Chuck Todd Grills Sanders: Doesn’t Sound Like Foreign Policy Is a ‘Priority’ for You

[MrWendel]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-grills-sanders-doesnt-sound-like-foreign-policy-is-a-priority-for-you/



At tonight’s MSNBC Democratic debate, Chuck Todd confronted Bernie Sanders over whether foreign policy is really a big focus of his.

“Nobody knows,” Todd said, “who your foreign policy advisers are. You haven’t given a major foreign policy speech. And it doesn’t sound like all the time that foreign policy is a priority other than when you’re asked about it.”

He asked Sanders why he has not “proactively laid out a foreign policy doctrine.”

Sanders pushed back and said his big speech on democatic socialism included a big section on foreign policy.

More specifically, he laid out the Sanders doctrine thusly: “We cannot continue to do it alone, we need to work in coalition.”

(video in link)

[PoliticAverse]

1. Clearly it isn't, he won't be prioritizing the next US war like some candidates might. n/t

[MrWendel]

2. He does know...

that he has a military right? And sometimes he might have to use it? Or does he just shut it down all together?

[PoliticAverse]

3. So which country do you propose invading next? One from the PNAC list or a new addition? n/t

[MrWendel]

6. I sure...

as hell don't want to invade a country but at the same time I should know my shit when it comes to what's going on in other parts of the world. Something he clearly isn't comfortable with. Threats are a part of life, I would at least like to know that someone running knows the landscape and the players in other countries. His answers sounds like something a kid would say from 9th grade social studies paper.
I was hoping that he would know allot more than hes shown so far.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

9. His answer of no unilateralism

was a refreshing change from foreign policy for the last 15 years.

[MrWendel]

11. I agree...

last time we had a coalition was when Bush was in office. I just would like someone who knows their shit when it comes to what's going on in other countries and how they affect the one they are running to be president of.

[liberal_at_heart]

12. Do the people we have in power now including Hillary really know their shit when it comes to

what's really going on in those other countries? Try as they may, they never can seem to predict the negative outcomes of going to war in the Middle East and there are always negative outcomes.

[MrWendel]

15. When it comes...

to "Israel" the US painted itself into a corner of anticipating all threats to it. It's a fucking hornets nest and I'm not sure the US can ever really get out of. Is Russia our fault as well because it sure affects us. Maybe if we ignore Putin he will go away? There are allot of threats out there in the world that are at the door step of the US like it or not. I would love someone who is invested at least in whats going on.

[liberal_at_heart]

19. It's all a hornets nest. I wonder why it is we never hear politicians say we should go after North

Korea? Maybe because there is not enough monetary incentive to do so? The most powerful countries in the world including us play Risk and the citizens of the world pay the price with their lives.

[MrWendel]

23. Yup...

C.R.E.A.M. But what is your solution when there is a threat, because let's not pretend there aren't. Before ISIS and Boko Haram there was Al Qaeda, and what's out there after that? Do you think that if you stay home and shut the door they won't come and knock it down? The idea that the current foreign policy is crap so we should do nothing and wait till something comes up is crap too.

[liberal_at_heart]

26. We are in an endless cycle of war. We need to step back and analyze how to get out of a

endless cycle of war. I don't have all the answers but clearly neither do all the war hawks. Maybe if we addressed the global income inequality power hungry terrorists would not be able to recruit people. Maybe if we didn't bomb so many innocent people power hungry terrorists wouldn't be able to recruit people. There are deep rooted problems that cause these terrorist movements. We need to be studying what is causing them and help to alleviate the root causes.

[MrWendel]

28. Really?

I do agree that some of the problem is inequality, but some toys actually come out the factory broken. Using the Military as a last resort is ideal, but I'm not sure you talk down a fanatic. There are always wolves at the door regardless of what you do. The idea that intelligence and military should be shelved instead of being used smarter is a bad idea on all accounts.

[liberal_at_heart]

30. No one said never use it. We were attacked on 9/11. We went after those who attacked us.

We had the entire world's support and help. Then we went stark raving mad and decided we would get more oil contracts if we invaded more countries. Guess what happened then? We lost the world's support and help. There is a difference between defending yourself and preemptively going after every little potential threat. There are too many potential threats. We would be in dozens of wars right now if we did that. And how we would possibly afford that? We can't even afford the wars we are in now. When do we get to spend some money on domestic issues like SS, health care, and education? Or is war the only thing we can afford anymore?

[MrWendel]

31. Because unfortunately...

we don't choose the wars all the time, sometimes like 9/11 they choose us. I'm all for fighting a war intelligently.

[liberal_at_heart]

32. We sure seem to be choosing the war in Syria. We obviously seriously disagree about this.

If think Hillary is the better candidate on foreign policy then vote for her. I think Bernie is the better candidate on foreign policy and on domestic policy so I will vote for him.

[MrWendel]

33. I have no doubt...

that Hillary is better on foreign policy, just like I know that the sun will rise tomorrow or that my car will still look blue. He really isn't . He is really great on the economy but that's it. I like my leaders with knowledge on everything pertaining to the office. Or have some sort of curiosity of the aspects of the office. No exceptions.

But let's face it, people on here love to share ideas and debate, no one is realistically gonna change anyone's mind, only a rare few right now at least on DU are undecided.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. And I have no doubt Sanders is better on foreign policy.

"He is really great on the economy but that's it" That's it? Considering the middle class is practically non existent I would say that is a pretty big deal.

[MrWendel]

35. Just...

not the only deal when you are the President.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. neither is war and because we spend trillions on war we can't afford social services.

I'm tired of Democrats caving to cuts to social services during budget deals.

[MrWendel]

37. The...

US military is the strongest most expensive many times over. That's not the issue for me. Having a president who has as much intelligence as a 13 year old on Foreign policy is.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

18. Honestly, I thought this was his worst performance on foreign policy

in the debates. On the other hand, he's not a doddering fool like Reagan. He seems to know his stuff well enough. Frankly my main concern is that we have a radical foreign policy change which includes no more regime change, including Syria. I think he is most likely to effect that change.

[Art_from_Ark]

25. All Bernie needs to do is appoint a competant Secretary of State

Someone like Cyrus Vance, who promoted human rights and was averse to military intervention.

[2pooped2pop]

21. Ask Hilary which one would be the biggest money maker

And we'll begin working on some bogus reasons why we have to invade them. Maybe even add a new frightening terrorist group or two sdo we can sell it easier.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. Maybe if we didn't spend trillions on war we could afford tuition free college and single payer

health care, but then that doesn't make politicians money like war does.

[winter is coming]

14. Not only does he know we have a military,

the warfighters don't become invisible to him after their tours of duty are over.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. +1000000. Thank you. Very well said!

[CBGLuthier]

5. Foreign Policy is the code words for "who we gonna fuck up next."

I am far more worried about the economy. I also remember when George Bush ran on his foreign credentials and Bill Clinton kicked his ass because all the war mongering in the world did not make up for a stagnant economy.

Too bad Bill turned around and fucked the working man, like he was born to it. But economy vs. foreign policy is what got him elected.

[MrWendel]

7. No...

a president or any leader of a country should be multi-faceted. Not a one or two trick pony.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. That's the problem. We have one trick ponies already. When has anything we have done

militarily in the Middle East really worked out and not caused more problems than it solved? We need people who realize we can't solve century old civil wars with more war.

[MrWendel]

13. your talking...

about common sense, which ain't that common at times. I guess I like the idea of people like Obama who is always the smartest guy in the room. Someone who is a wonk on more than one topic.

[2pooped2pop]

22. And should show good judgement not just tricks

[MrWendel]

24. Good judgement ...

without natural curiosity of what going on outside of your walls is a trick.

[2pooped2pop]

27. Poor judgement can get people killed

[MrWendel]

29. So does...

ignorance. A leader of a country knows ALL aspects of the job. Not just a few to get by.

[flamingdem]

8. This is important because the Republicans will work it, especially if (when) there is an incident

and you know if there isn't one they'll ____ ___.

[Fumesucker]

16. I guess Luke Russert was unavailable so they sent in the second string

[Hiraeth]

17. the word *priority* is fast becoming meaningless.

Everybody wants everything to be *priority* all the time. It just doesn't work that way.