HuskerNation1

Jon Stewart on equality and unity: Two searing passages, I thought. We live in a democracy, which comes with it the valued institution of self-determination. It also means bad actors are always trying to deploy the instruments of fear and anger to co-opt it for their own ends (as well- or poorly-intended they may be). To guard the values we hold dear in our system requires a healthy, constant vigilance. (I know those are technically Barty Crouch, Jr.'s words, hence the "healthy" qualifier ) I dont think any politician has to instill fear in the American people. All you have to do is watch the news anymore and you are bound to see some horrific incident that could happen in any of our communities. Trump is the only one talking about the fear that is very real. A poll out last week shows that Americans are more fearful now of a terrorist attack than at any point since 2003. Great. The media has helped make everyone afraid of everything all the time by focusing almost exclusively on negatives and I should live my life in fear, despite factual evidence showing today may well be the safest point in US history. Honestly, who should you believe? The people trying to sell a story or factual statistics? Whether its the local or national news, the media nearly always opens up with negative stories, whether its from a local shooting or a natural disaster or something more significant like a terror attack. The difference between 2016 and just a few years ago is that the frequency of violent attacks killing many has increased to a point its happening every couple weeks. Do you really expect the news to not cover the police shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge or the terror attacks in Orlando, Nice, and Munich all within the last 40 days?

Jon Stewart on equality and unity: Two searing passages, I thought. We live in a democracy, which comes with it the valued institution of self-determination. It also means bad actors are always trying to deploy the instruments of fear and anger to co-opt it for their own ends (as well- or poorly-intended they may be). To guard the values we hold dear in our system requires a healthy, constant vigilance. (I know those are technically Barty Crouch, Jr.'s words, hence the "healthy" qualifier ) I dont think any politician has to instill fear in the American people. All you have to do is watch the news anymore and you are bound to see some horrific incident that could happen in any of our communities. Trump is the only one talking about the fear that is very real. A poll out last week shows that Americans are more fearful now of a terrorist attack than at any point since 2003.

Every time thy discussed this, they made it clear that this is not indicative of the general public. Someone listening to the speech is going to have a much higher than normal chance of being someone who is seriously already thinking of voting for him. The same thing will happen next week with Hillary. True..but the funny part is CNN seemed to be trashing their own poll. The second number is more important in that is signals support was solidified by a decent number.

It looks like Trump received some very positive numbers from CNN's poll last night after the speech....75% responded positively to the speech, and 56% indicated they were more likely to support Trump. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/22/75-percent-positive-response-to-donald-trump-speech-so-cnn-trashes-its-own-poll/

Here's an interesting piece about whether our government is ready for disruption like other major industries have been in the past 2 decades. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/22/is_america_ready_for_a_disruptive_president_131289.html

For an outsider candidate who is also a billionaire, I thought Trump came across as a guy that understands the challenges and fears of the working class, and this was a general theme through all of his children's speeches too. While I think the speech was too long, I think it hit on every single note and specifically targeted minorities, women, and the working class, and surprising the LGBT crowd too. As I've said multiple times on here, this election will come down to whether Americans want an outsider like Trump, or the candidate of the status quo in Clinton. There is a lot of anxiety in the nation with the racial unrest and the increase in terror attacks, but if we do not see any more incidents of terrorism here in the US or abroad, and we don't see any more issues of cops being shot, then voters may forget about what happened in June and July and reward Hillary at the ballots. If we continue to see unrest in the next 2 or 3 months, I think that will push Trump over the top. I think the DNC will be better orchestrated next week, but Hillary has a real challenge. First, she has to present herself as likable and trustworthy, and I'm not sure how you change someone's opinion in a one hour speech. But a bigger challenge is that she will have to follow 2 great orators in Obama and Bill Clinton. Hillary is not a natural speaker, so the convention staffers will have to make sure she is not overshadowed. We will hear a lot from Hillary and Obama about the recession and claims that the economy is booming, but most middle income voters are not feeling that, so Hillary will have to look to other reasons she should be given Obama's third term.

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/ Fascinating. I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have. Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse. Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin? As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really? Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken? Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way? And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims. And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy. Yay. I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country? I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor. So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite. Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context. I guess you could call that arguing. Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting. But it's what you do. For the children. Since you do not think its ok to align most of the blame to our Presidents, who else besides the Bush administration do you fault for Iraq? Please be specific. Well it would certainly include the 28 Senate Democrats who voted for Bush's war authorization, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid. And I'm not sure I blame Bush as much as I blamed Dick Cheney, who along with his Project for a New American Century cohorts got totally taken in by Ahmed Chalabi's self-serving and totally wrong predictions of how Iraq would react to the U.S. invasion. Actually, they were wrong about a whole lot of things. But if we're talking about who has fueled the flames of divisiveness in the country the past seven years, you'd have to give a good hard look at the most obstructionist Congress in U.S. history, who actually made no secret of their intention to ensure nothing good happens during the Obama administration. My problem with Obama is that he never hit back hard enough. I'm guessing you will disagree. Wow, you just stated that no entity should be blamed for current challenges, yet you ended by blaming the GOP Congress. I definitely do not agree with you on this. My thought is that the President, regardless of party, has the burden to bring elected officials together and find common ground. When he first took office, I know John McCain and many other Republicans wanted to give Obama a chance as he was this new aspirational figure. And he had a great chance to address issues such as immigration reform where he probably could have found common ground. Instead, he jumped straight into Obamacare which was the most divisive issue he could have possibly pushed. His decision to push Obamacare created the harsh divide we see today between the executive and legislative branch. I think he made a political decision to ram Obamacare through while he had an all Democratic Congress, but it was a strategic mistake for reaching consensus on future legislation. Moreover, in 2010 the GOP won huge numbers in the mid-terms, and unlike Bill Clinton in 1994, Obama showed no willingness to listen to the American people and indicate that "the era of big government" was over, or make some concessions that he needed to do more to work with Congress. If Trump somehow wins in November, I will hold the expectation of him that he must set the right tone and take the lead in partnering with Congress, whether it's a Democratic or Republican Congress. As for Obama hitting back, I think he has done that and moreso. He shows much more passion and energy when he goes after Republican than when he does regarding terrorists. When the Brussels attack happened he was very mellow and nonchalant about the horrific attack, yet I remember that same week he was asked a question about Republicans in Congress, and his hold demeanor changed and he was highly aggressive. Great. And if a Republican president has to deal with a Democratic congress that refuses to pass anything? You act as though that has never happened. In 2006 Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid campaigned on stopping Bush, they won Congress that year, and obstructred at every chance possible. I don't think either party who holds Congress should do that, but as I stated earlier, I think it's up to the POTUS to set an agenda where both sides may find common ground and seek shared outcomes, and LEAD. There are 538 members of Congress...but only one President. The President sets the tone for his administration and how the federal government will work for the American people.

Regardless of what you think of Trump, it's hard to argue that he has raised extremely impressive children. I was really wowed by Donald Trump Jr last night, but I think Eric Trump was even better tonight. It will be interesting to see how Ivanka does tomorrow. I also think Pence has given one of the best VP speeches I have seen in a long time, better than Ryan in 2012, Palin and Biden in 2008, Edwards in 2004, and on... While he filled some of the traditional attack dog role in attacking Hillary, he also did a great job of introducing himself to the American people, explaining his record as Indiana governor, and articulating what the vision that Trump has for this country, and he did so with a pleasant yet direct tone. Most importantly, he succeeded the litmus test voters have in wondering if they can see him as POTUS should anything ever happen to Trump.

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/ Fascinating. I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have. Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse. Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin? As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really? Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken? Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way? And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims. And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy. Yay. I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country? I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor. So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite. Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context. I guess you could call that arguing. Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting. But it's what you do. For the children. Since you do not think its ok to align most of the blame to our Presidents, who else besides the Bush administration do you fault for Iraq? Please be specific. Well it would certainly include the 28 Senate Democrats who voted for Bush's war authorization, including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Harry Reid. And I'm not sure I blame Bush as much as I blamed Dick Cheney, who along with his Project for a New American Century cohorts got totally taken in by Ahmed Chalabi's self-serving and totally wrong predictions of how Iraq would react to the U.S. invasion. Actually, they were wrong about a whole lot of things. But if we're talking about who has fueled the flames of divisiveness in the country the past seven years, you'd have to give a good hard look at the most obstructionist Congress in U.S. history, who actually made no secret of their intention to ensure nothing good happens during the Obama administration. My problem with Obama is that he never hit back hard enough. I'm guessing you will disagree. Wow, you just stated that no entity should be blamed for current challenges, yet you ended by blaming the GOP Congress. I definitely do not agree with you on this. My thought is that the President, regardless of party, has the burden to bring elected officials together and find common ground. When he first took office, I know John McCain and many other Republicans wanted to give Obama a chance as he was this new aspirational figure. And he had a great chance to address issues such as immigration reform where he probably could have found common ground. Instead, he jumped straight into Obamacare which was the most divisive issue he could have possibly pushed. His decision to push Obamacare created the harsh divide we see today between the executive and legislative branch. I think he made a political decision to ram Obamacare through while he had an all Democratic Congress, but it was a strategic mistake for reaching consensus on future legislation. Moreover, in 2010 the GOP won huge numbers in the mid-terms, and unlike Bill Clinton in 1994, Obama showed no willingness to listen to the American people and indicate that "the era of big government" was over, or make some concessions that he needed to do more to work with Congress. If Trump somehow wins in November, I will hold the expectation of him that he must set the right tone and take the lead in partnering with Congress, whether it's a Democratic or Republican Congress. As for Obama hitting back, I think he has done that and moreso. He shows much more passion and energy when he goes after Republican than when he does regarding terrorists. When the Brussels attack happened he was very mellow and nonchalant about the horrific attack, yet I remember that same week he was asked a question about Republicans in Congress, and his hold demeanor changed and he was highly aggressive.

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/ Fascinating. I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have. Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse. Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin? As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really? Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken? Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way? And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims. And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy. Yay. I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country? I think most of my posts have taken historical long views, incorporating political realities that transcend parties, including my most recent posts which advance the not-really-controversial observations that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than many are trying to paint her, and Ronald Reagan said and did many things that conservatives supposedly abhor. So no...I never say "it's all this!" or "it's only that!" I'm trying to do the exact opposite. Which means that when someone assigns all the responsibility for racial divisiveness to Barack Obama, or completely ignores things the entire Iraq War during their outrage over Benghazi, I have a strong urge to provide context. I guess you could call that arguing. Believe it or not, I don't like it. It's spiritually exhausting. But it's what you do. For the children. I have stated multiple times that most issues are complex, but at the same time the buck often stops with the Potus. Did I ever say that Obama was solely to blame for the current racial division? Nope. But I do think he was a major contributor. Since you do not think its ok to align most of the blame to our Presidents, who else besides the Bush administration do you fault for Iraq? Please be specific.

Therein lies the problem... If you couldn't take that as a joke that's too bad. Everyone thinks there point of view is right, as I'm sure you do as well. It's no different when you see people bicker back and forth on the football board too. Oh, I could take it as a joke if it weren't the norm. What is the norm exactly? Me speaking my point of view and everyone else speaking their point of view? Not so much. I'm not necessarily speaking about you, but there are a few posters here (we all know who they are) who will not admit a single fault with their line of thinking, their party, or false narratives/data they preach. It's disturbing to say the least. This country is known as the grand experiment for a reason. Nobody can honestly say they have the right answer tonour problems. There are always multiple paths to solve any problem. Yes, I have seen some of these posters active in this very thread today. I am certainly conservative but can readily admit faults or concerns with those within the GOP, whether we are talking Bush 43, Trump, or others.

Christie prosecuted the case against Hillary quite well. I wonder if he would do so as attorney general in a Trump administration.

I agree...Pence was a slam dunk pick in that he's a solid conservative and also is a nice counter-balance to Trump regarding his style and persona.

Therein lies the problem... If you couldn't take that as a joke that's too bad. Everyone thinks there point of view is right, as I'm sure you do as well. It's no different when you see people bicker back and forth on the football board too. Oh, I could take it as a joke if it weren't the norm. What is the norm exactly? Me speaking my point of view and everyone else speaking their point of view?

I'm so excited about Lewis potentially committing to NU. Nebraska is such a great school and Lincoln is such a great town.

Therein lies the problem... If you couldn't take that as a joke that's too bad. Everyone thinks there point of view is right, as I'm sure you do as well. It's no different when you see people bicker back and forth on the football board too.

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/ Fascinating. I didn't expect you to actually read and digest the links I provided, but I wish you would have. Again, the facts do not match up with the fears, and that kinda says everything about the current political discourse. Do you want to venture why people believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? On both sides of the coin? As for what is driving the divisiveness in this country.....really? Have you read the words Obama has actually spoken? The actions he has, and hasn't taken? Have you seen the incredibly racist sh#t thrown his way? And uhm.....class warfare works in both directions, my friend, and the rich guys have been winning. Ironically, by getting people like you to believe billionaires are victims. And ironically, the country doesn't feel safer right now because we are armed to the f'ing teeth, shooting everyone in sight and told not to talk about our insane fetish with guns. That's not Islamic Terrorism, folks. That's homegrown sociopathy. Yay. I think you just like to argue. I did read your link which is why I put forward the response that I did. No matter what the data and polling show, you will always come back to the same response that it's always the Republicans to blame, only Republicans are extreme, its all because of guns, etc.. So you honestly believe Obama has no responsibility for the current growth of terrorism or the increase in divisions in this country?

Haha...or we could see Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or better yet Louis Farrakhan introduce Hillary next week. That would be in alignment with the Democrats support for an organization such as BLM that has advocated the killing of cops. And guess what...another police officer has been shot in Kansas City. Your image of a radical leftist Democratic party is laughable to both radical leftists and Democrats. And historians. Obama and the Clintons could have passed as moderate Republicans for most of the last century. And Ronald Reagan's words and policies wouldn't have passed the current conservative litmus test, no matter how much they love to invoke his name. Wow, your posts keep getting better. You really think that Obama and Hillary are moderate Republicans. That has to be the post of the entire year on this board. And I think we've had this argument before as my response is that Bush 43 could then be called a moderate Democrat with your way of thinking. After all, like LBJ, he expanded Medicare and also engaged in an unpopular war. Do you agree that Bush is a moderate Democrat? Also, I am still not convinced Donald Trump is a conservative, yet he somehow won this years GOP nomination. Meanwhile, a self-described socialist was extremely close to winning the Democratic nomination...let's say that again. A socialist nearly won the Democratic nomination, and you are claiming that the Democratic party has not moved far to the left. Hillary is now talking about free education just as Bernie did.

I'm scared for your kids' development of social skills growing up under such a paranoid parent. Wow do you not have kids? I have heard from many parents with kids our age saying the exact same thing about the world we live in right now. Being cautious and protective with them has no bearing on their social development whatsoever no matter what belief system you subscribe to. That's EXACTLY what it will do. If you keep your kids away from the "Big Ol' Mean City" and crowds of people, they will develop the same backward mindset that people of other colors, heritages, orientations, beliefs, etc, are going to all do them harm. Then no one learns. No one listens. And everyone becomes a Republican. Dude, you have no idea what you are talking about. My kids are currently in some of the most racially diverse schools in our area, and have plenty of exposure to broad points of view. You sound like an elitist liberal who thinks they know better about how children should be raised in our society. Its the mindset that anybody who may not agree with gay marriage, owning guns, etc...must somehow be backwards or a redneck. I'll tell you what is backwards...a Democratic party that has been hijacked by far left followers who push and promote divisiveness along racial lines and against cops for the false claim that its all about criminal justice, and then refuses to accept and responsibility when police officers are being shot all across the nation. Drawing a line in the sand and labeling everyone who disagrees with you as a liberal isn't divisive? First off, I'm not running for POTUS, and while I would love for all of us to agree on here, I have realized in my time here that is unlikely. Perhaps I am wrong about some that I feel are liberal, but those assessments are made based upon multiple posts where there is a consistent defense of liberal views. I would guess that those who believe strongly in Obama and more liberal views do not feel its a bad thing to be called a liberal. I honestly don't think referring to different political ideologies is that controversial, but we can agree to disagree. And I've seen Guy and many others refer to Republicans as clowns or other similar terms, and if you look through this thread a majority of the posts are negative posts about the Republican nominee. I personally think most of the guys (and gals) on here are good despite having the wrong point of view, and it's part of our American culture to have the ability to disagree in a civil manner. Now I hold our Presidents to a much higher standard and believe that Obama has created divisions in this country to benefit him and his party politically. This was done 4 years ago through class warfare and bashing the wealthy and businesses as being bad, and it continues with his attempts to jump on any wrongdoing of cops and pushing an agenda that they target blacks unfairly. I think there is a way he could have gone about these discussions that would have brought the country together, but unlike MLK Jr, he did not do that.

Well the polling continues to be neck and neck between the 2 candidates. Trump has taken the lead in the latest LA Times poll and is also up by 1 now in a 4-say matchup according to an NBC poll. A month ago Hillary was leading by several points in nearly every poll. We are now starting to see a mix of results both nationally and at the state level. It actually seems Trump is performing better in the key swing states than he is at a national level. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

To be honest, I would love to be arguing over little things like this, rather than big things like we have under Obama such as all of the racial tension, cop killing, and terror attacks. If that is all we were to argue about with a President Trump, this country would be in way better shape than it is today. I would like that too. But that's not what would happen. We'd argue about the little things and the big things. And I fear the division would be much, much worse. And again, the left didn't make an issue of her speech. That's entirely on the writer and the Trump campaign for how they handled it. The rest of us just noticed and reported it. Oh I agree that the speech writer botched this big time, so there is definitely blame there. But I have looked all over a variety of media outlets today, and you are seeing most of the left-leaning outlets obsessing about this topic. I disagree that this country will be more divided with Trump. It honestly cannot get much worse than it is right now. While Trump spouts off about crap too often, I think he has begun to reign that in a bit the past month with the recognition that he is the nominee, and with the new advisor that has done well overall except for the speech botch from last night. I'll be interested to see his tone in his acceptance speech Thursday night.

Now you sound like HIllary Clinton talking about how many miles she has flown as SOS as one of her greatest accomplishments. Despite increasing the number of bombs dropped, the results have gotten worse. It's like claiming that we can solve the education issues in this country by throwing more money at it. Results are what matter, and your links are simply attempts to suggest Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism. Americans are more concerned now that any any other time since 2003 about the threat of a terror attack...does that signify that Obama has made this country feel safer? http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/terror-attack-poll/

To be honest, I would love to be arguing over little things like this, rather than big things like we have under Obama such as all of the racial tension, cop killing, and terror attacks. If that is all we were to argue about with a President Trump, this country would be in way better shape than it is today.

Lol...why I am not surprised you claim the right made Benghazi an issue, but suggest the left did not try to make an issue of Melania's speech.

Well as Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld stated through their tenure, terrorism is something you never stop pursuing aggressively, as when you do, the terrorists will pounce. Bush was very clear and decisive after 9/11, claiming you are either with us or the terrorists, and this put all nations harboring terrorists on alert that they needed to step up their game and cooperate and share intelligence to help root out the evil. While it's true terrorists are now forming all over the world, part of this reality is that the successes ISIS has had has created a movement (similar to the Calibraska movement...once a few people make the move, others want to continue). And there are "places" where terrorists are more likely to be found that we can go after immediately. For the lone-wolf attacks, that is going to require far more investment in intelligence gathering, and I get that you can't catch every single event from happening. But we have seen attacks time and again the past 3 or 4 years and it seems to be getting worse. While in hindsight everyone agrees that our government should not have invaded Iraq (Hillary too voted for it), the reality is that we did and by the end of Bush's term, the surge was a success, and ISIS was decimated. Obama made a campaign promise to get out of Iraq no matter what the consequences were, and as he put into motion the removal of our troops, we saw what happened. Factoring in Obama's focus on closing guantanamo bay, as well as him making the wrong calls during the "arab spring," our enemies saw weakness and became emboldened. If I were addressing this as the POTUS, here are a few things I would do right away: 1. Increase funding and manpower in the CIA and FBI to improve our intelligence gathering both at home and with our allies abroad. 2. Take strong action against anyone hinting at making an attack, or aligning themselves with ISIS. 3. Make it known that anyone on the verge of committing a terrorist attack, or assisting others to make one will be locked up for a long time. 4. Take the approach Bush took that you are either with us or the terrorists, and increase the pressure on all nations, especially those in the Middle East, to cooperate. 5. Take stronger military action where/when it makes sense, and no, I'm not suggesting a repeat of Iraq to completely topple a government, but this could require ground troops in addition to air strikes. I'm sure there is more than can be done, but that seems like a good start for the next POTUS.