The end of Gary Johnson

Even worse than not knowing a city that has been in the news for the past five years (and a city so famous and historically important that you might have heard of it in high school) is the naive suggestion that “joining hands with Russia” will bring peace to Syria. And did Mr Johnson suggest that Western support for the Free Syrian Army and the Kurds was a mistake?

Even Herman Cain had some idea of Libya and Sarah Palin knew the general direction of Russia. For a second there, Gary Johnson looked even more clueless than Donald Trump.

I dare say that from now on it’s downhill for Gary Johnson, which is sad because a lot of voters aren’t happy with the choices offered by the Democratic or the Republican Parties this year. If you are considering the Green Party, forget it too. Their candidate for Vice President, Ajamu Baraka, thinks that Bashar al-Assad is a democratically elected leader who is ruthlessly attacked by colonial powers.

About Andreas Moser

Travelling the world and writing about it. I have degrees in law and philosophy, but I'd much rather be a writer, a spy or a hobo.
This entry was posted in Politics, Syria, USA and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to The end of Gary Johnson

  1. List of X says:

    Maybe Gary Johnson is wrong, but I honestly don’t think there is any good (humane and realistic) solution to the Syrian civil war anyway. And I think Donald Trump wants to be friends with Putin too.

    • I agree. It’s too late for any easy or quick solution. But I think it’s OK to say so instead of continuing to believe in “diplomacy”. I guess it would even be OK to say “I don’t care. We have other problems. It’s too complicated anyway.” That would be morally questionable, but honest.

      What shocked me in the case of Gary Johnson was the lack of knowledge with the apparent idea that the USA and Russia can negotiate an end to a war in Syria.

    • List of X says:

      I don’t think getting Russia on board in Syria is such a bad idea. Putin would be happy to bomb someone and something to distract the attention of Russian citizens from the failing economy, and maybe get some sanctions relaxed in exchange. As long as Russia and the US can agree on whom Russia should bomb, this could work.
      I think it’s a solution that’s realistic but not humane.

    • “Bombing someone” really isn’t a solution though. It just displaces more people.
      And the main problem with Russia is that they want Assad to remain in power. I would prefer him in court.

  2. locojhon says:

    A.M.–“Their candidate for Vice President, Ajamu Baraka, thinks that Bashar al-Assad is a democratically elected leader who is ruthlessly attacked by colonial powers.”
    Many people and governments believe the elections were fair, including 30 countries who sent observers that then attested to their fairness.,_2014 7
    Perhaps you have different factual information you’d like to share with us? Or doesn’t German law require proof–that mere allegations are sufficient?
    Or perhaps you think the main attacker of Syria, and proponent of the so-called ‘Arab-spring’–the USA–isn’t a colonial power? Compare US foreign military bases to other nations’ foreign bases, and what do you see if not a colonial power? How many US bases still in Germany, now 72 years after WW2? If not a colonial power, what term would you use, Andreas?
    At least one curious mind wants to know,,,locojhon

    • Germany is quite happy about these US bases. Thanks to them, Germany didn’t need to spend as much on defense as it otherwise would have during the Cold War. And many of the bases are in regions with a less than strong economy and provide welcome investment, spending and jobs.

      This has nothing to do with World War II. Actually, during World War II there were NO American bases in Germany.

      The US military presence in Germany is by no means imposed but by mutual agreement (there are German Air Force bases in the US, too), nor does it compel Germany to do anything that Germany doesn’t want. As witnessed by Germany’s refusal to participate in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the wars in Iraq and so on.

    • locojhon says:

      Your reply is not responsive to my points and questions: How many US bases now in Germany and worldwide, compared to all the other nations? Is the US a colonial party, or if not, considering all of the various nations occupied, what do you call it?
      Ph1– I’m sure the German leadership is happy about the US occupation and all of the payments that went with it. Pimps and prostitutes especially. Elsewhere, slaves were appreciative of the occasional bread crumbs too, I’m told.
      Ph2–Nice straw man you created and then destroyed–I never claimed the U.S. had bases in Germany during WW2. Nice try, though.
      Ph3–I used Germany as one of many examples simply because you are German. Neither you nor I know of what went on behind the scenes to bring the relationship into being, or what the agreements actually entail that are not public knowledge. Germany hosts one of the largest US air bases on the planet, from which much war has been carried out in the Mid-East. Is that not tacit support for the wars? Whoever pays the piper calls the tune, and Germany is not the paymaster.
      Lastly, I can find nothing indicating any German air-force bases located in the US or any of the US-claimed/controlled ‘liberated’ territories. (Unless of course, one claims that Lufthansa is part of the German Air Force.) Would you please provide a source for your claim?

    • Germany is not occupied. Really. Just go there and check it out for yourself.

      The German Air Force has a squadron at Holloman AFB in Alamogordo, NM.

    • It’s NOT true that “30 countries believe the elections were fair”. There was a private observer mission with people from 30 different countries. That’s like Locomotive John or me going somewhere. Whatever we do or say doesn’t reflect the opinion of our countries’ governments.

    • locojhon says:

      Come on, Andreas. The above quote of mine was followed by a comma, not a period, and concluded with “including 30 countries who sent observers that then attested to their fairness.” I claimed that the observers attested to the fairness, not the governments that sent them. I then asked you for factual information to back up your claim, but received none–not even one. Instead, it seems that you misquoted me by eliminating half the sentence making my point. Probably not intentionally done,,,right?
      Sooooo, by the magic of editing, you created another straw-man argument, instead of providing any asked-for evidence that elections there were not fair. What’s that called–a deflection? Obfuscation?
      I ask again: what is the factual basis for your dismissive/ridiculing statement concerning the wrongness/falsity/inaccuracy of Ajamu Baraka’s statement that you cited? You do have facts to back up your claims,,,don’t you?
      Thanks again,,,locojhon

    • You ever had to go to an election while your own government bombs you? While displaced? While there is no free press? While any opposition figure is in prison, in exile or dead?

  3. locojhon says:

    I appreciate your responsiveness–really I do.
    So are you claiming that a German Luftwaffe squadron located for training duty at a US A-F base, makes that into a German base? Really?
    I’m betting the General in charge will be surprised at that news.

    • It’s not a General, but a Lieutenant Colonel.

    • locojhon says:

      I stand corrected. I should have written:
      “So are you claiming that a German Luftwaffe squadron located for training duty at a US A-F base, makes that into a German base? Really?
      I’m betting whomever is in charge will be surprised at that news.”
      Thanks for correcting me. And your answer to my question is…?

    • It’s a shared base, based on a treaty between NATO partners. Just like bases used by the US military in Europe. None of this constitutes an occupation.

      There are also British and French bases and there used to be Canadian troops in Germany. None of that is an occupation either.


  4. locojhon says:

    “You ever had to go to an election while your own government bombs you? While displaced? While there is no free press? While any opposition figure is in prison, in exile or dead?”–A.M.

    Non-responsive reply yet again, Andreas–but no worry–by now, I’m starting to expect that from you. How about some facts instead of regurgitated propagandistic opinions, please?

    To be responsive to your questions though, I answer thusly:
    Our US government has bombed us before, and if firing grenades is included, more recently too. Displaced? As in homeless (and therefore unable to vote)? How many millions here and now? While more whistleblowers/journalists have been charged/imprisoned than by all previous Presidents combined? While Ed Snowden is in exile in Russia, and many are trying to leave for Canada or other countries? While Chelsea Manning is being mistreated/dying in a military prison, as are other whistleblowers?

    Yes, Andreas–that quite accurately describes our upcoming so-called election, that has become the laughing-stock ‘democratic example’ for most of the rest of the world. Propaganda by omission is what is typically practiced here, which is why so few have heard of Dr. Jill Stein, and the Greens. I’m a little amazed you even mentioned them, but not so amazed that while doing so, you also disparaged them. It is revealing that you seem to prefer the lesser of two evils, as opposed to supporting the greater good. Googling “Jill Stein Oxford 2016 video” will help, for any still in possession of a conscience.

    • I have actually voted for the Green Party in both Germany and the UK. But unfortunately our American comrades tend to pick crazy conspiracy theorists as candidates, first Cynthia McKinney and now Ajamu Baraka.

    • locojhon says:

      Nice hatchet job–now the US Greens (in your jaundiced view) are not only denigrated conspiracy theorists in your eyes, they are crazy too!
      Not so, my friend–they are conspiracy realists, as am I.
      This might help you better understand the real world:
      and this:
      Each one of the above examples would have been called a ‘conspiracy theory’ had the US intel invented the term by then. (Yes,,,more reality for you here:
      Nowadays, almost all of the above examples have been proven true beyond any/all rational doubt.
      One question remains: Are you rational or irrational?
      With all due respect,,,

    • If you read my articles about Cynthia McKinney, you will see why I call her statements a crazy conspiracy theory. Actually, it was such an obviously untrue and stupid and outlandish claim that the word “theory” is too big for it.

    • locojhon says:

      No–I did not see your articles about Cynthia McKinney, but would like to.
      Would you please point me to them?
      Thank you.

    • I have added the link in my previous comment.

    • locojhon says:

      I do wholeheartedly agree with you concerning US elections and proportional representation, but your claim of no media conspiracy is imho, hogwash–pure and simple
      William Colby, CIA director from 1973 to 1976, has been quoted as saying: “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
      Also read this: “We’ll know our disinformation program is a success when everything the American public believes is false. ..” CIA Director William Casey candidly remarked in early February 1981.
      In the absence of proof to the contrary, I’ll believe both of them this time, even while knowing they are usually nothing more than skilled liars, and facilitators of an ever-growing shameful US hegemony. Broken clocks are also correct twice a day.
      Mark Twain is credited as saying, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re merely uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you are misinformed.” So much for your valued ‘news’ sources…
      “The politics of fear has delivered everything that we were afraid of.” “The lesser evil paves the way and really makes inevitable the greater evil.” “Here’s the bottom line. Democracy doesn’t need silence and fear. It needs voices and values, and a moral compass. We must be that moral compass” “Together we can reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good – like our lives depend on it, because they do.”-Jill Stein quotations

    • After it took me a few seconds to debunk your first quote as a lie, I stopped reading.

    • locojhon says:

      I think that Arthur Schopenhauer might have had you in mind when he wrote this: “Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world. This is an error of the intellect as inevitable as that error of the eye which lets you fancy that on the horizon heaven and earth meet.”
      Or perhaps he knew one of your ilk…
      Your efforts at debunking the above quotes of my earlier posting leaves a lot to be desired.
      Just because you couldn’t find another citation for ‘proof of authenticity’, doesn’t mean that the quotation was a lie, or that I lied by re-quoting it. Your dismissal of everything afterward however, could well be interpreted as such. (Lies by omission.) Just sayin,,,
      With all due respect (not much),,, locojhon

    • With all your talk about “proof” (you really regret not having studied law, don’t you?), you forget that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim that something was said by someone.
      And by now unfortunately you have a reputation for making stuff up, for linking to sites with made-up stuff and for non-sequiturs.

    • locojhon says:

      A.M.–“With all your talk about “proof” (you really regret not having studied law, don’t you?),”
      Me–Not really regretting that, especially considering how evil most lawyers seem to be in this day and age (and likely since that ‘profession’ was created). (look up John Yoo for one example.)
      A.M.–“you forget that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim that something was said by someone.”
      Me–Not always. A witness’ statement is usually taken as factual, and if by ‘authorities’, always is.
      A.M.–And by now unfortunately you have a reputation for making stuff up, for linking to sites with made-up stuff and for non-sequiturs.
      Me–Me making stuff up? Show me where. For any of your baseless charges. (Look up libel while you are at it, or are resting from ‘making stuff up’.)
      As for my reputation, I agree–I have sullied it by paying any attention to your bovine excremental blog that lends credence to the likes of Snopes and other similar disinformation sites.
      My bad,,,
      With my most sincere apologies,,,locojhon

    • Lawyers are the modern superheroes.

    • locojhon says:

      A.M.–“Lawyers are the modern superheroes.”
      Stop it!!! (wiping away tears of laughter)
      And you are concerned about MY reputation for veracity? LMAO!!!
      Let’s take the current world’s most famous lawyer for example–Pres. Barack Oh-bombya–who in the past week has given approval for 60 airstrikes on 6 different Muslim nations–all lacking any declaration of war, as required by Congress. Many if not most members of Congress are lawyers as well, and have done nothing to stop these flagrant Constitutional violations.
      And your superheroes are whom and where and doing what for mankind beside constant sheeple fleecing?
      I hereby nominate your declaration as perhaps the most asinine in the entire history of the internet, if not all of recorded history. Well done, you legal eagle.
      Unfortunately, you apparently missed your true calling.
      Your next career should obviously be stand-up comic.

    • As I have written before, nations don’t have religions. People have religions.

    • locojhon says:

      And who was chastising whom about the use of non-sequiturs?
      My, oh my, oh my!
      OTOH,,,it is almost perfect for your new comedy career–drool, low-key like Steven Wright’s shtick, perhaps. (Trying to be helpful here.)
      Seriously,,,I do want to make clear in my previous posting that not all lawyers are bad, incompetent, crooked or thieves. The ones representing Ed Snowden and Julian Assange and others in the same boat for example, have got guts and integrity, unlike their majority brethren. I’ll use a finer-tipped brush next time.

    • To your list of alleged US-supported coups d’etat:
      – In the third line it mentions the attempted overthrow of the East German government in the 1950s. I know too much about German history, so that page already lost its credibility there.
      – It lists examples of humanitarian intervention where there was absolutely no overthrow of a government (like Yugoslavia) or where there was nether a central government in the first place (Somalia 1993).
      – And no, I wouldn’t have called the real interventions “conspiracy theories”. I don’t think anyone watching CNN would have, when they saw the bombs falling over Baghdad or Afghanistan.

  5. Sridhar Chigurupati says:

    I, too am impressed Andreas has heard of these third and fourth party candidates, being so far away. But I beg to differ that the American press does not cover them. Anybody who picks up the New York Times or Chicago Tribune, or watches an hour of CNN has heard of them. The average American, however, does not try to inform themself about the upcoming election issues and candidates. They obtain news in a buzz-up fashion. So, if everybody is talking about Bernie Sanders or Trump, that’s all they will know. And sad to say, right now, Syria news has been buzzed down, because the majority of talk is about the election. A funny story about the third party argument: asked by my older child (almost 10) who he was voting for, my Dad said Jill Stein. To which my younger child, soon to be 8, said with a bewildered note, “she’s getting 3%.”

    • locojhon says:

      Yes and no to your suggestion that the four candidates have received media attention. Not all media attention is the same, and much of it has served to minimize the chances of and the platforms of both the Greens and Libertarians, while claiming the electorate has only two choices.
      Hats off to your Dad, who seems to understand things quite well, and also seems to stand for the greater good–as opposed to the lesser of two evils–regardless of the stacked-deck-odds against them.

    • It’s not “the media” who minimizes the chances of third part candidates, but the electoral system. In a “winner takes all” race in each constituency or state, it’s normal to focus on the two front-runners.
      You can see this from looking at how the same media cover elections in countries with proportional representation. There is much more focus on third, fourth and fifth parties because their votes are actually reflected in parliament.

    • Thank you, but I guess I am a bit of a political geek (like your children apparently).
      Although you are right, if people want to be properly informed, it’s not too hard and it doesn’t need to cost anything. Even if you don’t have a TV, just listen to NPR or similar stations. That Gary Johnston, Jill Stein and other candidates don’t receive the same coverage is not due to some conspiracy, but reflects the poll numbers (although these may be a result of media coverage in turn) and the US electoral system which doesn’t have proportional representation. If polling 10% would mean that a party gets 10% of Representatives (and may thus be the swing vote in Congress), the coverage and discussion might be a different one.

  6. Pingback: A good reason not to care about global warming | The Happy Hermit

Please leave your comments, questions, suggestions:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s