glesias Sweden tweet is very obviously a lame-to-mediocre joke. Anyone who is a glesias Sweden tweet truther must be carrying around a massive hate on for him. Which is inexplicable in and of itself, dude is so bland and meh I find it hard to believe anyone cares about him one way or the other.

So if Assad starts gassing millions of people, we should just sit by? What if the regime crumbles and turns into a stable base for ISIS to launch 9/11-style attacks on the US? Should we still stay out of it? Do you think they're going to stop attacking us because Johnson is president?

Even if the US should not just sit by, I think Johnson is pretty clear that he believes the US shouldn't get involved in foreign affairs so it's not unreasonable to think he wouldn't want his administration doing anything with Syria one way or another.

glesias is the kind of pure neoliberal that absolutely infuriates people because they see it as what's destroying whatever (often dumb) idea they have of a better world. he's also consciously going hard for hillary at this point because he thinks trump is a fascist, which you cant really blame him for.

i kinda like him.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidShus...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

ITS HAPPENING

David Shuster ‏@DavidShuster
DNC delegate: If @HillaryClinton withdraws, every indication now committee will vote to replace with Biden. @BernieSanders team scrambling

BIDEN

lolbernie

One wonders how he can take a policy position about interventionism without any functional grasp of relevant international affairs, though. He's a Presidential candidate. The hot take that "interventionism is always bad" may be good policy - it's not, but whatever - but that does not justify ignorance of the reasons for and against intervention, or justify ignorance of current events wherein intervention might or might not be a valid decision.

To have no idea what Aleppo is is to be a complete international affairs "noob." It's embarrassing. It's pathetic. It's completely indefensible.

This argument applies to Donald Trump on virtually every topic he's spoken of, including "cyber." He's DQ'd from the Presidency in about a thousand ways just based upon the scope of his ignorance of basic world, technological, and social affairs.

Anyway, rant over. All of these people are disgraces.

"Scrambling" for what? To re-join the Democratic party?

It's not happening.

I never heard of it before. It shouldn't have been news. I doubt even 1% of americans had a clue what aleppo was before that story. It's defensible because NOBODY cares about aleppo. Aleppo is completely irrelevant to the american public.

If anything he should do it more often so people have heard of him.

Intervention in the Mid East has worked out so well the correct default response to any suggestion of intervention there is, "Lol! Nope, not going there."

So you would have let Osama continue to run around unimpeded in Afghanistan after 9/11?

I also had never heard of Aleppo, but I'm not running for president of the United States. If I were, presumably I'd have foreign policy advisors who know what Aleppo is, but it still makes me look uninformed as there's no way to argue Syrian refugees aren't an important issue of which I should have a basic understanding. On the basis of Johnson, as a state-level politician, having no foreign policy experience, and not being more knowledgeable about current world events than 99% of Americans, it seems reasonable to say he's not qualified to be president.

It's not a disqualification when his default stance is non- Intervention. It would obviously be a disqualification for a Neocon to be clueless about the world at large though that's kind of a trick because Neocons are by definition clueless about the world.

Well at some point he's going to have to make tough decisions, even if that decision is to not-intervene. I'd like him to be as informed and knowledgeable as possible before making those decisions.

I can't stand him because he writes like he's spent his whole life as a Beltway insider and has no conception of the world outside of that framework. And he's condescending to the plebes about it to boot.

Seems like he'd want to know a little more about the Syrian refugee situation if his policy is to allow them into the US under strict conditions.

Smart move not to go with the less popular "Yes let them all in with no background checks or monitoring."

Lol at Gary Johnson being a disgrace and lol at the absurd overreaction over Aleppo, especially considering both parties actions involving the Middle East


The New York Times TWICE made factual errors regarding Aleppo in their criticism of Johnson.

Like they edited their mistake after being called out on it and were still wrong after the edit

deplorable

the best people

Slapping is fashionable

That guy's a real Trump slappy.

Woman in yellow tilts me

Thanks for the heads up, that seals it for me not writing in the New York Times on my ballot