2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSo I was watching Bill Maher.
Last edited Sat Feb 6, 2016, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)
And there was one thing that really got under my skin; it was a particular kind of derision directed at nobody else but Bernie.
It was how Alex Wagner was astounded at the thought of Bernie getting on the Air Force One.
And it's not just her. I also remember Chris Matthews being astounded at the thought of Bernie overseeing the CIA.
I don't think any presidential candidate faces that kind of derision, especially when it comes to them potentially being a commander-in-chief.
Because, do they say that about Chris Christie, a blowhard bully who said he's gonna sue Obama for the Iran deal? Does anybody think he's gonna get along with anybody? Marco Rubio, the billionnaires' butt-boy. He's gonna handle pressure with regard to foreign affairs? If we had an attack, he might faint in the oval office (at least that's how I see him). And Donald Trump? He's literally the caricature of a country. Can you imagine him going to the G8 meeting and talking to Angela Merkel? We'll be the laughing stock of the world. And does he have any idea about, well, any foreign policy matter really?
If you look at the commentary about the clown car and their foreign policy, they come at it with actual criticism -that it's gonna exacerbate situations in the ME, or whatever. But they do seem to be comfortable with the idea of any of them being a commander-in-chief, at least more comfortable than they are with Bernie.
So that was a curious thing for me.
If you have a case to make, then make your case as to why you don't think he would be a good commander-in-chief. And they're not making any case. They're just so befuddled and flabbergasted at the idea of Bernie directing foreign policy. So why is that?
I think it's fundamentally because when they think of foreign policy and the president's handle of it, they immediately associate it with war. Not diplomacy. Because we're so used to that. We don't really know how to engage the world anymore in other ways than coercion and arm-twisting and aggression when there's a difference.
And don't tell me it's because of his "lack of experience" that he somehow deserves that kind of derision.
He certainly has more experience in foreign policy than George W. Bush or Reagan did. Or Barack Obama, for that matter.
The derision directed at Bernie when it comes to foreign policy matters is the derision directed at what his rare breed of philosophy represents -he's a dove. Certainly by modern standard, at least.
They're scornful of the idea of Bernie directing intelligence agencies because he would actually treat them as they ought to be treated -as government employees working for public good, and not as a monstrous behemoth that they have become; it's because he might even represent a breakaway from war path, to possibly, a path toward peace. And the corporate media's not interested in that.
Remember. The way Bernie opposed the Iraq War was far more vigorous than the way Obama was. He was very upset at the idea of unilateral action with no factual merits.
And remember. Even supposedly liberal congress members bought into the Gulf War in the 90s because they believed Iraqi soldiers were unplugging babies from incubators (which was a farce, of course. The woman who testified in front of congress was the daughter of Kuwaiti ambassador. She lied). Bernie didn't buy it.
He, as a president, will face challenges, of course. And I probably won't agree with every action he takes abroad. But we can be sure that he will do everything in his power, look into every detail, and talk to as many partners around the world, before he takes military action. His record shows that.
I happen to be an IR major, and foreign policy is something very important to me. The biggest reason I support Bernie -besides the economic policy- is because he's a dove (in loose terms). I'm not saying I'm perfectly in line with his foreign policy stance, but he's certainly a chance -a chance for us to start transforming the way we engage the world.
To my mind, it's because he's a dove that it has to be him. The world is going down in flames, and it's simply not sustainable. The empire has to wind down on its own; or it's gonna be a destruction from within.
Hillary's neocon connections in Washington concern me. They concern me very much.
The way she was talking about Russia in the last debate was precisely the neocon position. That horrifies me.
She's deeply in bed with the Saudis and other warmongering states in the ME, and that should concern everybody.
As far as foreign policy goes, Bernie's the best option we got.
Chris Matthews and others, who couldn't see what the Iraq War really was, don't see that. And they still talk.
Hopefully, voters will have better judgment than Chris Matthews.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 6, 2016, 02:24 PM - Edit history (1)
Chimpy looked perfectly natural to them.
"It was how Alex Wagner was astounded at the thought of Bernie getting on the Air Force One.
And it's not just her. I also remember Chris Matthews being astounded at the thought of Bernie overseeing the CIA"
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)at the root of their derision - besides being a democratic socialist.
Dem on
(21 posts)A socialist? Not so much.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
But bear in mind this poll was taken last June. Perhaps the percentage of those who would vote for a socialist has gobe up since then.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Or in other words it's the good ole boy's club (some women allowed).
daleanime
(17,796 posts)I loved how she refused to give a preference, because she's a journalist, when she clearly had one. Seems to me that being a journalist doesn't mean that you pretend something doesn't exist. If the water is wet, you say so. That's called being honest.
Bill gave her a tall glass of STFU, when he said "fuck, yeah" about him being on Air Force One. Didn't he even lean in for effect?
If Disney's Goofy was on point with keeping us on track as a country, then I could see HIM on Air Force One. This looksism about who is presidential or not is bullshit and one of the reasons we're so off as a country. I find it to be infantile nonsense .
Mira
(22,380 posts)in the re-run.
It endeared me to Bill Maher more, and I had to with a heavy heart learn this about her whom I had liked in the past. It was dumb for her to not state her preference which was obvious to all anyway. If they hide behind their jobs and are inauthentic, then we don't need that kind of guest.
Can you imagine the hoist on air force one that would be needed for Christie within a year after private chefs and huge white house refrigerators to roam at night?
Or the cobwebs on the gas tanks because Rubio is off taking breaks and just doesn't show up for the job?
Or the gold spray paint all over it if it were Trump, and the orange hair plugging the exhausts?
Or the way it would not crank for Cruz because it just can't stand to have him on board?
Or the white robed Christ impostor to pose with Carson on the stairwell?
Or the round shouldered mumbling and beaten Bush dragging Momma and Bro up the stairs to help him with the members of the press on board, and schlepping Dad on his back to let him make another parachute jump?
I stop - because I don't want to continue on and imagine Mr. Fiorina on an air force one couch eating chocolates, just so that Carly can pretend to be spending time with him......
and am cracking up! But if those sons a beeches had good ideas, I'd deal with all of what you said!
onecaliberal
(32,863 posts)Even though Bill Maher, immediately answered fuck yeah to Alex, the disrespect is unbelievable. I hope every last one of those corporate hacks lose their jobs when Bernie is elected POTUS. I'm done watching it. The revolution will not be televised. The people who support SBS see these hacks for what the truly are.
mountain grammy
(26,623 posts)Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)....a Bernie supporter donates money.
The pundits, Matthews in particular, just can't understand why Bernie is so popular and that is the problem. They are so far removed from us and they just can't wrap their brains around the fact that the general public is tired of the bullshit.
narnian60
(3,510 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Cher
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)My total for Bernie to date - $ 505.
Let's all pitch in where and how we can.
Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)He is hanging out with Establishment types who want to shut Bernie the F up! Tweety needs to go. Whatever happened to MSNBC who went after Keith Oberman for a campaign donation? This is much, much worse! Double standard anyone?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)He's not some noob or crackpot who has no idea how government works.
leftcoastmountains
(2,968 posts)In fact I was debating whether I wanted to watch his latest
show. I guess I will not. Thanks for the heads up! I also
didn't like the way he treated Thom Hartmann last week.
He was very dismissive of him.
Response to leftcoastmountains (Reply #8)
Ed Suspicious This message was self-deleted by its author.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)I also thought it was strange when Maher blamed the internet for people being misinformed. Thom was clearly the smartest one there.
elias49
(4,259 posts)It's become forced, scripted.
Sure they need some kind of 'script' bu t I tired of his arrogance and his inability to deal with dissent from his views,
I just think he's worn out his novelty.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)Well the one thing Thom Hartmann did say that most Bernie supporters wont do is he said he will support the nominee, either Sanders or Clinton, because he is supporting the party, not just the 1 person. I totally agree, I will support the party, whomever is nominated.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How do you know "most" Sanders supporters won't "do"?
Or is that just something you made up?
No I did not make it up, its not scientific, just an observation I have made, you can believe or not, but just go into other forum areas and see for yourself. I have asked and been told my many they would either stay home or write Bernie in......sooooo
cui bono
(19,926 posts)about what they are trying to peddle.
At least half of the party membership wants their party back from the DLC/Third Way corporate friendly leadership. If we get a 'pre-selected' candidate who doesn't represent the people and carries water for banksters and insurance companies and we don't want that anymore it's no one's fault for people not showing up than those who pushed Hillary on us and supported her.
The oddest thing is that Hillary and her supporters are trying so hard to convince us that she's a progressive and they claim they want progressive policy. If that is so, then get behind Sanders, because all his policies are actually progressive. He's shown he is a viable candidate. There is no more reason to support Hillary over Sanders when his policies are exactly what the Democratic Party was founded upon.
We want the party to get back to its roots. We don't want a corporate friendly party anymore that takes care of banksters and makes the people bail them out rather than the other way around. That's supposed to be the GOP's job.
If you shove something undesirable to people and they reject it, it's time to think about giving them someone they can be proud to vote for.
.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)new voters who vote for bernie may not come back to the polls in november.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)it's YOUR fault.
.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)the master: bill clinton, the master deceiver, cheater, who can lie his way out of anything.
sometimes they don't even break up with you so they can continue blaming you.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)If you are going to assert that most Bernie supporters won't support the nominee, you need to back it up with some evidence.
Well, ask and dont BS back and say I asked and all will support her.....Bullshit ...ask the "progressive Bernie supporters", ask the ones that are basically wanting too string Clinton up by her heels, ask the supporters who are calling for her head on a platter, which is many supporters of Bernie, if they will support her.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)you need to provide the evidence or let it go and move on.
ok then just for fun, everyone who responded to my post...you are Bernie supporters I presume, so if he does not get the nomination, and yes I know he wont lose.......but if he did would you vote for Clinton or something else......just a non scientific question, but please answer it truthfully...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)cocaine. He needs to speak with a doctor who has handled cocaine overdoses. A doctor who works in an emergency room, say in an LA hospital, might be appropriate.
To speak of using cocaine so nonchalantly on TV is irresponsible.
Sorry. Not funny at all.
Model Katy French
Preliminary results from yesterday's postmortem at Our Lady's in Navan suggested the 24-year-old's brain suffered massive damage after her heart stopped.
While it could be some days before gardaÌ definitively establish whether the model's death was drug-related, sources confirmed that traces of cocaine had been found.
A senior garda was able to say last night: 'We strongly suspect that drugs contributed to her death. This was a previously healthy person being brought to hospital in a collapsed state.'
An informed source said: 'It appears Katy's heart stopped, causing the blood to stop pumping and depriving her brain of oxygen. After a short period, the lack of oxygen causes irreversible brain damage.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-500153/Top-model-died-massive-brain-damage-suspected-cocaine-overdose.html
Lamar Odoms alleged accidental drug overdose could likely leave the former NBA player with brain damage. It is being said that the 35-year-old suffered a stroke after allegedly going on a weekend long cocaine bender, which led to the tragic situation hes currently in.
If Lamar Odom, 35, were to come out the coma that he is in, it is likely that the NBA player will have some damage to his brain. The former Lakers player is struggling to stay alive after he reportedly went on a weekend long drug bender with virtually every drug imaginable and was found unconscious at a luxury brothel in Nevada.
http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/10/14/lamar-odom-brain-damage-stroke-drug-use-coma-crack-cocaine/
On May 3, 1995, Busey overdosed on cocaine and decided he'd never touch the drug again. More than 18 years later, he's kept his promise. "Cocaine was my devil that I danced with in my life," he says. "The devil has been sent away and now I dance with nothing but angels."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/gary-busey-cocaine-motorc_n_4538289.html
With stimulants, such as cocaine, the central nervous system accelerates breathing, which increases the heart rate, blood pressure and body temperature. These variables can contribute to a seizure, stroke, heart attack or death.
http://www.addictionhelpcenter.com/overdose-and-brain-damage/
Another example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2077778/
Cocaine‐induced brain damage can be divided into primary neurotoxic effects causing toxic encephalopathy, secondary effects of compromised cerebral blood flow in ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, cerebral vasculitis and vasospasm, and tertiary effects due to hypoxia as a result of cardiopulmonary collapse. Toxic leucoencephalopathy mainly affects white matter (WM) tracts serving higher cerebral function, thereby leading to altered personality, attention deficits and memory impairment in mild cases and to dementia, coma and brain death in severe cases. There are numerous legal and illegal substances provoking toxic encephalopathy, which could develop gradually or acutely.1,2,3,4 This is, to our knowledge, the first report of fatal cocaine‐associated encephalopathy, in a patient who had not taken cocaine previously, assessed by proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H‐MRS).
Maybe Bill Maher thinks cocaine is fun (I think I heard him say something to that effect in a recent show), but doctors who treat cocaine overdoses would strongly disagree with him.
If I misunderstood him, I apologize. But I think he should also apologize to his viewers if there was any way anyone else could have misunderstood and thought he said that cocaine could be fun.
Things that cause a risk of a stroke are not fun.
Strongly.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)your point is well taken, but the larger point of the segment was that people should be allowed to do dangerous things, if they know the risks and agree to them. Cocaine is obviously a dangerous, highly addictive drug that can cause sudden deaths. But lots of people have used it recreationally and lived to tell.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)I saw it too! It's not Bill's view though. He supports Bernie. He has all kinds of guests on. Geez, Armstrong Williams actually seemed to understand what was up.
Alex made me barf! MSNBC, what is it good for for?? I know there was a song about War during Viet Nam, but those few words keeps rattling around in my head!
THEY DON'T WANT any change! I got Mine, You get Yours mentality!
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)Alex Wagner calls herself a progressive, but she's not. Any true progressive would welcome the idea of Bernie Sanders becoming Commander in Chief.
dae
(3,396 posts)Thats their new attack plan shame on them b/c it wont gain traction.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)because she's a woman...
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)"I think it's fundamentally because when they think of foreign policy and the president's handle of it, they immediately associate it with war. Not diplomacy"
And besides. WAR makes for higher ratings, more commercials and more money.
I agree with Matt............
......Hillary? Not so much.
PWPippin
(213 posts)I had enjoyed her show and was sorry when it was discontinued. She seemed to be a fair journalist with good insight and interviewing skills. She lost me with this kind of reaction. Ah, well.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)though, like 99.9999% of MSM newsreaders cannot grasp what is happening in front of their eyes. Matthews is dead to me. His failure to wear a Hillary button everytime he appears in front of the cameras is just another example of is intellectual dishonesty. Of course, his job (and his income) is on the line so it is understandable. If I thought there was a chance I'd have to pay a 50% tax rate, or more, on my income I'd be upset too.
tblue37
(65,403 posts)but[b only to income above a certain amount, and besides, the very wealthy get much more of their income from sources that are taxed at much lower rates than the rates applied to what they earn from working (if in fact they work at all).
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)That is a great way to put it. That hack disgusts me to no end, and it's even worse coming from a so-called liberal.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Hillary comes off as too Wall Street, while Bernie Sanders is positioned as Main Street.
My future is best invested in Main Street not Wall Street.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 6, 2016, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)
Wagner and Matthews are pro Hillary, big time. It's to the point where I avoid them.
As for foreign policy,,,,, keep our ass out of war and I'm happy. This should not be a problem for Bernie.
Next!!!!
nuxvomica
(12,429 posts)They don't imagine the clown-car candidates as president because they can't imagine them winning. Clearly, Wagner can imagine Sanders winning now so she takes it a step farther and imagines him as commander and chief and finds that absurd. Expect people to dismiss him in this manner all the way up to inauguration day and beyond.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)understand them. If they did they would not fit in so well and be able to clearly monetize their talents in the way they do.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)He or she is going to face an entire presidency's worth of obstruction and outright hostility.
Even if Dems take back some seats we've lost, it's not going to change the opposition from increasing its attacks.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)I don't see Bernie spending the first seven years of his two terms, trying to appease the impediments. We already know that script too well. And Dame Hillary will be even more hamstrung with all the IOUs she'll be trying not to violate.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)They're not the boss. Well, at least they're not supposed to be.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I wonder why?
Sanders certainly LOOKS more "traditional" getting on AF1 that Clinton!
Maybe it's because Sanders flies coach.....
But really...
Who gives a rat's ass what THOUGHTS astound Ms Wagner.... or what someone looks like getting on AF1?
This is all they got?
Paulie
(8,462 posts)standard economy sized ones...
http://blogs.reuters.com/photographers-blog/2009/03/06/welcome-aboard-air-force-one/
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)HubertHeaver
(2,522 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 6, 2016, 10:13 PM - Edit history (1)
Gerald Ford getting off Air Force One.
<iframe width="854" height="480" src="
Not Sure
(735 posts)Especially now that oil is so cheap. They're all losing their asses off and conflict scaring up prices is the only hope. Bernie is the only one who wants peace. Peace is bad for business. Worse yet, he doesn't answer to the corporate overlords because he doesn't have to. Again, that's bad for business. It seems to me business is the problem, not Bernie.
metroins
(2,550 posts)People saying this world is going down in flames are not comparing it to the world 20,30 and 40 years ago.
A person as dovish as Sanders would allow unstable regimes in the world to stabilize and consolidate.
I'm sorry, but I do not think he would be good for foreign policy.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)WASHINGTON Barack Obamas offer to meet without precondition with leaders of renegade nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran touched off a war of words, with rival Hillary Rodham Clinton calling him naive and Obama linking her to President Bushs diplomacy."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19933710/ns/politics-the_debates/t/clinton-obama-naive-foreign-policy/
I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive, was Hillary's quote on the matter.
metroins
(2,550 posts)You can find anything said about anybody.
I believe Sanders is too dovish.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
metroins
(2,550 posts)I had cake at Christmas and ate it as well.
Just because she thought that of Obama, during a primary, doesn't remove me from thinking that about Sanders.
basselope
(2,565 posts)The only they can do is screw up if they are a hawk.
What does this even mean... "allow unstable regimes in the world to stabilize and consolidate."
What is this this "allow" thing? The US will not "allow". Who are we to make that decision for another country?
It is THAT type of thinking that got us stuck where we are in the middle east. There is a UN, there is NATO, it is not up to the US what gets allowed or not allowed.
This is the type of thinking that got us to help form Al Queada, sent us into Iraq, which resulted in ISIS.
We have had 1 decent foreign policy president in my lifetime. His name was Jimmy Carter.
What got us "stuck" in the ME was the "rebuilding" effort, not the "war" effort.
ISIS/ISIL/Al Qaeda/Taliban/keep going down the list....they'll always be there. I am not afraid of any of those terrorist organizations on a macro scale.
The US does "allow" what goes on in the world, because without a big brother, we end up in large scale world warfare.
We do not live in the time of unicorns and rainbows, there are crazy leaders out there who need to be kept in check.
basselope
(2,565 posts)"What got us "stuck" in the ME was the "rebuilding" effort, not the "war" effort. "
Without the war, there is no rebuilding, you realize that right?
We CREATED Al Qaeda, because of exactly the thinking you are using here.
We need to keep things in check. Russia was losing in Afghanistan just fine w/o our help, but instead we decide to find some religious radicals, train them, arm them and then betray them... and SHOCKINGLY they became our enemy.
We do not live in a time of great unrest as there was 60 years ago. The world is actually fairly stable right now, as everyone is kept in check b/c of economic interests.
This ain't your grandfather's US.
metroins
(2,550 posts)You can have a "war" without the "rebuild" and billions going to Halliburton.
And before "al qaeda" there was anti semitism jihadi movements.
We live in a stable world; I agree....and it's stable because of the USA.
basselope
(2,565 posts)And no, you can't have a war w/o rebuilding, especially when the war destabilizes the country w/o any reason. Heck the ENTIRE reason for the war was the rebuilding, to create a democracy in Iraq.. and Clinton bought that hook, line and sinker.
The US is PART or the reason we live in a stable world.
Our living in perpetual war is NOT the reason the world is more stable today, is b/c every country is dependent upon the economies of other countries.
Picking a leader b/c of foreign policy is GOP nonsense.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)He based it on a lie (WMD).
He justified to most of TPTB by tempting them with the oil fields.
Halliburton spent a tiny fortune to make a war and reaped trillions from the war. An investment in the deaths of thousands far away, one that paid off very well.
Daish/Al Queda/the Taliban/Saddam Hussein/the Shah of Iran (and therefore his ouster) were/are all the effects of America meddling in the Middle East.
Daish's most effective recruiting tool is our not holding our own accountable. We have remote controlled robots bomb cell phones and characterize causalities at wedding as enemy combatants. We still let uncharged war criminals to speak on our media as though they had something valuable to say. Our media still lets those buffoons who were so wrong about Iraq speak unchallenged.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Islamist Iran, AQ, the Taliban and IS would not exist were it not for US warmongering.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Can't remember what kind of snark she said at least a year ago but it pissed me off so much, never looked at her show again.
Tweety? He's just vile.
gvstn
(2,805 posts)Every 10 years or so to use up those bombs so we can pay someone to make some more fresh ones. It just keeps happening, no matter how average Americans feel about the state of things. Under Bill Clinton it felt like we could be optimistic about world peace or at least civility but the powers that be can't stand that stuff. You have to use up those old bombs and make new ones, for a price, of course.
Christ, we just look jingoistic at this point. All the rhetoric about the other guys doing bad things seems like a joke when we seem to start wars ourselves, more often than not.
CrispyQ
(36,478 posts)I think it's fundamentally because when they think of foreign policy and the president's handle of it, they immediately associate it with war. Not diplomacy. Because we're so used to that. We don't really know how to engage the world anymore in other ways than coercion and arm-twisting and aggression when there's a difference.
The thought of Trump blustering with world leaders is horrifying, but never a mention of that by our corrupt & compromised media. Why? Cuz he draws ratings. The everything-for-profit model is killing everything good.
beaglelover
(3,486 posts)in a war somewhere before the end of his first term. Other countries will see us as very weak and provoke us into a war due to Bernie's foreign policy weakness. IMO, of course.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)who is weak and who is strong?
Are you an expert? Do you have actual qualifications to back your statement? Or are you just another nobody like me with an opinion?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Just sayin.
Uncle Joe
(58,365 posts)I think it's fundamentally because when they think of foreign policy and the president's handle of it, they immediately associate it with war. Not diplomacy. Because we're so used to that. We don't really know how to engage the world anymore in other ways than coercion and arm-twisting and aggression when there's a difference.
Thanks for the thread, Nyan.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)He's old, short, not very aggressive, not full of crap. He's not what we're used to. He certainly doesn't fit the media image of being presidential, like, you know, George Dubya Bush, our greatest commander in chief, who kept us safe. There is some kind of riony in the notion that the media would deem someone like Bush very "presidential," while dismissing Sanders as not having the correct demeanor.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)I don't think Bernie is short though
jillan
(39,451 posts)to Bernie, while she was in full insult mode. Yes, Armstrong Williams had very kind things to say about Bernie, which shocked me.
Maybe it's just me because I am an 'old fart' but to me she comes across as very immature. I felt that way about her show on msnbc and was not surprised at all when she was canceled.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I consider myself a "Liberal Interventionist", but war should only be used as a last resort when every other option has failed, because as have seen over the last 15 years, it often causes more problems than it solves. There are large parts of the world where toppling dictators will just cause chaos, civil wars, and power vaccuums and will never lead to a democratic society.
moondust
(19,993 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 6, 2016, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)
at this point I think a candidate's past performance, judgment, and general outlook are most important since there are a multitude of players and variables involved in world affairs and situations can change dramatically in no time.
In the last debate I think they asked for specifics on how many troops each candidate would keep in Afghanistan and for how long. Of course no one knows what the situation there will look like 11 months from now on inauguration day. Kind of a dumb question, possibly a "gotcha" question.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)His credibility like his memory, low. His gushing like a schoolgirl about how manly Dubya was in his fake victory landing on the carrier is on video.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)An actual IR Realist would be against all the BS we have been doing in the Middle East.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)He said he'd think of it as public housing.
Loge23
(3,922 posts)All of this talk about who's "stronger" on foreign policy is really quite amusing given the position of the USA over the last few decades.
For all the might and power of the most bloated and expensive military in the world, the US couldn't handle the Vietcong, or the seemingly endless parade of brainwashed fundamentalists in Toyota trucks in Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and beyond.
Just how does anyone critical of a perceived "softness" of any presidential candidate propose that they posture themselves? Like Reagan?? Like Bush?? All hat and no cattle??
The US military is built to fight wars that simply can't happen anymore. Yet, we continue to support the notion that we need a "strong" leader. For what??! The US military is still waiting for the continuation of WW2.
We need to get stronger as a people, as a nation, if there's any realistic chance at this country being a leader of anything anymore. This will not come with military might or posturing as the world's bully.
Get smarter, get more enviable as a place that truly supports freedom and equality. (yeah, fat chance there)
Maybe then this country can reclaim the faded mantle of leadership on the world stage.
Warpy
(111,271 posts)Funny how it doesn't seem to dawn on these shitbags that a lot of us are sick and damned tired of people with "foreign policy experience" pursuing the same failed policies of their predecessors. It's why we've been in a snit over Cuba since 1959 and why the policy seems to be never ending proxy wars around the planet, depleting the treasury and causing the infrastructure here to crumble from neglect. We need a complete rethinking of our foreign policy, one that will allow us to rethink our domestic policy at the same time. What these "experienced" people don't get is that we live here and that here is where everyone in government needs to focus.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)There is no justification for the massive spending and presence on the world stage.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)They're just so befuddled and flabbergasted at the idea of Bernie directing foreign policy. So why is that?
There are a lot of people who think we don't go far enough in our global outreach to control the world. Or to kill Isis or any other threat that crops up.
sgmcenroe
(30 posts)I have lost all respect for Chris Matthews this week with his ranting distain for Bernie and his softball interviews with HRC supporters. Thank god that Rachel seems willing to give Bernie an even hand on MSNBC.
DemocraticSocialist8
(396 posts)Smh
Doitnow
(1,103 posts)get all their information from mainstream t.v. Another bubble. And the substance of the Republican line-up is about as deep as a puddle. GO, BERNIE!!!!!!!
appalachiablue
(41,144 posts)They're stale, constantly duplicate, lack originality and any fresh thinking or outside perspectives of what really goes on in the US or even the world. Exactly what M$M wants. Surplus newsroom spin chatterers and writers who've proliferated beyond their usefulness yet are wildly overpaid especially on cable. A basic commenter starts at 200-400K, regulars receive millions. Got to end and will.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Enough with all the mud slinging towards him.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Thank you, Nyan!
Nyan
(1,192 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)I hate the fucking pundits who have this ridiculous and juvenile notion of what a president should be like.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)In other words, they are being paid to smear whoever their boss designates.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)Just a bunch of establishment hacks. Neither am I concerned who Bill Maher endorses for President.
lastlib
(23,244 posts)H2O Man
(73,559 posts)This is extremely well thought out, and well written. It was a pleasure to read.
Thank you!
Recommended.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I can hardly watch it anymore and frequently now turn it off. Wagner should be on the other station (apparently I'm not supposed to name it). Cute and vacuous. Matthews all ego and talk. Tiresome. Nothing I'd like better than seeing their ratings plummet. I was disappointed to see Wagner on Maher. She has zero cred with me.