Can you describe America after 8 years of Bernie Sanders as president?

Ka-Boom

@Cruiser: Why?

Bernie is strong on social priorities, but I see a huge void in his proposed foreign policies. In fact go to his website and he does not even address foreign policy! Russia, China, Iran and Isis are licking their chops and will probably do all they can to assist Bernie to get elected. Internationally we are toast if he gets elected!

@Cruiser Thanks. GA.

@Cruiser I’m very interested to know that. Thanks. I think there has to be a lot more discussion about foreign policy both republicans and democrats.

Websites of candidates are generally pictures of kissing babies and proclaiming that you like babies. Basically, never state your position on anything on your website since it can never be taken back.

Trump Rules Here

@johnpowell…Trump’s stand on immigration

No foreign policy for the US would be a blessing for the rest of the world.

Just imagine nations finally being able to develop and build without being bombed by drones.

Imagine not having power vacuums left behind after “humanitarian intervention” and/or “regime change” to be filled by criminal gangs and warlords.

Imagine not dragging along more decent and conscientious nations into illegal wars.

Everything the US has done since the post-war period has made the world less safe, has increased threats of terrorism, has literally led to the deaths of millions, has destabilised whole areas of the world, has left behind numerous failed and dysfunctional states, and has even taken us to the brink of nuclear annihilation on more than one occasion.

Quite frankly, we’re lucky our civilisation is still going. And to invoke the imagery of a nuclear bomb because Sanders hasn’t spoken much about foreign policy is breathtaking in its irony.

I guess my first response was to @Cruiser more than the OP.

I don’t think that much would change at all under 8 years of Sanders. The US isn’t an autocracy. The President has some powers, but he’s far from a dictator, and has relatively less power than presidents in other countries.

What he could do, and what he’s already doing, is to shift the political debate into territories that the establishment never talks about and doesn’t want anyone to think about. He’s politicising ideas and views that are to the left of what the US political class deems acceptable or are comfortable with.

Maybe you’d get a saner healthcare system. Maybe you’d get a better regulated finance and banking sector. Maybe you’d get some saner gun regulation. Maybe he’d make the US just a little bit less unequal, and just a bit kinder. Wealth inequality is a huge variable and correlates strongly with a whole array of social ills—it needs to be talked about more and addressed.

Since the US political system involves congress, the senate, and the supreme court—then it may not really matter what a President Sanders really wants. Obama couldn’t even get Gitmo closed.

@Kropotkin IMO well negotiated foreign policy will foster positive relationships that avoid conflict and benefit both sides. If foreign policy as you described it as drones raining bombs on all non USA countries the entire world would be in flames. Your second comment was a tad bit more reasoned.

Barnum and Bailey’s.

@Cruiser Most rulers throughout history have relied on advisors as it is humanly impossible to excel in all areas; ruling something even the size of a large city requires a diversity of skill that few have.

That said, most voters are more concerned with domestic policy, and as a four-term mayor of a modest city, he has a bit more experience with the executive end of domestic policy that those whose political careers are either purely in Legislative end or non-existent. The same could also be said of the governors running for the Republican nomination if they actually had any successes during their terms. But if you’re trying to get votes, it does make sense to play to one’s strengths and to focus on the issues that are of greater concern to a larger number of voters.

When asked about Israel, he has been quoted as saying, ”“This is a very depressing and difficult issue. This has gone on for 60 bloody years. If you’re asking me, do I have a magical solution? I don’t. And you know what, I doubt very much that you do.”. Regarding ISIS, he feels that the US should oppose them, but should do so as part of a multinational effort rather than leading the fight; phrases like ”...a barbaric organization…” and ”...a growing threat…” tell ME that he is pretty much opposed to them regardless of what right-wingers say about him (and any other person who opposes bombing the entire Middle East just on general principle) being a Muslim sympathizer.

Furthermore, I’d say that between the sixteen years he was in the US House of Representatives and his time in the US Senate, he has dealt with enough foreign policy issues at the Federal level that, combined with his executive experience, he is no less well-versed in foreign policy than most of the other candidates, and far better than a few.

The picture you posted sums up Trump’s foreign policy perfectly though. I predict that his first executive action would be airstrikes in the Middle East, and that the only thing that would save Mexico from getting nuked as well is that the fallout would drift into the southern US.

Now that I’ve got that off my chest, back to the question…

I say that how a Sanders presidency goes depends so much on how the Congressional elections turn out that it’s hard to say. Maybe the Democrats will sweep both houses and hand him everything. Maybe GOP obstructionism will be tougher than Obama has had it. Maybe the Democrats will want to spite Sanders as badly as the GOP wants to spite anyone more liberal than Glenn Beck.

In any event, the simple fact remains that whoever gets elected to sit in the Oval Office is sharply limited by the balance of powers as laid out in the US Constitution and, in practical terms, has less impact on our nation than the actions of the Legislative branch.

@jerv What makes you think Trump’s first move would be to bomb the Middle East?

@Cruiser :: That was my point. He only has one issue with a plan (if you could even call it that).

@johnpowell I did not catch that at first glance and thanks for pointing that out!

@Cruiser Lets look at some of his other foreign policy stances;

- Building a wall around Mexico… and making Mexico pay for it
– The US must retaliate against both China and Japan for manipulating currencies
– From a few sources I’ve seen, his Middle East policy involves “boots on the ground”
– Iraqi oil fields should be seized as “spoils of war”
– Saudi Arabia should pay us for our support as they wouldn’t exist without the US
– The belief that Iran (a Theocratic nation based on Shia) is funding ISIS (a radical Sunni organization)… despite evidence that Iran is currently supporting Iraq in it’s anti-ISIS efforts

In retrospect, you’re probably right that he wouldn’t bomb them; that would irradiate the oil fields, so Trump would prefer annexation. And I predict that there will be plenty of international outcry if Trump gets in, so we’d probably find ourselves in trouble real fast as a direct result of Trump’s ideas on foreign policy.

Furthermore, even if not for the belligerence, I don’t think he has the skill to be a good statesman even if he wanted to be. He can’t keep a wife (multiple divorces), fortune (multiple bankruptcies) or job (NBC), so I have even further doubts about his competence in any sort of position that requires dealing with people.

This is the Bernie Sanders Show. The Donald is on Fox.
Just sayin.

@jerv As JP pointed out yesterday I believe is Trump has not even taken the time to put his polices on his own website. All I can find is what WIKI has cobbled and as far as the middle east is concerned he wants to bomb the bejesus out of the Iraqi oil fields to deny ISIS the profits from those fields they are in control of. The one thing I do agree with him is his pat answer to all said issues is better management from the top….something I have not seen….ever in Washington. Kennedy might have worn that crown if they did not blow the top of his head off.