that literally only makes them worse off is good for them. Those people who would be ‘below the poverty line’ without Social Security would be better off had they used that social security money elsewhere.

          3. Whiny man who thinks government should take care of people forever calls bunch of folks who believe in individual responsibility “childish;” no film at 11

          4. Free rider problem.

            The whole fucking purpose of every welfare program in existence is to CREATE free riders. The first year SS went into effect, every single beneficiary was a free rider. That was how it was sold! It took decades before the balance of SS beneficiaries weren’t free riders, and then with that “surplus” they created SSDI to make sure there were millions of new free riders.

            It’s laughable to complain about the “free-rider problem” in the context of a free-rider factory.

      4. When your checks start coming, send them to charity.

        If he had intended to give 100% of all that money to charity, your fix would be the correct one.

      5. obviously, “opting out” does not mean anything close to what you think it means.

      6. I hope the point isn’t getting lost here that excluding Mexican citizens who reside in the United States from participating in Social Security isn’t mean.

        It’s something almost all Americans who are knowledgeable and reasonable on the subject wish they could do.

        If there were a proposal to do away with Social Security and simply force people to save in relatively low risk vehicles instead, I’d bellyache about how the government has no right to tell us what to do with our own money, and then I’d support it as being far better than our current system.

        . . . certainly better for retirees.

        The baby-boomers’ parents made out like bandits. Those days are over. Most of us will never get back what we put into Social Security.

        . . . and the point was that if Mexican citizens were excluded from participation, they should be grateful for it.

        1. . . . and the point was that if Mexican citizens were excluded from participation, they should be grateful for it

          Are they going to be exempt from paying the payroll taxes? Not only the bit appearing as on the worker’s paycheck, but the hidden 6.5% that is the employer’s “share”?.

          1. I doubt that would go over well in the treaty.

            There’s my ideal treaty, and then there’s the treaty that could be approved in the Senate.

            I doubt unskilled American workers or the labor unions’ cronies would agree to giving Mexican citizens such a big advantage.

            I oppose payroll taxes for being payroll taxes. Less of that is better–however we can get less. Ideally, I wish all taxes were sales taxes.

            That being said, I don’t suppose there’s anything worse about taxing Mexican citizens for working than there is about taxing American citizens for working, and I don’t suppose there’s anything worse about taxing companies for hiring Mexican citizens than there is about taxing companies for hiring American citizens.

            1. Then, the Mexicans are left worse off than the Americans.

              The Americans get shitty insurance products for cadillac prices.

              The Mexicans get nothing for the prices.

              1. Yeah, there are winners and losers.

                Mexican citizens would be better off in other ways.

                They’d get to come back and forth across our borders freely, for instance.

                They’d be free to get employment opportunities they can’t find in their own country.

                We’re talking about a system that is vastly superior to the one we have now–for everybody except American citizens who are meth heads, convicted felons, or lazy as hell and can’t compete with foreigners–many of whom only have an 8th grade education and can’t speak English.

  12. Is it really all that surprising that a non-interventionist wouldn’t take the time to memorize every city name in Syria? That being said, it’s a pretty big gaffe at a super critical time. I mean, I certainly didn’t realize that it was a city in Syria but I also don’t give a shit about Syria. I can’t keep all the names in the Middle East straight, it seems like every name changes every 30 years or so.

    1. Sorry, but this isn’t one of those dickish gotcha deals, like “What is the capital of Trinidad and Tobago”, or “Who is currently the president of the Seychelles”.

      Aleppo has been THE major flashpoint of the Syrian civil war, which has been going on for well over five years now. If you’re a person who (we’re supposed to believe) seriously wants to be the president of the United States, that’s the kind of thing you ought to know, even if you don’t really give a fuck about the outcome of the Syrian Civil War.

      1. If you’re a person who (we’re supposed to believe) seriously wants to be the president of the United States, that’s the kind of thing you ought to know, even if you don’t really give a fuck about the outcome of the Syrian Civil War.

        99% of the voting population of the United States isn’t going to give a shit about the Syrian Civil War in this election. This election is going to be about “dirty immigrants” and “social justice”. The only people that are going to care about this “gotcha” are professional journalists and policy nerds.

        1. The only people that are going to care about this “gotcha” are professional journalists and policy nerds.

          And TEAM-tards. Don’t forget about them. They’ve been praying for a gaffe from Johnson that they can use to claim he’s “unfit for the office” for a while, and now they have it. It’s even more over than it was before. By the time the media and TEAM-tards like DD are finished reminding everyone what a moron GJ is every chance they get, he’ll be lucky if he cracks 1% of the vote.

  13. It’s certainly fair to expect a presidential candidate to be better informed about current events than the average American. So yes, Johnson needs to be better prepared for those kinds of questions.

    But come on, it’s hardly disqualifying when you consider that the Obama administration has done nothing but fuck up with regard to Syria the last few years to the point where we have no coherent strategy in the region and are just saturating it with money and arms. Johnson’s crime isn’t ignorance, it’s admitting ignorance.

  14. I thought it was a type of chile pepper, which is it and traditionally is grown in Aleppo the city.

    Johnson should have done better and been prepped more thoroughly.

  15. Whenever an interviewer gets specific in a question, naming a place or using some acronym or obscure government program, it’s a gottcha question. No interviewer would ever ask Hillary what she would do about Aleppo specifically. At most they’d stay broad and ask what she plans to do about Syria.

    What the fuck is Obama currently doing about Aleppo, for that matter?

  16. On Aleppo:

    Clinton: “We must continue to arm our moderate rebel allies in the region and support putting an end to the Assad regime.”

    Trump: “I tell you I have big plans for Aleppo, the best plans. Beautiful place by the way. I know more about Aleppo than anyone, believe me.”

    Stein: “I think we should be compassionate towards Aleppo after the tragic death of his brother Harambe.”

    Johnson: “What is Aleepo, man?”

    1. That is freakin’ eerily ….accurate.

  17. I posted something similar to this in another thread, but I figure it’s more on topic here:

    I consider myself to be fairly well informed. I know about the Syrian civil war, the refugee/ humanitarian issues, the fact that there’s a lot of innocent people caught between Assad’s forces and rebel groups and ISIS blah blah blah…

    But if I was talking to some people about something completely different, and one of them – out of the blue – blurted out “What about Aleppo?”, I’d probably fuck up my response too. Furthermore, maybe I’m not as well informed as I like to think, because I can’t name specific cities in Syria either (other than Damascus).

    If that dickhead had just asked “What about the Syrian refugee crisis?” I’m sure Johnson would have handled it a lot better. I suspect the reason the dickhead chose to phrase it the way he did is because he wanted to make sure he made Johnson look like an idiot on national TV. Because the MSM is aware that Johnson is pulling support away from Hillary in at least equal proportion to what he’s pulling away from Trump. That and we’re getting down to the last two months of the campaign, and it’s time to “get serious” and focus on the “real” candidates: the ones from the two party duopoly. So they have to make sure that they get the 3rd party candidates to embarrass themselves by asking them gotcha questions that most of their viewers couldn’t answer either and then pointing and laughing at the “idiot” who doesn’t know what Aleppo is.

    1. They’ll do this to Jill Stein once they’re done destroying Johnson’s campaign. And anyone else who appears to be a potential threat to Herself winning.

      1. Jill Stein is no threat. Seriously. I have plenty of Republican and Democratic acquaintances who are supporting Johnson. Not one supporting Jill Stein. Even the Bernie-bots are going Johnson or Hillary. Mostly Hillary.

        1. We’ll see if they turn their knives on her or not. You may be right. I guess it’ll depend on whether or not her poll numbers go up in the next couple of weeks while they’re beating Johnson’s campaign to death over this gaffe. If they stay where they are, you’re probably right: they won’t do anything to her, but if they go up…

          Of course, it won’t take that much effort to make Stein look like an idiot. She is an idiot, so all they have to do is wait: she’ll say something stupid without any prompting or gotcha questions from them. No effort required.

      2. There are a lot more articles out there today when I google Gary Johnson. More free media. Yea!
        It looked worse on camera than it does reading the transcript.
        I buy his “I had a brain fart” spin (posted above).

        1. He should have opted for an ear bud like Hillary so his staff could feed him answers.

    2. Of course, like 99.999999% of the people in America, you’re not running for president either.

      And it’s not as if Johnson suddenly decided to run for president two weeks ago in the middle of one of his marijuana smoking sessions. He has been running for a few years now. He might want to consider putting down the joint and taking a few hours from time to time to peruse some news websites or something.

    3. the more I think about it, the more it seems the perfect answer would have been “what about it?” It’s not being ignorant; it’s putting the onus on the reporter to ask a focused question. GJ’s fuckup was in not knowing about it, not in the lack of canned answer.

      1. My thought as well. “What about Aleppo?” makes as much sense as a question as “What about New York City?” Well, what about it, exactly?

      2. Agreed. A lot of the problem with his response has more to do with not being as polished a politician. The question was horrible. They weren’t talking about the Syrian civil war or foreign policy in general, and then out of the blue the asshole asks “What would you do about Aleppo?” apparently as a sort of shorthand for “What would you do about the Syrian civil war and the humanitarian crisis going on there?”

        Johnson should have asked for clarification. At the very least it would have maybe given a few seconds to collect his thoughts, and perhaps clarified what the real topic was.

    4. Johnson was an adorable puppy for the media when they thought he as taking votes from Trump. When the facts came out that he hurt Hillary more than Trump he became a rabid mongrel that needed to be euthanized. Hillary trips over her own feet regularly but nothing she does is “fatal” to her campaign. Johnson is asked about “Aleppo” with no context, honestly states that he doesn’t know what an Aleppo is, and is now totally unfit for the presidency. Yeah, right.

  18. It’s definitely a fuckup, and Gary should be ashamed.

    That said, I don’t think the resident fans of Mr. Nuclear Triad have much of a leg to stand on in calling Johnson dumb and unprepared.

    1. Nor do the fans of Mrs. “Wipe it with a cloth/ What difference at this point does it make”. Of course, that’s the problem with being a 3rd party candidate: flubs that an R or especially a D could get away with end up torpedoing your campaign.

      1. Johnson’s campaign wasn’t torpedoed, he just not the man to fight a rigged system, not to mention the fact that Americans are, contrary to Reason, supporters of authoritarianism. People only believe in a government that is limited in what it can take from them, but feel that the government must be unlimited in what it can take from others.

  19. *facepalm*

    I know that libertarians aren’t joiners. No one understands this more than I do. I don’t expect many people who want to be leaders stand up for liberty, for people’s right to decide for themselves. It is self defeating.

    But really, is it too much to ask to just have one, single decent candidate? Just one?

    I look at that photo and all I can think is ‘Jesus fuckity fuck. Toss a quarter at his feet and move on.’

    1. But really, is it too much to ask to just have one, single decent candidate? Just one?

      Yes it is. We have one life to live on this Earth, and no sane, decent, reasonably intelligent man contemplating their future would have anything to do with the presidency. That is why we get only insane, indecent, moronic ones vying for the job.

      1. Also, liars beat truth-tellers proportional to the distance separating them from their audience.

      2. “…no sane, decent, reasonably intelligent man contemplating their future would have anything to do with the presidency…”

        Barry Goldwater was all of these things and America totally rejected him. America has a deeply authoritarian strain that always shows itself under pressure. That’s why politicians create imaginary crises. Liberty is for “good times” and there are no “good times”.

  20. …even as the former US ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, and the New York Times flub it themselves, erroneously calling it the capital of ISIS (and that too in the process of trying to explain it to him).

    It’s totes different when they do it. All they have to know is they got the “kook” 3rd party candidate to look like an idiot on National TV. They got their “gotcha” moment that they can bring up every time anyone even mentions the name Gary Johnson from here on in to remind all “right thinking people” that he’s an uninformed moron. It doesn’t matter if they’re also uninformed morons or if most of their readers/ viewers couldn’t even find Syria on a map, much less a specific city in Syria. They’ve got the ammunition to destroy the Johnson campaign now. Next up on the copping block: Jill Stein.

    1. it’s not like Syria hasn’t been a part of Johnson’s stump speech for the past many months

  21. I love how open border Libertarians suddenly find faith in government when it comes to screening immigrants. The government is a giant, evil incompetent monster incapable of doing anything except oppressing people except when it comes to screening immigrants. Then it is the model of perfect efficiency.

    Open borders people need to face reality and be realistic. There really is a threat out there and there really are people we don’t want to let in. Just how exactly are you supposed to “vet” someone from the Sudan or Syria? What, call the Syrian DHS and see if they have them on the “do not let out” list?

    There is a middle ground between closing the borders and just living in a fantasy land where all immigrants are wonderful or the screening fairy will come and make the federal government able to do the impossible. Namely, we could stop taking immigrants from countries that are known for terrorism and whose governments are not reliable enough to provide any kind of proper screening. That is hardly a closed borders approach. There are plenty of people from countries not known for terrorism and who have reliable governments that want to come in. And it would have the added feature of making the pledge to screen these people actually achievable.

    But noo, open borders advocates couldn’t do that. That would be reasonable.

    1. Nobody actually thinks you and your ideological ilk care about anything other than the great threat to the white American gene pool. And the horrible dystopia of taco trucks on every corner. Otherwise where’s Trump’s Great Wall of Canada proposal? Terrorists have a much easier time slipping in that way.

      1. Yeah Tony. I am totally worried about the threat to the white gene pool. That is why I just endorsed an immigration system that would allow people from places like Japan, India, Mexico, Argentina, any number of countries in West Africa as well as the entire Caribbean sans probably Haiti to immigrate here. You got me Tony. It is all about white people for me.

        do me a favor and stop projecting your obsession with destroying the white race and importing a new brown population onto me. Take your race obsessions elsewhere, like maybe storm front or something.

        1. Since net immigration is currently hovering around zero, one wonders then why you’re always going on about the issue.

          1. “Since net immigration is currently hovering around zero, one wonders then why you’re always going on about the issue.”

            http://tinyurl.com/zpoemme

            I reckon 3.86 per 1,000 is *around* zero, the CIA could be a bunch of liars here though.

          2. Yay Obamanomics!

      2. “Ideological subversion / psychological warfare ? to change the perception of reality of everyone to such an extent that despite the abundance of information no one is able to come to a sensible conclusion in the interest of defending themselves, their family, their community or their country.” – Yuri Bezmenov

      3. I am pretty confident that everyone here is a fan of taco trucks. Just thinking about it makes me hungry.

        *takes ground beef out of the freezer to thaw*

        1. I’m not.

          I think the greases they use to cook the meat messes up my digestion. I’m increasingly limiting myself to Turkey Club Sandwiches, surrendering to the ravages of aging.

          Not saying other people shouldn’t’ have the opportunity to partake, but I’m going to have to give it a miss.

          1. That is unfortunate, tarran. One thing that seems to be holding up for me as I slide into 50 yoa, is my ability to eat anything that won’t eat me first, and continue to march.

            Now, my ability to hammer teh boozings and recover quickly…sad! So now I just go for quality over quantity.

            1. The booze ship sailed for me very early.

              I’ve always had the capacity of a hummingbird. One glass of wine, and 20 minutes later I’m passed out on the couch.

              In college some people thought I must be a devout muslim because I never touched alcohol. The reality was far more pathetic – the first drink would end the night for me.

              1. But think of all the money you saved….

          2. eat less carbs and your stomach problems with abate

        2. I’m thinking more tacos al pastor, but yeah.

        3. Fuck you, fuck ENB, and fuck your taco truck fetish.

      4. for someone who’s yapped here as often as you have, the taco truck comment is just moronic. No as bad as the great white America part, but definitely a win-the-Internetz contender in the category of weapons-grade stupidity.

        1. Tony has been stamping his little feet around these parts since at least 2009, and he still has no idea what libertarianism is. It is not possible to overestimate the depths of his willful stupidity.

          1. Maybe because it’s fundamentally contradictory no matter which version you try to sell.

            1. Maybe because it’s fundamentally contradictory no matter which version you try to sell.

              Unlike an ideology that says we have to solve the free-rider problem by creating more free riders. That’s consistency right there, mister.

              1. You’re conflating two definitions of the term there.

                1. No he isn’t, you just don’t like having your stupidity pointed out.

                2. No, I am applying a consistent definition. You are engaged in special pleading.

          2. I still think it is a sock that gets passed around twixt some knuckleheads.

            But, I suppose it could be a living example of what theologians call “invincible ignorance”, too.

            1. Definitely. It’s only purpose is to attempt to make us look bad for any newbies that might stumble in here.

              1. /s/it’s/its/

    2. As a non-anarchist, I have to give the government something to do.

      Open border advocates are mainly talking about Mexico, not Syria.

      1. “Open border advocates are mainly talking about Mexico, not Syria.”

        Are they calling themselves “Open Border” advocates?

      2. That is nice but it can only do that so well. Beyond that, once you say “yes there are some people who shouldn’t be able to come here”, you are back to having to secure the border. Sure, that would be easier if we let more people in legally but it is still securing the border. If you don’t secure the border, what is the point of screening anyone since they can come in illegally anyway?

        Lastly, once you admit the obvious that some people really shouldn’t be able to come here, you have really given away any claimed moral authority over the restrictionists. At that point you are just debating what flavor of “who should not get in”. It becomes just another policy debate instead of some great moral imperative for open borders, which is in my opinion what it should be. I just don’t think many Libertarians would agree with me on that.

    3. How many open border Libertarians earn less than, say, $60,000.00? My guess is most of these assholes are successful and don’t have to worry about the tens of millions of illegal immigrants fucking up their wages with excess labor. But hey fuck poor people . I got mine, go learn to code. Solipsistic narcissism is not noble.

      1. I was uncompromisinly an open borders guy even when I was making much less than $60,000.

        And I’m sorry if it hurts your butt that there are people out there who aren’t interested in helping you force people do business with you instead of the person they would want to hire.

        1. I still make less than $60,000 a year, and i believe strongly that the nation-state is an obsolete and harmful concept.

          1. If only every other nation didn’t disagree.

      2. How does less than 4% of the population “fuck up wages with excess labor”?

        1. Troy got fired from his job picking fruit for $6 a day, so he’s understandably steamed.

      3. I don’t have a problem with that so much. What bugs me is the dishonesty. The fact is mass immigration is really shitty for people at the bottom end of the wage scale. That doesn’t mean we should close the borders or that mass immigration isn’t worth it. But mass immigration is not all taco trucks and rainbows.

        Places like CATO are just lying hacks on this issue. If they support mass immigration, fine. It is not an unreasonable position. But they need to stop lying and pretending there are no costs associated with it or that only those too lazy to work and too nervous to steal are adversely affected by it.

        1. What is the cost, John? The last I’d heard is an estimate of about 10% knocked off the wages of high school dropouts, and that was citing a critic of immigration. Welfare policy is a much more destructive source of pain for the poor.

          Not to say we shouldn’t enforce and reform immigration policy, but it’s hardly the most pressing issue of our times. You were right when you harped on the need for rolling back the regulatory state.

        2. To CATO’s credit, they argue against minimum wage laws, tax hikes, welfare expansions, and the onerous burden of the regulatory state. All of those things play a larger role in the shitty situation at the bottom end of the wage scale than immigrants.

      4. How many open border Libertarians earn less than, say, $60,000.00? My guess is most of these assholes are successful and don’t have to worry about the tens of millions of illegal immigrants fucking up their wages with excess labor. But hey fuck poor people . I got mine, go learn to code. Solipsistic narcissism is not noble.

        Huh, I figured this would be the last place I’d see “People who make more than X aren’t allowed to have an opinion on this subject, check your privilege” made unironically. Though I got a raise earlier this year that put my pre-tax income a smidge over $60k, so feel free to disregard everything I’m saying entirely.

        1. Any impact immigration has on wages is due to negative interactions with welfare, regulation, taxation, or government corruption. It drives me crazy to see left-wing zero-sum fallacies repeated as truth in the context of immigration.

          Just say we can’t have lots of immigrants under our current system of government without negative consequences and be done with it.

        2. I disregard you because you’re not a real person, Mr. android.

      5. “I got mine, go learn to code”
        except that most coders now are foreigners. more ‘merican jobs being stolen

  22. For those few of you who also read out loud to themselves, the accent is on the second syllable

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/aleppo

  23. Not knowing Aleppo is a major fuck up. Maybe because I am a history nerd and every time it is mentioned, I think of the first crusades circa 1099.

    Having said that, he is a much better alternative than that the sickly sociopath Clinton.

    1. I literally had never heard of it until today.

      Well, I probably had, but it was just another random city in the middle east that I didnt waste a brain cell on.

      1. I literally had never heard of it until today.

        Same here, and I doubt we’re alone. I suspect most people haven’t heard of it before, but that won’t stop them from buying into the forming narrative that Gary Johnson is a know nothing moron unfit for the presidency. The media got what they wanted: a major gaffe that they could use as a cudgel to beat down the 3rd party threat to Herself’s ascension to the throne.

      2. I knew it was a city somewhere in the Middle East, but only because when playing Civilization I kept seeing it as one of the cities founded by the Arab leader.

        Otherwise, who gives a fuck about such a minor flub by someone who didn’t bullshit their way around their lack of knowledge?

      3. Ditto.

        I don’t give a shit about the city or its inhabitants or refugees or who wins Syrian Civil War.

        What I do care about is a Russian jet buzzing an USAF jet in the Middle East and how much the Obama administration is has fucked things up. Nuclear War fucking matters. Aleppo . . . not so much.

      4. That’s fine. You’re not running for president. But it is mentioned in the news almost every day, so it’s inexcusable for him.

  24. I learned where Aleppo is reading about ME history…when I was in the 7th grade.

    I was still young enough to be surprised and horrified by human depravity. The city was laid siege to by Muslim attackers, fell and was sacked. It was not uncommon, is not uncommon, for people there to swallow their gold or jewels to hide them. Thus the conquerers dragged everyone out of their homes, disemboweled them and looked for treasure. They didn’t bother dispatching their victims so afterwards the city streets were streaked with blood where the victims crawled away trailing their guts.

    That made Aleppo stick in my memory. Later I learned that that happened in quite a few ME cities multiple times, not really something unique.

    We should definitely send our sons and daughters over there post haste to clean that mess up.

    1. We should definitely send our sons and daughters over there post haste to clean that mess up.

      Nuke it from orbit, to be sure.

      1. It’s the only way.

  25. It was an embarrassing stumble. Not the end of the world, but it certainly doesn’t give anyone a positive impression of him.

    1. accurate summary. Let’s see how he rebounds

      1. His campaign’s official, word-smithed response isn’t bad:

        This morning, I began my day by setting aside any doubt that I’m human. Yes, I understand the dynamics of the Syrian conflict ? I talk about them every day. But hit with “What about Aleppo?”, I immediately was thinking about an acronym, not the Syrian conflict. I blanked. It happens, and it will happen again during the course of this campaign.

        Can I name every city in Syria? No. Should I have identified Aleppo? Yes. Do I understand its significance? Yes.

        As Governor, there were many things I didn’t know off the top of my head. But I succeeded by surrounding myself with the right people, getting to the bottom of important issues, and making principled decisions. It worked. That is what a President must do.

        That would begin, clearly, with daily security briefings that, to me, will be fundamental to the job of being President.

        Of course, the media won’t report it or repeat it, except maybe in passing to mock him some more. “An acronym?! We’re supposed to believe that? I mean, Hillary’s various and sundry email excuses, sure, but this? What a kook!” So all anyone will remember is that he’s the guy who didn’t know where/ what Aleppo is (even they can’t even find Syria on a map).

        1. It’s the one that borders *thinks back to geography class all those years ago* uh… Gallipoli, right? On the Adriatic sea.

  26. So ends the Libertarian…uh, moment. One-liner gaffes of such quality are too simple and easy to laugh at to be survivable – no matter the ticket.

    One can make all kinds of rationalizations about this, find others who did something equally silly, etc. etc. Such mental exercises are exactly what Howard Dean’s supporters did after the Squeal. And it didn’t save him, either.

    1. One-liner gaffes of such quality are too simple and easy to laugh at to be survivable – no matter the ticket.

      I’m pretty sure Her Cankleness could survive a gaffe like this. Mainly because the media would just ignore it. Maybe mention it in passing and then “Ooh, look! Football seasone! And Trump just said something else stupid, let’s all talk about that instead!”

      1. I’m pretty sure Her Cankleness could survive a gaffe like this. Mainly because the media would just ignore it.

        You are right about this completely; but Shrill (obviously) gets a different set of cards than anybody else at the game of life – indeed, as the FBI mess proves, she gets dealt new cards mid-hand after getting caught cheating (poorly) at the game.

        It is why she is relevant at all despite her ‘qualities,’ and other side of that same coin explains why the hapless hag cannot put even a buffoon away politically.

      2. “Wipe? Like with a cloth?”

        Hillary says stupider shit on a weekly basis and not only gets left alone but frequently is defended by the likes of Mike Barnicle. But I suppose membership has its privileges.

    2. “mental exercises are exactly what Howard Dean’s supporters did after the Squeal”

      I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid that it was the Squeal that did Dean in.
      He was cool cuz he used the internet and stuff, but voters recognized that he’d be a shitty president.

  27. This must be one of those things, like Trump’s Mexican judge kerfuffle, that flies clean over my head as to why this, of all things, has inflamed the country. You can’t trudge twenty feet without bumping into a dumpster fire this year, but we’re raging at lit matches. What?

    1. This must be one of those things, like Trump’s Mexican judge kerfuffle, that flies clean over my head as to why this, of all things, has inflamed the country.

      Add to that list: anything having to do with that damned Gorilla, Harambe, a backup QB refusing to stand for the national anthem, some douchebag Olympic swimmers claiming that they were robbed at gunpoint, some toher douchebag former Olympian getting a sex change, etc.

      We’re, what, $20+ trillion in debt, we’re involved in multiple unauthorized wars, we’ve got a government that routinely tramples our 4th amendment rights every time we send an email or board a plane, and two major party presidential candidates that are manifestly unfit to be elected dog catcher, much less president, but yeah, let’s talk about all that shit instead.

      1. ^This and ^Thar

    2. Blame Journolist or whatever took its place for picking the MSM’s talking points every day.

  28. How about instead of illegal immigrants we call them trespassers and stop giving them our money?

        1. Is that the disease or the cure?

  29. Aleppo too shall pass. The types who care about it aren’t voting for GJ anyway. I doubt if any Johnson vote is going to Hillary or Trump now because of this.

    1. I doubt if any Johnson vote is going to Hillary or Trump now because of this.

      Probably not, but there might have been wavering Trump or Hillary voters who were maybe considering voting for Johnson who won’t now that they’ve been assured by Morning Joke et al that he’s a complete moron.

    2. Yeah, I’m not exactly sure what all of John et al’s ‘tarding out over this is supposed to achieve. The best case scenario for them is demoralizing potential Johnson voters into staying home on election day. Exactly zero people are going to suddenly share John’s boner from Trump over this flap.

      1. “The best case scenario for them is demoralizing potential Johnson voters into staying home on election day.”

        The only way they can demoralize me into staying home is if they remove Johnson from the ballot. I know he is not going to win Virginia, or even come close, but I have decided that I will cast what will likely be my last vote in a national election for the candidate who most closely matches my beliefs. If Trump or Hillary wins, I will unregister as a voter the next day, because it is not worth my time anymore to participate in this farce.

  30. Googling site:reason.com for Aleppo over the past year (excluding today), yields 11 results.

    Same search since 2012 yields 17 results.

    Of course everybody knows that Aleppo is actually the 6th Marx brother.

  31. Good thing they didn’t ask him what to do about Harambe.

    1. “Johnsons out for Harambe!”

      1. Great, now you want everybody to shake their dicks at the black student organization on some college campus.

  32. You know, it’s quite possible that Johnson and Trump are both right on immigration. I’m not sure Johnson is, but I’m certain Trump has got it right.

    And here’s why: Trump wants us to actually enforce our laws as written. He doesn’t want to ignore them or selectively enforce them against his political opponents. He wants them enforced as written. And unless we want to live in a fucking banana republic where laws don’t really matter (except when they do) and you have a regulatory apparatus that can essentially legislate by way of executive fiat, you better get behind the whole “rule,of law” concept again, as we’ve strayed quite far off course from it lately.

    Keep on supporting the candidates that want to ignore laws as written. Keep supporting the ones that leave the door open for political opponents to change selective enforcement every four year by not enforcing things as written. And keep supporting idiotic work-abounds that render the rule of law moot. But recognize that you do it at your own peril.

    1. And the only way to correct the immigration laws is to replace them with properly enacted legislation. Trump will make that a reality whereas every other asshat running will keep the status quo.*

      *status quo being the rule of man rather than the rule of law.

  33. Go here to read the whole piece.

    Um, no. Just… no.

  34. And just once I want Gary Johnson to articulate whether or not he would first dismantle the welfare state before enforcing an open border policy. Because unless he firmly commits to that, he’s a libertarian as much as I’m a communist.

  35. I’d rather have a well versed economist than someone who is good at geography. Maybe I’m wrong.

  36. The real sin here is that if you’re Gary Johnson and you’re doing an interview on Morning Joe you have to know you’re going into a skeptical, maybe hostile environment. You are going to have gotchas thrown at you left and right. You’ve got to be able to handle yourself in a confident, professional manner. This episode in and of itself doesn’t mean that much, but it says some scary things about how Johnson might actually do in a debate.

    1. Scary?

      Why should Gary Johnson scare you? He’s not going to win any election. He isn’t going to influence anybody who matters. He could strip on national TV like that other Libertarian presidential candidate and it won’t have any effect. He could answer each qeustion with “Rompey Stomper”, and the world would continue on its course as it would if he were cogent.

      The scary stuff is going to happen no matter what he says. And thus how he plays his role shouldn’t be scary at all.

    2. The prog butt-licking media has been trying to target GJ recently because they are worried he is poaching potential Hillary voters. There was the story in the WaPo trying to tie libertarianism to racism and Trump, now this. It may well have been a trap where they asked him about a specific city rather than Syria in general, knowing that he has a history of fudging these types of questions.

      1. I agree, the media had no problem with Johnson until the polls revealed that the gap between Hillary and Trump gets smaller when Johnson is added to the mix.

        Hillary is in big trouble. She’s losing ground to an economic imbecile who can’t hold a position for as long as he can hold his breath. Somewhere, there’s a new “journo-list” gang going bonkers and attacking Johnson is one of their ploys to take the heat off of her Thighness.

  37. Aleppo? What the hell is…oh, you mean Halab? Should’ve just said so.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.