I noticed this from O'Malley in particular

kerfluffle this morning about not one of these candidates being able to utter "radical Islamist extremists."

For instance, when questions were asked about Islamic extremism, Isis and America’s leadership in the region it became clear Hillary Clinton was the only candidate who expressed a functional understanding of Middle East politics, and she was the only candidate who differentiated between violent extremists, Islamists and radical jihadists (yes, those are three different classifications).

....but not a word on how those things will be accomplished.

I thought it was bizarre how Sanders responded to a straight-forward, logical question last night about how the states would pay for "free-tuition" for everyone.

Last edited Sun Nov 15, 2015, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)

He blames immigrants for everything. His ancestors should have stayed in their homeland, by that logic. I'm sure the natives here would have appreciated it. But it was not to be, the force of population always causes immigration.

Dehumanizing immigrants, who will be a majority here as in Europe by virtue of their different ideas on the size of their families, is not going to stop immigration.

Europeans and Americans have reduced their families to maintain a higher standard of living and relieve women of the heavy work of pregnancy, child bearing and rearing children. The newer residents are creating their own community and their religion dictates having many children, and I bet the women who are in those communities agree with this.

This is not a new thing and is why many women are fighting for their rights to be in control of their bodies to stop being used to create cannon fodder. It's part of Buchanan's call for ending abortion in the eighties, so it's not just the Middle East that seeks to control women's bodies. It's part of the history of the world.

If people are not driven to move by war, they'll move from climate change as predicted by the Pentagon back in the seventies. This makes people move and it was said that governments would fall, borders would change and there would be violence. But we are talking about more than that in this debate. HRC defined the problem well.

Our current problems are due to fundamentalist extremists who think killing others will enable control of good land. This is not new, but it seems there has to be another way.

I didn't see the debate, but you must have seen the whole thing. Was Sanders looking at notes when he said that?

I thought the subject of the debate was going to be France and foreign policy. To answer the question by talking about 'free tuition' which in itself is a misnomer, it would be better to have 'free college' such as Europe is doing. The word 'tuition' implies payment, thus cannot be 'free.'

Going to that instead of going with foreign policy would be going off topic. Is it possible he was not informed that the nature of the debate had been changed by the events in Paris?

snip from your link// This seems to be a unanimous observation among the articles I've read so far..

"And, while both O’Malley and Clinton directly addressed Isis and violent extremism in their opening remarks, Sanders only briefly expressed condolences for the attacks in Paris before pivoting back to the talking point he clings to like a political flotation device: the domestic economy."

from a Democratic Senator who ran for President in 1960,empty bellies means empty heads. And folks that pretty much tells you the real story. Remember guns for butter,yes,the same person. Food for peace,same fellow. The Neo-Con might is right model has come back to bite us big time. Now it is time to bring the Money Players to the Table and end this. Appears Kerry and the Fellow from Russia have started the movement.

I admit I struggle with all of the terms, but at this point in the game, Bernie and O'Malley should not be struggling...and they clearly were.

The language of war relies on ultimatums and concrete attributions. You can create a lot of ill will by not understanding nuances.

But the scarier thought is that ham handed international diplomacy for someone who doesn't know or understand the nuances and termilology will absolutley end up seeming like Trump....whether they mean to do it or not

n/t

has lead to her to support policies that have lead to the descruction of three countries: Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Is this not enough? She speaks a good game but her judgement is awful