Hellwarden
Member
So in terms of commander in chief, democrats have a choice between a war hark and a clueless old man.
Joy.
Joy.
So she shouldn't smile? What else should she do?
The presence of an extreme left is what necessitated that rightward move.
Do you guys not remember the 70s?
It is true he does not have the experience in toppling foreign governments so extremists can fill the power vacuum like Hillary does.
Hahahaha the vote again. Jesus.
Hillary is terrible in foreign policy. She is knowledgeable, but militaristic and interventionist. That alone makes her plans worse.
He is definitely way more focused on domestic affairs (to a fault). I honestly prefer that to the alternatives we have, which is basically a bunch of hawks and whatever Trump actually is.It's not even that. I agree with his foreign policy assessments, but he comes off as if he's not familiar -- or doesn't care -- about foreign policy endeavors at all. I think that's more of people's problems with his foreign policy qualifications.
Yep. He sounds so aloof on the topic.He really should make this and obtaining more black voter support priorities. If he beats Hillary he'll definitely be hurt on foreign policy in the General Election.
Exactly.It's not even that. I agree with his foreign policy assessments, but he comes off as if he's not familiar -- or doesn't care -- about foreign policy endeavors at all. I think that's more of people's problems with his foreign policy qualifications.
Come on man, this guy is too idealistic
Having Iran and Saudi Arabia sit together? Come on man
Are you trying to agree with me?
Yes, they had to bail out the banks, and yes, the banks and bankers were going to walk out scott free for everything they screwed up. The argument is that instead of accepting these things as inevitable from now until the fall of man, we take action to prevent that from happening the next time. Break them up. Alternatively, nationalize them!
The Republicans?Bernie, who is saying we should be doing it alone? What is this answer even?
Regulating those two things wouldn't necessarily stop a crisis either buddy.You want to start to engage on how ignoring derivatives and credit swaps in favor of Jailing the Bankers and Breaking 'em Up will somehow prevent another recession or shift anything back in the favor of The People when the last, and deepest one in 80 years, had EVERYTHING to do with those first two things?
Had Obama been in the Senate at that time, he would have voted for it as well. Dems were pushovers.Hillary will never live down that Iraq vote.
lol..wut?hillary actin like she went and god damn strangled bin laden to death with her bare hands
Hillary is terrible in foreign policy. She is knowledgeable, but militaristic and interventionist. That alone makes her plans worse.
For all but 8 months of my life, I could not get married.Are we still going to be reminded by this in the 2030s? Or how about Reagan's landslide victory in the 80s?
It's in the past and times have changed.
Same for me. He also comes off as being weak too. I don't think he would be able to handle any kind of pressure well :/Bernie is easily the most likable candidate for me, but repeating his fairly limited rhetoric becomes tiresome after a while.
It's not even that. I agree with his foreign policy assessments, but he comes off as if he's not familiar -- or doesn't care -- about foreign policy endeavors at all. I think that's more of people's problems with his foreign policy qualifications.
A whole raft of issues? Is that a real term?
The presence of an extreme left is what necessitated that rightward move.
Do you guys not remember the 70s?
Bernie has to find something new to say on foreign policy.
The thing is, usually when you crash the economy you don't get rewarded for it.Where do you stop? Damn community Savings and Loans crashed the economy once.
The cat's out of the bag. It's about govt oversight and risk control. Breaking up these banks helps no one.
So in terms of commander in chief, democrats have a choice between a war hark and a clueless old man.
Joy.