The socialist America First isolationists who made common cause with the isolationist far-right during the 1930's were dead wrong in keeping us out of the fight against fascism then, and their successors are just as wrong today.

Liberal Democrats from FDR to Barack Obama understood that America has a prime role in international affairs and that withdrawing would only embolden dictators worldwide to exploit the vacuum that would leave behind.

No. Sanders is by far the least suited person running as a Democrat to lead on foreign policy. Dead last.

You might want to read up on Bernie's foreign policy positions here:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/responsible-foreign-policy/

Nothing in these "policy positions" contradicts that.

From the link:

These are code words for reducing America's position at the forefront of world leadership.

Sanders has a terrible record of opposing authoritarianism when the authoritarians are on the far-left. And ain't so hot on his anti-authoritarian bona-fides in any cases.

Which authoritarian has Sanders stood against loudly and publicly?

You can be a strong world leader without pointing a gun at everybody.

says he's prepared to stand against authoritarianism.

Where has he done so? Which authoritarians has he stood against?

I can come up with a long list of authoritarians that he's praised.

No one should.

looks like desperation to me.

It's about negotiating things like alliances and treaties and trade. Having opposed the Iraq war doesn't make him an expert on foreign policy.

That's all we need to know.

Foreign policy is predominantly about diplomacy and forging alliances. When I am considering a candidate for president, I picture him/her in various situations. Giving the State of the Union address, meeting with foreign dignitaries, visiting areas hit by a natural disaster, or expressing condolences to a loved one of a fallen soldier. There are some people I just cannot picture in some or all of those situations.

from being the person who has to make the final decision about whether to send troops to war - and most importantly why or why not, and what the consequences, immediate and long-term, are if he does it, or does not. I can't argue with Bernie's opposition to the Iraq war, but it wasn't on him to have to work out a strategy for stabilizing that region that did not involve military action. Bush and Cheney obviously took a difficult situation and made it much worse, but what would Bernie have done had he been president? What would Bernie do now to fix the various messes that Trump has got us into? Figuring that out is foreign policy. Just voting against a particular war isn't foreign policy.

Being president is a unique position and a president has to make decisions that most people couldn't. There are times where there are no good options, but nonetheless a decision has to be made, ideally the one that causes the least harm. And eventually he/she will have to take the responsibility for putting lives in harms way.

I cannot begin to imagine what Bernie would do fix the messes Trump has created or what kind of people he would have in his cabinet to advise him.

Is he the person the nation could turn to for expressions empathy and human warmth during times of crisis and national grief?

Is it a recent clip or an old one?

Zero
Nada
None
Nikto
жоден
Gornit
Wala

Well...he does know the Pope.

How many trade agreements has Bernie supported? Indeed, I think he would be even more anti-trade then Trump.

...they tend to be giveaways to big business. There is a reason American workers are forced to compete with foreign workers making less than $5/hr.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/fair-trade/

Bernie has been in Congress forever. Yet, he has not be able to use his leadership skills to influence any trade agreement to the point that he would support it?

If Bernie can't work his magic in Congress, I can't see how he would be effective as President even he gets his wish and obtains trade agreements that are even more restrictive. Won't other countries resent Bernie's beggar thy neighbor policies? Won't this later undermine national security as countries effective by such USA first opportunism begin to blame the U.S. for their economic losses?

Indeed, one of the major incentives for peace is the desire to preserve trade. If Bernie is initiating trade wars, fighting for the common man, then the U.S. can and will be targeted.

...Congress tends to be controlled by lobbyists. This is not a secret. If it is in a company's interests to get trade legislation passed that lets them exploit workers overseas, they will put whatever pressure they can on Congresspeople to pass it. This type of activity has been going on for generations. No single member of Congress can compete with that type of influence over their peers. A President, however, can.

You look at how under Trump, the federal government has had to subsidize farmers hurt by retaliatory tariffs. You keep on harping on that Bernie has the purest of motives, but that does not erase a stupid policy. If we set up trade barriers in the name of protectionism, so will other countries. Also, you can't look at Bernie's xenophobic trade policy in isolation, because Bernie has also been a long time critic of immigration reform.

I get it, you believe that Bernie has the purest of motives. Yet, from a policy point of view, Bernie's trade policies seem like warmed over America First type rhetoric.

then we would create human misery for many millions of people worldwide.

This sort of populist economic-nationalism is irresponsible and inhumane.

...so workers in those countries get decent living conditions and are paid adequate wages. This benefits the workers in those countries, obviously, but it also benefits workers here because American and foreign workers would be payed relatively the same, giving American companies less incentive to ship jobs overseas.

would for all intents and purposes ending trade with third world countries.

This economic-nationalist nativism would create misery for millions of workers around the world.

Very plutocratic thinking.

Sanders and Warren view poor foreign workers. The are American Firsters, or as Warren refers to it, "Economic Patriotism."

No thanks.

more foreign policy experience than the countries former V.P?

He may have been right, but he didn't get anyone to "follow".

His vote was just one more instance when he appeased a brutal dictator, one who was in violation of UN resolutions.

Biden, Kerry, and HRC took nuanced positions that gave the sitting president negotiating leverage against Saddam. They did not want a war. They wanted to force compliance.

...

as they opposed her speakership. LOL.

...

chose Joe Biden to be his VP and HRC and Kerry as his Secretaries of State.

I have confidence in Obama's decision foreign policy making skills.

He exercised good leadership in not doing that.

had coming.

No. No way.

He has shown zero understanding of trade and foreign policy.

He will impose tariffs that would shame even Trump's tariffs and start a trade war which will destroy the economy.

No thank you.

(and simply saying "he can too!!!!" is not critical thought or a rational argument)

in matters of foreign policy?

Blood Traces: Bernie’s Iraq War Hypocrisy

Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia, voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted, backed Obama’s Libyan debacle and supports an expanded US role in the Syrian Civil War.

The AUMF is what created Eternal War. Bernie voted for it.


https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/