Bernie's Soviet "honeymoon" and trips to Nicaragua and Cuba are disqualifying.

First you have to show that the policy’s Clinton supported, such as invading Iraq, made the US safer from external threats. Almost no one thinks it did achieve that now. So how exactly will she keep the US safe from external threats?

Sanders positions on foreign policy are available:
ISIS:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-isis/
Russia:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-russia/
NATO:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-nato/

Particularly note that just like Trump, he believes US allies should be paying more of their own costs for their defence.

How were Long, Peron, and Spengler white nationalists? :confused: I mean except in the sense that they were nationalists (for their countries) and that their skin colour was white.

He probably was referring to your “white male self hating” turn of phrase. Also your devotion to the word “cuck” which comes from the white pride side of the internet. And your love of old Mr “Make the Mexicans build a wall”.

Well, he’s certainly not the only person in Russia – nor in the whole former USSR – who thinks so. If anything, it’s meat for the base. But that doesn’t mean Putin or anyone is seriously planning to restore the USSR the way it was, Communism and all. The Communists are an opposition party now.

Why would you expect wages to keep up with productivity in an era where automation transformed so many industries? And who says CEO wages shouldn’t be going up? Who made you the czar of correct laborer to CEO wage ratios?

The problem is that there is also no evidence that Bernie has the slightest clue about radical Islam. The way he responds in the debates to questions about ISIS makes him sound hopelessly naive. He says things like “we need to get the Moose-slim countries to lead the fight against ISIS”. Oh really? What a grand idea, why haven’t the generals thought of that one?

I don’t have any reason to suspect that Bernie would be able to recognize radical Islam until it’s knife started sawing off his head. I don’t think he has any idea about how widespread and pervasive it’s message is.

The fact that they hold any territory at all is an utter disaster.

Right, by Clinton instead of by Bernie or Trump.

Tell that to my friend who came here from Mosul for school several years ago, and now can never go home. Tell it to the Yazidis.

And we do things to mitigate the dangers of swimming pools, livestock, and industrial accidents. When people are conspiring to try to kill you, you are facing a completely different sort of challenge, since they can adapt to the measures you take to protect yourself from them, unlike a swimming pool.

All those trying to argue that Islamic radicals are nothing to worry about should remember that Trump’s demagoguery has been greatly enabled by their attacks in the US and Europe. When* France* becomes one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist in 2015, we have a bigger collective problem than many want to admit.

:confused: What’s wrong with Sanders’ proposal, exactly?

FWIW, I don’t see anything specific wrong with his proposal. But his tendency to avoid foreign policy and pivot back as quickly as possible to bashing Wall Street…that is the problem.

It does not take into account the realities on the ground. There is a global Islamist insurgency underway, and insurgencies do not exist without some level of support from the societies from which they emerge, in this case Sunni Muslim communities. In my opinion, Obama has done a kind of crappy job, but the situation is so difficult that I can’t name a politically feasible action that I would do differently that I would be sure would be an improvement. He is treading a thin tightrope here. Bernie doesn’t even seem to be aware of the tightrope at all, let alone be able to navigate the situation.

We have been working with Muslim communities and countries for a decade and a half now. His proposal adds absolutely nothing new except for naivety.

A problem in what way? I mean surely Americans are more worried about their economic situation and system than a bunch of people killing each other on the other side of the world. I mean sure, they can get worked up about it and get scared into worrying about it coming “over here” but isn’t spouting a platitude and pivoting back to domestic policy perfectly proper?

In the last debate he was asked to differentiate his foreign policy proposal from Clinton’s, and his only topical response was to state that he was going to have the “Moose slim” countries lead the way, as if Clinton’s strategy does not take into account the importance of doing so to the degree that it is possible.

It’s like if I heard about problems of infections spreading in hospitals and I called them up one day and said “hey, when I am in charge I am going to fight the infection with cleanliness and disinfectants”.

Platitudes are a problem when they are the bulk of your foreign policy strategy, and you are running for president of the United States.

Yeah, that’s been bugging me. While making it clear that you have a very specific message and a very specific priority, a President still has to deal with other issues, so Sanders needs better answers on foreign policy.

But, they’re still only terrorists – a criminal problem, not a military problem. They’re no existential threat to any society outside the MENA, and they never will be until they control a whole country and only if it’s a big one.

It’s working for Trump!

Because you can be utterly sure that even 50 years from now, no terrorist group will get their hands on a fission bomb?

So what? You know ours won’t be, not if our worst enemies are ISIS, Iran and Russia. We don’t really need anything like the military force we’ve got now.

BTW, I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that terrorism should be treated as a criminal rather than military issue in many ways. But to take that position in a presidential campaign is clear political suicide. Even Bernie knows better than to say this, although I expect he probably agrees with you deep down.

2011 called, it wants it’s rhetoric back.

That depends on how you define existential threat. France doesn’t exist today the same way that it used to, since it has been in a state of emergency for a while now.

Also, there is no reason to think it’s a good idea to wait until a group intent on destroying you has the capability to do so before responding.

Also, if you think it isn’t a military problem, I suggest you try going to Syria to battle with a police cruiser, 9mm pistol, and night stick, and see how that works out. Or try telling the Belgians they were wrong for deploying their military to the streets when they had guys with AKs and bombs running around loose.

Also, ISIS has influence far beyond the Middle East or North Africa. So your attempt to minimize the issue by restricting it to even that vast geographical area is based on inaccuracies.