BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

There seems to be an undercurrent in some parts of the Republican party that the proper role of government is to organize (white, male) Americans into a gang to beat up on everyone else and share the spoils, and the best country is the one most capable of beating up on everyone else. (Note: This is not at all a solely American phenomenon; the European far right, which controls a few Central European countries, believes this to a much larger degree.)

From this point of view, people who are trying to make America into a just nation are in fact trying to change this country for the worse.

Economic issues are complex, foreign policy issues even harder, but here we see a simple issue of judgment. Hillary is not looking good.

Agree. But who is looking good on foreign policies? Sanders doesn't know anything about foreign politics. That he voted against the Iraq war means he has good judgment, at least sometimes, but he doesn't really seem to have a plan for the Middle East. At least he acknowledges that he will need to rely on his team (this is a lot better than Trump and Cruz who are at least as clueless but seem not to acknowledge this so they might actually try to implement their ridiculous plans).

But it does mean that if you consider voting for Sanders and if foreign politics is your top priority, you really want to know who will be his VP and who will be his secretary of state.

So, only a few days left before the Iowa caucus.

I am expecting a bad night for Sanders and Trump.

From what I understand, Sanders voters are packed into a relatively small number of districts. There is a very real chance that a lot of his votes are going to be wasted. I've heard several stories saying that Trump's ground game is near non-existent and that his get out the vote efforts are extremely inefficient.

The most interesting outcome for the night would be if either

1. Trump wins which would be a crippling defeat for Cruz - If Cruz can't win the nut job "lane" in evangelical Iowa he's going to lose a lot of momentum
2. Trump comes in third which would cast real doubt into his organizational model and overall competence

Sanders voted for intervention in Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999, and Afghanistan after 9/11. This "article" seems to imply he's some kind of warmonger (I haven't really read it but there you go):

http://www.alternet....violence-abroad

Sanders voted for intervention in Bosnia in 1995, Kosovo in 1999, and Afghanistan after 9/11. This "article" seems to imply he's some kind of warmonger (I haven't really read it but there you go):

http://www.alternet....violence-abroad

Don't you think that Kosova, Bosnia and Afghanistan count as interventions that, if not quite "success" stories, at least could be counted as interventions that may have worked better than a pacifist attitude would have worked?

Yes. I forgot to add a smiley to my post, I just added scarequotes around article to show that I disagree with it. I think it's quite absurd to call Bernie a warmonger, but wanted to show that there exist people who believe he is.

“Rather than offering an antidote to problems, the military system centered on the all-volunteer force bred and exacerbated them. It underwrote recklessness in the formulation of policy and thereby resulted in needless, costly, and ill-managed wars. At home, the perpetuation of this system violated simple standards of fairness and undermined authentic democratic practice. The way a nation wages war—the role allotted to the people in defending the country and the purposes for which it fights—testifies to the actual character of its political system. Designed to serve as an instrument of global interventionism (or imperial policing), America’s professional army has proven to be astonishingly durable, if also astonishingly expensive. Yet when dispatched to Iraq and Afghanistan, it has proven incapable of winning. With victory beyond reach, the ostensible imperatives of U.S. security have consigned the nation’s warrior elite to something akin to perpetual war.”
― Andrew J. Bacevich, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country

“The folly and hubris of the policy makers who heedlessly thrust the nation into an ill-defined and open-ended 'global war on terror' without the foggiest notion of what victory would look like, how it would be won, and what it might cost approached standards hitherto achieved only by slightly mad German warlords.”
― Andrew J. Bacevich, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War

Suggestions that we should vote for her because of historical importance do not sit well with us.

It is this latter area where I think Obama has been most successful, i.e., in altering U.S. strategy from invasion to more precise, targeted strikes. In other words, away from a classical military intervention toward a more police-like and precise action against terrorism.

There's quite a stark contrast between what Bush 41 did in Iraq and what Bush 43 did. Bush 41 had a specific objective, accomplished it, and got out.

Like Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s, Bush 43 got the US into the military quagmire that everyone with an ounce of sense knew was going to be the inevitable result. Obama has been working on cleaning that up, but it's going to take a long time to recover--a lot longer than his term in office. And clearly a lot of idiots want to repeat the whole Kennedy, Johnson, Bush 43 stupidity yet again.

There's quite a stark contrast between what Bush 41 did in Iraq and what Bush 43 did. Bush 41 had a specific objective, accomplished it, and got out.

Like Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s, Bush 43 got the US into the military quagmire that everyone with an ounce of sense knew was going to be the inevitable result. Obama has been working on cleaning that up, but it's going to take a long time to recover--a lot longer than his term in office. And clearly a lot of idiots want to repeat the whole Kennedy, Johnson, Bush 43 stupidity yet again.

Certainly a major difference between the two Iraq wars is that Bush 1 left the government of Iraq intact. It is not entirely clear, to put it mildly, that Obama sees the significance of this difference. It is not enough to say that someone must go.

Perhaps history, as well as you, will judge me to be wrong but I see Obama as being very unsuccessful in foreign policy. I wish I could see it differently, but I don't.

At any rate, his time in office is coming to an end so we must choose who is to follow him. I am uneasy about all of the candidates. I will do my best to choose..

Perhaps history, as well as you, will judge me to be wrong but I see Obama as being very unsuccessful in foreign policy.

In what ways? What would success have been?

We have refugees flooding Europe, ISIS expanding its reach, total chaos in Syria. It would not be difficult to expand this list.

Many of the traits of character and leadership that Obama possesses, and that maybe we have taken too much for granted, have suddenly gone missing or are in short supply.

The first and most important of these is basic integrity. The Obama administration has been remarkably scandal-free. Think of the way Iran-contra or the Lewinsky scandals swallowed years from Reagan and Clinton.

We’ve had very little of that from Obama. He and his staff have generally behaved with basic rectitude. Hillary Clinton is constantly having to hold these defensive press conferences when she’s trying to explain away some vaguely shady shortcut she’s taken, or decision she has made, but Obama has not had to do that.

He and his wife have not only displayed superior integrity themselves, they have mostly attracted and hired people with high personal standards. There are all sorts of unsightly characters floating around politics, including in the Clinton camp and in Gov. Chris Christie’s administration. This sort has been blocked from team Obama.

Second, a sense of basic humanity. Donald Trump has spent much of this campaign vowing to block Muslim immigration. You can only say that if you treat Muslim Americans as an abstraction. President Obama, meanwhile, went to a mosque, looked into people’s eyes and gave a wonderful speech reasserting their place as Americans.

He’s exuded this basic care and respect for the dignity of others time and time again. Let’s put it this way: Imagine if Barack and Michelle Obama joined the board of a charity you’re involved in. You’d be happy to have such people in your community. Could you say that comfortably about Ted Cruz? The quality of a president’s humanity flows out in the unexpected but important moments.

Third, a soundness in his decision-making process. Over the years I have spoken to many members of this administration who were disappointed that the president didn’t take their advice. But those disappointed staffers almost always felt that their views had been considered in depth.

Obama’s basic approach is to promote his values as much as he can within the limits of the situation.