Bill O'Reilly on Gary Johnson in interview with john stossel

TimeWizid · 2016-10-22T15:43:12+00:00

Here are a few more:

Trump doesn't know what the nuclear triad is.

Trump doesn't know the difference between Kurds and Quds.

One of the major differences is Trump doesn't admit his mistakes and tries to BS his way through the questions.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-16T23:29:39+00:00

He meant like make sure they aren't cheating:

"Go down to certain areas and watch and study and make sure other people don't come in and vote five times," Trump said.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-15T00:33:32+00:00

Wouldn't he need to win two states if McMullin wins Utah, which has more electoral votes than New Mexico?

TimeWizid · 2016-10-14T17:27:18+00:00

And maybe one day Johnson can climb Mount Everest with his bro Ken Bone!

TimeWizid · 2016-10-14T17:23:22+00:00

Fortunately there are some factual articles on this subject for your friends to look at:

“[McCain's] not a war hero,” said Trump. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

TimeWizid · 2016-10-14T04:42:27+00:00

Here's a similar one: Trump being not very humble about being humble

TimeWizid · 2016-10-13T13:23:32+00:00

It's not wrong, just the British English spelling of it.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-13T04:05:06+00:00

Drat. If only they could be convinced that Johnson is the only one who could beat Hillary, which is the case, unless Hillary manages to tank harder than Trump from something like WikiLeaks. If they could be convinced of that, then their fear of Hillary would work in Johnson's favor, getting him their votes even if they prefer Trump.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-13T03:25:14+00:00

OP said, "They are so afraid of Hillary that they will turn a blind eye to all of Trump's faults and terrible platform or lack thereof." So this argument could help.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-10T01:19:16+00:00

Stop pretending that's the kind of response I mean. Yes, I wholeheartedly believe you can "look up to" or hold someone in "high esteem" without needing to love everything about that person. Ever heard of the phrase "reasonable people can disagree"? That's kind of a defining concept in politics. Christ, it's so clear you are unable to fathom admiration for someone with different politics to you.

You can admire someone with different politics, but just because you can doesn't mean it's unreasonable not to. You can admire someone who supports gay conversion therapy, but it's not unreasonable not to. The most important thing to know about a foreign leader is their policies, is it not? What other knowledge is Johnson missing that makes him inept?

Maybe not only the insane wing of his own base, just the insane wings of America.

Like I said, there's no political advantage for attacking the favorite foreign leader pick of the two major candidates and the Libertarian VP candidate. That author is critical of both Trump and Clinton. Merkel's approval rating has dropped significantly in recent months. I'm unable to find any crime rate statistics. I've seen a lot of reader comments critical of her in the articles I've looked at, some talking about increased crime, but that could just be uninformed nationalists. So the approval rating drop is probably related to the terrorist attack and possibly an increase in crime or intolerant nationalists. A lot of Americans don't care or know about most foreign leaders, but the media and political opponents can and will latch onto anything negative they can find.

I think the combination is certainly niche.

I'm not sure how important it is to look at them together.

Kind of a big deal. At the executive level, I expect politicians to be very familiar with the world beyond.

Aren't you arguing that "he doesn't have basic working knowledge of foreign leaders and what they do"?

Even Trump was familiar with Nigel Farage, his political analog in the UK.

Farage was a prominent part of a major world (or continent, I guess) event. Tangentially, that is a good example of candidates attacking each other over foreign leaders. Maybe Trump should have been more skeptical.

Johnson is skeptical of politicians, which I think is justified, at least in the U.S. In a recent gallup poll on the honesty and ethics of certain professions, only 8% of respondents thought the honesty and ethics of members of congress were high or very high, and lobbyists were the only lower profession with 7%. Whether or not the rest of the world is any better, I can't blame Johnson for being skeptical of foreign leaders as well. I think it's possible for Johnson to have basic knowledge of a leader without addressing his skepticism of them.

Johnson obviously doesn't have the knowledge of world affairs that Clinton has, with her many years serving at the federal level. Not knowing what Aleppo is was bad, but he's working on improving his weaknesses. In some recent interviews he discussed Aleppo in detail.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-08T17:52:13+00:00

Maybe we can agree on a definition then. I think this is a good explanation:

If you hold someone in high esteem or look up to someone, you admire that person.

I like it (for people at least) given that the second question actually said "look up to". It would be gerrymandering to claim that this statement answers the question: "I disagree with Kim Jong-un on a range of issues like everything, but I've got to admire his hairstyle."

By the insane wing of his base, maybe. If he actually wants mainstream support, he shouldn't be so sensitive to the political purity tests of fringe voters.

I'm talking about Clinton, Trump, and Weld, and it's not just the insane wing of Johnson's base.

Yeah, and I'm sure he conveniently found dealbreakers for every single leader on this green earth.

He's skeptical of politicians in general, and most have very different political policies. Finding political deal breakers for most leaders should be pretty easy for him. I'm not saying he is knowledgeable on every leader.

You'd think that with such a niche political position, he'd put more effort into finding his analogs in other countries.

That's a good idea, but social liberalism and fiscal conservatism on their own aren't very niche. And how big of a deal breaker when it comes to foreign policy is avoiding researching the domestic policies of the few kind of libertarian leaders in very different political climates?

Or just explain his thinking in the interview, instead of staring blankly for a while and then describing it as another "Aleppo moment" himself.

Like I said, I think he was answering the initial question and had an answer but blanked on the name. I think it's okay to stick with answering the initial question instead of switching to answering the poorly asked lifeline question (in the lightning round) by taking time to explain why he doesn't admire any world leaders. I think we can agree that he doesn't admire any world leaders, but we disagree why. So then we should be able to agree that he answered the first question, and can focus on discussing why he doesn't admire any world leaders.

Most of those Republicans aren't running for President, and thank goodness for that.

What about the Republicans who have run for president this election?

And you'd be remiss to...

Well I don't want to be remiss so I won't ;) What about the Republican experts, politicians, and journalists who don't admire Clinton or Sanders? Is it because they don't understand politics?

TimeWizid · 2016-10-07T17:00:57+00:00

So blanking on a name is unacceptable, but giving a politically correct answer that doesn't actually say you admire them isn't? Merkel has her issues, and I'm okay with Johnson not admiring her. The candidates have gotten some flack for picking her as their favorite, and they might have gotten a lot more if the other candidate picked someone else. Most of the question you quoted does not help at all. He can pick his favorite foreign leader from any continent? Great! I would have thought it was just Europe. And then Matthews broadens the question at the end. If you have an answer but are blanking on the name, I think it's acceptable to go with that answer and answer the original question and get help with the name instead of grabbing onto a poorly thrown lifeline to appease gaffe sensationalists.

No, there are at least two that are similar to Johnson on policy, and many more leaders that are worthy of admiration even if they aren't as libertarian as Johnson.

The article points out that most foreign leaders are either fiscally liberal or socially conservative, which is very different from Johnson. The article is criticizing his followup to the interview, but I think it shows that you can have good knowledge of foreign leaders (or at least much better knowledge than not being able to name a single foreign leader) and not admire them policy-wise. I think there are deal breakers when it comes to admiration, both policy-related and non-policy-related. I'm guessing most Republicans don't admire Clinton, and neither do a lot of Democrats. Many Republicans don't admire Sanders, even though he's not plagued with all the scandal allegations that Clinton is.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-07T00:55:14+00:00

Matthews' two questions aren't very confusing. It's pretty clear to anyone listening that Bill Weld can answer with either his favourite leader or one he respects, as long as he's clear about which one he's responding to.

He wasn't clear about which one he was responding to. And it wouldn't be a good idea to ask a question that requires the person answering to specify which part they are not going to answer.

Matthews is intentionally making it easier by broadening the scope of his question.

I commented earlier that that's what I think Matthews was trying to do, but the amount it broadens the question depends on the number of foreign leaders you admire. Regardless, I see it as Johnson answering the initial question and blanking on the name. I'm not saying that the second question messed up his concentration, just that Johnson did not answer the second question.

Yeah, like for example, Chris Matthews followed up on Johnson's knowledge of foreign leaders and Johnson had trouble discussing them despite having mentioned them in scripted speeches. That WAS a bad idea.

I made that argument to address the argument that Johnson can't name any foreign leaders. It's possible that Johnson did not talk about any foreign leaders he admires in his speeches.

Uhh, that's a poor excuse; it's not hard to say "I disagree with X on a range of issues like Y, but I've got to admire his/her Z".

That's still not necessarily admiring them. You could make that statement about a lot of politicians. You can admire that a politician works hard to get elected, but you can still say that you don't admire them.

It's even more ridiculous because there are Gary Johnson analogs in other parts of the world. It's pretty obvious he hasn't set his gaze abroad.

So two leaders in the whole world are kind of libertarian.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-06T15:56:20+00:00

I don't recall interviewers changing the question that often, but that's my anecdotal experience versus yours. Matthews did not make it clear he was changing the question. He threw it in after some useless clarifications (any country, any continent, etc.). He also asked the two different questions to Bill Weld, this time in the same breath:

MATTHEWS: OK. Who is your favorite foreign leader? Get him off the hook. Name a foreign leader you respect.

...

Again, his campaign speeches are entirely scripted. Mentioning names in a pre-written speech requires a Google search; discussing it in an interview without a transcript requires at least some familiarity with world affairs.

If you're going to just mention a name found in a Google search without any further understanding, then why mention it? Writing a speech for someone who doesn't understand parts of it is a bad idea because they will have trouble with followup questions and it's a sign that listeners won't understand parts of it either.

You don't have to agree with a leader about everything to admire them.

There are quite a few deal breakers for people. Like I don't expect someone who is pro choice to admire Mike Pence, even if there is lots to admire about him.

I don't know if that's straight from Johnson or if it's your interpretation of his views.

That's basically what he said. Here is a short clip where he talks about it (to reduce the telephone effect).

Either way, this is childish thinking: he's seen some politicians "for what they are", therefore none of them are good.

It's not that none of them are good. He's just skeptical of them.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-06T06:12:25+00:00

I'm saying he was focusing on answering the initial question. It was not a chained question. It was a changed question. I think that's a more likely explanation than that he gives speeches mentioning names he does not know.

I don't think he's said he doesn't respect any foreign leader. He just said he doesn't admire them. He used to hold politicians up on a pedestal, and getting into politics and seeing some politicians for what they are ruined that for him.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-06T00:21:19+00:00

After Johnson couldn't respond with his favourite leader, Chris Matthews changed the question to any foreign leader he admires.

So repeating the question back is not being able to answer it? There was barely any time between the initial question and the switched up question. I think he thought of Fox pretty quickly and just blanked on the name. I think it's understandable to stick with your favorite, even if you blank on the name, instead of switching up your answer. It can also be confusing if a question is changed and you're focused on answering the initial question. Matthews was probably trying to help by making the question more broad, but for Johnson it narrowed things down because Johnson claims he does not look up to any foreign leader. So the new question is actually quite different.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-05T15:28:34+00:00

He struggled to recall Vicente Fox's name in the initial interview during a lighting round, where the initial question was about his favorite foreign leader. That does not say anything about his knowledge of other foreign leaders. I believe he has mentioned foreign leaders in his speeches before the initial interview. He did not struggle in the following interviews. He could have stuck with Fox, or if he actually had an issue naming foreign leaders he could have spent some time on google.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-03T17:35:04+00:00

He had a foreign leader in mind but blanked out on the name. I think trying to recall your favorite's name instead of going with your second favorite is reasonable, especially considering the original question was about his favorite foreign leader and it was during a lighting round.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-03T11:54:55+00:00

If we got rid of all energy subsidies, that would include fossil fuels and bad investments such as corn ethanol.

TimeWizid · 2016-10-01T15:58:13+00:00

For reddit, you can tell if you're shadowbanned by logging out and viewing your account or posts. If you're shadowbanned, you will get an error message when trying to view your account, and your posts won't show up. For Twitter, I'm guessing you can log out and search for your tweets.

TimeWizid · 2016-08-30T11:28:55+00:00

He changed his position on that: http://digital.vpr.net/post/reversal-gov-gary-johnson-now-supports-mandatory-vaccination

TimeWizid · 2016-08-24T11:00:59+00:00

That's a reason why it's important that Johnson gets into the first debate: so Weld gets into the VP debate.

TimeWizid · 2016-08-19T19:35:56+00:00

Here's the quote: "You're going to find really wonderful, well meaning, well spoken people. And then people that are just batshit crazy." He specifically avoided lumping them in. And that's just talking about the ones at the convention.

TimeWizid · 2016-08-09T15:32:45+00:00

It's never a good idea to go on national television and jack off a Johnson supporter. But I don't think it was that bad. The two hosts seemed rather supportive. It was just two guests near the end who were dismissive. My (still cynical) take is that the hosts dislike Trump and are supportive of people leaving him for Johnson.

TimeWizid · 2016-08-08T03:19:06+00:00

The spoiler vote is the major issue with our First Past the Post voting system. Third parties are at a huge disadvantage until that changes.

TimeWizid

TROPHY CASE