The General Election

[knapplc]

ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch according to his own CIA director

 

 

That's astounding! Why hasn't anyone mentioned this before?

[HuskerNation1]

Can we all stop presuming we know anything about anyone's kids, anyone's parenting ability, anyone's family at all?

 

This is a tangent we shouldn't go down, guys.

 

Wow, something I actually agree with you on. I brought up the idea that many of my coworkers and friends are concerned about the society we are living in now and how they fear for their children, and have been blatantly attacked for suggesting such a thing. I have not once attacked others for their parental choices and do agree that they should stop posting on here if that is how low they will go.

[HuskerNation1]

 

ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch according to his own CIA director

 

 

That's astounding! Why hasn't anyone mentioned this before?

 

 

Lol..well the truth is the truth...it's hard for the biggest Obama and Hillary defenders to get around this fact.

[StPaulHusker]

 

ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch according to his own CIA director

 

 

That's astounding! Why hasn't anyone mentioned this before?

 

In addition, ISIS is a GLOBAL problem. You can't seriously hold the US President completely accountable for them.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch according to his own CIA director

 

 

That's astounding! Why hasn't anyone mentioned this before?

 

In addition, ISIS is a GLOBAL problem. You can't seriously hold the US President completely accountable for them.

 

 

Most enemies the US has faced over the years are global enemies. Reagan came in and dealt with the Soviet Union head on in a very direct and aggressive way. After the 9/11 wakeup call for the US, George Bush spent his entire time in office focused on keeping this country safe, including taking the fight to the terrorists overseas. Nobody is saying we need to repeat Iraq, but the general principal of going on the offense against terrorism in a broader way is what Obama should have been doing. Instead, he has taken a very weak approach to fighting terrorism, and even called ISIS a JV squad which shows how inept Obama is at even understanding who the enemy is and what they are capable of. I wonder today if he would still call them a JV squad. And while every single issue can be deflected to say that the entire blame can't be attributed to just one person/President, that's how this stuff works. Had Obama done a good job in fighting terrorism, he would be taking all the credit even though it would have been a result of many people.

[knapplc]

Let's say Trump "goes on the offensive" against terrorism. How long does he have to rid the world of it before he's as bad a failure as Obama? Eight years?

 

How realistic is it that the US could "defeat terrorism" if they "go on the offensive?" Terrorism is an ideology, not a place. How does a military offensive, even an aggressive one, "defeat terrorism?"

[HuskerNation1]

Let's say Trump "goes on the offensive" against terrorism. How long does he have to rid the world of it before he's as bad a failure as Obama? Eight years?

 

How realistic is it that the US could "defeat terrorism" if they "go on the offensive?" Terrorism is an ideology, not a place. How does a military offensive, even an aggressive one, "defeat terrorism?"

 

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.

[Danny Bateman]

Let's say Trump "goes on the offensive" against terrorism. How long does he have to rid the world of it before he's as bad a failure as Obama? Eight years?

 

How realistic is it that the US could "defeat terrorism" if they "go on the offensive?" Terrorism is an ideology, not a place. How does a military offensive, even an aggressive one, "defeat terrorism?"

 

Moreover, what are the specific steps Trump should take to combat this scourge, and how do they differ from Obama's "failed policies"? I hear that term thrown around a lot.

 

I get the sense it is easy for many to complain about Obama's choices without providing reasonable alternatives. Hell, the GOP did that for going on four years with Obamacare until Ryan finally rolled out an alternate proposal last month.

 

It took them that long. And it's "a starting point."

[Danny Bateman]

Guy and Dudeguyy,

 

Both of your post are worthy reads and I truly appreciate your views.

 

I am not in the Trump corner and I also can say the same about Hillary. I do not believe there is a winning choice in this election and have some trepidation regarding who will wield what power and for what reason. If I knew one of these two candidates could gain office and we would remain status-quo for the next 4 years, I suspect I might lean that way but I lack the confidence in either choice and may vote for Johnson for the pure reason that it is the closest thing to abstaining from choosing a candidate from the circus we are witnessing.

 

Thanks for sharing your eloquent view however. +1 to both of you!

Thanks Takoda. I appreciate your candor.

 

Johnson is a reasonable alternative. I don't like a lot of his economic ideas, but I could live with him. He's a good man. I certainly understand those that can't vote for Clinton.

 

I just wanted to lay out why I'm comfortable supporting Clinton. I'm not looking to disparage anybody else, or their political leanings, and certainly not anything about their kids or anything else personal.

 

But I'll be damned if I'm going to stand idly by while a charlatan of this degree, a man of such low character, assume the mantle of my president. As much as I disagree with the far right, I can at least find common ground and respect them for going down swinging against Trump. I'd much rather be arguing for gay rights against Cruz right now.

 

The weird thing about Trump is everyone close to him echo that he is a good man and he's not how he acts in public in his private life. I don't know the real Trump. I do think he might have so racist tendencies, given the DoJ lawsuit in '73 regarding racial bias in their company. And his dad was a big time racist.

 

It's just sad that if he is in some ways a good man, that he chose such a repulsive public persona. I don't care too much about how he is in private. How he chooses to promote himself and garner support in public is disqualifying for me.

 

It will be satisfying to watch him eventually lose. Will he admit it? Will he concede defeat? Or will he proclaim the whole thing rigged and illegitimate and say it was stolen from him? Or that he didn't want to win anyway?

 

Gonna be a hell of an election.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

I have two kids and share serious concerns about their future, but it's based more on the fear and reprisal agenda the Trump forces are selling.

 

I love America. But I don't believe in the America they want to get back to, probably because it never existed.

 

So I'm gonna fight for my America, too.

 

I'd love to be more thrilled about Hillary, but I'm far less scared, because everything the Clintons have done is political calculation. I personally don't like poll-driven ideology and the pandering that comes with it, but the result is a pretty fair representation of what most Americans can live with. She's far more pro-business than she is socialist -- a stone cold fact -- and has long been considered a hawk within her own party. She was well respected and collaborated with by Republicans during her Senate career and has never taken an extreme position in her life. If she's the third term of Obama, as the RNC breathlessly warns, we could do a lot worse. If we wanted to "make America Great Again" we could aim for the 1990s of Bill Clinton's presidency and nobody would argue with the numbers. Liberals should be troubled and Conservatives relieved that Hillary Clinton is likely to follow the business-as-usual policies that have maintained order and protected the powerful, much like her predecessors from both parties. It won't work that way, of course.

 

Pretty amusing last night to watch the Republicans discuss the horrors of the past 8 years, without acknowledging that Republican obstructionism was directly responsible for much of it.

 

And God forbid it get out that Barack Obama was actually a terrorist ass-kicker.

 

Or that cop killings actually decreased during his administration.

 

Or that Mexican immigration actually decreased during his administration.

 

Or that Obamacare was originally drafted by Republicans as the alternative to socialized medicine, and endorsed by the private for-profit healthcare industry.

 

Or that Republicans blocked funding to both the VA and what would have been Benghazi security forces.

 

Just keep people angry and ill-informed.

 

That's what I want to save my children from.

 

 

Wow, do we live in the same country. Your posts are comical at least.

 

1. Hillary collaborated well in the Senate with Republicans. Please name me 2 or 3 key pieces of legislation she cosponsored that were signed into law?

 

How about I just stick with supporting my original statement, minus your goalpost moving: http://correctrecord.org/praise-for-hillary-clinton/

 

2. What specific obstructionism has the GOP conducted the last 7 years that has resulted in the rise of ISIS and terror attacks in general? Or put another way, what plan did Obama put forward to prevent terrorism that the GOP blocked?

 

Oh it doesn't require specific obstructionism to discredit Obama, you can simply regurgitate numbers like 4,400% without looking at the facts.

 

 

3. How can Obama be kicking the terrorists ass when the number of attacks has exploded worldwide, and ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch according to his own CIA director, who also stated that ISIS was decimated when Bush left office?

 

Read the whole thing. It's pretty fair: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/obamas-most-important-achievement-in-the-middle-east/379886/

Here's another fun fact: we went after ISIS' financial infrastructure and it's working: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/middleeast/isis-finance-broke-lister/

Here's another fun fact: Obama joins the roughly 10 billion people who have failed to bring lasting peace to the Middle East.

 

4. Regarding the VA scandal, its a joke to once again blame Republicans for Obama's failures. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to google Obama and VA and find that Obama has failed our veterans time and again.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/barack-obama-scandal-veterans/2014/12/21/id/613896/

 

http://spectator.org/63393_va-scandal-linked-obama/

 

 

Good news. I'm not a rocket scientist. Just a Google cherry-picker. Like you:

 

(honestly, no one comes out looking good in the VA mess, but there's enough Republican blame that they really should STFU about it at their convention)

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-veterans-congress-idUSBREA1Q26O20140227

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/24/republicans-care-vets-blocked-bill-expanding-veterans-benefits.html

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/22/va-scandal-reveals-real-problem-republicans-wars-cost-math.html

 

5. Regarding Obamacare, Democrats realize this is a failed program and the American public still does not like it. So the only course of action is to continue to point back to a handful of GOP Senators in 1992 that proposed something that somewhat mimics Obamacare, but was frankly an ingenuous effort at the time to offer an opposition to Hillarycare. I've read up plenty on this proposal as its the only way out a leftist has when trying to defend the Obamacare debacle, and there's no meat there. You have fallen for the typical leftist approach of relying on some study from the early 90s to align blame for a failed program that Obama and the Dems forced upon the American people.

 

Well much of what you say here is true. But there is absolutely no doubt that petty Republican obstructionism denied Americans of a better healthcare plan, that it's roots were indeed in Republican approved principals, and it was nowhere near the specter of socialism that partisans used to spread fear, misinformation and fundraising.

 

Another very fair, far reaching look at the political machinations behind the ACA from the Libertarian leaning and well-vetted Atlantic Monthly: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/

 

6. Regarding anger, I seem to recall from 2006 to 2008 the Dems using a lot of fear and anger about the Iraq war to try to win back Congress and the Presidency. They were organizing protests, having moms of soldiers come out and speak, etc.. I recall in 2012 the Dems putting an ad out showing Paul Ryan driving granny off the cliff insinuating that the GOP was going to get rid of social security. It's completely dishonest to suggest that only one party uses anger and fear during elections. Both parties do it as they seek an emotional response to drive up turnout.

 

Yeah. But you'd be comparing people who were angry about the disinformation from the Bush administration (that dwarfed Benghazi), used to launch a trillion dollar war (that dwarfed Benghazi), that killed a thousand-fold more innocents than Benghazi, that destabilized the region and allowed ISIS to grow in the vacuum of al-Queda (some claim by 4,400%!), and the fact that yeah...the GOP REALLY DID WANT TO GET RID OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

 

And you'd be comparing them to.....an attempt to give healthcare to the uninsured that didn't work out as well as promised? While people happy with their previous healthcare got to keep it? The lack of an immediate cure to the latest violent sectionalism in the 2,000 year history of the Middle East? The aforementioned Benghazi? Which wouldn't have lasted a day in the news cycle during the Bush administration?

 

Saying both sides have their faults by no means indicates they are equal.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives.

 

But it just doesn't play that way.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

[HuskerNation1]

Again, liberals should be troubled and conservatives encouraged by how aggressively Obama has pursued terrorists, even at the cost of innocent lives.

 

But it just doesn't play that way.

 

http://www.vocativ.com/342471/u-s-coaltion-just-dropped-its-50000th-bomb-on-isis/

 

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/

[mrandyk]

 

 

 

 

I have two kids under 10 and am scared to take them to large cities or places with large crowds.

 

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?

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

I have two kids under 10 and am scared to take them to large cities or places with large crowds.

 

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.

[Moiraine]

Whether it's a bad thing to be called a liberal is based on the context/tone, and several people here mistake moderate for liberal.