Horrified Observations On Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnsons’s Latest Disgrace

As you can see in the video above [Trigger warning: if seeing a former governor who presumed to place himself before the nation as a qualified leader making an epic fool of himself on live television upsets you, as it does me—heck, those sitcom episodes when characters try to do stand-up and bomb horribly, like Cliff did on “Cheers” make me leave the room—don’t watch it. I mean it.], Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, the designated “none of the above” for voters who believe Donald Trump has nothing to offer but chaos and Hillary Clinton is more untrustworthy than Richard Nixon (both correct assessments), went on “Hardball” with Chris Matthews and made Sara Palin look like Henry Kissinger, and Rick Perry seem like Carl Sagan.

During the interview on MSNBC yesterday, Chris Matthews asked Johnson, who sat beside his running mate, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld,”Who’s your favorite foreign leader?”  “Name one foreign leader that you respect and look up to,” Matthews asked. “Anybody.” Johnson looked like he had been asked for the dewpoint of feldspar.

“Mine was Shimon Peres,” V.P. Weld offered unhelpfully, picking the former Israeli leader who just died from a stroke. “I’m talking about living,” Matthews shot back, focusing on Johnson.

“Anywhere. Any continent. Canada, Mexico, Europe, over there, Asia, South America, Africa: Name a foreign leader that you respect,” Matthews said as Johnson continued to freeze. “I guess I’m having an Aleppo moment,” Johnson said, pathetically.

“But I’m giving you the whole world!” Matthews said. “Anybody in the world you like. Anybody. Pick any leader!”

“The former president of Mexico,”  was the best Johnson could come up with. Whichever one he meant, by the way, he’s massive crook,  like all Mexican presidents.

“Which one?” Matthews pressed.

“I’m having a brain freeze,” Johnson whined,

as Weld began going through the list  of recent Mexican presidents.

“Fox! Thank you!” Johnson said when he finally heard the name of former Mexican president Vicente Fox, who Johnson probably vaguely recalled from the evident mush he calls a brain because Fox had just made the news by mocking Donald Trump’s debate performance.

Strike Three. Strikes one and two were doubles off the Green Monster by comparison.

Good lord.

Observations:

  • “How does somebody think there going to run for President and be this ignorant? Completely ignorant?” asked Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe,” today. “He could not name a leader — living or dead — past or present! My children can answer those questions!”

Good points all. The answer is that Johnson is uninformed. Johnson is lazy. Johnson clutches under pressure. Johnson is not taking his own candidacy seriously. Johnson is a joke, but the proper response to it is weeping. At a time when the two parties have completely failed their responsibility to the American people by presenting unfit, untrustworthy candidates that the majority of the nation dislike, and the need for a viable third party option has never  been greater, does Johnson study like a monk, prepare like a champion, and devote himself to being able to dazzle even the most skeptical voter with his expertise and mastery of issues? No! He apparently decides to boycott newspaper and TV news, and devote himself to Pokemon Go, or something. Surely he’s been doing something?

Diligence, responsibility, competence, respect for the nation and the public: Johnson has flunked all of these, spectacularly and beyond defending.

“The Clinton and Trump supporters are at it again. This is gotcha-ism at its finest. Not by Chris Matthews, but by too many looking for any opportunity to pounce. Anyone who watched the entire hour tonight on MSNBC saw Governors Johnson and Weld answer every question and deal with the entire spectrum of issues. A very fine performance. Yes, asked to name a favorite foreign leader, Gov. Johnson didn’t quickly name a specific favorite. That really doesn’t mean much. Most Americans and certainly most political candidates would have to stop and think before responding, with the possible exception of a Donald Trump who is enthralled by Putin.”

Not bad, but ridiculous. What wouldn’t be a “gotcha,” Ron? Asking who wrote the Declaration of Independence? Who was the first President? Who won WWII? Recite the alphabet? “Gov. Johnson didn’t quickly name a specific favorite”—is that how you would describe this embarrassment? So we now know that misrepresentation and deceit is officially approved by the Johnson campaign, right?

Oh…you might explain to your guy that trying to deal with one gaffe by reminding viewers of another one isn’t very smart. Have Bill Clinton explain it to you. As he may have told Hillary, “When you’re caught in a lie, do NOT say, “I am having a “I did not have sex with women” moment!”

  • Is MSNBC making a special effort to expose Johnson because he is perceived as taking votes away from Clinton? That would be my guess.
  • Because Johnson, like so many libertarians, has pronounced himself a pot enthusiast, Morning Joe’s panel speculated that maybe his penchant for weed was the reason for his short-term memory loss. Is this as despicable as Howard Dean’s speculation that Donald Trump is a coke head? No, it’s not. At least being one toke over the line, sweet Jesus, is an alternative option to “he’s an idiot.”
  • To elaborate on the earlier point, this represents a massive betrayal of the nation by the entire political system. Two dreadful candidates who have almost everyone, Republicans ( except for the idiots) and Democrats (except for the thoroughly corrupt) both, begging and pleading for a better option than Trump and Clinton are on the ballot, and after years of political analysts saying the U.S. need a viable third party, the Libertarian Party, with an incredible opportunity falling into its lap, needs only to find someone better than those wretched options, and this is who they present to the nation? This utter boob? I wouldn’t have believed that it was possible to nominate someone who inspires less confidence that Trump or Hillary, yet the Libertarian Party managed to do it. Any libertarian who isn’t furious has forfeited the privilege of  being taken seriously.
  • I received some rather heated responses to my position that this election was a binary choice, and that those who believe, as I know to be the case, that Donald Trump will damage the culture and political process beyond easy repair, have no choice but to suppress their rising gorge and vote for Hillary the Corrupt. “oh no!” they said. “Gary Johnson is qualified! Gary Johnson is an honorable  choice!”

My answer was that not voting for Clinton was the equivalent of throwing a vote away that could be used to banish Trump, and thus voting for Johnson was delusional and irresponsible. I now want to add this: “Voting for Gary Johnson is like voting for your dog.”

But buck up, Gary. “Dancing with the Stars” will be calling soon.

58 thoughts on “Horrified Observations On Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnsons’s Latest Disgrace

  1. Much like the tongue thing, it makes me want to not vote for him. It took me all of 5 seconds to think of a better response without a name when I heard about it in the car this morning. “I don’t geneerally choose favorites. The cult of personality approach to politics is toxic. In all cases, I prefer to focus on policies, and in general I care more about local politics rather than international.” It may not be a GOOD response, but it’s better than his actual response.

    I’m not running for anything, and don’t actually know the names of current politicians in most places, and generally only learn them after they screw something up badly. I know I don’t like the choices the EU made with regards to refugees, but I couldn’t tell you who specifically made it. I’d be sympathetic to Johnson, except that given his nominal goal he should be spending time studying foreign events, especially after the aleppo incident.

    I’ll still vote for him, since Montana will almost certainly go for trump in any case (about a 13 point lead) and I STILL prefer Johnson to any of the other 3 candidates.

    • I wonder if his campaign is trying to do what Trump did in the primaries. Be incompetent enough that the biased media jumps all over you, getting you name recognition even if it makes you look bad. If he hadn’t flubbed this, he would have been on hardball and that’s it instead of plastered all over. He was on a local radio show because of it.

      Wishful thinking on my part most likely. I want at least one candidate I can actually get behind.

  2. So, he immediately thinks of a guy but freezes on his name and instead of just giving in and coming up with someone else (which he eventually did after he was un-stumped) he focuses on how he has an answer but is blanking on the name.. Got it.

    He might not be the best communicator – a lot of it goes over the heads of the general populace, but I think we knew going into this that we wouldn’t be finding someone who could hold a candle to The Great Orator.

    • Rationalizations Tim. I’m with Jack.

      Even if you are an isolationist, and Gary Johnson certainly is, one of the primary functions of the President is to interact with world leaders. Best to know a few before applying for the job.

      This is terrifying. I can name world leaders and I am not running for any office AND I’m not an international policy expert.

      Then again, McAfee was the Libertarian Party’s second choice. I guess I’ll take Johnson any day. http://www.people.com/article/john-mcafee-documentary-showtime-nonsense-murder-allegations

      • The question wasn’t “Can you name world leaders” The question was “Who’s your favorite foreign leader?” with many implications that 1) you admire the person, 2) you like their policy positions 3) you’d strive to be like that person.

        Go ahead, tell me your favorite world leader. Of course, this environment isn’t conducive to putting you on the spot. Nor is any setting where Republicans and Democrats enter the discussion with the questions pre-vetted with planned answers.

        Johnson walks in and takes any question. He’s done more candid off the cuff interviews in the last 2 months than either of the other candidates have done in the last 2 years. Given the greater exposure he’s had (which I’m actually quite stunned how much of a push and airtime he’s received from major media outlets) he’s going to have more flubs. But here we are. Sitting on 2 with an additional awkward moment.

        Yes, I rationalize. This is my rationale for deciding what’s important to me in a leader and what is not. Being a sideways conniving bitch is more of a red flag for me than not having the “Who’s Who of Foreign Leaders I Admire” on the tip of the tongue.

        • In such a case, I would say that my favorite world leader would be whichever one whose name I could remember.

          I hesitate to press this, since you obviously are emotionally committed to Johnson for some reason, and I don’t want to add to your pain. Still, “This is my rationale for deciding what’s important to me in a leader and what is not” is a rationalization within a rationalization. I am not saying that being able to name a single world leader is a requirement for the Presidency, which is the straw man your rationalization sets up. No, and I have been clear, being able to do a better job answering basic questions, or handling a memory lapse when you can’t so as not to look like a fool, showing you take a race seriously, meeting the special requirements of an underdog who must shine, not just show up to win, and respecting supporters like you, who are depending on their public performance to make the decision to support them not appear an act of denial or civic abdication, are requirements for anyone making the assertion that they deserve election, and Johnson has failed all of them. Your defense is like a Trump supporter saying that we don’t elect Presidents based on their proclivities to do grotesque public mockeries of the handicapped, or a Clinton supporter saying that e-mail expertise isn’t a high priority in assessing a President.

          All three are signature significance.

          Look, I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 after he had disqualified himself by quitting the race in a snit, then came crawling back. I did it because I knew he could win enough votes to pick up some electoral votes and maybe seed a genuine third party. I also knew he couldn’t win, and that Clinton was almost certainly going to win because Perot was mostly taking votes away from Bush I, who I also regarded (and regard) as having disqualified himself by being weak and feckless. Clinton? I knew he was a rake and a charlatan, but also knew he had great leadership tools and skills (unlike Obama) and might just be an effective President, which Bush had proven he could not be. I didn’t want to vote for Clinton, who I distrusted, but he was not an existential risk like Trump. And, of course, Perot had the basic smarts and seriousness not to be an indefensible choice himself.

          All three of those 1992 candidates would be infinitely preferable and defensible over any of the three running today.

          • I don’t know why we’re talking about “rationalizations”. It’s pointless. You can’t vote for Clinton without a rationalization. You have to rationalize her entire run as Secretary of State. From Benghazi to her private email server. You can’t vote for her without invoking a rationalization.

            But I rationalize a trivial brain freeze? Whoa. “Stop the presses! Tim’s the asshole!”

            • 1. Now, nobody said you were an asshole. TRUMP’s an asshole. I think that’s been mad clear.

              2. You don’t have to rationalization a thing to conclude that she’s more fit to be President than Donald Trump. Not a thing. You have to rationalize NOT to conclude that.

              3. I’m curious: what wouldn’t you call “a trivial brain freeze” for a candidate, if being unable to fetch a single world leader after multiple requests qualifies? Remember, Rick Perry disqualified himself for life by being unable to finish his own list in a debate.

              Here are some options:

              1. Not being able to recite the alphabet?
              2. Not being able to name a single President of the US?
              3. When asked, “What is the most important right in the Bill of Rights?”, not being able to name one?
              4. How about “What nation is culturally most like the US?” and answering, after a long wait, “You know, that one up north” or “the one with the queen. You know.”?
              5. When asked, “What is it about libertarianism that makes it a valid philosophy?”, being unable to say a thing?
              6. When asked, “what nation in the middle east is the most dangerous to world peace right now?” answering, “Uh, wait, wait, it will come to me…”?

              • 1. You don’t have to rationalization a thing to conclude that Johnson’s more fit to be President than Hillary Clinton. Not a thing. You have to rationalize NOT to conclude that.

                2. Let’s genuinely ask the question: Which Living and Current foreign leader do you respect? I would like your answer on this and I know it’s not an exact scenario parallel but let’s do the exercise. Take your time but don’t do anything else until you answer. (I realize you’re not running for President, so why should you have to do this, but humor me.)

                • Easy one. I respect Barack Obama because he is our President, duly elected, and I’m an American. He does the best he can in an impossible job. I think he’s terrible at it, but he has done it for eight years, and that’s worthy of respect by itself. I don’t especially respect him as an individual, because his character is weak, at least for a leader. Still, he does the job.

                  Foreign leaders? I don’t respect any of them. Those who do not head a democracy don’t deserve to lead others, and the elected heads of state in England, France, West Germany, Canada, Mexico and elsewhere appear to be corrupt, weak, or in the case of Canada’s PM, silly.

  3. Johnson could draw votes away from Clinton and that is a concern to her camp. A few weeks ago a rumor was floated that Weld was dropping out over fears that Johnson would do just that – draw votes away from Clinton.

    Tonight the news played this up big. Plenty of video and – naturally – her smugness herself for some comments. Aparently any “failures” of Johnson will get a big play. Maybe get some of those Johnson folks to look elsewhere – such as Clinton.

    Normally I would consider what I wrote to be right up with Bigfoot and alien abductuctions, but years of the Clinton’s activities I never dismiss anything.

    Johnsons got my vote and, yes, he has seemed a bit like Mortimer Snerd at times, but Trump and Clinton? Laughable.

  4. “the Libertarian Party, with an incredible opportunity falling into its lap, needs only to find someone better than those wretched options, and this is who they present to the nation?”

    The libertarian party is really small. In the last presidential election — also running Johnson — they received less than 1% of the vote. They also hold fewer than 150 elected offices nationwide, most of them very minor, so they don’t have a huge field of people to choose from. Often, as they did this year, they have to pick someone with experience earned in another party who can nevertheless represent the Libertarian party’s values. There aren’t very many people who fit that description, and Gary Johnson is one of the best that does. Remember that despite his faults, he’s got as much time in elected office as Hillary, and his experience was in the executive role. (And of course Trump has no experience.)

    “does Johnson study like a monk, prepare like a champion, and devote himself to being able to dazzle even the most skeptical voter with his expertise and mastery of issues? No!”

    That’s the same problem. The Libertarian party is small, and it has few people with serious experience governing. That wouldn’t matter so much if Johnson was elected President, as he’s made it clear that he’d staff the Cabinet and Oval Office with experienced people from both major parties. But those people are all busy working for their own parties right now, so Johnson can’t exactly surround himself with world-class campaign staff to prepare him for everything.

    Furthermore, the Libertarian party is pretty busy with other stuff. Every election, they have to work very hard just to get on the ballots in all 50 states (unlike candidates from parties beginning with R and D, who just walk on), and now they’re busy trying to get polling results that can get them into the debates. There’s only so much time available for preparing the candidate. (It’s not like they can do it on the campaign plane — Johnson and Weld travel on commercial flights.) Libertarians can’t suddenly become a major party overnight. They just don’t have the resources.

    “‘Name one foreign leader that you respect and look up to,’ Matthews asked. ‘Anybody.'”

    That’s not a great question for a Libertarian. We’re not fond of the people who work in government (any government), we don’t care for the “great man” concept of national leadership, and we don’t think many national leaders deserve respect, because far too many of them are bums when it comes to freedom. We don’t have political heroes.

    Also, all those other countries haven’t been electing libertarians either, so it’s not like a Libertarian president will look at the world and see other leaders with similar values.

    For all those reasons, I couldn’t come up with any better answers than Johnson did. Vaclav Havel was pretty cool, but he’s dead. The next person I thought of was…

    “…Vicente Fox, who Johnson probably vaguely recalled from the evident mush he calls a brain because Fox had just made the news by mocking Donald Trump’s debate performance”

    You won’t like this explanation any better, but I’m guessing the reason Johnson thought of Vicente Fox is because Fox is a prominent opponent of the War on Drugs. And all us libertarian types hate the War on Drugs.

      • I wouldn’t say “no business” — not in this crazy election year — but if by “high office” you mean the Presidency, I tend to agree that the Libertarian Party is not prepared for the organizational task of running the government, not in the way the major parties are. They can’t be.

        My feeling is that the Libertarian candidate for President serves two useful purposes, (1) advertising the Libertarian ideology, and (2) identifying a block of issue voters that other candidates may try to woo to their party with libertarian-friendly policies.

        Personally, I’d rather have Libertarians in the legislature, where I think their ideological approach could be put to good use shaping legislation.

        (But again, in this election year, I’d rather risk an unprepared Libertarian than Donald Trump.)

  5. Um guys… You have the biggest economy on the planet. New York sneezes, London and Beijing and Ulan Bator catch cold.

    Who you elect matters not just to your country, but to mine.

    Just don’t elect Trump, OK? The world will survive any of the others, as they are “wrong within normal bounds”.

    Stein – antivax airhead. Johnson – how the heck did he even become Governor of a state? Clinton – Tammany Hall redux. All would require cooperation from the legislature though, which would limit the damage. Best case – Clinton for 1 term, then any sane, competent politician on either side, or a credible third force, not third farce.

    Trump though would rule as a CEO, by executive order. The first of which defunds any court action taken against executive orders. By the time the dictats get ruled unconstitutional, which may not happen if he starts firing judges (yes, that’s unconstitutional and illegal, but Trump has always defined the Law as whatever he can get away with in his business career)… the system melts down, and in the worst case, summary arrests under the sweeping anti-terror laws Congress passed and Obama signed.

    Trump/Pence… In a class of their own. Pence at least is merely incompetent, having run one state into the ground. But he’s also a Theocrat, who will make use of the post Trump chaos after impeachment to make America a God-fearing, Christian nation again.

    You guys have dropped the ball here.

        • The tone of all of Zoe’s anti-Trump expositions borders on hysteria, but factually, her screed here is mostly accurate on the facts.

          I agree that the section of Trump worst case scenaios is excessive, and I should have been less flip…

          Um guys… You have the biggest economy on the planet. New York sneezes, London and Beijing and Ulan Bator catch cold.

          True.

          Who you elect matters not just to your country, but to mine.

          True.

          Just don’t elect Trump, OK? The world will survive any of the others, as they are “wrong within normal bounds”.

          True.

          Stein – antivax airhead.

          True.

          Johnson – how the heck did he even become Governor of a state?

          Good question, and one I’ve asked myself.

          Clinton – Tammany Hall redux.

          Too kind, but TRUE.

          All would require cooperation from the legislature though, which would limit the damage.

          True.

          Best case – Clinton for 1 term, then any sane, competent politician on either side, or a credible third force, not third farce.

          True.

          Trump though would rule as a CEO, by executive order. The first of which defunds any court action taken against executive orders. By the time the dictats get ruled unconstitutional, which may not happen if he starts firing judges (yes, that’s unconstitutional and illegal, but Trump has always defined the Law as whatever he can get away with in his business career)… the system melts down, and in the worst case, summary arrests under the sweeping anti-terror laws Congress passed and Obama signed.

          Okay, this is hysteria, but it’s opinion, not statement of fact. Nobody knows what Trump would do or try to do. I agree that systemic meltdown is unlikely. My guess is that Trump would be spectacularly inept and ineffective, kind of a cross between Obama and post-stroke Wilson.

          Trump/Pence… In a class of their own. Pence at least is merely incompetent, having run one state into the ground. But he’s also a Theocrat, who will make use of the post Trump chaos after impeachment to make America a God-fearing, Christian nation again.

          More or less true. I don’t worry about VPs as a rule, but Pence is a Theocrat.

          You guys have dropped the ball here.

          Absolutely, 100% true.

          • Jack, I agree with your overall evaluation of Zoe’s comment; however, when you said “nobody knows what Trump would do or try to do” I couldn’t help but get the feeling that you were being just a bit intellectually dishonest. We base our opinions on Trump (and every other candidate) on what we “think” that candidate will or will not do if elected – you and I are no different in this regard.

            Jack Marshall said, “The tone of all of Zoe’s anti-Trump expositions borders on hysteria, but factually, her screed here…”

            If you think the stuff she’s written here are screeds and bordering on hysteria you should see some of what she’s written in the past over at madison.com. I had the unfortunate opportunity to come across some of it this week while I was doing some research for something else. Hysteria and screed is an understatement.

            That said…

            I think Zoe has come a long way since then; however, I think she is driven by emotion, sometimes she is driven by blind emotion and the words show some “explosive” passion, and that comes across as a bit of hysteria. She has improved upon herself a great deal. In all honesty, in some ways, aren’t we all a little bit like that on the topics that trip our trigger?

            • I really don’t have any idea what Trump would do or try to do. No candidate has ever been this vague, general, self-contradictory or inarticulate. History shows that we never have a really good idea of what most Presidents will do: Wilson vowed to keep us out of te war, Bush had forsworn nation building; Obama was going to be a uniting force. Reagan was going to reduce the deficit. But we still know nothing about Trump. Is he a Democrat? A Republican? An autocrat? An ideologue? What? Electing a complete cipher is insane, but that’s what he is.

              • Wasn’t there some prominent politician who said something to the effect of you promise whatever you have to to get elected, people shouldn’t expect the candidate to actually follow through, so isn’t Trump kinda playing on that theme thinking it does it really matter what he says he’s going to do as long as he gets elected – you know all that the ends justify the means kind of crap?

                Trump has made some pretty wild claims of things he’s going to do; his supporter certainly take that kinda thing very seriously.

                • My evaluation was based on what Trump has done in the past in in business career. He has made a habit of ignoring laws whenever he judges he can get away with it, due to the time it takes to buikd a case, statutes of limitations, etc.
                  The usual rules of behaviour – “you can’t do that, it’s unconstitutional!” don’t apply. Apparently his view of the Presidency is that it’s an absolute monarchy, limited only by laws it may take many years to enforce, especially if delays are engineered in.

                  See Worcester vs Georgia:

                  ” In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” This derives from Jackson’s comments on the case in a letter to John Coffee, “…the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate,” (that is, the Court’s opinion because it had no power to enforce its edict).”
                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

                  I’ve lived through such a constitutional crisis, the events of 1975.

                  When it comes to paying contractors, Trump is a serial Scofflaw. So what evidence is there that he won’t continue what for him has been a winning strategy? He has the DOJ. He is military Commander in Chief. He has the power to issue diktats that courts can overturn, but not enforce the overturning until the damage has been done. He can decree that the “founders of ISIS” as enemies of the nation should be put before a military tribunal. He can ignore regulations, and say “I want x,y and z on the tribunal. Make it happen, or I will fire you. And I’ll keep on firing replacements until I find someone who will”.

                  How many of his supporters would rejoice at the spectacle of Obama and Clinton being arrested for treason? Most, I think. How many are already calling for them to be shot, hanged etc? So if it happens, all they can do is stammer that they didn’t mean it, it was just hyperbole, not to be taken seriously… while the hard core would support it.

                  Perhaps I’m being hysterical. I hope so. But please tell me what, apart from respect for the law, and convention, and an oath to protect the Constitution, would actually stop him? Difficulty finding those willing to obey illegal orders? He doesn’t think so, he’ll keep on firing people till he finds one who knows which way the wind is blowing.

                  He could do untold damage in the interval before he’s impeached. He could – so why won’t he? Show me what prevents him.

                  I wouldn’t ask that of any politician. But he’s not a politician, he doesn’t know what’s impossible, so does it anyway. If the system breaks as a result – great business opportunities! He can always stiff others for the check, as he always has done in the past.

    • “Pence at least is merely incompetent, having run one state into the ground. ”

      As a resident of that state, I would quibble with that remark, but he has become very unpopular here. He did, after all, leave the GOP with three months to choose another candidate before the election. General consensus is that the move probably handed said election to the Democrat.

  6. I don’t really think I’d want a stoner president if your speculation about Johnson is true. His judgement might be a little impaired and he could forget the nuclear code in a time of international crisis. After he loses in November, he could move to Denver. I’m sure he’d fit in there.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.