Let's be 100% serious here for a moment:

[Bull Moose Base]

Soon the American people will have to make their choice. A vote for Donald Trump, a vote for peace at home and abroad or a vote for Hillary Clinton, a vote for war and human suffering.

Democrats need to realize what a hawk Hillary is before she gets the nomination. Because if it only happens after she gets the nomination, turnout will be quite poor for Democratic nominee Hillary.

remind me again what Bernie Sanders has been saying about his foreign policy views? Oh yes *crickets*

Because he's actually just as if not more hawkish than Clinton.  But don't let that stop Sandernistas from projecting their own views onto Jewish Jesus.

a. the first Jesus was Jewish
b. Sanders opposed the Iraq War so maybe not "just as if not more hawkish"

[Asian Nazi]

Soon the American people will have to make their choice. A vote for Donald Trump, a vote for peace at home and abroad or a vote for Hillary Clinton, a vote for war and human suffering.

Democrats need to realize what a hawk Hillary is before she gets the nomination. Because if it only happens after she gets the nomination, turnout will be quite poor for Democratic nominee Hillary.

remind me again what Bernie Sanders has been saying about his foreign policy views? Oh yes *crickets*

Because he's actually just as if not more hawkish than Clinton.  But don't let that stop Sandernistas from projecting their own views onto Jewish Jesus.

a. the first Jesus was Jewish
b. Sanders opposed the Iraq War so maybe not "just as if not more hawkish"

Look, I know that Sandernistas tend to be pretty low-information voters, but for real "DID THEY SUPPORT THE IRAQ WAR LOL" is a terrible way to judge a candidate's foreign policy stance.

[Bull Moose Base]

Soon the American people will have to make their choice. A vote for Donald Trump, a vote for peace at home and abroad or a vote for Hillary Clinton, a vote for war and human suffering.

Democrats need to realize what a hawk Hillary is before she gets the nomination. Because if it only happens after she gets the nomination, turnout will be quite poor for Democratic nominee Hillary.

remind me again what Bernie Sanders has been saying about his foreign policy views? Oh yes *crickets*

Because he's actually just as if not more hawkish than Clinton.  But don't let that stop Sandernistas from projecting their own views onto Jewish Jesus.

a. the first Jesus was Jewish
b. Sanders opposed the Iraq War so maybe not "just as if not more hawkish"

Look, I know that Sandernistas tend to be pretty low-information voters, but for real "DID THEY SUPPORT THE IRAQ WAR LOL" is a terrible way to judge a candidate's foreign policy stance.

Actually, I think the low-information voter is the one would says the candidate who voted against the Iraq War is as or even more hawkish than the candidate who voted for it. For one thing, they may not know what the word hawkish means.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's very easy to vote against a war when you're some backbench nobody from a state nobody has ever heard of (much like it was very easy for Barack Obama to vote against the debt ceiling as an Illinois junior senator,but not when he was in office). What about the decisions now? On every foreign policy issue of any possible relevance to 2016 - the pivot to Asia, Russia's adventures in Ukraine, NATO expansion, the CIA and the creep of military intelligence, militarised drones, ISIS and the rise of Salafism, the Iran-Saudi proxy war, nuclear weaponry, Korea, Israel/Palestine - I have seen no real distinction between him and any other generic democrat. The only thing I've seen is protectionism, because Vietnamese people deserve unemployment and poor working rights, I guess.

I mean, not that I support, say, the sudden abolition of NATO; but it is a bit disingenuous of Sanders to dress himself up as the most left-wing thing since nationalised sliced bread factories, and then parade a foreign policy essentially identical to Obama's and Clinton's.

[Bull Moose Base]

It's very easy to vote against a war when you're some backbench nobody from a state nobody has ever heard of (much like it was very easy for Barack Obama to vote against the debt ceiling as an Illinois junior senator,but not when he was in office). What about the decisions now? On every foreign policy issue of any possible relevance to 2016 - the pivot to Asia, Russia's adventures in Ukraine, NATO expansion, the CIA and the creep of military intelligence, militarised drones, ISIS and the rise of Salafism, the Iran-Saudi proxy war, nuclear weaponry, Korea, Israel/Palestine - I have seen no real distinction between him and any other generic democrat. The only thing I've seen is protectionism, because Vietnamese people deserve unemployment and poor working rights, I guess.

I mean, not that I support, say, the sudden abolition of NATO; but it is a bit disingenuous of Sanders to dress himself up as the most left-wing thing since nationalised sliced bread factories, and then parade a foreign policy essentially identical to Obama's and Clinton's.

I think what's disingenuous is Clinton decrying the Iraq War to be a huge mistake as if she wasn't one of the ones who made it. Not sure if the implication is Sanders voted against Iraq solely for political posturing or Clinton should be excused for her vote because voting against an idiotic war would be politically hard, but it doesn't matter since either point is ridiculous. The Iraq War wasn't simply one of several foreign policy decisions from over a decade ago. To get back to the OP, it was a catastrophic mistake that made everything worse, paved the way for ISIS and continues to create instability. Clinton got it wrong. Sanders got it right. Their judgement matters. And yes, if Trump is nominee, there's an argument that Sanders is a stronger nominee for the Democrats. Not only because of Iraq, but also on trade, independence from big donors and voter enthusiasm.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that Democrats need to run candidates on substantial and ideologically left-wing grounding - as the disastrously empty Gore and Kerry campaigns have shown. But is Sanders the one to make it? Well, possibly, but the current SAndeandersrs 2016 campaign. Sanders campaign is:
- hyperfocused on one niche group (urban, educated and underpaid). Though these people have needs that shouldn't be trivialised, you need a broader coalition than that to have a remotely left-wing platform.
- too focused on a smattering of "nice" policies, without a sort of weight. All cake and no beef.

- irt the Iraq Vote: err yes. Sanders and Clinton are both politicians. The former at the time had no presidential ambitions and only needed to prove himself to a small electorate of hippies, the latter wanted to prove her "chops" on the national stage by voting for a war that was - at the time - popular. It's like when people say stuff like "oh well Benie endorsed gay marriage seven centuries before Hillary, lol". Who cares? If your breaking message is that politicians are feckless, well, congrats. I don't need convincing.

The important thing is that neither Sanders nor Clinton (nor Obama nor any other candidate in either party) have really put in a safeguard to stop such a disaster happening again. Because that was the true scandal of Iraq. Not that a bunch of politicians decided it would be easier on their careers if they voted YES; but that the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon and State Dept in conjunction with politically ambitious members of the Bush admin repeatedly lied to Congress and the Public. And the disasters of the war, and its ludicrous aftermath and handling by Coalition forces, have never really been accounted for.

Sanders (now he caters to the national audience) has fallen into exactly the same traps as every other candidate: further entanglement in the Iran-Saudi war, the fruitlessness of bombing campaigns and (most ominously) the continued support of the intelligence agencies and their allies, who have (without fail) given fycked up information and led the US into an incredible series of failed ventures. And in return for what? A series of domestic bills and (lmao) congressional amendments that will never ever pass congress in a million years? Bernie Sanders 2016 is a campaign based around political cowardice and avoidance at every important level. He's a nice guy, but I see no substantial differences between him and Hillary.

[RINO Tom]

Yes, he is 100% correct. I wish Hillary would say something like that but it'll never happen.

I mean, she voted for said war, so...

[Simfan34]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

[Maxwell]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

I agree with him because he's right.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

I thought Trump was an ultra-conservative maniac on the issues of the Middle East.

But this is in fact a great line, that I completely agree with him on.

[Lief 🗽]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

Investing in infrastructure used to be a common-sense bipartisan thing. This is not some kooky left-wing scheme; it's one of the fundamental purposes of government! It's not our fault the GOP has gone crazy in the past ten or twenty years.

[Penelope]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

I agree with him because he's right.

Trump is only touting the Democratic Party line in so far as he is talking about reality. If you still think that reality has a known liberal bias, then go back to 2005.

As a Democrat, this rhetoric is terrifying to me because for the first time, Trump is revealing how he will defeat Hillary Clinton.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

I agree with him because he's right.

Trump is only touting the Democratic Party line in so far as he is talking about reality. If you still think that reality has a known liberal bias, then go back to 2005.

As a Democrat, this rhetoric is terrifying to me because for the first time, Trump is revealing how he will defeat Hillary Clinton.

Oh my Gosh, you are 100% right. Can you imagine that showdown? How Hillary did the convenient popular thing and Trump takes brash realistic politically incorrect stands. That's a winning strategy. I mean, everything he does is a winning strategy, but that's how you overcome it all

[pho]

I laughed when Fiorina got all incredulous when Trump delivered this line. She said something to the extent of "I can't believe a Republican would say that!"...and not a single Republican in the room backed her up on it.

[Green Line]

He is 100% right on this

[Eraserhead]

Soon the American people will have to make their choice. A vote for Donald Trump, a vote for peace at home and abroad or a vote for Hillary Clinton, a vote for war and human suffering.

Democrats need to realize what a hawk Hillary is before she gets the nomination. Because if it only happens after she gets the nomination, turnout will be quite poor for Democratic nominee Hillary.

remind me again what Bernie Sanders has been saying about his foreign policy views? Oh yes *crickets*

Because he's actually just as if not more hawkish than Clinton.  But don't let that stop Sandernistas from projecting their own views onto Jewish Jesus.

a. the first Jesus was Jewish
b. Sanders opposed the Iraq War so maybe not "just as if not more hawkish"

Look, I know that Sandernistas tend to be pretty low-information voters, but for real "DID THEY SUPPORT THE IRAQ WAR LOL" is a terrible way to judge a candidate's foreign policy stance.

Okay, so please explain how Sanders is "just as if not more (?) hawkish than Clinton". If you're going to say something like that you should be prepared to back it up with some facts. I'm genuinely curious about this.

[Simfan34]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

Investing in infrastructure used to be a common-sense bipartisan thing. This is not some kooky left-wing scheme; it's one of the fundamental purposes of government! It's not our fault the GOP has gone crazy in the past ten or twenty years.

I'm all for investing in infrastructure. Everyone knows this. Even Adam Smith agreed with you. But this anti-war posturing is just out of the 2008 Obama playbook. Regardless of whether or not it's right, it's just not a Republican position. If Donald Trump is going to ignore more or less every agreed-upon party principle, what point is there for him to run as a Republican?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I laughed when Fiorina got all incredulous when Trump delivered this line. She said something to the extent of "I can't believe a Republican would say that!"...and not a single Republican in the room backed her up on it.

I laughed because she's either (A) an idiot, or (B) a lousy politician who thought she'd get brownie points for the remark.

The GOP has TRADITIONALLY been the party of the middle class, and, particularly, the WHITE COLLAR middle class.  This group of folks has always been partial to the infrastructure needed to create a middle class society.  This is especially true because the great middle class society created in the post-WWII era was a COMMUTER society, relying on highways and mass transit to get them to work, and on modern sources of power and water.  This is a group that valued social institutions such as those Robert Moses built in New York (e. g. Jones Beach State Park).  

That we would not fund ROUTINE maintenance and upgrading of our infrastructure because it would add to the deficit or would increase taxes is the silliest idea politicians have today.  The Fiorinas of world need to stop lambasting the left for wanting "free healthcare".  These folks want "free infrastructure" and they think that it comes from the infrastructure fairy.

[Maxwell]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

Investing in infrastructure used to be a common-sense bipartisan thing. This is not some kooky left-wing scheme; it's one of the fundamental purposes of government! It's not our fault the GOP has gone crazy in the past ten or twenty years.

I'm all for investing in infrastructure. Everyone knows this. Even Adam Smith agreed with you. But this anti-war posturing is just out of the 2008 Obama playbook. Regardless of whether or not it's right, it's just not a Republican position. If Donald Trump is going to ignore more or less every agreed-upon party principle, what point is there for him to run as a Republican?

So do you think political party platforms should just not change based on the facts?

[Simfan34]

Not when the premise is that "facts have a liberal bias", no.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

Investing in infrastructure used to be a common-sense bipartisan thing. This is not some kooky left-wing scheme; it's one of the fundamental purposes of government! It's not our fault the GOP has gone crazy in the past ten or twenty years.

I'm all for investing in infrastructure. Everyone knows this. Even Adam Smith agreed with you. But this anti-war posturing is just out of the 2008 Obama playbook. Regardless of whether or not it's right, it's just not a Republican position. If Donald Trump is going to ignore more or less every agreed-upon party principle, what point is there for him to run as a Republican?

So do you think political party platforms should just not change based on the facts?

Simfan thinks the Republican party platform should include becoming a Commonwealth realm, so presumably not.

[DemPGH]

Well, Democrats have said things like that in the O.P. for years and have not meant a word of it, so I would very much like to see if Trump does! Trump's sentiment sums up totally how I feel.

[Lief 🗽]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

Investing in infrastructure used to be a common-sense bipartisan thing. This is not some kooky left-wing scheme; it's one of the fundamental purposes of government! It's not our fault the GOP has gone crazy in the past ten or twenty years.

I'm all for investing in infrastructure. Everyone knows this. Even Adam Smith agreed with you. But this anti-war posturing is just out of the 2008 Obama playbook. Regardless of whether or not it's right, it's just not a Republican position. If Donald Trump is going to ignore more or less every agreed-upon party principle, what point is there for him to run as a Republican?

Nation-building has only been a part of the Republican platform since 2001 though, and even during the last 7 years plenty of people in the part have opposed (Obama doing) it.

[ProudModerate2]

You all agree with him because he's touting the Democratic Party line!

Investing in infrastructure used to be a common-sense bipartisan thing. This is not some kooky left-wing scheme; it's one of the fundamental purposes of government! It's not our fault the GOP has gone crazy in the past ten or twenty years.

I'm all for investing in infrastructure. Everyone knows this. Even Adam Smith agreed with you. But this anti-war posturing is just out of the 2008 Obama playbook. Regardless of whether or not it's right, it's just not a Republican position. If Donald Trump is going to ignore more or less every agreed-upon party principle, what point is there for him to run as a Republican?

Simfan,
Your line of thinking, is exactly why Washington politics does not work, and why the politicians are hated by the super-vast majority of all Americans.
If a plan or idea is "good" for our nation, who cares if it's "touting the Democratic Party line."

Listen to yourself. You said : "Regardless of whether or not it's right, it's just not a Republican position."
Really ?!?!?  This sounds just like what the wacky hard-right tea-bagging Republicans would say. And they are exactly why government is so hated by us. Nothing can or will get done in Washington with this type of attitude.

I'm convinced that if Obama said that "taking a sh*t is good policy," that wacky Pubs (like you) would try to convince Americans that we should not use the bathroom, simply because Obama said it, and it is a "Democratic position."
This is the extreme view of who the Tea-Baggers have become, and their extreme position to take and stand for .... "regardless of whether or not it's right," but because "it's just not a Republican position."

[Simfan34]

Simfan,
Your line of thinking, is exactly why Washington politics does not work, and why the politicians are hated by the super-vast majority of all Americans.
If a plan or idea is "good" for our nation, who cares if it's "touting the Democratic Party line."

Listen to yourself. You said : "Regardless of whether or not it's right, it's just not a Republican position."
Really ?!?!?  This sounds just like what the wacky hard-right tea-bagging Republicans would say. And they are exactly why government is so hated by us. Nothing can or will get done in Washington with this type of attitude.

I'm convinced that if Obama said that "taking a sh*t is good policy," that wacky Pubs (like you) would try to convince Americans that we should not use the bathroom, simply because Obama said it, and it is a "Democratic position."
This is the extreme view of who the Tea-Baggers have become, and their extreme position to take and stand for .... "regardless of whether or not it's right," but because "it's just not a Republican position."

I'm hardly one of the "wackos", but if you think that the logical position on nearly every issue happens to be that of the Democratic Party... you might just do better in the Democratic Party. If you were to ask me, I'd say Obama's doing a fair job, I like him as a person, and, to a degree, I'm glad we've elected a black President. I'm not someone goes around accusing people of being insufficiently conservative. I'm am one of those detestable moderate Republicans, if only in terms of policy positions rather than philosophy (which is decidedly un-moderate). But I think I have the right to question someone who regularly expresses views inconsistent with what would have been considered "mainstream conservatism" in 2005, 1995, even 1985-- to say nothing of the brainless "oppositionism" of 2015.

To think that none of this matters because Trump hates Mexicans, Muslims, foreigners, and thinks Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim, is only a viable position if one takes the most myopic view of the Republican Party possible-- that the GOP's only real defining characteristic is general bigotry. This is what many liberals believe, it seems to be Trump's belief, and his campaign shows that.

If I sound somewhat confused, it is because I am. I essentially despise what the modern Republican Party has become, but I am, on a fundamental level, nothing other than a conservative, and quite frankly, I've been a (black) Republican for so long that it is essentially a personality trait. I'm forced to sit around waiting that my party will one day come to its senses. But this makes even less sense than usual! Trump's flip-flopping on the issues (usually half-arsed, on top of that!) make Kerry, Romney, and Hillary look stoically consistent by comparison. This is literally someone who was saying that he loved Muslims, that they were the best three months ago. I mean, I can understand not caring, but this much?!

Sure, this may be consistent with what I think of the electorate at large. But this goes even beyond that. Trump says that he'll beat ISIS, that he'll get along well with Putin, etc, gives no evidence whatsoever as to how he'll do any of this, and yet they cheer and applaud all the same! Not even a dictator of a third-world backwater would be likely to pull this off. Even Kim Jong-un only gets away with it thanks to seven decades of brainwashing and repression. Bernie Sanders may promise the impossible, but Trump... ugh!