>Maybe talking about foreign policy and war in particular would
>be a more successful avenue on this board? The president has
>more individual control over foreign policy than most of the
>issues that we're talking about, and generally (not going to
>go beyond "generally" here) this board is much further left on
>foreign policy than it is on domestic economic issues.

Absolutely re: Presidential purview and foreign policy. This is precisely the reason why I think it should be a predominate topic - both on here and in the national discussion. It's one of the few areas where the President can act unilaterally - yet we rarely spend any time on it.

Why do I always bring up war and foreign policy? Because it's one of the few areas where there's been a bi-partisan consensus (and not a consensus that you and I might agree on). The reason we've been engaged in forever-war policies is because our leadership in both parties has authorized these wars and failed to challenge the Pentagon and Military-Industrial complex in any viable way. This is one of the main reasons why I support Sanders - and one of the main reasons why I greatly admire and support Tulsi.

>"The United States is a malign force in the world because we
>protect the interests of capital abroad even more violently
>than we do domestically. We are villains. That's bad, and we
>should stop it."
>
>That's it. I emptied out the bag. Don't have much more to say,
>sadly.

I hope you have a lot more to say - because that's a statement that you won't find leaders in the Democratic Party sounding off on.


-->