Like it or not, security and terrorism are big factors . Mineralman

[CC27]

Star Member MineralMan (78,676 posts)

Like it or not, security and terrorism are big factors


in the Democratic Primaries. In combination, that will continue to be a factor right through the general election. Any candidate who does not recognize that voters are concerned about that issue will be unable to succeed in gaining the nomination.

It's just one issue, but it will be one of the major issues, and the candidates ideas about it must be heard. The public will be listening for words that give them some reassurance and hope that the problem can be effectively dealt with.

That doesn't mean that the ideas expressed are viable or that they will really suppress terrorism. That's not what will be important in the campaigns. What will be important is whether they sound viable and reassuring.

It's an election, not a logical debate. The prize for the winner of the debate is votes. Dodging the question never works out well in such a debate.

Can Hillary Clinton end terrorism? Of course not. Can anyone? Of course not, at least not from this country. That doesn't matter, though, when it comes to the upcoming elections.

Right now, during this small period of time, it's the issue that is resonating most with all of those voters who never engage in political discussion or visit political websites. They're the ones who will decide in the elections.

Hillary's on target with that issue right now. She's building support by staying on target. If things settle down, some other issue will rise to the top of peoples concerns. Right not it's security and terrorism. That's dictated by the news.

I hate your condescending stuck up posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251900260

[Big Dog]

That doesn't mean that the ideas expressed are viable or that they will really suppress terrorism. That's not what will be important in the campaigns. What will be important is whether they sound viable and reassuring.

TRANSLATION: Donk voters are easily lulled back into a stupor by false reassurances and platitudes. Feel free to lie your asses off, candidates!

[BlueStateSaint]

The Five just cited a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll which had "national security/terrorism" as the biggest issue among their respondents--40% cited it in that poll.  It's a huge blind spot for the Dems.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The Five just cited a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll which had "national security/terrorism" as the biggest issue among their respondents--40% cited it in that poll.  It's a huge blind spot for the Dems.

Back in '03 I remember conversations/debates about whether Iraq was a good idea.

It's always been in my mind that Iraq was NOT about 9/11 or WMDs but rather it was about stopping the state sponsors of terrorism.

One of the sticking points was that such a strategy would be multi-decadal if not multi-generational. To some that was a reason to avoid the war. To others it was meant as warning that endurance of will would be required.

"The general who will receive the final surrender in this war has not been born," I remember reading.

But, I also remember reading that democracies are only good for about 7 years of war before they become fatigued. Once that happened they would, with willful ignorance, follow after whomever promises to get them out of the war even though in the back of their minds they know better.

Add in an effeminate con artist like Obama giving out freebies and telling people that war costs freebies and they will reach the 7-year bitch sooner and more acutely.

We knew the demon-rat-ticks were going to be the domestic threat in this war. Obama realized those warnings in spades. (  )

But we also knew that in so doing the American people were going to pay a price for their fatigue. The con artists would be shown to be nothing but con artists. The promises of peace and free birth control would prove to be little more than a siren's song.

Though the American are to blame for their willful ignorance they will, none the less, be mad at the con artists who took advantage of their fatigue.

Welcome to 2016.

Now what?

[DLR Pyro]

The Five just cited a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll which had "national security/terrorism" as the biggest issue among their respondents--40% cited it in that poll.  It's a huge blind spot for the Dems.

you'd think climate change would be on more of the respondents mind with how obsessed  lord zero is about it.

[diesel driver]

As long as Hillery stays hidden and doesn't speak, she'll do OK.

When she starts talking and campaigning, her poll numbers will fall faster than the Hindenburg.

[Patriot Guard Rider]

As long as Hillery stays hidden and doesn't speak, she'll do OK.

When she starts talking and campaigning, her poll numbers will fall faster than the Hindenburg.

Exactly right. Once the general starts and it's her vs. Trump or her vs. Cruz, she will HAVE to start answering questions. I think either one would fire at will, with Trump dropping more nukes.

It will expose her.

And for lurking DUmmies, guess what. Bernie will NOT be your nominee. HA!

[thundley4]

Exactly right. Once the general starts and it's her vs. Trump or her vs. Cruz, she will HAVE to start answering questions. I think either one would fire at will, with Trump dropping more nukes.

It will expose her.

And for lurking DUmmies, guess what. Bernie will NOT be your nominee. HA!

I think Cruz would do better in a debate against Hillary than Trump would.

[Patriot Guard Rider]

I think Cruz would do better in a debate against Hillary than Trump would.

Either one would make her have to answer questions. Her consistent non-answers would be challenged.

[Tess Anderson]

I hate your condescending stuck up posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251900260

Campbell is such a twit:

Response to cali (Original post)Tue Dec 15, 2015, 01:53 PM
Star Member MineralMan (78,676 posts)
57. Half of the public has sub-average IQs.

We call them Republicans, I think.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027445494

We call them DUmmies, I think. Pompous jerk.

[obumazombie]

These PonP's and PoP's as coach franksolich would refer to them are stepping up their mindless drivel just at the point when it will have little impact on their odds of garnering an end of year award.

[I_B_Perky]

Back in '03 I remember conversations/debates about whether Iraq was a good idea.

It's always been in my mind that Iraq was NOT about 9/11 or WMDs but rather it was about stopping the state sponsors of terrorism.

One of the sticking points was that such a strategy would be multi-decadal if not multi-generational. To some that was a reason to avoid the war. To others it was meant as warning that endurance of will would be required.

"The general who will receive the final surrender in this war has not been born," I remember reading.

But, I also remember reading that democracies are only good for about 7 years of war before they become fatigued. Once that happened they would, with willful ignorance, follow after whomever promises to get them out of the war even though in the back of their minds they know better.

Add in an effeminate con artist like Obama giving out freebies and telling people that war costs freebies and they will reach the 7-year bitch sooner and more acutely.

We knew the demon-rat-ticks were going to be the domestic threat in this war. Obama realized those warnings in spades. (  )

But we also knew that in so doing the American people were going to pay a price for their fatigue. The con artists would be shown to be nothing but con artists. The promises of peace and free birth control would prove to be little more than a siren's song.

Though the American are to blame for their willful ignorance they will, none the less, be mad at the con artists who took advantage of their fatigue.

Welcome to 2016.

Now what?

Unfortunately WW3.  It is coming. No doubt in my mind.  All it is going to take is NYC or San Fran to be a smoking hole in the ground, and it will happen.  The US liberals are great at burying their heads in the sand... until it hits close to home.  Now once that happens, then the American people get mightily pissed off, libbies included... for the simple reason libbies first concern is their own ass... and then the US will do what it takes to finish this once and for all.

The real wildcard is china.

[BlueStateSaint]

Unfortunately WW3.  It is coming. No doubt in my mind.  All it is going to take is NYC or San Fran to be a smoking hole in the ground, and it will happen.  The US liberals are great at burying their heads in the sand... until it hits close to home.  Now once that happens, then the American people get mightily pissed off, libbies included... for the simple reason libbies first concern is their own ass... and then the US will do what it takes to finish this once and for all.

The real wildcard is china.

Don't think that China doesn't have Islamist problems of its own--they do.

[diesel driver]

Don't think that China doesn't have Islamist problems of its own--they do.

I do sorta admire Russia and China's methods of keeping a lid on the ragheads.

If what I've heard is right, when someone in a family goes jihadi, they wipe out the entire family down to the 6th cousin...

[FiddyBeowulf]

The Five just cited a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll which had "national security/terrorism" as the biggest issue among their respondents--40% cited it in that poll.  It's a huge blind spot for the Dems.

you'd think climate change would be on more of the respondents mind with how obsessed  lord zero is about it.

In Obama's mind climate change causes the creation of terrorists and fixing the former will fix the latter.   

[Boudicca]

I do sorta admire Russia and China's methods of keeping a lid on the ragheads.

If what I've heard is right, when someone in a family goes jihadi, they wipe out the entire family down to the 6th cousin...

If you're an ISIS scumbag, the prospect of a Hitlary or Crazy Bern presidency probably makes you feel REALLY safe.  I WANT them to fear our leaders, much as the Soviets feared "crazy" Reagan.  Russia and China are also signatories to the Geneva Convention, are they not?  Rand Paul is approaching national security from a cerebral stance, and that works well in the Senate, or academia, but it's a shitty, stupid strategy for dealing with cold, hard reality.  Until we shake off all the false constraints shackling our military, the greatest in the world no thanks to Obola, we are NEVER going to make a dent in terrorism, let alone hunt them down and destroy them (Cruz's best line of the night, imo).

You either root out and pulverize ALL of the support systems of Islamic fighters, including the families, or you DO tie your hands behind your back.  Obola would rather one hundred of our soldiers die so one innocent Muslim family member is spared than the reverse.  It's bullshit.

This Constitution of which Rand Paul speaks only lays out a few critical responsibilities for the President, and securing our national borders and protecting the people is the supreme task before whoever sits in the Oval Office.  We've already had seven and a half years of craven cowering in the face of Islamic terror under the guise of protecting the rights of terrorists and their families, not hurting Muslim feelings, etc. ad nauseam.  That little dance of so-called scruples does nothing to impede the enemy here or abroad, but it does give our adversaries hope that nothing with change and Americans are so damn dense they're going to side with political correctness, if only enough pundit scolds shame them into embarrassment for their very legitimate feelings of outrage, betrayal, and resolve to elect someone to scour the planet of this malignant tumor that calls itself radical Islam.

[Chris_]

I do sorta admire Russia and China's methods of keeping a lid on the ragheads.

If what I've heard is right, when someone in a family goes jihadi, they wipe out the entire family down to the 6th cousin...

I wonder if that's an Asian think.  The North Koreans will imprison or execute up the to three generations of the immediate family of anyone they suspect of trying to overthrow their regime.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Back in '03 I remember conversations/debates about whether Iraq was a good idea.

It's always been in my mind that Iraq was NOT about 9/11 or WMDs but rather it was about stopping the state sponsors of terrorism.

One of the sticking points was that such a strategy would be multi-decadal if not multi-generational. To some that was a reason to avoid the war. To others it was meant as warning that endurance of will would be required.

"The general who will receive the final surrender in this war has not been born," I remember reading.

But, I also remember reading that democracies are only good for about 7 years of war before they become fatigued. Once that happened they would, with willful ignorance, follow after whomever promises to get them out of the war even though in the back of their minds they know better.

Add in an effeminate con artist like Obama giving out freebies and telling people that war costs freebies and they will reach the 7-year bitch sooner and more acutely.

We knew the demon-rat-ticks were going to be the domestic threat in this war. Obama realized those warnings in spades. (  )

But we also knew that in so doing the American people were going to pay a price for their fatigue. The con artists would be shown to be nothing but con artists. The promises of peace and free birth control would prove to be little more than a siren's song.

Though the American are to blame for their willful ignorance they will, none the less, be mad at the con artists who took advantage of their fatigue.

Welcome to 2016.

Now what?

Yeah.  The US is politically incapable of fighting the kind of war it would actually take to defeat Islamist designs on world domination, both due to the religious aspect and the commitment-fatigue issue.

While I was perfectly willing to serve in it, I never thought the casus belli for the Iraq war had been made by the Bush Admin.  The intelligence was unconvincing and I gave Powell and Bush the benefit of the doubt at the time, figuring that there was probably more they couldn't disclose, though it turned out that they really and truly DIDN'T have anything more concrete than the stuff Powell presented publicly to Congress.  Nor did they present a convincing case that Saddam was a serious threat to the US or our interests as state sponsor of terrorism, despite a lot of heated rhetoric about it, though they did make a sound case on that with respect to the Taliban in Afghanistan which more-or-less carried them through on the Iraq resolution on nothing much but momentum and hot air.

Once all the intelligence rocks were flipped over after the fact, I have to admit the Iraq War did start to look a lot like the personal vendetta that Bush's detractors claimed.  It was not so much that the Bush Administration cynically did that for the purely-personal grudge of the Bush family and their hangers-on, but because all the valid intelligence was viewed through the lens of that grudge rather than being critically analyzed, and then that dispassionate analysis accepted by the political leadership.

[thundley4]

It was not so much that the Bush Administration cynically did that for the purely-personal grudge of the Bush family and their hangers-on, but because all the valid intelligence was viewed through the lens of that grudge rather than being critically analyzed, and then that dispassionate analysis accepted by the political leadership.

Call it a family grudge or whatever, but I think GW may have believed that his dad should have taken out Saddam in the first Gulf War, but the left wouldn't let him.  There is also the fact that Saddam kept violating the no-fly zones.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Call it a family grudge or whatever, but I think GW may have believed that his dad should have taken out Saddam in the first Gulf War, but the left wouldn't let him.  There is also the fact that Saddam kept violating the no-fly zones.

IIRC Bush Sr.'s own view of the scope of the coalition stayed his hand, which only became a bone of contention later.  There wasn't an uprising on the left side of the Congress to yell 'Stop.'  Kind of ironically, Bush Sr. and Powell had touted how wonderful a huge coalition with lots of non-US ground and air forces was, but the actual outcome highlighted the fundamental weakness of coalition warfare - the limitation of strategic objectives to the lowest common denominator acceptable to all the participants.

I believe they found that Saddam had had a plot going to knock off Bush Sr. after Gulf I, which was supposed to be the real basis of the grudge.  After losing a few air defense radars, Saddam adapted pretty well to the No-Fly Zone, and crushed the Shi'ite rising with chopper-only air support (Which was allowed), a huge embarrassment to Bush Sr. and his self-limited victory in Gulf I, which likely also figured into the grudge thing. 

[thundley4]

IIRC Bush Sr.'s own view of the scope of the coalition stayed his hand, which only became a bone of contention later.  There wasn't an uprising on the left side of the Congress to yell 'Stop.'  Kind of ironically, Bush Sr. and Powell had touted how wonderful a huge coalition with lots of non-US ground and air forces was, but the actual outcome highlighted the fundamental weakness of coalition warfare - the limitation of strategic objectives to the lowest common denominator acceptable to all the participants.

I believe they found that Saddam had had a plot going to knock off Bush Sr. after Gulf I, which was supposed to be the real basis of the grudge.  After losing a few air defense radars, Saddam adapted pretty well to the No-Fly Zone, and crushed the Shi'ite rising with chopper-only air support (Which was allowed), a huge embarrassment to Bush Sr. and his self-limited victory in Gulf I, which likely also figured into the grudge thing.

True, but it was still a huge mistake to leave Saddam in power.

[BlueStateSaint]

True, but it was still a huge mistake to leave Saddam in power.

IIRC, the UN mandate for the war only allowed for the ejection of the Iraqis from Kuwait, not to go right up to Baghdad, which is what GEN Schwarzkopf (sp?) wanted to do.

[Carl]

It was not so much that the Bush Administration cynically did that for the purely-personal grudge of the Bush family and their hangers-on, but because all the valid intelligence was viewed through the lens of that grudge rather than being critically analyzed, and then that dispassionate analysis accepted by the political leadership.

I always viewed it as a (in hindsight now) overly optimistic estimation of what people in that region would do with freedom.
If it had worked it would have provided a strategically perfect area to further that goal away from ruthless despots and religious fanatics.

It turned out different and I guess should have been expected as it normally takes as long to undo a problem as it did to create it.

In light of that it is doubly stupid then what Obozo tried in Egypt and Libya having the benefit of hindsight.   

[Boudicca]

True, but it was still a huge mistake to leave Saddam in power.

Bush upended the apple cart of a delicate dance between Iran and Iraq.  We see, in the misfiring of our three branches of government, what happens when a balance is disrupted.  Bush upended that crucial balance, for whatever reason, and it has been an unmitigated disaster.

Far be it for we stupid voting taxpaying peons to fathom airy fairy dreams of nation building and spreading democracy, especially among a people who revel in the utter abasement of their self worth.  Hell, their entire religion means SUBMISSION.

Better the American idea to die standing up, not living on our knees.  We've done that for too many decades while being castigated for being proud to be an American.  If Jeb, and all the other standard political talking ass class candidates want to understand WHY the revolution will succeed against Washington this time, its inception began when Jimmy Carter caved to the Iranian terrorists, fomented in the crucible of the disastrous nation building exercises foisted upon both Americans and Middle Eastern Muslims, and reached its apex with the soul crushing cringing of the creature who is supposed to represent the best of America and instead exemplifies the absolute nadir of what a democracy can produce.

Youall will note that the ONLY democracy flourishing in the ME is Israel (no thanks to Obola) and they ain't a Muslim theocracy, nor are the majority of their citizens lining up to become card carrying mosque goers.

[USA4ME]

What's becoming painfully obvious (and what was already obvious to those who were paying attention) is that Dear Leader's administration has no clue how to deal with Islamic militants. Or if there are a handful within the leadership that do have a clue, they're hog-tied by others within the administration and the Dem voting base who would object to anything beyond air strikes (which they only approve because it's Dear leader doing it), which alone can only do so much.

Look, these groups are becoming more sophisticated. I'm guessing they've already put out the word to those who would carry out attacks to keep their beliefs off social media, or if you send a bomb threat to make sure to capitalize the "A" in Allah so they'll think it's authentic (or if you want to fool them to think you're not going to set off bombs, but really you are, then don't capitalize Allah so as to kill the most people), etc... and other things that could possibly draw attention. Libs have no clue how to defeat nuts like that. They'll just keep up the "just be nice and they'll finally leave us alone" nonsense.

Hillary in office would be a dream come true for ISIS and al-Qaeda, just as Dear Leader has been a gift that keeps on giving.

.