General News Gary Johnson can't name a single foreign leader

Little slow on the draw, no?

Anyhow, terrible as it is, it won't hurt him at all. Unfortunately, most Americans cannot name nor do they care if their politicians can name any political leader outside of the States.

 

Gary Johnson is a nobody anyways...I strongly believe that we need more than 2 parties but both the libertarian and green parties are terrible. They're too extreme.

 

Don't worry guys! Hilary is going to be the next president not him.

 

That is reason to worry. As much of a dunderhead as Johnson is (I once had faith in him, but he lost my vote too) I have a bigger problem that someone so fundamentally evil and corrupt as Hillary will find success. She and Trump are as bad as each other.

Jill Stein has her quirks that I don't agree with, but she's looking like the best choice out of the four.

 

Yeah I know they're terrible. Jill has some good points but there's no way she's gonna win.

 

It's not always about winning the battle.

 

But given you do not have a transferable vote, voting for a non-major candidate ranges from pointless virtue signalling (in safe states) to utter carelessness (in swing states) if you have any preference about who actually governs the country.

 

Is Vicente Fox still the leader of Mexico?

 

Are you telling me he doesn't even know Kim Jong Un, the man who's face is literally everywhere? Ranging from propaganda to YouTube parodies?

I mean, he's practically American.

 

Why would he say that he admires him? It's not that he can't name any foreign leaders, it's that he couldn't think of the name of any he does admire.
-
I'm really disappointed that Johnson won the Libertarian nomination. I supported him in the primaries because I thought he would make the party look more serious than Petersen would, but I'm really worried that he's making Libertarians look ignorant. I'll still support for him, because we largely align in policy, but I'm not very fond, to be honest.

 

Mainstream news wants him to go away so bad just to focus on mainly Trump. Yeah the Aleepo & this incident don't do well for him but the average voter doesn't have depth in either topic anyways. Prefer him over Hillary or Trump but the fact that there is such an inclusion to include more than D & R in debates discourages me. Would love a stage with him, Stein, Trump, and Hillary. This false dichotomy only ignores true humanitarians and people anti-corruption.

 

If you're thinking short-term, yes.

And FYI Trump or Clinton -- both crap; doesn't matter who wins.

 

What a misleading title... he can't name a single foreign leader he RESPECTS

Besides, he's very honest about the fact that his foreign policy isn't that great. He owns up to it. I still would trust him with foreign policy over Clinton and *shrug* Trump

 

I considered that, as if he was going through the list of foreign leaders he knows and seeking one he admires, but I don't feel that's a valid excuse. If that were the case, (and he didn't want to lie) he could say he didn't look up to any that immediately came to mind. That's not really a way to ingratiate himself with the rest of the world, but it could be compared with being thought a complete idiot. One ignorant faux pas is acceptable. A second one shortly after sets a pretty strong precedent. Being a presidential candidate, it's his job to know generally what's going on.

Combine this with the fact that he is strongly in favor of the TPP and, while he's probably not quite as bad as the major candidates, he's still pretty bad. And I really wanted to like him. *sigh*

Replying to Aussie's comment about how it's not always about winning, the minor candidates' negligible chances of winning are precisely why we should vote for them. If everyone in the country voted for Stein, she might win. If she still lost thanks to electoral college shenanigans, it would expose the obscene corruption inherent in the system and it might suffer some damage, paving the way for future change.

 

I don't think they're too extreme compared to the democrats and republicans. They're just placed at different positions in the political spectrum, nothing too extreme about those parties in my opinion.

 

I mean I can absolutely give you reasons why I think Stein and Johnson are terrible candidates that are totally unrelated to their unfeasibility.

But I'm just going to quickly ask, what specifically can you dislike so much about Hillary Clinton that you would prefer that the president be one of the following?

• A woman who is somehow both an anti-vax campaigner and a doctor, who legitimately believes unemployment is an elite conspiracy, whose agriculture policy (if such a strong word can be used) would result in the US not being capable of feeding itself let alone exporting, and whose plans are so vague as to read like an idealistic teenager's political bucket list more than qualifying as a policy outline; or
  
• A man who would impose the most regressive tax system in modern US history which would undoubtedly cause recession and unemployment, who believes the Federal Reserve should be abolished and who would slash access to healthcare; or
  
• Most realistically, Donald Trump.

 

Have you seen the video of him trying to answer the question? Because it very much so does not look like that. It looks like he can't name a single foreign leader.

 

Naming a random foreign leader and actually naming one you respect are two totally different things. Still it looked like he struggled and may have been best just saying, "Don't see one that mirrors me politically but (insert name) comes the closest". Again I feel this is a non-issue used to try to push his presence away from voters.

 

Exactly. Some of the most memorable foreign leaders are the ones in the news, and not for good reasons. None of this really matters to Johnson's chances of actually getting to the presidency, which are nothing since he wasn't included in the debates. Had he been included, he might've had in theory a very slim chance to get enough votes to win a few toss up states and deny Clinton and Trump the 270 needed to win.