Gary Johnson for President

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It looks like Alex Jones really really really doesn't like Gary Johnson.

Really.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Alex Jones is the best source of news on the planet.  Another planet.  He picks up a 'psychopath vibe' feeling from Gary Johnson. What more does anyone need to know? Well, Johnson is a Democratic plant. He is only going to 'steal' votes from Donald Trump on November 8. The Libertarian Party has been hijacked by Globalists and Democrats.  Who knew?

This is the same planet, same Alex Jones, where 9/11 was an inside job, where Sandy Hook was 'crisis actors,' where atheists are controlled by Satan-worshippers, where millions of large coffins are ready for the government-directed FEMA camps for patriots.

 

 

[9thdoctor]

Don't get too excited:

http://www.richmond.com/opinion/our-opinion/article_b79cc2b6-8ed5-532c-92eb-4a37e779c433.html#.V8uLKX5oKYM

https://reason.com/blog/2016/09/05/cornell-college-republicans-decertified

[Mark]

Richmond Times-Dispatch:
"Johnson’s clear and consistent support for limited government, free enterprise, social tolerance and individual freedom appeals to our own philosophical leanings."

And best of all, he'll siphon away more votes from Trump than from Hillary.

Somehow I don’t think the Times-Dispatch’s newfound respect for free enterprise is sincere.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

[Peter]

4 hours ago, Mark said:

Richmond Times-Dispatch:
"Johnson’s clear and consistent support for limited government, free enterprise, social tolerance and individual freedom appeals to our own philosophical leanings."

And best of all, he'll siphon away more votes from Trump than from Hillary.

Somehow I don’t think the Times-Dispatch’s newfound respect for free enterprise is sincere.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

Oddly, I think Johnson is pulling away as many Hillary votes as Trump votes.

Watch this: Iran Releases New Video Showing Islamic Attack on a US Navy Fleet by Justin Holcomb Posted: Sep 04, 2016 7:00 PM. From the web “I Memri TV”: An office under the supervision of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei produced a video last week showing an Islamic holy war being carried out but Iranian citizens against a fleet of U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf. A group of Islamic men carrying Iranian flags can be seen charging towards a U.S. ships followed by total destruction of the fleet. This is not the first time Iran has flaunted their military dominance over the United States to the public.  Iran celebrated its 37th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution with a parade mocking the capture of the 10 U.S. sailors, and by releasing images of one of the detained Americans with a face full of tears during his ordeal.  The reenactment took place on a parade float, using Iranians to act out both captives and armed captors roles.  end quote

The propaganda film was quite good and reminded me of those ads on Palestinian TV spaced between cartoons for the kids depicting Israeli Jews killing, cooking, and eating Arab kids . . .etc.  Look up this Memri film and see how it compares to Nazi propaganda. Obviously, they are painting US as the bad guy, and trying to gin up the Iranian people to hate us.

Gary Johnson said, “I’m not going to tell teachers whether or not they should have a gun in the classroom. Come on, man,” said Johnson. “If a teacher would deem that to avail the classroom of potentially being secure, or if the teacher were to deem that something that within their own purview they might prevent an atrocity if it were to occur, I would support the teacher in wanting to be able to do that.”

Just imagine a bunch of Arabs attacking an Israeli Kibbutz. Gary makes sense as long as the teacher is trained in gun safety, and protocols detailing what to do when a school is attacked  . . . and no kids can ever touch the gun (realistically), unless the teacher has been incapacitated. If one or more terrorists attack a school it will be heard throughout the school. So if we hypothesize they make it to a couple of rooms still firing but there are six armed teachers in six other rooms, I can see a moral responsibility for those teachers to protect themselves and their students. That IS the American way. I will mention again an article I read debunking the Old West myth of outlaws taking over a town. It might have happened a couple of times at the most but usually the marauders had a dozen bullets in them in a few minutes. USA. USA.

Peter

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Watch this: Iran Releases New Video Showing Islamic Attack on a US Navy Fleet by Justin Holcomb Posted: Sep 04, 2016 7:00 PM. From the web “I Memri TV”:

Are there any young people in the neighbourhood to show you how to copy and paste Headlines in Word?  I think you let us know that you use Word as a pasteboard before moving comments to the OL editing box.  In any case, pasting 'alive' or linked  Headlines is as easy as eating pie with the update here.

Anything you paste directly from a website will contain the links already embedded.  For example, you copied and pasted material from Justin Holcomb's article, and the link to his writer-page at TownHall.com was 'alive' ... Just like this next quote is 'alive' ...

Watch: Iran Releases New Video Showing Islamic Attack on a US Navy Fleet

This is my once-yearly mention of easy-as-pie attributions. I will make it as boring as possible. Firstly, we are talking about hyperlink references.  They are actually a simple bit of code, which I show below, and is ipso facto boring.

<a href="http://www.snerg.co">SNERG</a>
<a href="http://www.fnos.org">FNOS</a>

Even more dull, the software here doesn't care if you look at the boring code or not. It thinks you are trying to post a link when you paste text that has a link.   If I post the green letters above right here, the software could  care less. A link is a link:

http://www.snergfnosunited.com

See how I did that?  I just posted the URL 'address' naked. The software dressed it up perfectly and with style.

Now, the point of twitting you on your attribution habits is not to make you sore, but to help you better your posts. Adding hyperlinks means you have simply and clearly indicated where your quotes are from.  It makes the reader's job easier should they wish to read the item in context, where it 'lives.'

In your example, the name of the writer is 'alive' and by pushing on it, we browse to the page at Townhall.com that lists all the writer's stories in order from the latest.  On that page is a link to the story you quoted from, and the point of all of this is that you could easily, one time, just for fun, copy that important URL for inclusion:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/justinholcomb/2016/09/04/watch-iran-releases-new-islamic-attack-on-a-us-navy-fleet-n2213880

It is alive!  Ugly maybe, but alive.

Here is another thing that eases the job of the writer. When a video is 'quoted' in the original article copy-pasted, you can include that video with a mere text string of information.  You copy the Universal Resource Locator (URL) in the 'Headline' of your internet browser's video box!  

I show. Using my mouse, I click-right on the Headline, in this case, Iran: Anti-American Propaganda. And then ...

 

-- and then, I paste that URL!  Et, le voila!   Automatique. 

One final boring lesson, again a visual. This is a snapshot of me and my browser copying a Reference/Link/URL/Code:

And you know what happens in this software environment when I paste that right here?   The software takes that unique 'address' and presto change-o, it renders it a quote with Headline Link, which brings us back to the beginning. Good practice is to give a (URL) reference to material that is published elsewhere.  It is as simple as copying and pasting the 'address' of the item of interest. 

I will not twit you again on the issue of URLs and references/cites/links until September 2017, Peter. I do wish you would take the extra bit of effort to be effortless in references to material 'alive' somewhere on the internet. I understand that you cannot do this for the useful items from your Atlantis Archives or for circulars in your email when these are naked and unattributable.

Those Atlantis remnants from the defunct zone you make 'alive'  by bringing them and publishing them here. Your email whoopee can usually be traced back to something somewhere.  But in most cases readers have to go hunting for unreferenced material if you do not include the 'address' ...  just like scripture and Rand, there is always an 'address' for an extract.  Just as with your Atlantis postings, each message therein was given a unique identifier, a date and a name, a place.

So, what you provide in these excerpts can also be provided in excerpts from particular 'places' on the internet. I can't get more boring and pedantic without repeating myself.  COPY-PASTE the freaking URL ADDRESS.

Try it out,  go crazy, and then reward yourself with some pie.

Thank you. I'm here all week.

Edited September 5, 2016 by william.scherk
Added more zest, punctuation

[KorbenDallas]

On 9/4/2016 at 2:50 PM, william.scherk said:

This is the same planet, same Alex Jones, where 9/11 was an inside job, where Sandy Hook was 'crisis actors,' where atheists are controlled by Satan-worshippers, where millions of large coffins are ready for the government-directed FEMA camps for patriots.

WSS, I wonder if Gary Johnson is a chimera:

Interestingly Scott Sigler wrote a fiction book in 2007 entitled Ancestor, which is about chimeras, yet the book had less fiction than the video.

Regarding conspiracies, another contribution as to handling them is the package-deal fallacy.  This is from the lexicon:

“Package-dealing” is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance, or value.

[william.scherk]

48 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

WSS, I wonder if Gary Johnson is a chimera:

Part of him, maybe.  Depends on what kind of chimera. As far as my ignorance extends, chimeric humans are not utterly rare -- each one I have read about seems to have been identified by unusual means -- there is a brief note on these detections at Wikipedia.

48 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Regarding conspiracies, another contribution to handling them is the package-deal fallacy.  This is from the lexicon:

“Package-dealing” is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance, or value.

Does this work to identify particular epistemic swamps, or operate more as an heuristic?  

What I find remarkable about Alex Jones is how he has a Grand Conspiracy in mind that all the other conspiracies are subsumed under. This is where I don't tend to follow his reasoning too far. I just don't know when to trust Alex Jones on particulars: it isn't easy to follow his reasoning to ground, follow all the warrants he puts up, examine the support for each contention.   When I do follow his argument closely and try to examine the warrants logically, the 'case' most often falls apart. 

I did some of this kind of research on the FEMA Death Camps.  What I found was fudge and hoopla and misinformation. From that moment forward I was not as willing to put in that kind of time to test  Jones declarations. 

What really did disgust me was when a Jonesing OLer of note and brilliance did the Boston Marathon bombing 'debunk,' and rather meanly dismissed all as crisis actors.  That kind of argument, as it appeared, tends to make me curse.

-- at the moment I am keeping a watching brief on Jones/Infowars, because he promised to open a continuing case file on the rigging issues in the coming vote.  He hasn't actually been following up regularly, but I expect him to return to the issue.  

Re Johnson, I understand he will be on at least 43 state ballots, due to the underlying strength of the Libertarian Party in doing the donkeywork of maintaining ballot access.

For his chances, I think he will be showing 'hot' in some states and not in others.  If in a month he is polling around 7 percent, I expect his final tallies will amount to half of that, and more likely to be around two percent.  That's not an eat-crow prediction, however.

A name that hasn't come up here yet  I think is Evan McMullin -- see this National Review party piece on his third-party quest: Evan McMullin and the Hurdles for Write-In Candidates This Year. He is on the ballot in Utah, and is also on the ballot in Virginia, as the story explicates.

My first thought of his candidacy as an 'independent conservative' was "What for, for heaven's sake?"  But in following his campaign boosters on Twitter, this is a candidate for the #NeverTrump vanguard, such as they are. There are some middle-level pundits and operatives of note who have been pining for a robust alternative to get behind, since they will do nothing for either Trump or Clinton.  If there is a McMullin effect on November 8, I wonder if it will be detectable.  Perhaps he will get a number of votes in his native Utah (he is Mormon himself), even perhaps enough to degrade the Trump numbers ... 

The Green Party's candidate is sufficiently bizarre that I pay attention to her, even though she will likely poach votes only from equally zany candidates. She makes Bernie seem almost mainstream.  Jill Stein, figure of fun.

I think that some OLers, currently at The Lake, will be poking the screen or filling the circle for Gary Johnson, despite his defects.  I caught a good buzz of Johnson-ism from Robert and Roger in our Podcast. 

Would it be awful for America if it were deprived of a Trump administration, due to such as Johnson and McMullin?

From the Dank Meme, Jill Stein page at the link. I don't know if everyone will get the Taco Trucks meme. Maybe some young person can explain. Once again, I have said too much.:

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by william.scherk
Taco Trucks on every corner

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

What I find remarkable about Alex Jones is how he has a Grand Conspiracy in mind that all the other conspiracies are subsumed under. This is where I don't tend to follow his reasoning too far.

William,

And you shouldn't because that is not Alex Jones's reasoning. He has said so in countless videos I have seen.

He said openly, there is no central organization run by a James Bond like villain or even a group of technocrats. There are elites who form pockets of influence the world over. Many pockets. Sometimes they fight with each other. I can probably find you a video or seven if you really think it worth looking for. He says it often.

Many of these elites have the same goals--meaning they want it all for themselves and their chosen ones (whatever "all" means at any given moment) while they want the rest of humanity out of their way--but these are not goals of a single organization. Many elites in general hold these goals. Hell, progressives already believe this about "greedy capitalists," so what's so different about attributing this to a different category of humans? For the more respectable, it's like the goal of wanting to get rich from hard work. Lots of people want that. But there is no single organization you have to belong to in order to have that wish and act on it.

And why do elites want this globalism stuff instead of poor folks? It's because elites have money and power and they think they can keep their privilege sewed up or even grow it among "their kind" rather than having to deal with democratic republics for real and compete with "their inferiors." It's that simple. If the poor folks had money and power, many of them would want the same thing. Instead, when the poor have this control urge, they form street gangs.

Have you noticed that all street gangs essentially want the same thing? I have. But that doesn't mean there is a single master street gang controlling them all. Elite gangs are no different. They are nothing more than street gangs on steroids. Human garbage who rule others as the only source of income they know. And they tend treat others as a disposable resource.

Here's a premise to check. Granted, Alex Jones sometimes goes off on paranoid colorful hyperbolic rants, he interviews some people who can get loopy, but why are so many intelligent people coming on his show all the time? Not just nobodies. Generals. Government officials and ex-officials. Company owners. And so on. 

And why on earth is Hillary Clinton talking about him by name as a serious threat in a rally during a presidential run?

It's certainly not because he's a chimera in a tin foil hat. You will never see her treat David Icke and his theory of reptilian people as a serious threat to be combatted. But she did Alex...

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

What I find remarkable about Alex Jones is how he has a Grand Conspiracy in mind that all the other conspiracies are subsumed under. This is where I don't tend to follow his reasoning too far. I just don't know when to trust Alex Jones on particulars: it isn't easy to follow his reasoning to ground, follow all the warrants he puts up, examine the support for each contention.   When I do follow his argument closely and try to examine the warrants logically, the 'case' most often falls apart. 

I did some of this kind of research on the FEMA Death Camps.  What I found was fudge and hoopla and misinformation. From that moment forward I was not as willing to put in that kind of time to test  Jones declarations. 

What really did disgust me was when a Jonesing OLer of note and brilliance did the Boston Marathon bombing 'debunk,' and rather meanly dismissed all as crisis actors.  That kind of argument, as it appeared, tends to make me curse.

-- at the moment I am keeping a watching brief on Jones/Infowars, because he promised to open a continuing case file on the rigging issues in the coming vote.  He hasn't actually been following up regularly, but I expect him to return to the issue.  

It was the 9/11 conspiracy I looked into, and after some time I found one of his "sources" turned out not to exist, one of the key elements his argument rested on.  Then one has to question if the sources that do exist are really telling him what he says they are.  I wasn't Jonesing after that.

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Re Johnson, I understand he will be on at least 43 state ballots, due to the underlying strength of the Libertarian Party in doing the donkeywork of maintaining ballot access.

For his chances, I think he will be showing 'hot' in some states and not in others.  If in a month he is polling around 7 percent, I expect his final tallies will amount to half of that, and more likely to be around two percent.  That's not an eat-crow prediction, however.

A name that hasn't come up here yet  I think is Evan McMullin -- see this National Review party piece on his third-party quest: Evan McMullin and the Hurdles for Write-In Candidates This Year. He is on the ballot in Utah, and is also on the ballot in Virginia, as the story explicates.

My first thought of his candidacy as an 'independent conservative' was "What for, for heaven's sake?"  But in following his campaign boosters on Twitter, this is a candidate for the #NeverTrump vanguard, such as they are. There are some middle-level pundits and operatives of note who have been pining for a robust alternative to get behind, since they will do nothing for either Trump or Clinton.  If there is a McMullin effect on November 8, I wonder if it will be detectable.  Perhaps he will get a number of votes in his native Utah (he is Mormon himself), even perhaps enough to degrade the Trump numbers ... 

The Green Party's candidate is sufficiently bizarre that I pay attention to her, even though she will likely poach votes only from equally zany candidates. She makes Bernie seem almost mainstream.  Jill Stein, figure of fun.

I think that some OLers, currently at The Lake, will be poking the screen or filling the circle for Gary Johnson, despite his defects.  I caught a good buzz of Johnson-ism from Robert and Roger in our Podcast. 

Would it be awful for America if it were deprived of a Trump administration, due to such as Johnson and McMullin?

I say #NeverHillary and rally behind Trump, but I understand the value vote.  I think things would get worse under Hillary, but I wouldn't become a prepper.

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

From the Dank Meme, Jill Stein page at the link. I don't know if everyone will get the Taco Trucks meme. Maybe some young person can explain. Once again, I have said too much.:

[...]

Here in The South, racists will say Mexicans want to come to America and start a taco stand.  Maybe with an additional, "livin' the dream", etc.  Kind of crazy finding the source of meme, the phrase came from a Trump surrogate's mouth:

Dude, so how is this a bad thing? Tacos are life. #TacoTrucksOnEveryCorner pic.twitter.com/QCthBHRiDn

— Trevor Donovan (@TrevDon) September 2, 2016

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/02/492390405/-memeoftheweek-taco-trucks-on-every-corner

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

59 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

It was the 9/11 conspiracy I looked into, and after some time I found one of his "sources" turned out not to exist, one of the key elements his argument rested on.  Then one has to question if the sources that do exist are really telling him what he says they are.  I wasn't Jonesing after that.

Korben,

The way to get value from people like Alex Jones is to use them the way they are, not the way one would like them to be.

There are a crapload of issues the mainstream media has been outright lying about for decades that Alex has been covering since the beginning. For example, not too long ago, if you said the word Bilderberg, the entire media and all your friends would mock you without mercy just like they did Alex. The word "Bilderberg"--the very claim of the existence of the Bilderberg group--had the same emotional load as the lizard people.

It's hard to go back in time and feel that because, nowadays, the Bilderberg people themselves give press conferences and say of course they always existed. And by the way, globalism...

So who needs to be mocked and avoided? People like Alex Jones or the mainstream media who lied on purpose about this for decades? Who does the most harm? In other words, why is the mainstream media treated with respect whereas Alex Jones is mocked? Because the mainstream is truthful? 

Heh...

Check your premises and you will see more noise than signal on this issue. I think there is a style thing that people don't like with Alex. In today's world, someone who provides an aura of intelligence and civility in their message delivery (like the mainstream media) is considered as being intelligent and civilized in their intentions. And if someone has an over-the-top paranoid style (like Alex), they are treated as if their information is nonexistent.

If style over substance is not a premise that needs checking for a person who prioritizes reason, I don't know what is.

You claimed you wrote off Alex because one of his sources turned out to be awful--not even to exist. Yet how about all that nonstop mainstream mockery, experts and God knows what all about the surveillance state? Remember when the mainstream said massive government surveillance was nothing but a bad conspiracy theory made up by kooks?

Then Ed Snowden happened...

Kaboom!

Tell me, did you stop watching the news? Did you write off those people? Did you stop Jonesing them, too?

How about all those nonexistent and awful sources that the mainstream presented before Snowden? Will you ignore those and give them a pass, but damn Alex when he fucks up on one controversial issue?

What makes you think the mainstream won't lie to you again? Because it says so in a civilized tone?

In the mainstream, you find "intelligent and civilized" people who support--and get others to support--endless war for profit (while calling it "spreading freedom" and crap euphemisms like that). Go to a veterans hospital someday, or a cemetery where soldiers are buried, then think back to those "intelligent and civilized" people who put them there. How intelligent and civilized are they really? Why not ask the families of the dead and the wounded if they were lied to?

You will never find Alex Jones among those "intelligent and civilized" people. On the contrary, you will find him waging a nonstop propaganda war against those learned assholes. Believe it or not, he cares about innocent people. He proves it by putting his reputation on the line night after night as he tries to warn people in the best way he knows how. And sometimes he screws up.

The mainstream media does not care about innocent people and the proof is in their constant selling out to the establishment. Listen to the glee of some of those pundits at times when they talk about "boots on the ground" (as they think about their backroom Department of Defense supply deals). At least they do it in an "intelligent and civilized" tone. 

But, I have to admit, Alex Jones is half-crazy. So there's that.

 

I find it best to think about Alex like a bomber plane that softens the enemy up before the infantry can come in and do the details. And don't forget, bombers miss at times. But they hit the target, too. And they always make a big mess. Without them, the infantry could never be deployed without huge losses of soldiers. But when they fuck up, it's not pretty.

That's Alex.

It's not a perfect situation, but it is what it is for those who want to see what is.

Without people like Alex, the mainstream would win. And that would mean we would be talking about the profundity of "peace is war" and crap like that as we send our kids to die for the privileges and bank accounts of powerful assholes who look down on us (and whose kids never join ours in the wars).

The way I use Alex is the same way I use Wikipedia. He gives me an overview of a topic that I later look into. Especially anti-establishment stuff because, for the most part, the mainstream media will not talk about it, or will report it by lying about it. 

But Alex might be wrong or accuse some people (almost always crony elites) of more evil than is there. He's a mixed bag from being kinda nuts, so he has to be double-checked. Always. I don't mind because he is right more than he is wrong and, like I said, I use him as he is, not how I would like him to be. Also, he even likes to be double-checked.

Who in the mainstream likes to be double-checked and questioned when they let loose with a Big Fat Hairy One? Not a single person from what I can tell.

So why on earth should they be respected as opposed to Alex? Just because they talk purdy and Alex does not?

What gives them the right to say they are credible? It can't possibly be commitment to facts over spin. That's not even plausible in today's media environment.

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

MSK,

Alex Jones peddles fiction presented as truth while the mainstream presents truth that might or might not be fact.  They both lie, but to what degree and what about?  Alex is a conspiracy theorist and I think he comes across as a paranoiac and his main agenda is for people to bite into his theories and hook them into listening to his show.  It's not that the mainstream media is guilty or innocent, it's that Alex Jones keeps implying or saying it's the end of the USA, or the world, or his life (or mine) if we don't listen to him.  I think he equivocates on terms used by others, globalism, mainstream media, and the establishment.  You said he might accuse people of more evil than is there, and I also think he makes people, organizations, groups have a high degree of conspiratorial properties they don't have, and I don't think the tension between them exists like he says.  It's package dealing on a high level, disregarding essentials and largely associational.  I'll use Rand's character type here---with Alex Jones he is a Witch Doctor to the Intelligentsia.  So, I don't think he gets it right most of the time, if objectivity is the epistemic standard.

So now that I told you what I really think about him, I think Jones casting skepticism on Hillary is fine for the election, and I also think that warning about voter fraud ahead of the election is proactive (though, I disagree with the severity of the problem).  I tried visiting his channel a few weeks ago but I didn't like the epistemological space he operates in, which is one reason I go to Foxnews because by the time it his them its (most of the time) journalism.  They lie and have lied, but to a far lesser degree than Alex (his numerous conspiracy theories are attempts at faking reality), and the other mainstream media outlets of course lie more.  I wouldn't place Alex in the alt media category, though Wikipedia does.  I liked many of the videos you posted, but sometimes I just didn't get it.

(Flame suit on) 

 

[Wolf DeVoon]

39 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

(Flame suit on) 

Not to quibble, but I worked for a major TV news network. I think you misunderstand what their agenda is

[KorbenDallas]

51 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Not to quibble, but I worked for a major TV news network. I think you misunderstand what their agenda is

My post covers what you're trying to say here.

[william.scherk]

Jesse Walker at Reason.com took a look at the state-by-state races, to see where Gary Johnson's support appears to be strongest: 

Where Gary Johnson and Jill Stein Are Strongest
Which states are the most fertile territories for alternative candidates?

Quote

Gary Johnson's strongest state, unsurprisingly, is New Mexico, where he served as governor from 1995 to 2003. At 25 percent, he is within striking distance of Donald Trump, who is presently polling at 29

[...]

Johnson's second strongest state, also unsurprisingly, is Utah, where the Post poll shows him getting 23 percent. 

[...]

Johnson's third-best states are Alaska (which has a history of awarding alternative candidates strong showings), Idaho, and South Dakota, all of which give him 19 percent. Other places where Johnson gets 15 percent or more include Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island (!), Washington, and Wyoming. He's in double digits in 41 of the 50 states; his weakest support is in Mississppi, where he's getting just 4 percent.

[...]

It is traditional when reporting such results to note that minor parties tend to poll better earlier in the campaign than on Election Day: Many dissatisfied voters will flirt with alternative candidates before deciding in the end to hold their noses and vote for whichever major-party nominee frightens them the least. And that may well happen this time as well, though usually the effect would have started to kick in by now. But in a way that makes these numbers all the more valuable. Support for third-party and independent candidates can serve as a map-by-proxy of where our binary political system is doing the poorest job of representing the full spectrum of political opinion, information that is not just interesting in itself but is particularly important at a time when we may be going through a party realignment.

 

-- now here is some media for Gary Johnson, some negative media.  From Memeorandum.com.  They are talking about you, Gary.

Quote

 Alan Rappeport / New York Times:

‘What Is Aleppo?’  Gary Johnson Asks, in an Interview Stumble  —  Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor and Libertarian Party presidential nominee, revealed a surprising lack of foreign policy knowledge on Thursday that could rock his insurgent candidacy when he could not answer …

–

Discussion:

Arit John / Bloomberg:   Gary Johnson Sees Backlash If He's Excluded From Debate Stage

David A. Graham / The Atlantic:   Gaffe Track: Gary Johnson: ‘And What Is Aleppo?’

Shikha Dalmia / Hit & Run:   Gary Johnson May Not Know Aleppo, But He Does Know What's Wrong With America's Immigration System

Fox News Insider:   ‘What Is Aleppo?’: Gary Johnson Appears Stumped by Question on Syria

Daniel Larison / The American Conservative:   Johnson's Blown Opportunity

Alex Griswold / Mediaite:   NY Times Report on Johnson Aleppo Screw-Up Also Doesn't Know What Aleppo Is

Alex Pappas / The Daily Caller:   Libertarian Nominee Gary Johnson: ‘I Have To Get Smarter’ [VIDEO]

Gianluca Mezzofiore / Mashable:   Presidential candidate doesn't seem to know what Aleppo is

David Rutz / Washington Free Beacon:   New York Times Gets Key Aleppo Fact Wrong in Story About Gary Johnson's Gaffe

Margaret Hartmann / New York Magazine:   Mitt Romney Wants Gary Johnson in the Debates, But Not Enough to Help Him Get There

Shikha Dalmia / The Week:   The 2016 candidate with a brilliant immigration plan isn't who you think it is

Sarah K. Burris / Raw Story:   WhatIsAleppo? Internet buries Gary Johnson in ridicule after going blank on basic fact about Syria

David Weigel / Washington Post:   Mitt Romney wants Gary Johnson on debate stage, but isn't endorsing him

Andy Towle / Towleroad:   ‘What is Aleppo?’  - Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson Stuns MSNBC Hosts with Foreign Policy Fail: WATCH

Allahpundit / Hot Air:   Mitt Romney: Let Gary Johnson debate

Brandon Morse / RedState:   Romney Wants to See Gary Johnson On the Debate Stage With Trump and Hillary

Ryan Girdusky / Red Alert Politics:   Mitt Romney wants Gary Johnson to debate Trump and Hillary

Ann Althouse / Althouse:   Oh, Gary.  —  The dream is over.  —  Gary said “What's Aleppo?”

Megan Kennedy / WDTN-TV:   Romney pushes for Gary Johnson to make debate stage

» All Related Discussion

RELATED:

 MSNBC:

Gary Johnson asks: What is Aleppo?  —  Mike Barnicle asks Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson how he would handle Aleppo, Syria as president.  Johnson responds. ...  more Duration: {{video.duration.momentjs}}

Discussion: Washington Monthly, Washington Post, Political Wire, Foreign Policy, Infowars, Common Dreams, Business Insider, NPR and Hot Air

 Daniel Strauss / Politico:

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson: ‘What is Aleppo?’  —  Asked what he would do about the Syrian city of Aleppo, the region at the center of that nation's civil war and refugee crisis, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson responded by asking, “what is Aleppo?”

Discussion: RedState, CNN, Outside the Beltway, Shakesville, The Week and New York Times

 Jordyn Phelps / ABC News: 
Gary Johnson Explains Aleppo Mistake

+

Discussion: Politico

 

 

[KorbenDallas]

Gary Johnson, "What is Aleppo?"

And here are his followup remarks:

 

[BaalChatzaf]

8 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Gary Johnson, "What is Aleppo?"

And here are his followup remarks:

 

I had to look it up.  I could not remember whether Aleppo was in Syria or Turkey.  Google Maps to the rescue!

[william.scherk]

Aleppo is half rubble.  It is partially-controlled by regime-allied forces, who make war against a gallimaufry of opposing forces. ISIS itself is part of the Aleppo equation in the larger Aleppo province. The biggest problem in Aleppo is the recurring state of siege applied by the government when it closes off areas under opposition control.  Here is a 'military map' animation  of the more important of the central 'fronts' in that battleground.

How the front lines in Aleppo have evolved from the 31-07 to the 04-09, siege was imposed, lifted and imposed again. pic.twitter.com/hmWFqEZX2g

— GlobalEventMaps (@GlobalEventMap) September 4, 2016

There is a crazy-quilt number of nationalities and nations and mercenaries directly involved in Syria. It seems the war only gets 'worse' as time goes by.  The most recent nation to enter Syria with military force is Turkey.   Turkey does not want the Kurdish-maintained areas of Syria to control the border as the Kurds wrest control from ISIS. So Turkey is acting against some Kurdish forces (backed by the US and supported by the coalition in the air) that it considers every much terrorists as ISIS.

Aleppo is in the news because of a chlorine gas attack (again) by government forces, a regular event as documented by the chemical arms watchdog -- this against the regular field of atrocities, indiscriminate 'barrel' bombing, targeting of medical and relief facilities.

Since Gary Johnson will probably never chair a Cabinet meeting, we can wince or laugh at him for his momentary gaffe. But what are the secret plans of Trump and Clinton?  You can find the city on the map, but that map tells nothing without intelligence from the battles. From my point of view, everyone's Syria policy is flawed and/or dangerous, from the Syrian government itself  to all other intervenors.

But the snake is not ultimately ISIS.  It is a Kingdom which cannot share effective governance nor give up its throne -- in part by fear of war crimes prosecution.  The dictatorship is determined to take any help from anywhere unsavoury and dictatorial to keep an Assad ass on the family throne,  and returned to complete dominance across the lands of Syria.  Which puts the government of Syria in bed with a raft of American foes and rivals.

If I could divine the futures ahead, I would like to be a fly on the wall at a Syria Crisis meeting chaired by Trump / a meeting chaired by Clinton. What the hell is their plan for that gutted country?

Neither inspires me to think they are much deeper thinkers on "Aleppo" than Johnson ... Clinton perhaps a whisker ahead of Trump with her 'air shield' for exactly where in Syria we have no idea.  This is as much pablum as Trump's notion of nice 'safe' zones protected by ... er, an air shield. 

-- it kind of shows us that nobody has their eye on the ball, with two back-to-back flub-fumbles by the august New York Times.  

 

Yikes. The @nytimes is struggling today. Calling Aleppo the capital of Syria in their correction =\ #WhatIsAleppo pic.twitter.com/UUrf9OVw8l

— Gissur Simonarson (@GissiSim) September 8, 2016

 

Yikes indeed.

Syria's war horrors  seem a ride-along to Commander-in-Chief duties of ISIS-crushing.  So, ISIS gets squished. Then what? There isn't even a ceasefire on the horizon, let alone a cessation of hostilities in Syria. This war is still on full boil. It is so sad that neither fact-check at NYT nor Johnson had brain-room for detail of that awful pot of war. 

Finally, here's a link to an informative article at Buzzfeed, by correspondent Borzou Daragahi.  Recommended for the Gary Johnson in all of us, on #WhatIsAleppo Day.  It actually would make good reading for Clinton and Trump.  Hint hint. This map is from the story.

Learn where Turkey has cleared out ISIS! Learn what their next step may be!  Thrills, danger, intrigue!

Quote

A few weeks after a surprise ground incursion, dubbed Operation Euphrates Shield, Turkish armed forces and allied Syrian rebel groups managed to carve out a long-sought buffer zone along Syrian territory to prevent cross-border infiltrations by jihadi and Kurdish militant organizations, while designating a potential safe zone for civilians fleeing the conflict. The Turks launched a ground operation, backed by Turkish and US air support, after reassuring Russia and Iran that their aims were solely to roll back the territories under the control of ISIS fighters and Kurdish-led fighting groups with separatist agendas.

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by william.scherk
Added NYT double-flub; edited for clarity and pith; added a map, link illustrating Turkey's gamble.

[KorbenDallas]

According to this article published July 25, 2016 in The New Yorker, this isn't the first time Gary Johnson had a blank-out:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/gary-johnson-the-third-party-candidate

In late June [2016], Johnson was in Pasadena, California, addressing attendees of Politicon, a self-described “unconventional political convention.”

[...]

After his speech, Johnson wandered around the convention greeting voters and conducted a round of interviews. One reporter asked him about the lack of diversity in the Libertarian Party, which, as some people remember from college dorm-room discussions, tends to attract a disproportionate number of young white males. Johnson said that there was no diversity problem, and that the Party would do better in nonwhite communities as he became better known. A few minutes later, an aide directed him to a room in the convention center that was named for Harriet Tubman. “Who’s Harriet Tubman?” Johnson asked. (After the aide reminded him who Tubman was, Johnson recalled that she will appear on a new twenty-dollar bill.)

 

[KorbenDallas]

Cenk makes a case the gaffe may help Gary Johnson's campaign:

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The only real change Gary Johnson had was the monied support and media coming from the neocon #NeverTrump crowd.

I can't see them continuing with enthusiasm after the Aleppo gaffe.

Even Rush Limbaugh (who is not a neocon), while discussing Clinton's email trouble today, came out of the blue with a harsh satire of Johnson (see here):

Quote

Let's say I had a security clearance and I attended a classified briefing at which I was told we're sending ground troops into Aleppo tomorrow being led by Gary Johnson. A classified briefing, and that's what I am told.  Now, let's say I leave the briefing and I come back here to the EIB Southern Command and I get on my email system and I send to my brother, "You're not gonna believe this, you're not gonna believe this, we are going to send ground troops into Aleppo tomorrow, and Gary Johnson, of the Libertarian party, is the commanding officer." 

That's what she did.  She got a classified document or she got a classified briefing, she collected the information.  She's unable to keep a secret.  It's as simple as that.  The actual classified documents themselves, not a whole lot of that being trafficked. 

Now, when she did that -- let's continue to use me.  Let's say I go to a classified briefing and I hear that we're gonna invade Aleppo with commanding officer Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party.  I come back, I send an email to my brother, "David, you're not gonna believe this." I'm not gonna write "classified" on it.  I'm not gonna say, "Hey, I got classified news for you."  I'm just gonna pass it along.  It's gossip.  Except this isn't gossip.  This is classified briefing information that she received, but she's now passing it on like people pass on gossip.

Gary Johnson as Commanding Officer for an Aleppo military operation?

LOL...

 

I doubt the general public is going to be affected directly since most folks don't know what Aleppo is, either, but I do think the media love Johnson was getting from neocon media manipulators is going to dry up. They want endless war, but it's hard to sell with a war-doofus as their poster boy. So at this stage of the game, loss of one's press coverage engine is akin to a death knoll. I don't think he recovers. 

Maybe he'll get lucky and other press folks will sympathize with him.

Michael

[Mark]

“Gary Johnson is a Complete Idiot” talk by Paul Joseph Watson

[william.scherk]

Sopan Deb fetches up an interesting statement from Gary Johnson:

Must admit, a refreshingly human statement here from Gary Johnson: pic.twitter.com/aYnXVhfbhR

— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) September 8, 2016

 

Today in "My sweeping generalities beat your sweeping generalities" ...

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

media love Johnson was getting from neocon media manipulators

Them!

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

They want endless war

Them, again!

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

loss of one's press coverage engine is akin to a death knoll

Gassy knoll!

12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The only real change Gary Johnson had was the monied support and media coming from the neocon #NeverTrump crowd.

I can't see them continuing with enthusiasm after the Aleppo gaffe.

I think Gary Johnson just received the biggest jolt of media attention yet with coverage of his gaffe.  The #NeverTrump 'crowd' have the same options as before:

• stay home/get drunk
• vote only down-ballot races
• vote for either Johnson, Stein or McMullin
• vote for another presidential-line candidate
• where possible, write-in a name as your choice
• vote for Clinton

Edited September 9, 2016 by william.scherk
Added some banter ...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

44 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Them!

 

44 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Them, again!

William,

Damn straight.

I despise people who engage in endless war for profit. Let them send their own fucking kids into battle to protect their privilege. Oops... killing your own kids isn't much of a privilege, is it? Maybe that's why they only send the kids of everyone else.

Also, I'm not too fond of sellouts to them.

And I mean THEM!

(That's a smiley, but that's for you, not for them.)

Michael

[william.scherk]

A campaign poetry time out.   To set the scene, imagine you are flying at 35,000 feet above the earth.  Your eye in the sky allows you to see large shapes and lines. One shape that is very clear, even through clouds, is The Horrible Evil of those horrible evil monsters.  For a handy acronym, The Them. The Them are objectively guiding the Neo-conservative endless-war machine. You read that on the cover of your briefing. Names and links and examples are not important. You are pattern-spotting, free-style, in a glide across the sky. 

 

THEM, then and again
 

neocon media manipulators.

media love.

want endless war.

akin to a death knoll,

neocon #NeverTrump crowd,

 people who engage in endless war for profit.

they only send the kids of everyone else,

sellouts to them.

And I mean THEM!

"We are gonna bomb the shit out of them and Keep the Oil . I got a secret plan. With torture and killing the families of terrorists. I love war. I know ISIS better than the generals. I love Putin praise.and getting along with dictators  I am gonna fire me some generals.  My kids will run the store. I wear a lot of hats."

The New Them. #NeverTrump on the grassy  knoll.

Edited September 9, 2016 by william.scherk
More banter, with bite.