US Presidential Election 2016 official thread

Foreign policy is the one area where I wholeheartedly disagree with Sanders, so I hope that this isolationist rhetoric is just that: rhetoric.

And it probably is too little, too late if Clinton can win the majority of the Super Tuesday states.

I have been aware of her popularity amongst ethnic minorities, but I can't understand why her? What is it about Sanders that is supposedly so off-putting to black americans? I can't recall of a single thing about him that would lead them to dislike him; afaik, he has always had a strong track record on civil rights.

Sam Harrisism 101... "let's support a candidate who supports, funds and give weapons to a state that funds the most Islamist groups over a candidate that doesn't want to do that, because I am so scared of Islamist!"

Straw man, much?

I support Sanders, by the way. Sorry if that wasn't clear; apparently only people who agree with him in every single policy area are allowed to call themselves that. Because #Logic, eh?

Ha. No I knew you support Sanders... I also disagree with Sanders quite a bit. However, I can't agree to disagree if someone thinks HRC (or most other Republicans) would reduce Islamism... which a lot of people seems to think.

I don't think that Clinton is necessarily better on foreign policy, but Sanders is visibly uncomfortable when the conversation shifts away from domestic economic issues. If he gets the nomination, he'll need to up the ante in that area to have any hope of winning the presidential debates.

I don't think that Clinton is necessarily better on foreign policy, but Sanders is visibly uncomfortable when the conversation shifts away from domestic economic issues. If he gets the nomination, he'll need to up the ante in that area to have any hope of winning the presidential debates.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-and-peace/


I agree, but his foreign policy as outlined on his website seems OK.

I'm not sure I'm too fond of his seeming inability to separate the initial decision to intervene in Iraq and the incompetent occupation that followed. He seems to imply that the removal of the Ba'athist regime was in itself a bad thing and resorts to a version of the poorest anti-war argument out there: 'Look how bad it is now.'

Clinton can also rely on her record. Simply being able to say you've been involved in foreign policy decisions is a strong point when your opponent has little to no experience in comparison.

From what I can gather FP is not really a major issue this election, I imagine Sanders would be damaged as inexperience here could be fed into a wider argument about unsuitability for government.

As her husband's campaign manager memorably used to regularly point out, "it's the economy stupid". More so than ever in the present situation, where huge numbers of Americans have stagnant or declining real incomes.

I saw yesterday in the news that almost 1m US people are living off less than $5 a day, which is pretty amazing.

Almost 20% of the US population are under-employed or chronically in debt and with no means of recovery.

Yeah but they have 'freedom' or whatever. That race to the bottom is what quite a lot in this country aspire to.

I can't help but think that you epitomise the arrogant, smug European who understands far less of America than he thinks when you come out with your 'freedom' rhetoric. No offence, of course.

Woah that was a bit of a cheap shot. I thought you were above personal digs. I doubt you're an expert either.

They love going on about 'freedom' as an excuse to minimize the role.of the state yet that freedom leads to 40 million unable to avoid healthcare.

Why you are so offended by that I'm not sure.

It's a large tactic of the libertarian wing in general who use the label 'freedom' to justify reductions in vital public services and welfare.

It wasn't a personal dig -- I find this to be a sneering tendency among Europeans generally, hence the 'no offence' at the end, platitudinous though it is.



Yes, and speaking about this in the way that I've seen you do multiple times ('yeah, ask the 40 million uninsured Americans how much "freedom" they have') betrays a misunderstanding of the American mentality. It's the kind of supremacism that you would disapprove of if an American was doing it.



I'm not. I was just making an observation.



Many of the people you're referring to are pseudo-libertarians -- I doubt that a libertarian would insist on a huge standing army, for instance. And yet, many of these people do. It's not principle; it's corruption and politics.

It seems odd to go at me for generalizing when we all do it, ive seen you do it when referring to the 'left'.

What don't I understand? the republicans frequently evoke the concept of freedom to oppose universal health care.

If thinking that a system which covers everyone is better than one which leaves 40 million unable to afford it makes me smug, then so be it.

You seem to dismiss it as a perversion of the idea of 'freedom', whereas there's a perfectly good reason why many Americans oppose it -- they have a certain culture of individualism and dogmatic self-sufficiency and distrust of government that you don't seem to understand. You don't seem to see a distinction between Republican politicians, who are serving the interests of special interests and donors, and the opposition to universal healthcare from ordinary Americans.

Americans see universal public healthcare as being the touchstone of socialism in other democracies.

Probably due to a general lack of international awareness, Americans are very tolerant of their own state owned sector because they assume it to be the natural order of things. They don't see Heathrow and wonder why Kennedy is owned by the local council. They don't wonder why they can buy shares in the German postal system but not in their own. They do not think it strange that people can own land in a British national park but not in an American one.

I haven't accused you of generalising -- I've simply pointed out that your sneering rhetoric is likely not based on an understanding of how the Americans for whom 'freedom' is a big thing actually think. By contrast, I think I can claim, without being too immodest, that I understand why many on the left behave and think in the way that they do about specific matters (e.g. foreign policy, 'Islamophobia', etc.)

You seem to dismiss it as a perversion of the idea of 'freedom', whereas there's a perfectly good reason why many Americans oppose it -- they have a certain culture of individualism and dogmatic self-sufficiency and distrust of government that you don't seem to understand. You don't seem to see a distinction between Republican politicians, who are serving the interests of special interests and donors, and the opposition to universal healthcare from ordinary Americans.

That's not what I said, now, is it? What makes you smug is that you sneer at it in a way that you'd most likely have a big problem with if you saw an American doing the same with regard the UK or Europe.