• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Bernie Sanders Univision interview.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mael

Member
I just pointed out income inequality is a cause of violence. Where did I state or imply that the US should do anything or intervene?

Well then if Sanders issue about what's happening in Latin America is income inequality surely he has a solution for that from a US perspective would be intervention, it is implied in the fact that income inequality is the issue in US-Lating America relationships.

Not sure if serious.

Why know anything in that case?

It's really hilarious as in most countries the position of POTUS would be the one taking all the decisions for foreign policy so really he has to know about what the hell he's talking about.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
The more I think about this the more annoyed I am. This ain't a po-dunk tv station. It's Univision, a major Latin American network. Did he not expect a question about Latin America? Do a little bit of homework man. :/
 
I'd rather someone admit they don't know something than make up a bunch of lies. What exactly do you want him to say? "I know exactly what the problem is and we're going to get involved in a dubious military intervention that will probably makes things worse?"

Damn right.

The current UK government (as a contrast) seems to believe that they know everything, and make dogmatic changes, and change for changes' sake. We'll seriously struggle to move forward until we accept that one person can't and doesn't know everything, or even have an opinion on everything.

He was just annoyed that his favorite Chavez failed

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

Anyone But Hillary 2016

41wNdsu.png
.
 

Parshias7

Member
I first read this as 'Sanders can tell me more about the Marvel Universe and Captain America.' and laughed pretty hard imaging Sanders waving around a comic book during his speeches. :D

I think we need to hear all of the candidate's positions on the ending of Captain America #1.

I'll also base my vote on whether they prefer Barry or Wally.
 

Brinbe

Member
well people fell in love with obama in 2008, and even if his presidency hasn't been perfect i think it's clear he's been better for the office than any of the other candidates that year would have been, including hillary. i mean at this point she's basically running on obama's record and promising 4 more years of his policies.

People fell in love with Obama way back in 2004 because he had an otherworldly charisma, undeniable intelligence, compelling seriousness combined with a much-needed relation/commitment to real people/struggling communities that Bernard can't come close to touching. And of course she's running on a continuance of Obama's administration. She's a life-long Dem, was part of Obama's cabinet and they have always had very similar believes! Even back in 2008. Hell, she was more liberal than he was, arguing for things like the public option lol.

But what's also true, is that she's very much like Obama in terms of how they think and would proceed as operators in the White House. He's a lot more charismatic, obviously, but they're both not too fond of the silliness of campaigning and what goes with that on a day-to-day basis. They want to actually do the job! They're both incredibly wonkish, prepared and liable to get really deep into the meat and potatoes of things. Ask them a question and they'll talk your hear off explaining the nuance and reality of the issue, which, as seen in this interview/his meeting with the NYDN board, is a real contrast to what you see from Sanders.

Most importantly, Hillary, much like Barack, knows what's really required to get real progress through the meat grinder of the current political climate of the House/Senate. And actually has the ability to get that agenda done.
 
Honestly, I prefer Sanders' honesty that he needs to know more about foreign affairs than Clinton's repeated tendency to over-meddle in the affairs of other countries.

The State department, under her watch, shared intelligence with Turkey's incredibly repressive regime to find Kurdish dissidents in Iraq. Clinton -- meanwhile talks about how we should ramp up the war in Iraq to help the very same Kurds who she is helping sacrifice to our supposed ally... and then.. tried to suppress the story.

The fight between the Turkish government and the Kurdish separatists has been going on for decades but its a textbook example of something that is not US business and we ought to butt out of it.
 
I would question exactly how weak on foreign policy Bernie Sanders is compared to how much he's holding back. He is a smart guy and he has a historical view of the world, you can see it with his stance on the Iraq war. His foreign policy opinions are probably more of a departure from the norm than he lets on, and he's said before he considers North Korea a bigger threat than Russia.

If Bernie came out and said he doesn't see Putin as a threat, or he has sympathy for these socialist regimes in South America, it would be damaging for him and he knows it. It's similar to how he refuses to release his tax returns because of his radical stance against charity. It's better to look uninformed than 'Crazy Bernie'.
 
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.
Ah the Trump defense: I'll hire the smartest people who know about everything. It will be beautiful. Trust me!

Surrounding with bright minds is good, but you need a quality in a president that's "above the fray". You need someone who is not an ideologue; someone who is curious about the state of affairs outside his preferred topic (wealth inequality). Ideologues aren't. That's why they're terrible leaders. I don't see this curiosity in Bernie. He has no passion or the willingness to learn about why things "are". Just same old Wall street stuff.

Take Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK knew how Khrushchev operated, what he wanted and what he didn't. He knew that Adlai Stevenson was their best weapon in talks at UN. Military recommended options, all of which involved attacking the sites in Cuba. I'd be scared of Bernie in that situation.
 

aeolist

Banned
People fell in love with Obama way back in 2004 because he had an otherworldly charisma, undeniable intelligence, compelling seriousness combined with a much-needed relation/commitment to real people/struggling communities that Bernard can't come close to touching. And of course she's running on a continuance of Obama's administration. She's a life-long Dem, was part of Obama's cabinet and they have always had very similar believes! Even back in 2008. Hell, she was more liberal than he was, arguing for things like the public option lol.

But what's also true, is that she's very much like Obama in terms of how they think and would proceed as operators in the White House. He's a lot more charismatic, obviously, but they're both not too fond of the silliness of campaigning and what goes with that on a day-to-day basis. They want to actually do the job! They're both incredibly wonkish, prepared and liable to get really deep into the meat and potatoes of things. Ask them a question and they'll talk your hear off explaining the nuance and reality of the issue, which, as seen in this interview/his meeting with the NYDN board, is a real contrast to what you see from Sanders.

Most importantly, Hillary, much like Barack, knows what's really required to get real progress through the meat grinder of the current political climate of the House/Senate. And actually has the ability to get that agenda done.

i don't disagree and at this point really hope hillary wins, but i think there's enough question marks about her priorities, decision making, and honesty that i'm not terribly happy about it.

even if she makes it she's going to have a super hard time getting reelected in 2020.
 

massoluk

Banned
Honestly, I prefer Sanders' honesty that he needs to know more about foreign affairs than Clinton's repeated tendency to over-meddle in the affairs of other countries.

The State department, under her watch, shared intelligence with Turkey's incredibly repressive regime to find Kurdish dissidents in Iraq. Clinton -- meanwhile talks about how we should ramp up the war in Iraq to help the very same Kurds who she is helping sacrifice to our supposed ally... and then.. tried to suppress the story.

The fight between the Turkish government and the Kurdish separatists has been going on for decades but its a textbook example of something that is not US business and we ought to butt out of it.

I don't really buy this argumentl. Bush, Clinton (both of them), and Obama made informed decisions that turned out wrong in hindsight, but Sanders is just plain uninformed. He has yet to make actual executive decisions, he can't just hide behind this argument that he isn't going to do anything in the world that expect US to do something.
 

Eila

Member
Considering the last century or two the best intervention the US can have in Latin America is non-intervention.
 
Ideologues aren't. That's why they're terrible leaders.

I have to pull you up on this.

Reagan. Thatcher. Attlee. Sturgeon (as a current example). All ideologues with a key focus, a key aim, a key goal. And each incredibly successful (at least thus far in the case of Sturgeon) in their political careers, as leaders.

You're finding a correlation that isn't there.
 

Koomaster

Member
I would question exactly how weak on foreign policy Bernie Sanders is compared to how much he's holding back. He is a smart guy and he has a historical view of the world, you can see it with his stance on the Iraq war. His foreign policy opinions are probably more of a departure from the norm than he lets on, and he's said before he considers North Korea a bigger threat than Russia.

If Bernie came out and said he doesn't see Putin as a threat, or he has sympathy for these socialist regimes in South America, it would be damaging for him and he knows it. It's similar to how he refuses to release his tax returns because of his radical stance against charity. It's better to look uninformed than 'Crazy Bernie'.
This definitely makes more sense than he just doesn't know or have an opinion. I could definitely see his ideas about this would be so controversial as to bury him or at least used against him in some way.

Otherwise people should have alarm bells going off that a Presidential candidate doesn't know anything about current foreign affairs. Seriously people need to stop with the 'At least he's honest that he doesn't know.' nonsense. He's not being asked to give lectures on quantum physics or the Ming dynasty. Nobody expects him to know everything, but he should know something about what's going on in the world and how it would relate to his policies if he were President.

I'll be generous and say that he does have opinions on it but they are just too controversial to share. It's not a good look for him; but it's ever so slightly better than him being a complete moron.
 

Armaros

Member
This definitely makes more sense than he just doesn't know or have an opinion. I could definitely see his ideas about this would be so controversial as to bury him or at least used against him in some way.

Otherwise people should have alarm bells going off that a Presidential candidate doesn't know anything about current foreign affairs. Seriously people need to stop with the 'At least he's honest that he doesn't know.' nonsense. He's not being asked to give lectures on quantum physics or the Ming dynasty. Nobody expects him to know everything, but he should know something about what's going on in the world and how it would relate to his policies if he were President.

I'll be generous and say that he does have opinions on it but they are just too controversial to share. It's not a good look for him; but it's every so slightly better than him being a complete moron.

And its May, at this point, his campaign should have a team of foreign policy advisers that can brief him on any topic that might come up.

And going to Univision and not being able to talk about any of the big issues in Latin America? Compleltely unprepared
 

q_q

Member
People fell in love with Obama way back in 2004 because he had an otherworldly charisma, undeniable intelligence, compelling seriousness combined with a much-needed relation/commitment to real people/struggling communities that Bernard can't come close to touching. And of course she's running on a continuance of Obama's administration. She's a life-long Dem, was part of Obama's cabinet and they have always had very similar believes! Even back in 2008. Hell, she was more liberal than he was, arguing for things like the public option lol.

But what's also true, is that she's very much like Obama in terms of how they think and would proceed as operators in the White House. He's a lot more charismatic, obviously, but they're both not too fond of the silliness of campaigning and what goes with that on a day-to-day basis. They want to actually do the job! They're both incredibly wonkish, prepared and liable to get really deep into the meat and potatoes of things. Ask them a question and they'll talk your hear off explaining the nuance and reality of the issue, which, as seen in this interview/his meeting with the NYDN board, is a real contrast to what you see from Sanders.

Most importantly, Hillary, much like Barack, knows what's really required to get real progress through the meat grinder of the current political climate of the House/Senate. And actually has the ability to get that agenda done.

You're wrong on the last line. No one's getting anything substantial done in this political climate. And you have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Obama. Your assessment of him is true, but none of that became apparent until after he was elected. During the campaign he received the exact same criticisms Bernie gets. Hillary herself said he wasn't even qualified to be her VP.


Plus, as a response to the thread in general, it seems he couldn't answer some specific questions about the effects of crime in Latin America. That's a far cry from having nothing to say about Latin America at all. This is just food for the people who already hate Bernie and just want to hate on him.
 
I have to pull you up on this.

Reagan. Thatcher. Attlee. Sturgeon (as a current example). All ideologues with a key focus, a key aim, a key goal. And each incredibly successful (at least thus far in the case of Sturgeon) in their political careers, as leaders.

You're finding a correlation that isn't there.
But were they "great" leaders?

Besides, Reagan wasn't an ideologue by any means. He's raised taxes just as much as any other President. Ideologues are fascists mostly, especially the communist ones.
 
I don't really buy this argumentl. Bush, Clinton (both of them), and Obama made informed decisions that turned out wrong in hindsight, but Sanders is just plain uninformed. He has yet to make actual executive decisions, he can't just hide behind this argument that he isn't going to do anything in the world that expect US to do something.

Sanders should know more. He acknowledged that. My point is that I would rather have a president who focuses on domestic policies rather than one who seems to think we need to intervene in conflicts that are not any of our business.

Hows the drug war working out?
How did Reagan's support of the Contras in Nicaragua go?
US support of Pinochet in Chile and Baby Doc in Haiti despite denouncing both?

If you asked the people of Latin America what they wanted to the US to do, I think the majority would say, rather loudly that they don't need or want our "help."
 
Being deceitful vs ignorant isn't a great look either way.

Absolutely, personally wouldn't vote for the guy, but I think Bernie has calculated that it's easier to navigate with the clumsy 'i don't care about non-domestic issues' line than expose himself to being painted as a risky radical on foreign policy and defence. It's hard enough trying to sail against the prevailing political consensus on economics in the US.
 
But were they "great" leaders?

Besides, Reagan wasn't an ideologue by any means. He's raised taxes just as much as any other President. Ideologues are fascists mostly, especially the communist ones.

Reagan was as much of an ideologue as Sanders, for sure.

And now Sanders is a fascist? Because that's what you're implying. Did you type that with a straight face?
 

Koomaster

Member
Sanders should know more. He acknowledged that. My point is that I would rather have a president who focuses on domestic policies rather than one who seems to think we need to intervene in conflicts that are not any of our business.
The United States doesn't live in a bubble. What's happening in the rest of the world affects us too and the President should be knowledgeable about that. It's late in the game to be going; 'I don't know' or 'I'll look into that.' Fuck no! If you can't handle running a campaign, and speaking about topics BOTH foreign and domestic then you sure as hell aren't fit to be President.
 

Brinbe

Member
You're wrong on the last line. No one's getting anything substantial done in this political climate. And you have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Obama. Your assessment of him is true, but none of that became apparent until after he was elected. During the campaign he received the exact same criticisms Bernie gets. Hillary herself said he wasn't even qualified to be her VP.


Plus, as a response to the thread in general, it seems he couldn't answer some specific questions about the effects of crime in Latin America. That's a far cry from having nothing to say about Latin America at all. This is just food for the people who already hate Bernie and just want to hate on him.

No one is expecting anything substantial. That's why people are supporting Hillary's advancement of real and incremental change in the first place! And if we swing the Senate/make gains in the House, things can change for the better.

And lol, people supported Obama BECAUSE those traits were already apparent, hence why he secured the nomination over Hillary in the first place, whereas Sanders is losing to her. And what she said back then was inconsequential because they frankly weren't true as seen by how he has actually handled his time as POTUS. Hell, people were touting him as a future President directly after (and before) his 2004 DNC speech. Sometimes real talent is unmissable. And that's the case with Bams.

Anyway, this contest is over in a few weeks but this unraveling of Sanders is still a reinforcement that the Dems made the right choice. Either Bernie's ignorant or he's concealing his true believes. Neither of those options are compelling.
 
Reagan was as much of an ideologue as Sanders, for sure.

And now Sanders is a fascist? Because that's what you're implying. Did you type that with a straight face?
Reagan wasn't. He had open views of economy. He's be raked over coals by modern GOP. He struck deals with Tipp O'Neil to raise taxes and increase the federal government. He gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Yes, his government was right-wing. But he's an ideologue as much as George W Bush. Sanders isn't a fascist. Most of the ideologues that have been in power have been, is what I was trying to say.
 

KingK

Member
People fell in love with Obama way back in 2004 because he had an otherworldly charisma, undeniable intelligence, compelling seriousness combined with a much-needed relation/commitment to real people/struggling communities that Bernard can't come close to touching. And of course she's running on a continuance of Obama's administration. She's a life-long Dem, was part of Obama's cabinet and they have always had very similar believes! Even back in 2008. Hell, she was more liberal than he was, arguing for things like the public option lol.

But what's also true, is that she's very much like Obama in terms of how they think and would proceed as operators in the White House. He's a lot more charismatic, obviously, but they're both not too fond of the silliness of campaigning and what goes with that on a day-to-day basis. They want to actually do the job! They're both incredibly wonkish, prepared and liable to get really deep into the meat and potatoes of things. Ask them a question and they'll talk your hear off explaining the nuance and reality of the issue, which, as seen in this interview/his meeting with the NYDN board, is a real contrast to what you see from Sanders.

Most importantly, Hillary, much like Barack, knows what's really required to get real progress through the meat grinder of the current political climate of the House/Senate. And actually has the ability to get that agenda done.
Except by all accounts, foreign policy is where the sharpest contrast between Obama and Clinton lies, and nobody is getting anything done domestically for at least the next 4 years. Clinton and Obama were on opposing sides of several major, important decisions and arguments about foreign policy in the administration, and she was one of his most hawkish advisors.

This has been probably my biggest reluctance in being able to get behind a Clinton presidency. I wish Bernie was more knowledgeable on these topics, but at least his world view on this seems to align with Obama more than Hillary and I would probably trust his judgment when presented with the information more than Hillary's given what I've observed throughout their respective careers.

Again though, I wish we could just get an Obama third term.
 

Mael

Member
The United States doesn't live in a bubble. What's happening in the rest of the world affects us too and the President should be knowledgeable about that. It's late in the game to be going; 'I don't know' or 'I'll look into that.' Fuck no! If you can't handle running a campaign, and speaking about topics BOTH foreign and domestic then you sure as hell aren't fit to be President.
Remember that NYDN interview where he gave the same shitty answers about how he should "look into" whatever the subject was and people here were excusing blatant ignorance?
Fun time, guess it's not only his core message he has no idea on how to implement.

Except by all accounts, foreign policy is where the sharpest contrast between Obama and Clinton lies, and nobody is getting anything done domestically for at least the next 4 years. Clinton and Obama were on opposing sides of several major, important decisions and arguments about foreign policy in the administration, and she was one of his most hawkish advisors.

This has been probably my biggest reluctance in being able to get behind a Clinton presidency. I wish Bernie was more knowledgeable on these topics, but at least his world view on this seems to align with Obama more than Hillary and I would probably trust his judgment when presented with the information more than Hillary's given what I've observed throughout their respective careers.

Again though, I wish we could just get an Obama third term.

Wait Clinton is running on something else than being Obama's 3rd term?
 
I'm pretty sympathetic to the argument of "the president doesn't need to know everything. They just need to have a good level of intelligence and they can surround themselves with smart people to cover every topic." That is, fundamentally, how it all has to work. I'm just not totally convinced that Bernie would he the type of person capable of surrounding himself with the right people either. I mean, the response when scads of economists talked about the infeasibility of parts of his economic plan was to find the one analysis that did make him look good and flaunt that. This analysis was pretty widely panned, but he just seemed to disregard the rest of the experts in the field. It speaks more to a desire of having experts that agree with him rather than experts that are right.

But, it's not like I'm totally confident Clinton wouldn't have the same problem. It's human nature, really.
 

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
Even I know more than he does. How is that possible. He is a politician for 40 years voting on shit that affects it how does he know literally nothing.
 

Maxim726X

Member
Even I know more than he does. How is that possible. He is a politician for 40 years voting on shit that affects it how does he know literally nothing.

Coming from a former Sanders supporter-- This scares me a great deal for 2 reasons:

1) You've spend 25 years in the Senate. You can't even come up with a skillful dodge to this question? Or... You know... Have any knowledge on the subject?
2) You couldn't foresee this question before coming into the interview? That means one of two things; that either you're incompetent or lazy. I don't like either of those answers.
 

massoluk

Banned
Sanders should know more. He acknowledged that. My point is that I would rather have a president who focuses on domestic policies rather than one who seems to think we need to intervene in conflicts that are not any of our business.

Hows the drug war working out?
How did Reagan's support of the Contras in Nicaragua go?
US support of Pinochet in Chile and Baby Doc in Haiti despite denouncing both?

If you asked the people of Latin America what they wanted to the US to do, I think the majority would say, rather loudly that they don't need or want our "help."

Even nonintervention needs to be made on informed opinion like how US was criticized for not intervening with Rwanda Genocide.
 

digdug2k

Member
Did he really have no answer on the Venezuela stuff? That's a story from like, this week, isn't it? It hadn't occurred to him "I need to formulate some sort of foreign policy for this stuff"?

Oh God, I just went and read his webpage on foreign policy which is really just a long "Bush was bad! Everyone should just get along" rant. I guess I'm not surprised at this now.
 

Koomaster

Member
Remember that NYDN interview where he gave the same shitty answers about how he should "look into" whatever the subject was and people here were excusing blatant ignorance?
Fun time, guess it's not only his core message he has no idea on how to implement.
I've always sort of compared him to a kid running for class president who promises free sodas and no homework for the whole class. Sounds great, but he's got no realistic solution on how to make it work. When called out he just complains about his teachers and the principal of the school and how they are unfair.
 

Moofers

Member
I can't believe Sanders doesn't know everything. HOW DARE HE?!? Meanwhile, Hillary knows all about Latin America. She's just like my abuela! Wow. Much authentic. So normal. Very human!
 
Also, with regard to "I'd rather have a candidate be honest he didn't know than make up some bullshit answer" is a false dichotomy with such a glaringly obvious third option that I don't believe people can't see it. Obviously, we'd al prefer a President be honest about issues about which they are ignorant. But ideally, we want a President ho isn't ignorant about these issues! It's a crazy low bar for a President to say "sure, he doesn't know about this potentially important topic, but let's praise him for admitting it!" No! You don't get points for that. That should be the default behavior.

I'd love to run for president on a "I don't know anything, but I admit it" platform and see how well I do.
 

studyguy

Member
Sanders should know more. He acknowledged that. My point is that I would rather have a president who focuses on domestic policies rather than one who seems to think we need to intervene in conflicts that are not any of our business.

Hows the drug war working out?
How did Reagan's support of the Contras in Nicaragua go?
US support of Pinochet in Chile and Baby Doc in Haiti despite denouncing both?

If you asked the people of Latin America what they wanted to the US to do, I think the majority would say, rather loudly that they don't need or want our "help."

It's useless to say you're going to be non-interventionist in Latin American politics when regardless of our stance, the failures or success of our neighbors will be felt a hundredfold stronger in one way or another than say that of a nation across an ocean.

The thing that gets me is Sanders was gushing about Castro or the Sandinistas not all that long ago, does he really have no opinion on Latin America beyond the socialist aspects? He spoke of the failures of US intervention before sure and yet now in the face of an economic crisis and political discord in Latin America RIGHT NOW that will inevitably impact the entire region including us... radio silence?

LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: I am sure that you know about this topic: various leftist governments, especially the populists, are in serious trouble in Latin America. The socialist model in Venezuela has the country near collapse. Argentina, also Brazil, how do you explain that failure?

BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: You are asking me questions…

LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: I am sure you’re interested in that.

BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: I am very interested, but right now I’m running for President of the United States.

LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: So you don’t have an opinion about the crisis in Venezuela?

BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: Of course I have an opinion, but as I said, I’m focused on my campaign.

Like not even a quip about our neighbors or the people who will likely have to immigrate out of the country to a more stable region north (likely to ours), or otherwise? Nothing? There's nothing to be lauded here when problems are happening not far from our doorstep.
 
Maybe he and and his staff were too busy trying to set up a venue for a Trump debate instead of prepping for this interview on the largest Spanish network in the country that even my parents saw.
 

flkraven

Member
Not sure how you can spin lack of knowledge as a good thing. That's not a difficult question either.

It's crazy, right? Bernie's lack of knowledge is 'refreshing' and preferable over someone that might actually know what their talking about?

So glad this cycle isn't Bernie v Trump. It'd be nothing but 2 bags of air slinging their catch phrases at each other providing zero substance and very little policy discussion.
 

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
Coming from a former Sanders supporter-- This scares me a great deal for 2 reasons:

1) You've spend 25 years in the Senate. You can't even come up with a skillful dodge to this question? Or... You know... Have any knowledge on the subject?
2) You couldn't foresee this question before coming into the interview? That means one of two things; that either you're incompetent or lazy. I don't like either of those answers.

At worst, he just doesn't care at all.


I can't believe Sanders doesn't know everything. HOW DARE HE?!? Meanwhile, Hillary knows all about Latin America. She's just like my abuela! Wow. Much authentic. So normal. Very human!

I guess the only way to spin this is as a positive is to embrace anti-intellectualism and give Bernie a pass on knowing nothing and scolding Clinton for actually knowing anything more than 0.
 
lol It's genuinely amazing to see people just starting to realize why many voters actually supported Clinton in the first place! Because despite her many and numerous supposed faults, she'd actually be FUCKING GOOD AND PREPARED for the highly important and serious job she's running for. Whereas Bernie would be catastrophically terrible and wholly incompetent, something his detractors noticed many, many many months ago!!! But, noooooooo, we're all just establishment $$$$$$hills! Couldn't be that he's all talk, with absolutely zero real game to back things up.

Sigh... it's the pattern that always emerges. People fall in love at first sight, then actually take a peek beneath the curtain and find out the horrific truth. Welcome to reality, folks.

How is she good and prepared? What did she accomplish in her 7 years in the Senate? What did she accomplish as Secretary of State (other than convincing Obama to bomb Libya)?

This post on this topic is even more ridiculous, considering Clinton ILLEGALLY backed a coup that ousted the democratically elected president of Honduras.

Clinton's record:

- Voted FOR the invasion of Iraq
- Voted FOR the bailouts
- Voted FOR the Patriot Act
- Voted FOR renewing the Patriot Act
 

KingK

Member
Wait Clinton is running on something else than being Obama's 3rd term?

That is definitely part of how she's framing her campaign, and it'd be stupid not to. But like I said, nothing is going to pass domestically because republicans will still control congress.

There are actually stark differences between Clinton and Obama in foreign policy base on their records, insider accounts, and even their rhetoric. This causes concern for me because this is by far the area that the presidency has the most influence over. And I don't believe you can just hand wave away her record and accounts of disputes between her and the president just because her campaign is framing itself as Obama's third term in the PR.
 

flkraven

Member
I guess the only way to spin this is as a positive is to embrace anti-intellectualism and give Bernie a pass on knowing nothing and scolding Clinton for actually knowing anything more than 0.

The Bernie movement has really become the democratic version of the radical-right, hasn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom