Hillary vs Bernie

[Jacob]

I concede.

[Jacob]

On the contrary, it's a platitude that even hawks like Rumsfeld agree with.

So we go back to what he has said about specific cases, and in that he seems very pacifist. Thinks that ISIS should be taken care of locally, for example, and wants the US to stay out.

Just because the specific meaning of particular words can be parsed to mean almost anything (or more often nothing at all) doesn't mean that we MUST do that. When someone asks a bunch of politicians what they think about a particular use of military power, you can contrast their responses to glean out where they stand, even if looking at those responses in isolation could be interpreted differently.

"Should we invade Iraq?"

A: Saddam has refused our demands, and we have no choice but to take immediate action!
B: War is always a measure of last resort!

Both of those responses looked at in isolation could be parsed to have completely overlapping meanings, but if we ask two politicians that question and get those two responses, it seems pretty clear one is in favor if war and one opposed.

I agree that there are differences in the likelihood of each of the candidates being interventionist and/ or taking warlike actions; and I agree that Sanders is communicating where he sits on that spectrum. I just didn't agree that Sanders' words about war as a last resort indicated that he's an absolute pacifist.

[crazy canuck]

Yi has declared war on the "last resort" phrase.

But only as a last resort - which for Yi seems to have been the first option amongst infinite possibilities.

[grumbler]

So we go back to what he has said about specific cases, and in that he seems very pacifist. Thinks that ISIS should be taken care of locally, for example, and wants the US to stay out.

I've heard him say that ISIS must be defeated and that, while the US cannot be the military lead on that action, because it has to be Arab boots on the ground, the US still has a military role to play in defeating ISIS.  That's not terribly pacifist.

Sanders may be a pacifist, but I don't think you will find the evidence for that in his policy on ISIS.

[Berkut]

On the contrary, it's a platitude that even hawks like Rumsfeld agree with.

So we go back to what he has said about specific cases, and in that he seems very pacifist. Thinks that ISIS should be taken care of locally, for example, and wants the US to stay out.

Just because the specific meaning of particular words can be parsed to mean almost anything (or more often nothing at all) doesn't mean that we MUST do that. When someone asks a bunch of politicians what they think about a particular use of military power, you can contrast their responses to glean out where they stand, even if looking at those responses in isolation could be interpreted differently.

"Should we invade Iraq?"

A: Saddam has refused our demands, and we have no choice but to take immediate action!
B: War is always a measure of last resort!

Both of those responses looked at in isolation could be parsed to have completely overlapping meanings, but if we ask two politicians that question and get those two responses, it seems pretty clear one is in favor if war and one opposed.

I agree that there are differences in the likelihood of each of the candidates being interventionist and/ or taking warlike actions; and I agree that Sanders is communicating where he sits on that spectrum. I just didn't agree that Sanders' words about war as a last resort indicated that he's an absolute pacifist.

Agreed.

[Berkut]

So we go back to what he has said about specific cases, and in that he seems very pacifist. Thinks that ISIS should be taken care of locally, for example, and wants the US to stay out.

I've heard him say that ISIS must be defeated and that, while the US cannot be the military lead on that action, because it has to be Arab boots on the ground, the US still has a military role to play in defeating ISIS.  That's not terribly pacifist.

Sanders may be a pacifist, but I don't think you will find the evidence for that in his policy on ISIS.

Well, I don't think he is a pacifist, more concerned that he seems to be something of an isolationist. Which is a much more rationally defensible position, but still problematic, IMO.

[PJL]

But is Sanders's position on foreign policy really much more isolationist than Obama's? After all, Obama has pretty much let others take the lead on various issues (Britain & France on the Libyan situation being the best example).

[The Brain]

War isn't a resort at all, and I find it bizarre to think of it that way.

[grumbler]

But is Sanders's position on foreign policy really much more isolationist than Obama's? After all, Obama has pretty much let others take the lead on various issues (Britain & France on the Libyan situation being the best example).

My impression is that yes, he is more isolationist than Obama.  The Obama administration hasn't insisted that the US lead all coalitions in which it has part (a wise move, IMO), but it has certainly been front and center when it comes to the big geopolitical issues, particularly with regards to China and Russia.  Sanders' position on Russia and China are that he should continue to scold those regimes for being naughty.

[Jacob]

Agreed.

[Norgy]

It will probably be Hillary this time.
Sanders, while lovably Jewy and socialist is about as a viable candidate as Truz.
I'd vote for him. Heck, I've voted for far worse.

[Jaron]

Woe unto he who underestimates the #Bern.

[Admiral Yi]

Woe unto him.

[Martinus]

Personally, while I would kinda like Sanders to win on a human level, from the Polish perspective, Hillary would be a much more preferable choice.

[Eddie Teach]

Woe unto him.

Or her. Or zer. Or zim.