The US Election 2016, Part VI

[Hiro Protagonist]

personally despise gotcha questions no matter who gets them.  like the man said above, bad way to interview.  Some value probably just to see how fleet a candidate is on his feet, but the President of the US won't be faced with problems in this manner.  He'll be briefed and then make a decision.  Salient points will be made known.  The sole criterion whether the candidate knows the first name of the Swahili ambassador to the Sudetenland, then HRC is your brand.  Judgement they all seem daft.  Integrity then Johnson and Stein have the fewest bones rattling around in their closets.  Maybe just hid the bodies better.

 

It wasn't a gotcha question. Would it be the same if a question was asked about Nice during the same week of the attack? Aleppo has been in the media all week including comments from other heads of state like Merkel. It's a relevant question at the time since it's being covered in the media. Why wouldn't the interviewer ask something that's current? I get the impression Johnson isn't reading up on what's happening in world current affairs.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Hiro Protagonist

[Enoch]

 

 

Watching Trump on Youtube now (live in Ohio).  It seems America's military and defense system is in a worse state than Britain.  Obama and Hillary Clinton did a great job there.  (Sarcasm)

 

Do you think it is a worse state because that is what Trump is saying?

 

Is this part of the plan to lower our debt?

 

I live in Britain, so just going by what he said - which was pretty specific (not sure if he could lie about this stuff) but he pretty much went through army number of boots on the ground, ships, and air force ("they're flying the planes their fathers flew" i think was the sentence) and that under Obama and Hillary the cost over the past 10 years has been 6 trillion - I think estimates at 75,000 per American household.  I don't know your average salary, but expect that's about 2-3 years worth.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in-afghanistan-iraq-to-cost-6-trillion/5350789

 

I mean, the man is specific.  I don't know what Hillary's take on this is.  The last time I heard her say anything, it was about shutting down Infowars and Breitbart.  Kinda makes me worry when I hear this - same crap in Britain.  They are actually saying the military isn't up to scratch.

 

 

The right wing talking points on military decline are entirely built on cherry-picked stats.  There are always winners and losers in the internal-DOD budget struggle (more UAVs, fewer fighter jets; more cruise missiles, fewer attack submarines), so it's easy to build a facile case for whichever of growth or decline is most politically convenient to you.  Sure, there are fewer planes and ships than there used to be, but the ones they have are vastly more capable.  Yes, some of the hardware is reaching the end of its (quite long) effective life, but they're still delivering modern munitions and kicking the ass of everything they face.  And blaming Obama in particular is especially odd-- the defense budget as a whole is larger now than it has been in the last 30 years. 

 

What you're seeing is basically folks who were convinced 8 years ago that Obama would be a disaster trying their best to convince you that they were right, in spite of the available evidence.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Enoch

[quidproquo]

Good thing the left doesn't cherry pick data.  (snicker)  Truly, unless particualrly egregious don't see what's wrong with either side cherry picking the data.  The data that those right wingers pick might just be convenient, probably is, but it might also be the data that concerns them the most.  They try to spin, but they probably believe their spin.  Not just leftist apologist, the right also.  Don't know the ins and outs of the US defense budget (who are we trying to fool, it's the war budget), but I know that most western countries spend buckets more for support than actual front liners.  Actually true for modern armies altogether, but the degree is notable.  There is some argument as to where the line should be drawn, but opportunism in the support ranks has been rampant in armies for centuries.  Even people who want to reduce the defense budget want the remaining budget spent better, and those are grounds for sober discussion.

 

If the argument is that the US, and the rest of the world, is better off or safer because of BHO, then it's a bad argument.  A look at its face tells you otherwise.  Does the right go beyond the measure attacking him?  To be certain, but the left and the leftist apologists go beyond the same measure defending him.

[Hurlshort]

 

personally despise gotcha questions no matter who gets them.  like the man said above, bad way to interview.  Some value probably just to see how fleet a candidate is on his feet, but the President of the US won't be faced with problems in this manner.  He'll be briefed and then make a decision.  Salient points will be made known.  The sole criterion whether the candidate knows the first name of the Swahili ambassador to the Sudetenland, then HRC is your brand.  Judgement they all seem daft.  Integrity then Johnson and Stein have the fewest bones rattling around in their closets.  Maybe just hid the bodies better.

 

It wasn't a gotcha question. Would it be the same if a question was asked about Nice during the same week of the attack? Aleppo has been in the media all week including comments from other heads of state like Merkel. It's a relevant question at the time since it's being covered in the media. Why wouldn't the interviewer ask something that's current? I get the impression Johnson isn't reading up on what's happening in world current affairs.

 

 

I can see that now.

 

"What are your thoughts on Nice?"

 

"Niece?"

 

"Yes, Nice"

 

"Why are you asking about my family?"

 

But seriously, Aleppo hasn't gotten anywhere near the coverage of Nice, certainly not in the US.  Terrible example.  

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yeay Hillary : http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/08/meet-thong-vang-convicted-illegal-alien-child-rapist-hillarys-state-department-did-not-deport-shoots-two-officers/

[Enoch]

Good thing the left doesn't cherry pick data.  (snicker)  Truly, unless particualrly egregious don't see what's wrong with either side cherry picking the data.  The data that those right wingers pick might just be convenient, probably is, but it might also be the data that concerns them the most.  They try to spin, but they probably believe their spin.  Not just leftist apologist, the right also.  Don't know the ins and outs of the US defense budget (who are we trying to fool, it's the war budget), but I know that most western countries spend buckets more for support than actual front liners.  Actually true for modern armies altogether, but the degree is notable.  There is some argument as to where the line should be drawn, but opportunism in the support ranks has been rampant in armies for centuries.  Even people who want to reduce the defense budget want the remaining budget spent better, and those are grounds for sober discussion.

 

What's wrong with "support"?  The U.S. military is dominant because it can project force at will just about anywhere in the world.  That takes a massive amount of "support" to make happen.  The salaries and equipment for a special ops team is pennies next to the cost of the aircraft used to get them in and out, the satellites used to supply them intel, and the medical care to treat their injuries for the rest of their lives.  That's just how it works; I'm not sure how your point about "actual front liners" is relevant to anything.

 

That said, sure, there is lots to criticize in the DOD budget, and there are lots of grounds for reasonable discussion.  The problem is that nothing that comes out of the GOP candidate's mouth on the issue can even remotely be characterized as such. 

[quidproquo]

Take your point, being more informed than me beyond doubt, but will cite:  "[a]ctually true for modern armies altogether, but the degree is notable."  It's the degree to which outlay goes to support that goes beyond its role as support.  I would also note that planes, ships, and other combat platforms are, indeed, front line equipment and troops and those outlays are still considerable.  Finally, support that actually puts amoured carriers or the like on the field is probably not what's under attack by those right wing bogeymen..  It's your country, mate.  I'm just a man watching how things go.  I wagered with a snarky lot about this election and so I have to keep up on it to where it all falls.  Would say that you'll have to live with the decision, but all of us will no matter where we live.

 

To me, the right wingers have some good points.  Not all good, mind you, but some good.  See MothTrumpra as a colourful, crass, and quite mad.  Absolutely bonkers.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

But seriously, Aleppo hasn't gotten anywhere near the coverage of Nice, certainly not in the US.  Terrible example.  

 

 

I'm sort of 50/50 on that, it certainly didn't have the coverage of Nice and isn't so well known that it should be instantly recognised by a layman with no additional context but at the same time there's a strong case that a presidential candidate should know about it and be able to make an instant answer, Hillary at least certainly would be able to. If she didn't have a coughing fit, at least.

 

Having said that, while I wouldn't call it a gotcha question it certainly wasn't a good one to ask if you wanted a 'good' answer. You could write pages on the situation on Aleppo- you've got 'coalition', Syrian, Russian, Turkish bombings, Turks/ FSA vs Kurds, everyone vs ISIS in Provincial Aleppo; FSA vs Kurds in Aleppo City itself, sieges of the government areas then rebel areas, Iranian and Iraqi militias, Al Qaeda etc etc in Aleppo City itself. The question was both too general and too specific, and demanded a mealy mouthed sound bite response more than one that would demonstrate knowledge of the situation or give any nuance.

 

In the end I don't think Johnson or the interviewer came out looking good, the interviewer asked a poor question and at least partly as a consequence of that Johnson looked like a stunned mullet for a few seconds. Neither really should have happened.

[Hurlshort]

I'm guessing the difference is Johnson knows he came out looking bad and has admitted he needs to get better moving forward, while the interviewer probably thinks he is awesome for creating a situation like that.  As I said earlier, a good interviewer should be establishing context as they ask their question, both for the audience and the interviewee.  But again, MSNBC is on the same level as Fox News.  

[Hiro Protagonist]

I'm sort of 50/50 on that, it certainly didn't have the coverage of Nice and isn't so well known that it should be instantly recognised by a layman with no additional context but at the same time there's a strong case that a presidential candidate should know about it and be able to make an instant answer, Hillary at least certainly would be able to. If she didn't have a coughing fit, at least.

 

In the end I don't think Johnson or the interviewer came out looking good, the interviewer asked a poor question and at least partly as a consequence of that Johnson looked like a stunned mullet for a few seconds. Neither really should have happened.

 

 

I don't see it as a poor question at all. As a presidential candidate, Johnson should be looking at current world affairs including current conflicts as well as what other world leaders are saying. As I said, this has been in the media all week including accusations of chemical warfare with the chlorine attack a couple of days ago. This is current news when Johnson went on and he had no idea.

 

We're talking chemical attacks that have been reported in the media this week and the presidential hopeful has no idea. This to me is a fairly major news story. An interviewer asking about 'Aleppo' shouldn't have to give context. Johnson should already know.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/aleppos-children/suspected-aleppo-chlorine-attack-sickens-dozens-syria-doctors-say-n643706

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/07/middleeast/syria-aleppo-chlorine-attack/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUSKCN11C1S5

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/chlorine-attack-deepens-fears-among-besieged-aleppo-residents/2016/09/06/96c86796-7441-11e6-9781-49e591781754_story.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/syrian-government-chlorine-gas-aleppo

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/09/aleppo-chlorine-attack/498923/

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/09/06/syria-activists-warplanes-dropped-chlorine-bombs-in-aleppo0.html

Edited September 9, 2016 by Hiro Protagonist

[Zoraptor]

The answer he eventually gave was decent enough for a quick once over, there's no reason to believe he actually didn't know anything about Aleppo as opposed to being thrown by the question.

 

It's not just chemical attacks*, just in the last week or so Turkey invaded Syria in Aleppo province, ISIS lost their last bit of border to Turkey, in Aleppo; Turkey had tanks destroyed by both Kurdish and ISIS forces, in Aleppo; someone killed off a bunch of moderate not-Al-Qaeda-we-changed-our-name leaders, in Aleppo; the siege of the rebel areas in Aleppo City (50-200k civilians) was reinstated/ siege of the government areas (1.2-2 million civilians) fully lifted, rebels shelled a hospital in the Kurdish district of Aleppo City plus more. If you/ they wanted a specific answer to the question of the alleged chlorine use then he should have asked for that specifically. It'd be very easy to freeze at that question from being too well informed since you plain cannot give a decent answer to such a broad question in a short time.

 

If they wanted an answer to what Johnson would do about chemical attacks, then they should have asked that question; if they want an answer about what Johnson would do about sieges, ask that question; if they want to know what he thinks of Turkey vs Kurds (probably the most interesting one since the YPG/ PYD Kurds are libertarian marxists and Johnson is theoretically Libertarian) then ask that question. That way you'll have the best chance of getting an informed response which would show whether Johnson knew his stuff or not. The only disadvantage of asking questions that way is that you're unlikely to get Johnson to freeze as he in fact did, because you've provided the necessary context.

 

*which probably didn't actually happen.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

probably the most interesting one since the YPG/ PYD Kurds are libertarian marxists and Johnson is theoretically Libertarian

Actually they're closest to municipalism in the vein of Bookchin, which has it's roots in anarchism rather than Marxism.

[Malcador]

Watching Trump on Youtube now (live in Ohio). It seems America's military and defense system is in a worse state than Britain. Obama and Hillary Clinton did a great job there. (Sarcasm)

Clinton was Sec Def?

[quidproquo]

Can't lay this down on HRC.  There are many grounds upon which to attack her, but her talk and her stances over the years, seems like much more prone to a warmonger charge than wimp.  You can't bring up her mistaken adventures in Libya in one breath and then blame her for lack of military preparedness on the other.  Course, she's enslaved herself to the American left, so you never know what will happen.  She could do whatever when she wins.

 

Seen several interviews with Johnson since the gaffe and he's taking it upright.  Might just go from snookered to shiny in the course of one day.  Didn't much care for the man before, but he's not huddled in the corner crying.  He's out there doing the best of it and, good better best, he's flat telling people that's what he's doing.

Edited September 9, 2016 by quidproquo

[Hiro Protagonist]

It's not just chemical attacks

 

That's right. It's not just chemical attacks but that's the current media attention that's been this week with the links I posted. We're not talking about the typical layperson on the street. We're talking about a presidential candidate and he had no idea what Aleppo was.

 

If the question was asked to me, I would ask the interviewer, are you referring to the alleged chemical attacks this week that's been reported in the media or are you looking at a more broad answer to the whole Syrian conflict? I would at least know what Aleppo is. Johnson had no idea what the word was.

 

To suggest to spoon feed the Presidential candidate specifics about what Aleppo is and give a backstory (including on what's being reported in the media around the world all week) just in case he doesn't know and doesn't read the newspapers comes across as completely asinine.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Hiro Protagonist

[Pidesco]

[Zoraptor]

 

If the question was asked to me, I would ask the interviewer, are you referring to the alleged chemical attacks this week that's been reported in the media or are you looking at a more broad answer to the whole Syrian conflict? I would at least know what Aleppo is. Johnson had no idea what the word was.

 

Having to ask for clarifications of a question asked in an interview means that the question was poor- at best it wastes time having to ask for the clarification and it's unnecessary if there was context. Meh, not that important anyway, I certainly don't think Johnson came off well from it, just that it wasn't entirely his fault for what happened.

 

 

probably the most interesting one since the YPG/ PYD Kurds are libertarian marxists and Johnson is theoretically Libertarian

Actually they're closest to municipalism in the vein of Bookchin, which has it's roots in anarchism rather than Marxism.

 

 

Nobody (well, almost nobody) knows what municipalism is though. They aren't really libertarian/ anarcho marxists- or anarcho syndicalists either- but it's the closest designation to what they are which you could expect someone to recognise from political compass/ Homage to Catalonia or similar.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Hiro Protagonist]

I put it down to inexperience on Johnson's part. He probably hasn't been in the limelight that he's in now. I've been in many public functions and one of the things that I've been taught years ago is read up on social and current affairs. This is basic stuff that is taught in training seminars. It's a good way to break the ice to talk about something that people may know something about. Read the newspapers for the last couple of days to find out what's happening. And even if I don't know something when asked, I can usually answer with a question that doesn't make me look like an idiot.

 

For example, if Johnson didn't know what Aleppo was which clearly he didn't, he could have put it back onto the interviewer for context. Then he's put it back on the interviewer to explain. The interviewer may have framed his question with Syria in it and then Johnson may have had an 'ah ha' moment and had some idea what the interviewer was talking about. If he did that, then nobody would have picked up he had no idea from the start.

 

The best thing for Johnson to do is stay low for a couple of days, hope the media shines their light on Trump and Hillary, read up on world politics and current affairs and then shift the focus on other things when he comes back. If the media does asks him about things overseas then at least he's prepared with answers. But I would recommend him to move onto other things. Otherwise he's going to get bogged down with Aleppo.

 

As an anecdote, my partner and I attended a dinner last week and one guy I was talking to brought up a few subjects that was reported in the media over the previous week. It was only due to reading up* on a range of subjects earlier in the day that I could easily hold a conversation with him and knew all the details of what he was talking about.

 

*It also helped that I visited an online forum (Whirlpool) and read a few threads to get opposing views on various subjects. You don't always know people's views when you have a conversation with them and it's good to see different views on a subject.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Hiro Protagonist

[Hurlshort]

With 2 months to go, I don't think Johnson can afford to lay low for a couple days.  

[Guard Dog]

Well you have to give him credit for owning it: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cr1my4JWAAABN0q.jpg:large

 

Then there is this. Behind every cloud they say: http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/09/08/dont-surprised-aleppo-flub-helps-gary-johnson-rise-15/

 

It is irritating that with the exception of CNN the media has utterly ignored him until he made a mistake. Then out come the knives.

[Guard Dog]

I agree with Hurlsot. So does RedAlertPolitics & Reason Magazine:

 

 

But, maybe Johnson should thank Barnicle. Why? For raising his name identification exponentially. Johnson received more television news coverage today than any other day during this campaign.

Now, more people than ever know there’s another choice than the two least popular major party candidates in recorded history. More people were googling his name and talking about him on social media.

In most polls, Johnson’s name identification is around or under 50 percent, even among millennials. He is polling around 9 percent in the RealClearPolitics average, and numerous state polls have him above 15 percent.

It’s early September, and people will mostly forget the gaffe — but will remember his name. If Johnson’s team is smart, they will book as many media interviews they can off of this. Look at the polls next week for his name identification to significantly improve, and in about two weeks, don’t be shocked if his numbers reach 15 percent nationwide.

Read more at http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/09/08/dont-surprised-aleppo-flub-helps-gary-johnson-rise-15/#s6xyagCIss9PqeRm.99

[Pidesco]

It's not like this is going to make much of a difference. The RepDem field is already the best it has ever been for third party candidates, and Johnson can't get past 10 percent. By the same measure that says Clinton should be crushing Trump, Johnson should be polling well above expectation. If 10% is already well above expectation, than his campaign is effectively dead in the water. The two party system is unavoidable.

[Guard Dog]

It's not like this is going to make much of a difference. The RepDem field is already the best it has ever been for third party candidates, and Johnson can't get past 10 percent. By the same measure that says Clinton should be crushing Trump, Johnson should be polling well above expectation. If 10% is already well above expectation, than his campaign is effectively dead in the water. The two party system is unavoidable.

It's a steep hill to climb for a third party. The biggest problem Johnson faces is getting over 15% in polls where 2/3 of them do not even include him or Jill Stein in the polling. The other problem is media coverage. Clinton & Trump have every place the visit and everything they say on ever news broadcast. Johnson & Stein are largely ignored so the casual news consumer never hears about them. In fact this week they both topped out in coverage this week for bad things. Every time they say something smart or do something good no one hears about it,. Make a mistake and that s all that is reported.

 

Now, that said, it was always the longest of long shots for Johnson to win. Stein even more so because she would need to win every single state she is on the ballot for to get over 270 in the EC. Johnson's only realistic path was to win at least 1 state and have the rest of the election fall out in such a way that neither Clinton or Trump gets to 270. Then he MIGHT be able to present himself as a "compromise" candidate in the House of Representatives. I probably have a better shot at the lottery than that scenario has of happening.

 

But as I have mentioned before there are prizes to be had here for the LP beyond winning the White House. If Johnson/Weld gets 5% of the popular vote the LP candidates in 2020 will automatically be on the ballot in all 50 States. That is a huge win. Johnson has less than 10% of the total campaign cash that Clinton & Trump have. The LP has 4 PACs helping them. Trump has dozens, Clinton even more. If Johnson had access to the cash resources used up on ballot access efforts he would be a lot more competitive at this point.

 

As much as I would prefer him over Clinton or Trump I knew all along how this was going to work out. But there is a "long victory" to hope for here. That is why I'm trying to convince as many Americans as I can that even if he can't win a vote for him is not wasted if you want to see a viable third party in 2020. If you can't support Clinton or Trump (that's me) or just want to see the two party duopoly end voting for Gary Johnson is NOT a wasted vote. 

[Hurlshort]

It's not like this is going to make much of a difference. The RepDem field is already the best it has ever been for third party candidates, and Johnson can't get past 10 percent. By the same measure that says Clinton should be crushing Trump, Johnson should be polling well above expectation. If 10% is already well above expectation, than his campaign is effectively dead in the water. The two party system is unavoidable.

 

I'm never going to understand this line of thinking.  It is self perpetuating.  

 

We have a system in place that allows for change.  We have the means to do it.  We even have historical precedent to look at.  

 

The odds are it will not happen in this election.  But that doesn't mean everyone should just roll over and accept our new overlord.  Over 40% of people don't even vote, and I doubt self defeatist statements like this help move that needle.

 

Ross Perot captured nearly 19% of the vote in '92, but he was an independent and was not able to build on that momentum.  Johnson may pull of similar numbers by the end of this.  I don't know if he can capitalize on that either, or if the Libertarian party can build on it, but I see know reason not to place some hope in it.    

[Enoch]

 

It's not like this is going to make much of a difference. The RepDem field is already the best it has ever been for third party candidates, and Johnson can't get past 10 percent. By the same measure that says Clinton should be crushing Trump, Johnson should be polling well above expectation. If 10% is already well above expectation, than his campaign is effectively dead in the water. The two party system is unavoidable.

 

I'm never going to understand this line of thinking.  It is self perpetuating.  

 

We have a system in place that allows for change.  We have the means to do it.  We even have historical precedent to look at.  

 

The odds are it will not happen in this election.  But that doesn't mean everyone should just roll over and accept our new overlord.  Over 40% of people don't even vote, and I doubt self defeatist statements like this help move that needle.

 

Ross Perot captured nearly 19% of the vote in '92, but he was an independent and was not able to build on that momentum.  Johnson may pull of similar numbers by the end of this.  I don't know if he can capitalize on that either, or if the Libertarian party can build on it, but I see know reason not to place some hope in it.    

 

 

Well, there's a difference between talking about a third party in the abstract, and talking about a specific third party with the Libertarian platform.  Perot was largely a centrist who was focused particularly on 2 main issues (NAFTA and the debt) that he and his voters didn't think the major parties offered good options on.  The Libertarians, on the other hand, have a full slate of policy positions, and those policy positions are simply not that popular with the voters.  "A third candidate" could arguably get up to 20%, sure.  A third-party candidate running on the LP platform is going to have a much tougher time, absent some fairly substantial changes in the popularity of many of their core positions.