The more I think about that picture ... the more I panic.

As usual.
The fear factor is alive and well.
She should have Ghouliani as her running mate.

"She should have Ghouliani as her running mate

You beat me to it.

Come on now America, don't think about the issues that shape your society every day of your lives and determine your future and those of your children, instead be afraid of those scary Arabs who are coming to get you! Everyone panic! But don't panic, because Super-Hills is coming to save the day..

if Sanders cannot articulate a policy and proposals for handling that, then voters have a right to take that into consideration,

As a black gay man, I worry about terrorism, although I'm not looking at the scary Arabs as the culprits, to be sure.

A strategy to fight ISIS by pressuring local countries into playing a much bigger role, with support provided by the west, which is the way it should be. His policy for the fear is to tell America to stop worrying over something that is far less of a danger to them than these other issues. This is what a leader should do, stand up and tell the people the truth and to stop unnecessary fear and panic. If America lives in permanent fear of attack, then that will consume everything. Civil liberties will be eroded, domestic policy relegated to an afterthought, and the rich will continue to ride roughshod over the poor while waving the spectre of war and death. That can't be allowed to continue.

for "pressuring local countries" (EU countries) in the Balkans (which was a reasonable position to take, although I don't mind too much what Sanders did eventually vote for). Sanders voted for air strikes.

So he doesn't have the most reliable record on this issue, either.

He was a newly elected House member at the time, and that's not exactly a platform that gets you regular front page coverage. Alternatively he could well have learned from the experiences of not only that war, but the many that followed.

Do you have an issue with his strategy on this issue, or just that he might have thought differently 25 years ago?

Bernie has evolved on the issue...MAYBE?

Sanders supporters can't have it both ways on the issue of political evolution, you know...and he had been in Congress for 9 years at the time of the war in Kosovo (I should have been more specific)

The Balkans situation was a very different one to the Middle East. The US wasn't alone in the Balkans conflict anyway, Europe was heavily involved.

were a European problem and that America should have only supported the Europeans...even though there is this thing called a NATO treaty...not saying whether Sander was right or wrong, simply that certainly very similar arguments were being made w/r/t Kosovo

And considering that we are talking about ISIS, Turkey is heavily involved...there goes that NATO treaty again.

Last edited Tue Dec 15, 2015, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

His plan is to not deal with it.

He will tell Mid East countries to handle it. And he will tell Americans to don't worry about it.

That's not a plan, that's ducking the issue.

We are the reason ISIL evolved in the first place. Instead of spending another trillion on war, spend it on clean energy research so we don't have anymore excuses to start wars there.

Bombing got us into this mess, and by George, bombing will get us out of this.

If you think that 13 years of bombing is not enough, and trillions of dollars spent is not enough, then go ahead and vote for Hillary.

For many of us, it's time for change. Real change. I'm sticking with Bernie.

I think Sanders would agree with that sentiment.

HRC's approach is more like the Republican style "Yes, there are scary things out there, but I'll do whatever it takes to keep us safe."

But agree with it or not, maybe Hillary has the stronger winning platform in that. I would certainly not be the first to consider that you win more votes by making people scared than by making them feel safe.

(And that's pretty much how W won re-election, privacy rights and geneva conventions be damned.)

Despite it resulting in the deaths of considerably more Americans each year than Islamic terrorism does.

That's why it matters, because pointing at a scary foreigner is a much more effective tool of fear mongering than pointing at people that voters might actually know well and live around. It's also much harder for the foreigner to have an effective way to reply in their own defense.

But if you don't read, you would believe otherwise.

The article read, "...issues more important to independents and Republicans than Democrats."

She's appealing to Republicans, again.

She keeps this up, we'll have to put an "R" next to her name.

are the same ones that wonder why poor people vote against "their interests."

There's some irony for you

Someone with a big 'ole Third Way banner is defending hawkish foreign policy and reifying the idea that it is ok (or even good) that we ignore economic issues that hurt the working poor?

No frigging way! <maximum sarcasm intended>

Nor do I find Hillary's ISIS strategy hawkis

Oh...I'm sorry you are right...

We should just keep looking for market solutions. Hey, wait a minute... why don't we try another meaningless tax incentive rather than actually work on a horrible big government solution. I mean, the last thing we want is another big entitlement program am I right?

This is the Third Way in a nutshell. Create little tweaks that don't really accomplish much, trumpet that you have "solved" the problem, and try hard as hell not to offend big donors, industry, and polluters. Oh yeah and free trade deals. Lots of them.

All I will say is the irony of this thread is that I posted it BEFORE the threat of terrorism threw the second largest metropolitan area in the nation into crisis:

A person who disrespects the bill of rights and calls for its violation, through her stances on encryption and flag burning, has no business running for, or winning, the Presidency. This is just a fact.

Also her recent comments about the Internet is worrisome.

She is everything I argued against during the Bush admin. I'm supposed to be moved by the D next to her name? Act like a D then you might have my vote.

Yeah, she's bringing back memories of Bush / Cheney -- Yellow Alert, Red Alert, Orange alert. Fear helped elect Bush in 2004.

Combine this with her plans to reduce our privacy in the name of fear and you have Bush years all over again.

If she would stop supporting the bombing in the Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc. it would be a big step in the right direction. Hillary as president would just move us in the wrong direction.

Her warmongering plans has hurt us more than has helped us.

The more she talks about national security the less I want her as president.
The more she talks about national security the less I want her as president.
The more she talks about national security the less I want her as president.

The more the less.

What about the christianist terrorists? The anti-abortion terrorists? The police terrorists? The bigoted terrorists?
What about the home-brewed American terrorists that live right here, are allegedly Christians, and believe in half of the second amendment?
I hear no mention of these terrorists, and they far and away outnumber Middle East terrorists by a substantial number.

Sorry America, there's no money left, we spent it all on terrorism, and it's expensive.

No thanks, I'm not a Republican...

In fact if she ran as a republican, she'd probably be elected, because she wouldn't have to pretend to like black voters, gay voters, in other words she could just be herself.

... in my estimation.

If she gets the nomination (which is looking less likely all the time), she will pivot even further to the right than she already is.

Sadly, I think Hillary and her type of Democrats have this terrible inferiority complex -- they really believe that down deep most Americans are conservative reactionaries and Democratic liberalism can't measure up. She and her type don't respect the progressive/liberal base of the Democratic Party, they have contempt for it and wish it would go away, just be silent, and let the elites like her do what has to be done.

Of course, the gender issue has some on the left bamboozled, otherwise Mrs. Clinton is moderate-conservative at best and neoliberal/neocon at worst.

The ultimate tragedy will be if she is nominated that Democrats/liberals/progressives have the chance this election to actually elect a committed genuine progressive because the Repuglican nominee is so likely to be unelectable. If Democrats nominate her instead of Sen Sanders, we will have blown it again and we will get just more of the same tepid center-rightism that we've had since Reagan.

Plus, for me it is just sad that Democrats of all people can't nominate a woman who has truly made it on her own -- we have so many good women prospects, but Clinton's selfishness has pushed them aside.

So logically why would Sanders and Warren want to break them up? Stand tall, like a too big to fail bank! Vote for Hillary!

So we're back to dodging bullets on the tarmac.. You're afraid... Hillary's the warrior who will deal with the terrorists!

Forget the fact that the middle class has been sacked with paying off trillions of dollars on wars based on fighting terrorism. For years now we've sent our sons and daughters into a continuous dysfunctional cycle and we've just created a sh*t load of new terrorists for us to be afraid of. And while the military contractors and the TV networks rake in the cash, the middle class continues to struggle to make ends meet.

Sanders's wants to change this cycle, by making the wealthy oil magnet countries in the region take responsibility for wants happening in their own backyard so the American public can get back to rebuilding the middle class in THIS country. I hope the voting public is smart enough to see through this BS....

From the first article:

In light of the fact that the mere fear of terror threw the second largest metropolitan area and the cultural capital of the world into chaos I find some of these responses ironic. It is amazing me to see the fealty ideology demands.

Amazing is one word for it.

You know I had two children who were deployed during the Iraq war. The most horrible time of my life. I'm no war-monger nor would I support one. I hope to be able to take in a Syrian refugee when they hit my state, or at least be involved in a sponsorship program. The situation is untenable, and breaks my heart.

But folks are in such a heightened state of alert that what will likely turn out to be a hoax effectively threw metropolitan Los Angeles into crisis.

Cynically pandering to people's fears for political gain.

The crowd she hangs with consider peace to be a weak.

Works every time.

She disgusts me.

Sorry this is all bullshit. Just more of the "kill the scary brown people" bullshit we lived with during the bush years. All or most of the speech will focus on a reaction to the San Bernardino attack and all but ignore the almost weekly attacks on non-xian, non-white, houses of worship and PP clinics.

The fact that people calling themselves Democrats advocate for more war and death in the ME, despite decades of failure as a policy, is embarrassing.

The fact that is, I would assume, supporters of a certain candidate likely spoke out against bush anti-terrorism policies for his 8 years (reasonable and understandable) and may be even some of PBO's policies (reasonable and understandable), now that their candidate wants her turn to sow fear and distrust and wage war on the ME it's "all good".

Already starting to hear supporters of a certain candidate here on this site use some of the same arguements and insults that bush supporters used against people that didn't support his anti-terrorism policies. Waiting to be told "you're either with us or against us" or that if I don't buy into this fear and hate mongering xenophobic bullshit that "I don't love America".

Sorry, if we elect yet another president, a Dem on top of it all, that starts more wars in the ME, we are screwed.

Be afraid, be very afraid but lets not talk about the 15 to 20,000 Americans that die every year because the real terrorists, the republicans, are blocking ACA.

Hers we go again...except this time we're actually considering putting her in charge.

...can you point to the post where you worried about putting John Kerry in charge?

“The overwhelming majority of New Yorkers, not surprisingly, have been closely following the recent terror attacks around the world. And an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers – at least 86 percent from every region and party – are also concerned about another terrorist attack in New York in the near future. At least 56 percent from every region and party are very concerned,” said Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg.

“Sixty-three percent haven’t changed their lifestyle at all out of fear of terrorism and another 16 percent have not changed it very much, while 20 percent say they’ve changed their lifestyle a great deal or some,” Greenberg said.

“While New Yorkers are concerned about another terrorist attack in New York, four out of five have not altered their lifestyle very much or at all because of fear of a terrorist attack, and those numbers are consistent across the board irrespective of region, party, race, religion, or gender,” Greenberg said.
- See more at: https://www.siena.edu/news-events/article/nearly-90-of-nyers-concerned-that-another-terrorist-attack-will-happen-in-n#sthash.xYyvQjee.dpuf

So now you've got an inkling how the people over there feel on a daily basis. Between our bombings and drone attacks, it's safe to say they live in fear, unlike anything we as Americans can imagine.

It's been 13 years. Give peace a chance.