Exactly. I find his explanation plausible...he thoughts it was an acronym for something, which he drew a blank on. But he also admits that he should have known. Not much more he can do...and also really hard to imagine we'd all do any better if constantly peppered with questions, all day every day. We'd have a brain fart or two ourselves. Yep. This is only an issue...because that's how our press works. So, at least in that regard, Johnson should feel someone vindicated...the press is actually treating him like everyone else.
Was he ignorant of it? Or did he just draw a blank on it then, thinking it was a reference to some acronym, as he said? Think you wouldn't have a blank occassionally if you got hit with questions, on any number of subjects, all day every day? Would that mean you were ignorant on that topic, or just that you drew a blank on that reference at that particular time? Is Aleppo even the proper reference? That presumes the problem is isolated to Aleppo, which is totally false.
Oh there's always stupid people trying to "call me out" in the D&D, you are just the one making the feeble attempt at the moment. Most people still don't know about Aleppo. That's my point. When you are being asked a non-scripted question, it could be about literally anything so unless you know literally everything, you might not be able to instantly realize what the question is about. Anyway the point is that we should hope that the President wouldn't be making judgements based on their off the cuff recall of situations. I can guarantee you that when the president has to make a decision about pretty much anything, they are briefed on it in decent detail. You won't see most politicians give you off the cuff responses, hell Hillary won't even allow questions that she didn't get in advance in order to have her people write the answer up for her AND give her plenty of time to rehearse the answer. Personally I prefer a present who will acknowledge that they don't know everything about everything given that it's true about all of them.
Most people don't need to know about Aleppo, but the president does. That's my point. This isn't some obscure tribal dispute in BFE. How would you feel if he'd never heard of Mosul? Kabul? Mogadishu? You don't need to know "literally everything" to recognize the name of one of the most important centers of crisis in the world at this moment.
That would be great if he wasn't running for the most powerful executive position in the world in my opinion.
Which is exactly why he'd be briefed on it. The president's prior knowledge about the city is irrelevant, it won't be as accurate or detailed as the briefing would be. Aleppo isn't talked about very much, most of the time, if it's about Syria, it's about Damascus. When you'd be talking about Mousul, Kabul, Mogadishu, those are places where Americans have had forces in the not too distant past (though Somalia was quite a while ago), the US hasn't had troops in Aleppo so it's not exactly a fair comparison. Till the US had military action in Mogadishu, would you have known anything about that city? Hell, would you even know it was in Somalia? Would you even know anything about Somalia if not for that incident? I just don't think it's a big deal for someone to trip up over a non scripted question like that. It's certainly not as much of a big deal as the sound bite will have people think.
It isn't a test on cities in Syria. There is a reason why Presidents have so many advisers and have so many briefings. They can't know everything.
You are right, it isn't a test on Syrian cities. It's getting his thoughts on a current geopolitical hot spot in which we are engaged in. There is a reason why presidents have advisors but there's been nothing I have seen from his various interviews that give me an impression he is fit for presidency.
This isn't an obscure topic for a presidential candidate. They don't have to know everything (I prefer they know most things), but they should know the topical stuff at least. Funny how this has basically disqualifies him (besides being a libertarian) and Trump is stronger than ever. How come no one asks Trump these type of questions?
And you base that solely on what party is he running as. If he were the Democrat party candidate, you'd think he was the best candidate ever. Your lack of credibility makes it kind of hard to hear these types of hot takes from you.
Bobby just stop. I am obviously not the only one who thinks he isn't qualified. I vote across party lines all the time, as I vote based on candidate. Trump, Sanders, Stein, and Johnson are simply too far out there and/or not qualified enough for my liking. I prefer pragmaticism over ideology and I'll take Clinton and her center left platform over what the rest are pushing.
Benefit of the doubt for him, is that he was caught off guard. Like others have said, he could have confused it with something else, since it was referred to as Aleppo instead of the Syrian Civil War. Politicians and not knowing things.....like Hilary not knowing what classified email was, or how to use / dispose said email....
I actually think a multi-term governor or senator of any moderately sized state with conservative suburbs, a politically diverse major city separate from the capital, and a large industrial lobby is sufficiently qualified to be president, especially considering the competency and expertise of advisors at the federal level. I'm a lot more troubled and irritated by Trump's nomination in the context of those parameters. But just like any sales pitch or job interview, if you don't seem informed or engaged you get three weeks of radio silence then an automated email.
But that's not Johnson. New Mexico is about the population of Austin, TX and the GDP similar to Sugar Land or The Woodlands. New Mexico relies on mining and military for its economy, with ~25% tied to the military.
And Hillary has never even run something that large as an executive....so maybe go back and get some better talking points and come back later.
As one of the two senators for a state with the economy the size of $1.6 trillion, I find that more qualified than being the governor of New Mexico. That's fine if you don't.
Being in a legislative role in a large state isn't executive experience. You do know the difference right? I sadly can't assume that you do. If someone worked at Wal-Mart as a cashier could they say they have experience running a fortune 500 company?
