Support NeoGAF

[jack_package_200]

http://fusion.net/video/307108/bernie-sanders-acknowledges-he-should-know-more-about-latin-america/

Sanders spoke about the drug war and immigration, but when pressed on the levels of violence in Central America caused by the U.S.’ deportation of hardened gang members, the Vermont Senator said “Look, you’re asking me questions about the impact on Central America, which honestly I should know more than I do know.”

“You are asking me questions about Latin America that I am very interested in but right now I’m running for president of the United States,” Sanders said in response to a question about the implosion of left wing governments in Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil.

New York Daily News interview 2.0?

Seriously, Bernie has nothing substantive to say about Latin America, at all?

How can they let him go on Univision and not think Latin America will come up as a subject? Does he prepare for anything? He was utterly unprepared for the Democratic debates, except for maybe the last one.

Speaking of debates, let's talk about the Sanders-Trump debate that will probably never happen. Does he think Kelly won't ask him about Venezuela, Brazil? Does he think Trump won't pounce on him for those states' failed policies?

More importantly, you are running for President. It has been a year since you declared your candidacy. You absolutely need to know way more than you do now.

 

[Particle Physicist]

http://fusion.net/video/307108/bernie-sanders-acknowledges-he-should-know-more-about-latin-america/



New York Daily News interview 2.0?

Seriously, Bernie has nothing substantive to say about Latin America, at all?

How can they let him go on Univision and not think Latin America will come up as a subject? Does he prepare for anything? He was utterly unprepared for the Democratic debates, except for maybe the last one.

Speaking of debates, let's talk about the Sanders-Trump debate that will probably never happen. Does he think Kelly won't ask him about Venezuela, Brazil? Does he think Trump won't pounce on him for those states' failed policies?

More importantly, you are running for President. It has been a year since you declared your candidacy. You absolutely need to know way more than you do now.

It's not like they are our neighbors or anything. Your expectations are way too high!

 

[Slayven]

Ewwww not a good look.

 

[Wilsongt]

Wasn't there a candidate that said they don't need to know anything going on in the world while running for president because they have people who will do that for them?

 

[BitStyle]

That's unfortunate. You would've thought that Bernie would be prepped by his campaign on these sort of questions before having this interview. I admire that Bernie has a broad vision for the U.S., but I'd like to see his foreign policy stances develop further.

Wasn't there a candidate that said they don't need to know anything going on in the world while running for president because they have people who will do that for them?

Trump?

 

[Arkeband]

I'm sure Hillary would have given the perfect combinations of sanitized words and catchphrases to formulate an acceptable non-answer for you, OP.

 

[InsaneZero]

Wasn't there a candidate that said they don't need to know anything going on in the world while running for president because they have people who will do that for them?

The best people that you haven't even heard of, and he'll know more about the subject than you ever will when he needs to after getting into office.

 

[Kusagari]

"I'm ready for the 'gotcha' questions and they're already starting to come. And when they ask me, 'Who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan?' I'm going to say you know, 'I don't know. Do you know?' And then I'm going to say, 'How's that going to create one job?' I want to focus on the top priorities of this country. That's what leaders do."

 

[lostsupper]

I'd rather hear him say he doesn't know than to avoid the question by restating some stump speech.

Anyone But Hillary 2016

 

[Orbis Tabula]

So? I don't see why he has to know the president of Uzbekibekibekistanstan!

 

[Moppeh]

The past few months have showed me that even though I agree with Bernie on most political subjects, he would a terrible president.

 

[jack_package_200]

I'd rather hear him say he doesn't know than to avoid the question by restating some stump speech.

You mean like how he does all the time?

 

[Tarydax]

This kind of reminds me of Hermain Cain's Uzbekistan gaffe.

Edit: Beaten.

 

[Goodstyle]

It's stuff like this that makes me want Hillary to be president. She's knowledgeable and prepared, does her damn homework and doesn't get flustered as easily. Sanders and Trump are always caught with their pants down in easily avoidable incidents like this one. This interview, and why a Super Delegate switched from Bernie to Hillary recently basically says it all.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm sure Hillary would have given the perfect combinations of sanitized words and catchphrases to formulate an acceptable non-answer for you, OP.

Or an answer with some actual meat, given her 4 years as Secretary of State.

This is why experience matters.

 

[Maxim726X]

I'm sure Hillary would have given the perfect combinations of sanitized words and catchphrases to formulate an acceptable non-answer for you, OP.

Yes... I would rather someone at least take the time to do that then come to an interview with 'I don't know, but I probably should'.

If you don't understand why that's a bad look, you're a lost cause.

 

[Blader]

Just another Univision hit piece.

 

[Slayven]

I'm sure Hillary would have given the perfect combinations of sanitized words and catchphrases to formulate an acceptable non-answer for you, OP.

Weird thing to say, cause during her interviews and town hall she goes pretty in depth.

 

[Bronx-Man]

I'm sure Hillary would have given the perfect combinations of sanitized words and catchphrases to formulate an acceptable non-answer for you, OP.

I'd rather hear him say he doesn't know than to avoid the question by restating some stump speech.

Anyone But Hillary 2016

Damn, that spin cycle came quick.

So? I don't see why he has to know the president of Uzbekibekibekistanstan!

God, I miss Herman Cain. I miss 2012, period.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

I'd rather hear him say he doesn't know than to avoid the question by restating some stump speech.

Anyone But Hillary 2016

Sure it's nice to have honesty and all, but I can imagine he's going say later "I don't know and can't study it, because I'm president of the United States". It's simply not an excuse.

Also, anyone but Hillary? Is that serious? Trump over her?

 

[Wilsongt]

I'm sure Hillary would have given the perfect combinations of sanitized words and catchphrases to formulate an acceptable non-answer for you, OP.

Given it was her job to know what was going on in the world for a few years... yeah, I'm pretty sure she would have had a better responses than "I dunno Ask me later when I'm not busy being behind in delegates lol"

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Or an answer with some actual meat, given her 4 years as Secretary of State.

This is why experience matters.

I mean, you say this, but the foreign policy record of Presidents seems to have no real relationship to their foreign policy experience. The last president with significant foreign policy experience before taking office was Bush the elder, and his foreign policy relations were... subpar, to say the least.

 

[MrChocolate]

Wasn't there a candidate that said they don't need to know anything going on in the world while running for president because they have people who will do that for them?

Whoever it was, it's true.

Do you think the leader of any country, must or should know details about foreign affairs?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No. There are people on the presidential staff that take care of those details. They provide the needed information on said topics, so the president can take a well informed decision.

 

[Arkeband]

Or an answer with some actual meat, given her 4 years as Secretary of State.

This is why experience matters.

"I would gather a coalition of the willing, wa womp wa womp womp womp-"
*audience's eyes glaze over since they couldn't point out Venezuela on a map*
"...and that would totally not destabilize an entire region, which I know a little something about."
*audience wakes up and starts clapping*
"She's so experienced!"

 

[Goodstyle]

Weird thing to say, cause during her interviews and town hall she goes pretty in depth.

Obama nailed it when he questioned why it was now cool to not know what you're talking about these days.

"Oh, Hillary gave an in depth and knowledgeable response to the same type of question? Well she's just a politician, that's just what they do."

 

[mariachi507]

"I don't know."

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Jesus he didn't even let the interviewer finish his questions. Grumpy Bernie did zero prep for this interview and parroted his talking points. Awful look.

 

[Blader]

Whoever it was, it's true.

Do you think the leader of any country, must or should know details about foreign affairs?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No. There are people on the presidential staff that take care of those details. They provide the needed information on said topics, so the president can take a well informed decision.

It worked for Bush!

 

[Maxim726X]

"I would gather a coalition of the willing, wa womp wa womp womp womp-"
*audience's eyes glaze over since they couldn't point out Venezuela on a map*
"...and that would totally not destabilize an entire region, which I know a little something about."
*audience wakes up and starts clapping*
"She's so experienced!"

A) It's clear you have no idea what her position actually is.
B) This is still a much better response than 'I don't know... Should I?'

You honestly can't see that?

 

[Hazmat]

This isn't good, but it beats the time he was asked about Isis in a debate and took about five seconds to get back to "millionaires and billionaires." I don't see this in particular as a big deal, but his overall weakness on foreign policy is troubling.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Yes... I would rather someone at least take the time to do that then come to an interview with 'I don't know, but I probably should'.

If you don't understand why that's a bad look, you're a lost cause.

This is what people like about Bernie Sanders.

Obviously he should have been a bit more prepared.
But given two people who are unprepared, one says, "I don't know, but I should know" sounds better than the potential alternative. An alternative that sounds like it wants to be informed but it's like a book report written from the summary on the back of the book.

Like Trump when he's talking about Abe Lincoln:

Well, I think Lincoln succeeded for numerous reasons. He was a man who was of great intelligence, which most presidents would be. But he was a man of great intelligence, but he was also a man who did something that was a very vital thing to do at that time. Ten years before or 20 years before, what he was doing would never have even been thought possible. So he did something that was a very important thing to do, and especially at that time.

I'd rather him be honest with his knowledge shortcomings than hear a response like that. Some more well versed politicians can clean up that answer better. But it doesn't really have any more substance.

 

[Slayven]

Jesus he didn't even let the interviewer finish his questions. Grumpy Bernie did zero prep for this interview and parroted his talking points. Awful look.

At least he didn't ignore the person and walk away, this time

 

[InsaneZero]

I mean, you say this, but the foreign policy record of Presidents seems to have no real relationship to their foreign policy experience. The last president with significant foreign policy experience before taking office was Bush the elder, and his foreign policy relations were... subpar, to say the least.

Considering that foreign policy is the one area where presidents can actually do something in, I would want somebody that knows more about the subject than their peers.

 

[Wilsongt]

Whoever it was, it's true.

Do you think the leader of any country, must or should know details about foreign affairs?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No. There are people on the presidential staff that take care of those details. They provide the needed information on said topics, so the president can take a well informed decision.

Having some base level knowledge in an interview like this is important, though. You don't walk into a job interview and say "I should know that answer, but I was too busy looking for a job to study".

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I mean, you say this, but the foreign policy record of Presidents seems to have no real relationship to their foreign policy experience. The last president with significant foreign policy experience before taking office was Bush the elder, and his foreign policy relations were... subpar, to say the least.

I'd rather somebody with experience than not, presuming that their positions aren't toxic to me.

What was so horrible about GHWB's foreign policy? I lived through it, but I don't seriously remember anything awful. He had the smarts to get out of Kuwait /Iraq when the job was done, and although I was against our involvement at the time, seems like a textbook case of successful intervention.

 

[flkraven]

But given two people who are unprepared...

I think most people would prefer to elect someone who is prepared.

 

[Hazmat]

"I would gather a coalition of the willing, wa womp wa womp womp womp-"
*audience's eyes glaze over since they couldn't point out Venezuela on a map*
"...and that would totally not destabilize an entire region, which I know a little something about."
*audience wakes up and starts clapping*
"She's so experienced!"

Are you, uh, implying that it's better to be unable to give a detailed answer because that answer might be boring to stupid people?

 

[Squalor]

It worked for Bush!

Except he came out still knowing nothing.

 

[Maxim726X]

This is what people like about Bernie Sanders.

Obviously he should have been a bit more prepared.
But given two people who are unprepared, one says, "I don't know, but I should know" sounds better than the potential alternative. An alternative that sounds like it wants to be informed but it's like a book report written from the summary on the back of the book.

Like Trump when he's talking about Abe Lincoln:


I'd rather him be honest with his knowledge shortcomings than hear a response like that. Some more well versed politicians can clean up that answer better. But it doesn't really have any more substance.

Okay, I'll agree with you to an extent. This is Trump we're talking about, though... Someone who hasn't been in politics for his entire life, and someone who hasn't held a Senate seat for 25 fucking years. I expect candidates who represent my party to know what they're talking about. Furthermore, the fact that he wasn't prepared for what should be a relatively obvious question is puzzling and worrisome to me.

It proves to me that Sanders is someone with an exceedingly narrow vision, caring about what he deems to be important and ignoring the rest. A president cannot do that.

 

[DeadlyVirus]

Or an answer with some actual meat, given her 4 years as Secretary of State.

This is why experience matters.

And then she'll go to Central and South America and "tell them to cut it out"



They'll take it literally, and start killing each other

 

[Bronx-Man]

The last time we elected a guy with very little foreign policy experience, it kinda uh...led to the worst foreign policy decision in American history and destabilized an entire region of the world for years, if not potentially decades.

But who cares about little stuff like that, right?

 

[DOWN]

I'm sure Hillary would have given the perfect combinations of sanitized words and catchphrases to formulate an acceptable non-answer for you, OP.

She's gone to tons of places in Latin America as Secretary of State and has seen many conflicts discussed in Congress so I would hope she would say more than nothing

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Considering that foreign policy is the one area where presidents can actually do something in, I would want somebody that knows more about the subject than their peers.

I think the most important aspect of foreign policy relations is causal reasoning and not necessarily breadth of knowledge. There are 195 countries in the world; 196 if you count Taiwan as independent. Each of those will have numerous internal political factions. Many of those will have several important extra-political factions, ranging from particularly serious like ISIS to frustrations like the IRA. Each of those factions will have a number of policy goals, different distributions of resources, and so on. The amount of data you'd need to hold to have a complete overview is staggering, it's not something that should be expected of someone and it's probably not even going to prove that useful because the president has an entire department of people expected to know this stuff at their beck and call, who have spent their entire careers examining whichever country rather than simply having passing knowledge of all two-hundred.

What you want is someone with a good conceptual grasp of foreign policy analysis, such that once presented with relevant facts, they can come to good conclusions. I have no idea if Sanders would be good at this, in the same way in 2008 I had no idea if Obama would be good at this. The best you can do is hope they will. Clinton, on the other hand, has quite a long track record of being rather mediocre at this, ranging from her misadventures in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, and she's not viewed favourably in China having been one of the architects in the emphasis on the Pacific pivot. She had some successes - Burma is notable - but I certainly don't think she'll be classified as one of history's better secretary of states, and more towards the middle of the road.

 

[semisonic]

Are you, uh, implying that it's better to be unable to give a detailed answer because that answer might be boring to stupid people?

It's Arkeband, so he's probably implying it's better to be unable to give a detailed answer than it is to be Hillary Clinton.

 

[Blader]

Except he came out still knowing nothing.

Sure, but as long as the president surrounds themselves with knowledgeable advisers who can fill in those gaps for you, well, what could possibly go wrong?

 

[IJoel]

Well, at least he didn't blame Wall Street or the establishment. Progress my friends, progress!

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

I think most people would prefer to elect someone who is prepared.

At the very least someone who wants to make the argument to be the nominee should surround himself with knowledgeable people.

 

[BotoxAgent]

So about the violence in Central America...

Look, here's the truth! It's about the millionaires and the billionaires....

 

[massoluk]

I mean, you say this, but the foreign policy record of Presidents seems to have no real relationship to their foreign policy experience. The last president with significant foreign policy experience before taking office was Bush the elder, and his foreign policy relations were... subpar, to say the least.

I am 90% sure Bush Sr. was very popular outside the US. Panama was a bad dealing, but the first Gulf War was not unpopular around the world. Hell, I remember it was Bill Clinton people are scared of outside the US, him threatening international trade and all during the campaign. Foreign Policy wasn't what tanked the first Bush iirc

 

[Blader]

I am 90% sure Bush Sr. was very popular outside the US. The first Iraq War was not unpopular around the world. Hell, I remember it was Bill Clinton people are scared of outside the US, him threatening international trade and all during the campaign. Foreign Policy wasn't what tank the first Bush iirc

Certainly still in Kuwait, at least.