No I agree that his FP argument needs a lot more work but I don't really think it's something that's worrying. The only worrying part is that you have hawks like Trump, etc who want to kill civilians, etc and turn our country into the police station of the world that might appeal to a lot of people and Bernie might come off as "weak" in a general debate in that regard.
And FP is the most important aspect of being a president because you have the most control over that area of government. I would love him on a presidential cabinet because then he would be able to focus specifically on his niche issues of economic reform, which I think are very important. I think his issues and focus would be lost in the presidential seat.
Quote:
edit: I'm doing a little research and it says the first yay vote Bernie had for funding the Iraq war bill was the 2006 bill that offered aid to Katrina victims. Do you have a link or something where it shows the one from 2003?
And FP is the most important aspect of being a president because you have the most control over that area of government. I would love him on a presidential cabinet because then he would be able to focus specifically on his niche issues of economic reform, which I think are very important. I think his issues and focus would be lost in the presidential seat.
Yes and he's just as qualified as nearly every other president in regards to FP. Almost all of them had no prior FP experience. Even governors have little to no foreign policy experience. That's why judgment is viewed as being just as important.
edit: I just read that no governor elected to office has ever had any prior FP experience. And the last time someone had relevant FP experience (besides Bush Sr. who was the head of the CIA - but they don't make foreign policy) was Taft.
Let's be straight up for a second. Whether judgment is important or not, having a Secretary of State run for the Presidency gives her a massive edge over literally everyone in foreign policy. Furthermore, I don't believe any reasonable person would weigh a 2002 vote for a war in Iraq (somethings the majority supported and that passed based on the political atmosphere in the US at the time) as demonstrating poor judgment when her much more recent and very successful tenure as Secretary of State shows pretty ****ing great judgment (and do not @ me on Benghazi unless you watched all eleven hours of testimony and are aware that requests for more support never reached Hillary herself, that we did not know about this attack sufficiently in advance to do anything, and that at the time people claim she "lied" wee were literally still receiving information).
The myth that Bernie's "excellent judgment" on one damn war issue places him anywhere near her of FP or somehow delegitimizates her significant lead over him in FP is absurd, and I'm glad she's been calling it out in debates.
Now, let's get another thing straight - as an elected representative, if she legitimately believed the majority of her constituents would support the war and that the war would help protect those constituents, especially as one of the Senators for New York, it is her job and duty to vote to approve such a war. It's not all just about "judgment" here.
Let's be straight up for a second. Whether judgment is important or not, having a Secretary of State run for the Presidency gives her a massive edge over literally everyone in foreign policy. Furthermore, I don't believe any reasonable person would weigh a 2002 vote for a war in Iraq (somethings the majority supported and that passed based on the political atmosphere in the US at the time) as demonstrating poor judgment when her much more recent and very successful tenure as Secretary of State shows pretty ****ing great judgment (and do not @ me on Benghazi unless you watched all eleven hours of testimony and are aware that requests for more support never reached Hillary herself, that we did not know about this attack sufficiently in advance to do anything, and that at the time people claim she "lied" wee were literally still receiving information).
The myth that Bernie's "excellent judgment" on one damn war issue places him anywhere near her of FP or somehow delegitimizates her significant lead over him in FP is absurd, and I'm glad she's been calling it out in debates.
But it's a relevant talking point. It shouldn't be his only relevant talking point in regards to judgment, I agree, but to sweep it under the rug is a cop out since it was decisions like that which helped cause the mess we're in with ISIS, etc. And Libya was only a few years ago.
And no one said she doesn't have the edge, but truth be told, it doesn't make Sanders any less qualified for president since every president since Taft has had little to no foreign policy experience. A lot times that's where the VP comes in to play (such as Obama picking Biden or Bush picking Cheney).
Using the foreign policy experience argument is pointless because it's not like he's Sarah Palin and completely clueless while saying things like he can see Russia from his house or whatever the hell she said.
Now, let's get another thing straight - as an elected representative, if she legitimately believed the majority of her constituents would support the war and that the war would help protect those constituents, especially as one of the Senators for New York, it is her job and duty to vote to approve such a war. It's not all just about "judgment" here.
And this is her biggest problem, it makes it look like she can't think for herself. She always has to wait and see what everyone else thinks of how everyone else feels before coming to a decision.
I wouldn't use that argument again. It only proves people's views of her as a flip-flopper. There were plenty of arguments (such as from Sanders) as to why the Iraq War would be a disaster. She still chose to vote yes. And no, that shouldn't be conveniently swept under the rug or dismissed as being unimportant or irrelevant in 2016 when our biggest foreign threat today comes from a group that her decision helped create.
But it's a relevant talking point. It shouldn't be his only relevant talking point in regards to judgment, I agree, but to sweep it under the rug is a cop out since it was decisions like that which helped cause the mess we're in with ISIS, etc. And Libya was only a few years ago.
And no one said she doesn't have the edge, but truth be told, it doesn't make Sanders any less qualified for president since every president since Taft has had little to no foreign policy experience. A lot times that's where the VP comes in to play (such as Obama picking Biden or Bush picking Cheney).
Using the foreign policy experience argument is pointless because it's not like he's Sarah Palin and completely clueless while saying things like he can see Russia from his house or whatever the hell she said.
Nobody's sweeping it under the rug, they're pointing out that it's been 14 years and she was SoS well after that vote. She's pointed out that Obama trusted her judgment. Nearly half of all primary voters last time trusted her judgment. Her favorability as SoS showed people in general trusted her judgment. Focusing on that one vote is low and and shows very narrow analysis of the situation by Senator Sanders.
And yes, it does make him less qualified. Than former Presidents? Perhaps not. Than Hillary Clinton? Yep, you bet your ass!
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
And this is her biggest problem, it makes it look like she can't think for herself. She always has to wait and see what everyone else thinks of how everyone else feels before coming to a decision.
I wouldn't use that argument again. It only proves people's views of her as a flip-flopper. There were plenty of arguments (such as from Sanders) as to why the Iraq War would be a disaster. She still chose to vote yes. And no, that shouldn't be conveniently swept under the rug or dismissed as being unimportant or irrelevant in 2016 when our biggest foreign threat today comes from a group that her decision helped create.
FIRST of all, literally how does "elected politicians represent and vote for the interests of their constituents" paint her as a flip flopper? That IS American politics, that is our government's foundation, and that is what every Senator ought to do. There were arguments from both sides, not just Bernie and those who voted no, and she chose to vote yes because she and the majority of people and elected officials all believed that it was necessary. Second, yes, it is less important at this point, because regardless of who made that vote and regardless of its products, ISIS is a different and far more formidable entity, and one that began to develop in earnest while SHE was in office as SoS.
Nobody's sweeping it under the rug, they're pointing out that it's been 14 years and she was SoS well after that vote. She's pointed out that Obama trusted her judgment. Nearly half of all primary voters last time trusted her judgment. Her favorability as SoS showed people in general trusted her judgment. Focusing on that one vote is low and and shows very narrow analysis of the situation by Senator Sanders.
It is not low to point that out or to bring up Libya, or Benghazi (though I hate bringing that up because it feels like such a republican thing to do and was blown out of proportion) which were decisions made WHILE Sec. of State. Hillary is a known hawk so while she has FP experience, that does not mean she has good judgment in the eyes of every voter.
Quote:
And yes, it's does make him less qualified. Than former Presidents? Perhaps not. Than Hillary Clinton? Yep, you bet your ass!
No one is saying she isn't more qualified in FP. But as she'll tell you there's more to the job than just foreign policy as well. My point is Sanders lack of FP experience doesn't make him less qualified for the job IN GENERAL. In that case, most presidents weren't qualified for the job, including Obama, who Clinton is currently riding to the polls.
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
FIRST of all, literally how does "elected politicians represent and vote for the interests of their constituents" paint her as a flip flopper? That IS American politics, that is our government's foundation, and that is what every Senator ought to do. There were arguments from both sides, not just Bernie and those who voted no, and she chose to vote yes because she and the majority of people and elected officials all believed that it was necessary. Second, yes, it is less important at this point, because regardless of who made that vote and regardless of its products, ISIS is a different and far more formidable entity.
I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to other people in the Senate at first. But even then, everyone knew the Iraq War had nothing to do with 9/11 and there was plenty of doubt about WMD in Iraq. So bringing up New York as a talking point is irrelevant because Saddam/Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11 and everyone knew that.
Let's be straight up for a second. Whether judgment is important or not, having a Secretary of State run for the Presidency gives her a massive edge over literally everyone in foreign policy. Furthermore, I don't believe any reasonable person would weigh a 2002 vote for a war in Iraq (somethings the majority supported and that passed based on the political atmosphere in the US at the time) as demonstrating poor judgment when her much more recent and very successful tenure as Secretary of State shows pretty ****ing great judgment (and do not @ me on Benghazi unless you watched all eleven hours of testimony and are aware that requests for more support never reached Hillary herself, that we did not know about this attack sufficiently in advance to do anything, and that at the time people claim she "lied" wee were literally still receiving information).
The myth that Bernie's "excellent judgment" on one damn war issue places him anywhere near her of FP or somehow delegitimizates her significant lead over him in FP is absurd, and I'm glad she's been calling it out in debates.
Now, let's get another thing straight - as an elected representative, if she legitimately believed the majority of her constituents would support the war and that the war would help protect those constituents, especially as one of the Senators for New York, it is her job and duty to vote to approve such a war. It's not all just about "judgment" here.
Wasn't it like 50-25 in favor of Clinton in December or something?
It was 50-25 in favor of Hillary a few days ago... And their history leading up to this current 50-50 split is gone... There might be a server issue? I don't know. We'll see in the coming days leading up to NV.
EDIT: Retro is right. We don't have enough polls to be able to actually get a sense of how to gauge it. Which is probably why Nate Silver adjusted it.
Do you guys think that Obama is going to be beloved by Democrats like or greater than Bill Clinton in the years ahead?
I feel like he has a good change to be remembered well, especially from Democrats, after he leaves office and he doesn't have certain news stations or presidential candidates bashing him at every second.
Do you guys think that Obama is going to be beloved by Democrats like or greater than Bill Clinton in the years ahead?
Most Democrats like him and understand how much republicans in congress hated hmi just because he was Black. Mitch McConnell the Republican Majority leader of the senate literally said that his main goal was to Destroy Obama Obama really wanted to do some good things and he did but our country would have been in a better position if they just worked with him instead of trying to make him look bad for their own evil satisfaction.
But as she'll tell you there's more to the job than just foreign policy as well. My point is Sanders lack of FP experience doesn't make him less qualified for the job IN GENERAL. In that case, most presidents weren't qualified for the job, including Obama, who Clinton is currently riding to the polls. 
A pretty good article.
Obama really wanted to do some good things and he did but our country would have been in a better position if they just worked with him instead of trying to make him look bad for their own evil satisfaction.