The title is something that I suspect many here already know, and throughout the campaign I think she’s demonstrated it time and time again. She fails minimum competency tests regularly. She may have outdone herself today, though.
Here’s Jill Stein’s message today.
With so many #Sept11 secrets, we cannot move forward as a nation and end terrorism.
#NeverForget #ItsInOurHands
She links to a NY Post article from yesterday about the redacted “28 pages” of a Congressional 9/11 investigation that cover alleged involvement of the Saudi government. The 28 Pages truthers are quite similar to the general 9/11 truthers who think the attacks might have been an inside job. Entertaining the conspiracy theories is enough of a dealbreaker, but that this would be her campaign’s message on the anniversary of the attacks demonstrate that she has zero political instincts, has terrible judgment, and honestly may not even be a decent human being (or at least hires such people and gives them communications control). There’s a way to make a statement and be critical on 9/11 by addressing civil liberties or our often wrongheaded response to terrorism. She didn’t. The typical “Rah Rah America 9/11 Never Forget” message is not something in which one must indulge. The conspiracist angle is one of the dumber approaches she could have taken. I hope that she earns less than 1% in this election and the Green Party finally drops her and looks for leaders who may help bring the party (and its admirable policy goals) closer to where they should be on the national stage.
Gary Johnson similarly exposed how he is completely unfit for the Presidency last week. His “What is Aleppo?” episode was one of the most embarrassing incidents of the Presidential race this far. (Although it was very bad and worthy of news coverage, the media’s choice to make it huge news may be even more troublesome because nothing about the incident demonstrated Johnson’s failings to anywhere near the same degree that everyday statements demonstrate Trump’s idiocy, misinformation, and dangerousness. Trump has said hundreds of things that are worse and more shocking.) Johnson’s lack of knowledge of foreign issues is not that surprising given his ideology. Real libertarians just don’t care. That’s exactly why a libertarian shouldn’t be President in this modern world.
MSNBC did interviews with Johnson and Weld and it was almost embarrassing to watch to see how Johnson has absolutely no business being on the top of that ticket. He seems like an affable guy, but that’s about it – almost like what George W. Bush was early on and before he was surrounded by and working with Cheney and the other terrible neocons. They sounded like two peas in a pod back in the day:
“George turns to me and says, ‘What are they talking about?’ I said, ‘I don’t know.’ He said, ‘You don’t know a thing, do you?’ And I said, ‘Not one thing.’ He said, ‘Neither do I.’ And we kind of high-fived.”
The MSNBC interviews were so telling. Weld has bucketloads more experience, intelligence, and charisma. He’s so much better, but he’s not really a libertarian, which is problematic. Even simple questions like, “What’s your favorite book?” made Weld look so much better than Johnson. Johnson said, “Uhh, probably The Fountainhead.” Weld went on for a bit about an Argentine author and then mentioned Nabokov’s Pale Fire.
I mentioned Trump in the title, but that one’s obvious. In a choice between the four candidates he should rightfully be a distant fourth, even though all but Clinton would be a disaster. And I don’t even like her!
And to round it out with criticism of all the candidates, Clinton said something very stupid last week. She has already apologized and walked back the statement.
You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it.
The reason it’s stupid – it’s actually much more than half! I know, I know. She and we shouldn’t be ridiculing these people but everything she said was true. I’m not sure how best to navigate this. If she says something honest like this, she gets hammered. If she apologizes, she looks weak. It’s a tough balance. This story will be over in a day or two, though, and we’ll move onto another fake controversy.
It was unfortunate but should not disqualify him from being in the debates. In the debates all the candidates should be asked about their positions on the US manufacturing regime changes across the world, and propping up dictators (going back to Vietnam). Our picking sides (often the wrong side) is what has put a target on the back of all our citizens visiting around the world.
If we weren’t so involved maybe if he was asked about “Aleppo” the response would have been “Isn’t that where the Shriners have their hats made?”
I didn’t know what Aleppo was until quite recently. He could have handled it better (“I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with Aleppo”) and then rebounded when he got the answer. But as a a gaffe I think it’s bit overplayed.
Neither third party is anywhere near the debate threshold, correct?
PS. Bring back the League of Women Voters to run the debates. I don’t tink Ross Perot was subject to the 15% rule.
That’s fine. It is unacceptable for someone running for Commander in Chief, though. To be fair, Barnicle’s specific question was a weird way to get at the gist of the issue, but Johnson must know basics like that if he is to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate. There is a lot of learning to be done as a candidate and certainly in the office, but at this point (less than two months, not twelve, from election day), a serious candidate must know the major contours of the conflict and be ready to provide answers.
I don’t disagree that it’s an overplayed gaffe, especially when compared to what other candidates are saying, but it also uniquely demonstrates that Johnson is not up to the job. He actually didn’t know it and admitted such. It was not a momentary lapse.
And this was true during the primary season as well. It’s her single best selling point. I’ve been meaning to create a separate post that really lays out the case from the Dallas News editorial endorsing her. She’s he first Democrat they have endorsed since Lyndon Johnson.
As Johnson said, the way the question was asked, he thought it was an acronym of some kind. “”Aleppo?” “Yes, Aleppo.” “I’m sorry, what is
Aleppo?” AHA! You’re ignorant! When he broke down and said it was in Syria, Johnson talked about Syria.
The NYT sneered that Johnson was an idiot to not immediately recognize the fraught city of Aleppo, which is of course the capitol of Syria.
They later had to break down and admit that the capitol of Syria is Damascus.
I think the person throwing stones above has forgotten the difference between capital and capitol.
maybe there’s a building called Damascus which PP is referring to?
…attack the spelling ‘errors’.
Most of these are due to auto finish, and are generated by anyone posting from a cell phone where it is almost impossible to see the post before you send it. And BMG has a fine old tradition of not allowing any correction of a post so you cannot alter it later.
We can have a raft of – sorry, my device messed up up – posts, or we can assume that poster errors are inadvertent.
that the NYT election coverage is pretty crappy indeed. This is but an example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_pepper
We know the powers that be control media access by limiting access to the debates. For someone who is on all the ballots to not be included in the debates is one thing, but does anyone know how the govt decides who they are going to give security briefings to? What is that threshold?
I can just see some media guy asking Gary a question about something that will be as important as Aleppo in 5 years, “what about Spratly?”
I love your “what about Spratly” question. I’m familiar with the dispute, and had NO CLUE about the name of the place.
It reminds me of a radio news broadcast I remember hearing in the early 1960s, when the announcer said something to the effect of “You may not have heard of a country called ‘Vietnam’, but you’re likely to hear a lot more about it in the next few years …”. I was interested in geography and maps at the time (I was about 10), and I looked it up as soon as I got home.
Good one!
To Kill a Mockingbird?
Boo Spratly
In fact, “Spratly” refers to two hotly-disputed island chains in the South China sea:
It’s actually a reasonably serious question, given the military posturing by China, the US, and others.
Spratly Islands
…and if so do said inhabitants have their own opinions as to where their national loyalties lie?
Some web sources say they “have no indigenous inhabitants”.
Others, like this suggest that they are being colonized by the various contestants, including China, Vietnam, and the Phillipines (emphasis mine):
It appears to me that opinions of the inhabitants complicate, rather than simplify, the situation — especially since those inhabitants are being encouraged to settle there in order to strengthen the military claims of the several participants.
Liaoning (16) (Chinese: 辽宁舰; pinyin: Liáoníng Jiàn), is the first aircraft carrier commissioned into the People’s Liberation Army Navy Surface Force. It is classified as a training ship, intended to allow the Navy to practice with carrier usage.
The fact that a large, increasingly wealthy country has an aircraft carrier is scary? India has an aircraft carrier. Brazil has one.
France sold to Russia two Mistral class carriers but reneged on the deal when Russia annexed Crimea. Now it is selling both to Egypt. As long as the industrial world can produce weapons, somebody will buy them. In this case, China does not need, does not want to buy them elsewhere. It is part of their industrial policy to build their own.
I saw the movie “War Dogs” this weekend with the usually comedic Jonah Hill. Turns out the movie is actually a nice examination of two merchants of death who scammed our country in part of the international arms market during our imperialist war in Iraq.
The Egyptians carriers are just helicopter ones, though. Don’t know if Scott is okay iwht that.
China going from a brown water to a blue water navy can only increase the odds that they will have their own Gulf of Tonkin incident. The United Nations will be useless. As the pre-eminent naval force will we get drawn into a dispute?
China is expanding their territory (as discussed) in an active manner, which I don’t think India and Brazil are doing.
I doubt the US will come to the defense of any SE Asian nations in a sea skirmish. I am much more worried about a China-India conflict. China has sent warships including subs into the Indian Ocean at the same time is is building rail and road connections through Burma to the Bay of Bengal, its One Belt, One Road policy. Those connections will shave almost half day of sailing time for China’s shipping of goods. India and China are long time rivals and the conflict is growing.
That is, ROC, is a claimant to those islands, and is generally understood to enjoy the protection of the US security umbrella, which might be a reason it has not been invaded by the PRC.
The funny thing is because both Beijing and Taipei claim to control China, they are on the same side in this maritime disputes. Taipei generally backs Beijing’s ridiculous claims, thinking it will someday inherit them when it regains control of China.
Of course, the full extent of Taiwan’s claims are ludicrous and go beyond China, including bits of ten other countries and almost the entirety of Mongolia. IF you’re gonna dream, I guess, dream big.
Clinton
Johnson
Stein
Never Trump