I feel like Bernie Sanders could very well turn out to be another FDR type president. It was the sort of president I was hoping and hoping Obama would eventually become, but he let me down there. We need someone who really, earnestly cares about trying to better the nation for the sake of the majority, as opposed to the plutocratic few. I just hope that he can get the nomination. If not, I hope whoever does shares at least some of his goals...
I've always argued that there will never be another FDR, not because he was one of kind, but because the system has changed so much. TV has had a huge influence on who we are willing to elect as a president. Somebody in a wheelchair would never stand a chance in today's world. And candidates are so dependent on money to win. But maybe things have shifted again to a place where the next FDR can be elected. The internet has (started to?, already?) replaced TV as the dominant form of media consumption. Thus looking presidential under the cameras is no longer as important. TV ads are less influential. I don't know, I am not sure we've reached the tipping point yet, but I hope Bernie shows that we have.
>The internet has (started to?, already?) replaced TV as the dominant form of media consumption. started to. definitely started to. the rise of the internet is only really a thing for people under 30, and even then a lot of them still watch TV. for the +40 crowd, TV is still the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
I'd argue that history is pretty cyclical though, and I think the conditions we are facing in many ways are similar to the conditions that America was facing in 1932. I think that there will be another FDR (not necessarily another man in a wheelchair, of course, but another leader who just -thought- the way he did) simply because the conditions of our country demands it.
I agree that history is cyclical, although I've always preferred the metaphor of a pendulum. My fear is that the conditions of our country will demand another FDR (and I agree we are close to that now), but they will never reach power because the system is structured against them.
I don't watch mainstream media, so maybe he is being ridiculed there, but at this point his candidacy isn't that unusual. In fact, as far as "fringe" candidates go, he's pretty un-fringey. We live in a fucked up world, where unfortunately the cream doesn't always rise to the top. Ideally, there would be a candidate that had the convictions of Sanders but could also go toe-to-toe with the bad guys of the world and stare them down. Is Bernie this guy? This is a genuine question of mine. Do you think he could elicit fear from our foreign foes? Could he command respect from our allies? It doesn't do much good to have the greatest military on earth if nobody thinks you'll ever use it. I hate war. I wish it didn't exit, but that's just not the world we live in. What is Bernie's take on utilizing our military force? What is his take on the very real threats that face our nation? I ask this because I genuinely want to know. galen -you seem pretty up on him as a candidate. He seems to have clearly defined domestic policy. What about foreign? Could he be the leader of the free world?
Galen's enthusiasm has gotten me to do some research: His issues page addresses: - INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY - GETTING BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS - CLIMATE CHANGE & ENVIRONMENT Fin. But, he has a voting record! We can query that(1)! I flipped back to just after 9/11 and had a look-see: - Voted against the Patriot Act - Voted against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 - Voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001 - As galen mentioned, he voted against the Use of Military Force Against Iraq I'm pretty sure I also saw that he voted for sanctions against Iran and somebody else while I was digging around. In the defense sphere he looks to me to be a civil libertarian who sees a standing military as being for defense. He voted in a way that was consistent with that in 2001 and 2002, at least. I'm interested as to how he voted regarding targeted drone strikes, but I'm not immediately sure what the relevant bills would be. ---- (1) - This is the first site that popped up in google. Take from that what you will.
Thank you for doing my homework for me keifermiller. badged.
Thanks for my first badge! For what it is worth, the sanctions I noticed turned out to be before 9/11. Everybody voted to pass it. It was an extension of Sanctions from the Clinton Administration.
What exactly are the very real threats facing the US? It sure isn't that another country would attack the US, considering yours is the most powerful military in the history of mankind. So what were you referring to?
I am mostly referring to a covert terrorist attack. There are groups of people intent on using unconventional methods to inflict the most possible damage on us. 911 is the best historical example in the U.S.
Here's a summary of what the mainstream media told us happened then: Does that seem credible? Well no. The story is absurd, and therefore simply not true. In other words, 911 is not the best historical example of a grave threat facing the US.
It's not just threats to America, but threats to our (democratic) allies. My main concern for the past year has been China's actions in the South China Sea, which have become a bigger problem as of late. It's contested area that most people recognize as international waters, but which China, along with the surrounding countries of the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan (this is a special case), and Brunei all claim parts of. China is pretty aggressive about it, though, and their claims are some of the most absurd since their country is so far from the area and the other countries have much more history using them as fishing grounds, with Vietnam even establishing a few actual settlements. And an astronomically high amount of international trade runs through these waters. I should describe HOW China is being aggressive, though. They're performing rapid land reclamation projects around these waters on contested islands, and building military bases and airstrips. They declare it their sovereign territory and declare warnings to anybody passing over in the air. Besides this, they've been known to ram fishing boats of nationals of other countries, and they refuse to negotiate any of this except with each country individually so that they have much more pull (as the country that is by far more powerful than any of these individual claimants). It's actually a serious issue, with another country becoming militarized and it possibly pushing towards another bipolar paradigm in international politics. Maybe the US doesn't deserve to be the world superpower, but we're better than the alternative that nobody is really keen on stopping, and the existence and reach of our military is the only thing containing them right now.
Here's the list of military arms sales to Taiwan by the US. That's a lot for a tiny island.
There are always real threats, regardless of the times. You're my age, I'm guessing you recall the time that a small group of radical muslims decided to board a few planes. There are people that are intent on harming us. This is not disputable. That said, there's no arguing that foreign attacks on US soil have been rare, but if nothing else, the result of the 911 reaction from the US proves how important it is to assess a leaders thoughts and capabilities regarding such things. Honestly, there are two things I would hate to see in the white house, a militant war monger or a pacifist. Both would likely lead to catastrophe. I don't know squat about Sanders in this regard, so this is not a critique, rather a question.
We could sustain several 911's a year and they would do less damage to our freedoms and budget than the response to 911 has caused. The terrorist nicked us and we set in with a chainsaw on our own finances and freedoms. Our militarist attitudes make us a bigger danger to ourselves than any threat of terrorism.
there are two things I would hate to see in the white house, a militant war monger or a pacifist. Both would likely lead to catastrophe.
-We've seen the result of the former.
I don't think that GW was weak willed and I don't buy the puppet of Cheney and his cabinet that many people espouse. GW was a man of conviction. He believed strongly in his God given course and I believe that the buck stopped with him. Edit: He was one of the most effective presidents we have ever had. He got more done than anyone gives him credit for. Why? Because the things he accomplished sucked. Whole new branches of government. Tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars etc. Check out Front Line Bush's War. It's a good doc imo.
Here you go for the article : http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/25/george_w_bush_is_smarter_than_you_118125.html :)
I've only been alive for some 20-odd years, but it seems to me that the United States - on a public-facing front since a few presidents before my time - is very much a tempest on the world stage. We have the sheer size, influence, finances and military strength to rival or eclipse almost any other nation on the planet, and yet such power gets wielded with all the tact and nuance of a drunken rhino. Looking at other countries in Europe, Africa, Asia, even South America to a degree, I see peoples who are heavily invested in, understanding of, and perceptive of the world around them, the players involved, and what their motivations are. The degree to which the United States continues to bumble about in self-imposed ignorance as if this was somehow a mark of greatness is mind boggling to me.
Preliminary answer: he opposed the 2002 AUMF which led to the Iraq War. He is generally anti-war; other than that I don't know that much about his foreign policy. (Crucial note: he is against war, but a strong advocate for veterans' benefits. He worked on the Senate VA Committee to reform aid programs.) Editing: He is fairly strongly pro-Israel, which troubles me personally. He supports--and supports financial aid to--the current Ukrainian government. He holds that Arab (PC?) nations should take the lead in the fight against Daesh. He vehemently opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
There's an issue of political expedience that gets overlooked by too many people. In this particular case, pro Israel is about the only position a US politician can be and keep his job. You basically got vehemently pro and pro. I want single payer healthcare goddammit but it's not politically expedient in the US so any politician who agrees with me isn't going to be able to deliver. Like vintage '08 Obama. Take the TPP. Hypothetically. I personally think it's a fast track for every manufacturing job left in America to move to Asia. Among the pro corporate IP protections that seem to be in it. But Obama is very pragmatic and he's very in favor of it. It could be that the global political maneuvers that we're not privy to make it attractive to him strategically. Or he's a sell-out shill in the pocket of the "corporations" (quotes because it's a vague term that gets thrown around all the time. He can't be in all their pockets, some of them don't like the others. Whatever.) If you can follow me, I'm actually being less cynical than most people with strong opinions on these things and less cynical than I usually am about many things. Anyway, national and international politics is this weird job where you have to make big utilitarian decisions that most people won't even know all the details of the pro/con you're weighing while still protecting a job you can literally be voted out of for pissing off too many people. Unless you live in China, then the voting not so much.He is fairly strongly pro-Israel, which troubles me personally.
Absolutely. And it's fascinating/deeply frustrating for me to see the rarity with which politically expedient positions align with popular opinion--even purely domestically. The influence of advocacy groups, of ideologues, and of political cynicism, not to mention necessary foreign relations, on our process is overwhelming.
There was a time not too long ago when being pro-Israel was considered an ideal and not simply a politically expedient position. You, unfortunately, have had to grow up not knowing much else besides Netanyahu, who is a monster. Not all Israeli politicians are like him. Let's not forget that Bernie Sanders is Jewish, as are many of his current and former Democratic Senate colleagues. Off the top of my head, Carl Levin, Russ Feingold, Charles Shumer, Joe Lieberman, all Jewish, all strong supporters of Israel, and all with major liberal cred (maybe with the exception of Lieberman, who seems like a war monger sometimes). For these men I'm sure being pro-Israel has little to nothing to do with political expediency, and much more to do with deeply held convictions. (Of course there are many non-Jewish politicians who also see support for Israel as a matter of principle and not just convenience.) Sadly, support for the ideal of Israel has become difficult in the last number of years thanks to Likud and their nonstop media machine, which by all accounts makes Fox News look like Walter Cronkite. I hope someday soon that Likud will go away, and that Israel will take a step back on their illegal encroachments into captured territory. Unfortunately, we saw in the last election that that day isn't going to come in the immediate term. But a bad government doesn't necessarily signify a bad state (we've had some really bad governments, obviously, but I think on the whole the US is a very positive state for the world). In the long game, support for democratic ideals, for human rights, for economic opportunity, all while protecting an entire people that the world has tried to do away with many times, is the right policy.
he is against war
He seems generally anti-intervention
-Problem is, the bad guys don't care if you want to fight or not, they're still going to slap you in the face. Ideally, our leader wouldn't go around slapping people but when slapped, he/she will drop the hammer. IMO.
The US and US interests can, at times, be indistinguishable. Isolationism--what you're advocating whether you know it or not--has been proven by history to be very bad for a great many people. Isolationism led to literally hundreds of millions of people needlessly suffering and dying in the 20th c. Fortunately, we had these lessons in hand in the days immediately after WWII, and we were able to somewhat contain Stalin's march across Europe. If you like and respect Western Europe at all, you can thank US interventionism, because without it Italy, France, probably even GB would all have become satellite states of the Soviet bloc in the late 40s and early 50s. This isn't to say that interventionism is always a good policy. But it helps to keep in mind that in some situations protecting our interests around the globe is good for the citizens whom we're immediately protecting, and is good for us in the long run. China and Russia currently offer the greatest examples of threats to US interests that could ultimately threaten us or our close allies. Both countries are blatantly violating the modern law we all share that says that countries can't annex territory by force. It is the most essential law of the UN. (Annexation was the catalyst that caused both world wars--Franz Ferdinand was a pretext if anything). At some point, these issues will have to be confronted (hopefully Putin will just implode, but surely China won't). We can hope that diplomacy will prevail, but rule of law is more important than diplomacy, IMO.
Define Foreign Power. If you mean a sovereign state, then yes. If you mean someone with power that is a foreigner to the US, then no. There are real threats that exist. People want to harm the US domestically and abroad. I'd rather they didn't. My guess is that Sanders rathers they didn't too. I'm just wondering to what extent he would use the US military to ensure this? It's a valid question that should be asked of all candidates. He's going to have to answer these things. I like his agenda, which keifermiller outlines well in his comment here, but a huge part of the presidency is foreign policy. Money out of politics - who is going to disagree? Income and wealth inequality? -Who, with a conscience is going to argue against this? Climate change? -Okay, I'm with ya. What about the rest? If he wants to ACTUALLY be president, we need more from him. If he just wants to ensure certain topics get in to the debates etc, then he need not elaborate. It's early in the #sillyseason, I'm sure these things will come up.
Still not convinced it's that much of an issue. I get that there are people that want to harm the US. But by and large, they can't or won't. For all its appearances, terror has killed relatively few people. As you concede, no foreign nation is threatening us. So who is? In any case, you're right, these issues will certainly come up, since we know that Bernie is a serious candidate, in it to win, etc.
You don't want this or this. A President is going to have to make BIG decisions that have life and death implications. Knowing where they stand in regard to utilizing our military is pretty important stuff imo.Still not convinced it's that much of an issue.
Yeah, its one of those things that isn't an issue until its an issue.
I've got to agree with cgod on this point :
We could sustain several 911's a year and they would do less damage to our freedoms and budget than the response to 911 has caused.
For sure. The aftermath of 911 was/is a mess. I never said otherwise, in fact I mentioned it was a reason to know how a leader feels about military might. That said, we may be able to sustain those types of attacks financially but there are other implications. Remember the national psyche after 911? It was awful. Absolutely awful. I'd rather never experience that again. Certainly not several times a year.
Actually, I don't remember it. I'd moved away from the USA about 3 years before, and from the outside, it looked like a lot of media-driven knee-jerk over-reacting (after the first few weeks anyway). Maybe I'm not being 911-sensitive enough, but damn man - you guys allowed what should have been a simple one-time tragedy to become an ongoing tragicomedy of errors which helped to further ruin a country already on the skids.
The first weeks sucked. Then we went to Afghanistan and had the world behind us. Then "W" decided to go after the bad guy that tried to kill his daddy. Imagine a plane takes out the Q1 tower and then the Eureka tower and nothing like it has ever happened before. It would have an effect on you.
I do know a little about those emotions, though. I lived in Oklahoma City in 1995.
BTW I'm gonna pretend you said "Sky Tower" and, um, hmm - some other big building in NZ.
I had to google those two towers to see what you were talking about :-)
HA! I swear I googled largest building in New Zealand. edit: Imagine a plane crashes in to the shire
Google, being helpful - "NZ? Really? Are you sure you didn't mean 'tallest building in Australia' ? I'm pretty sure that's what you meant, so here's your search results!"
What specifically do you want a leader to do to ensure a 9/11 doesn't happen again?
I don't have a specific answer, but I would hope that our president take the appropriate steps to monitor terrorist networks and their intentions. I am not an expert in these things, but I would hope our president would be. Income equality, climate change and campaign finance are all big and important topics that need addressing but our president will still have to protect our nation. There are those that say Bill Clinton specifically warned Bush about Bin Ladin and Bush didn't take the threat seriously enough. I would hope our president not be naive or myopic in their agenda. I know that as a liberal it's not cool to say that national security is important, but it is.
Well, to ignore the point of your argument here (sorry about that), a sizeable portion of people say Bush was warned about Bin Laden and didn't follow closely enough because it was politically uncomfortable for him with the personal ties his family had to Bin Laden's network. Keeping military and surveillance tabs on his friends was ironically something he avoided before explosively expanding NSA programs to do just that post-9/11.
I became so jaded that it just doesn't matter who becomes the president. The problem isn't picking the best president but rather, voting for the right congressman that actually cares for the people rather the corporate world and lobbyists. We need to set a lot of term limits including an age limit for the US Congress. We need more diversity, younger, and smarter people in the Congress doing the right things that Sanders want to do. Sanders could be the next FDR but not as long as we have this messed up Congress that votes for money rather than the things we need. Sanders is just being hyped up like Obama was and look how that turns out.
I think the thing that's different between Sanders and Obama (and the thing that makes me actually excited about Sanders) is that Sanders is talking about getting the people actively involved to achieve his goals. Simply put, he recognizes that he will accomplish nothing without the help of the people, which makes me think he will actively try to attain the help of the people. If he actively tries to get people involved in politics (telling people to write to their representatives or get involved in some other way) then I really think he can do a much better job as President because he'll have the influence he needs to accomplish the things this country needs. Edit -- To develop this a bit, I don't remember Obama being that big into getting the people involved. Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly...
Obama marketed very well, the "Yes, We Can" posters were all over the place and the youth were involved in getting votes for him. I do remember people getting involved in the first election, the second election, most people just didn't care. I have not seen anything from Sanders that tells me differently. Nobody in my family knows who he is or what he've done so far.
It's nothing like Obama. Obama was fairly unknown. He didn't have much of a record. All we could go on is what he said. What he said ended up being very different from what he actually did. Sanders has been around a long time. His record shows that he does care, and that he is who he says he is.
We have candidates in the last two elections with much better and consistent voting records and they still didn't win. Sanders isn't well known either, sorry but nobody knew who he was when I talked about him. Obama, everyone knew and that had to do with how fresh he was. Sanders is your typical looking white old politician that just happens to have the same harmony with the majority of the Americans, which really doesn't change anything. I know that the looks shouldn't matter, the voting records should matter, and so on but a few studies have shown that people do consider the looks more than the records. Even if Sanders win, what can he do that the GOP can't block or interfere with for the next 4 years that they've done to Obama. Sanders isn't a magical cure. He cannot undo the decades worth of lobbyist efforts, corruption, and so in the Congress that will continue to be the biggest problem we have. Like you said, what politicians says often turns out something they didn't do. There's no evidence you can give me that ensures that once he is elected, he would do what he said. All we're seeing is marketing, that's it. Marketing is what Obama did very very well.
I agree, any restrictions can be harmful. However, it is not like these unlimited terms congressman won't do big things without regard for long term impact. We have an average of 80+% of re-election rate for congressman in the past several decades. VP, House of Reps and Senate can serve unlimited amount of terms (4, 2, 6 year terms respectively). I'm not asking for 2 term limit, I'm asking for reasonable limits. Unfortunately, this will never happen because it has to be an amendment as the SCOTUS said the states does not have the power to limit the terms: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton
Article is gone... Subject should read: Dear Media, get your head out of Hillary and Jeb's ass. For every article I see about Bernie, I see 4-5 about Hillary. The republican are all just racing for second place at this point. I'm not sure the republican will win a presidential election for awhile. W really hurt the overall population idea of what a republican is.
Hillary Clinton has a lot of support, but if the Republicans manage to put forward a compelling candidate they might still have a chance. I think that the Republicans should choose someone from the moderate end of the party to this end. although that raises the issue of who to chose that would also be popular with the base.
I am disappointed that the author took down the original version of this article, but I can understand if they wanted their blog post to be taken seriously. After looking at the candidates and their positions and record, it seems that Bernie Sanders is the only legitimate candidate, in the sense he wishes to lead the country in a specific direction in regard to his ideology and beliefs. The other candidates are either motivated by financial or political gain, or a desire for sheer power. Even if Hillary wins the nomination, I'm still voting for Bernie. I'm not sure how draft posts work, so forgive me if anyone sees this posted twice.
I was genuinely surprised at the content of the article. I really thought it was going to be "America is never going to elect this guy, he's a flash in the pan that excites the younger portion of the electorate, today's new media darling and tomorrow's old news, he's too old, he's too far to the left, he polls well in states with small populations but not in the South and west, yada yada yada..." Thing is, I believe all those are completely legitimate criticisms of the Sanders campaign. I would dearly love to see a candidate who inspires younger voters into activism and engagement in the political process and who can help re-frame some of the tired old debates we've had for a generation. I'd also like to see all that done by a candidate who is actually electable. In my opinion, even if there were no other considerations, his age disqualifies him for the office. I am not now nor will I ever vote for a president who would be 84 years old at the end of his term. I lived through the Reagan era and it was ghastly-- you could see the man wasn't physically (and, ultimately, mentally) up to the job in his 2nd term when he was in his mid-70s. Reagan was a paragon of physical health when he entered the office but no septuagenarian is fit for the most stressful, taxing job in the world year after year after year. I'm not being ageist, I'm being realistic. You wouldn't hire a 75 year old man to be a firefighter or a cop and nobody would speak against you for not doing it. It's absurd to think that a person that old could handle the insane levels of stress and exhaustion that come with the job of President. Reagan's staff routinely limited his work hours, gave him long mid-day naps, trotted him out for easy photo ops, and sheltered the public from the true nature of his capacity to do the work of his office. Being the head of this country is a younger person's game. Hate to say it, but Bernie missed his moment. I suspect his real legacy will never be as President but rather as the leader of a new minority movement that can have real impact in coming years, particularly through the young activists who have signed on and will be affected by what they experience as part of an insurgent, outsider group.
He will be the barometer for how fed up with two party politics the country is. I sadly suspect he will not fare much better than Ralph Nader, as Democrats and their media mouthpieces will sufficiently convince most interested parties that a vote for Bernie is a waste of their vote and voting for him will hand the White House to the Republican Death Star. I'm open to being pleasantly surprised, however. Again, if the nation is suitably fed up with two party politics they will ignore the Democrats' "wasting your vote" claims and vote for him anyway.