Clinton says Trump gives 'aid, comfort' to ISIS recruiters

Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of giving “aid and comfort” to Islamic terrorists Monday, declaring after a weekend of violent attacks in three states that his anti-Muslim rhetoric helps groups like ISIS recruit new fighters.

Here is what leading Republican national security experts have to say about Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric:

"His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims."

-- http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

Here is what Former NSA/CIA Director Michael Hayden says about Trump: “He’s feeding their recruitment video.”

Republican hawks agree: Clinton is right. Trump aids and abets radical militant Islamists. Trump aids terrorists.

No responsible person can vote for Trump. Most 'conservatives' and Republicans will.

The Republican party must be destroyed.

Trump is amazing. He is like a sports fan that just says stupid things like "why can't we just throw it deep every time?" or "why can't he just hit more home runs?".

This guy has zero ACTUAL thoughts on how to "knock the hell out of them"... which aren't unconstitutional. I don't understand how you GOP'ers eat this garbage up? Aren't you the guys who are first to jump down the throats of someone not standing during the national anthem or ANYONE who even has a conversation about gun control? Only in wing-nut world do you scream about the sanctity of the Constitution while simultaneously destroying it.

I don't understand how you GOP'ers eat this garbage up?

Rather simple: they think America belongs to them, and the rest of us are just renters.

what hillary said was tacky and demeaning - to herself as much as the US. I was also amused by all her talk of big plans and what needs to be done. Didnt she have 4 years in the Obama administration - and hasnt Obama been president for EIGHT years???

Here is what leading Republican national security experts have to say about Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric:

"His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims."

You mean, more Washington establishment talking points?

No responsible person can vote for Trump. Most 'conservatives' and Republicans will.

But they are and it seems like the polls are too close to call at this point and you feel in the alarm bells by the right and left and the entire Washington elites on both sides are getting heavy heartbeats, once the chain of the status quo is broken, this country will be in a better position.

The Republican party must be destroyed.

I agree and let's show in the Democratic party in as well and smash them both to smithereens!

HRC: "I'm the only candidate in this race who's been part of the hard decisions to take terrorists off the battlefield", Clinton, a former secretary of state, told reporters. "I know how to do this." ...... Indeed. ...... HRC: (commenting on Muammar Gaddafi's state sponsored assassination) "We came, we saw, he died." (Laughing) ...... If Mr. Trump has aided ISIS recruitment by his remarks, so too has HRC.

Clinton says blah blah blah.....that bump on the head has yet to heal. Unlike Obama,Trump has never supplied arms nor funding to ISIL. Maybe Clinton should take stronger meds?

Politics aside, American voters will be asking themselves only one thing on Nov. 8. before casting their ballot, "Who will radical Islamic terrorists fear more: Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton?"

She's wrong. What ISIS really wants is to be able to send its people to the West or to have operatives living unmolested in the West. Clinton's blanket, low-key vetting is just what the Jihadis want.

Muslims who have been very well treated in the West have been radicalized and turned out to be among the most dangerous Jihadis of all.

@texaggie American voters will be asking themselves only one thing

Do you mean except for the American voters who ask themselves about the economy, jobs, international trade, military involvement, health care, border security, race relations, the environment, crime, education, poverty, social security, etc. etc. etc. Or are you saying that you, TexAggie, 'am' the people.

Fortunately rightwing reactionary zealots do NOT speak for American voters. These extremists represent a subset of the population; overly large in my opinion, but a subset nonetheless. While carrying assault weapons at 'come and take it' rallies they do try to intimidate their fellow citizens, but they do not speak for nor represent the whole.

"giving aid and comfort to terrorist groups". That is self-serving, low, and frankly a despicable thing to say. It also smacks of desperation.

Hilary shouldn't be using these scare tactics. She shouldn't be going after Trump at all. To run for president, you need to show your skill sets. Not pander.

That is true but so what. Do you think if Russia and America's army's team up "like trump said they would" that the ISIS will be around?

Clinton want's them around!!

The ISIS would be destroyed so fast with 30% of the Iraq war wining strategy's, that made them flee to Syria to rebuild......This time follow them.

The American public put it to the FBI and CIA. They said how could you get that much money and not know about the 9/11 attacks. The CIA replied "we new about the attacks, but it some how slipped us" righto.

Let's not forget the ex CIA detector said Bush stopped them from stopping the attacks.

America can stop most attacks and once you crush the groups, you stop the followers.

Trump is needed and your all nut's if you think trump is out to kill his wife and kids in a nuclear war.

Look at Obama, that so called good guy. We are using the rebels to take over from Assad.

Ok people did the rebels hold 200 rights workers hostage? Yes.

Did the rebels behead kids and adult's? Yes they do and did.

The rebels are sick evil monsters and it's proof Obama ant a good guy at all......Monster.

By all-means reply to my comment correcting me? Bet you can't.

Obama and Clinton are pure proven evil. It's time for trump, and more and more polls are making him becoming president a reality.

To run for president, you need to show your skill sets. Not pander.

I agree, Clinton should spend more time on the issues, but the media loves this tit-for-tat between Trumph and Clinton. The election has turned into a reality TV show, because that is Trumph's strong suit as a flim flam man.

Still, Clinton cannot let the conservative's amygdala go stimulated with fear solely by Trumph. She need to cast some doubt in their fears by actually reminding people of the terrorists agenda. By the very name, terrorist act to cause terror. Trumph has no cause to start screaming about how the world is coming to an end after each terrorist attack, plus how he and only he is tough enough to counter terrorists. As if he is some super hero and all the professionals dedicated to the task are incompetent. Our savior, please. He has done nothing to combat terrorism and knows next to nothing about it.

At best, Trumph is a terrorists best friend (and our enemy) by continually spreading fear, and he is doing to try and benefit himself from that fear. Sure, we should not sit by like lambs for the slaughter, but we shouldn't run around like chickens with our heads cut off every time some two bit terrorist wannabe commits one of these attacks.

Hmmmm... Must be tough love then. I think that the record of Madam in various government positions over the past decade or so coincident with the creation of the many disasters in the Middle East and the rise of ISIS are a bit more telling than the Don's oddball rhetoric.

Fortunately rightwing reactionary zealots do NOT speak for American voters.

And neither do The über Left loons.

These extremists represent a subset of the population; overly large in my opinion, but a subset nonetheless.

Oh, really?

While carrying assault weapons at 'come and take it' rallies they do try to intimidate their fellow citizens, but they do not speak for nor represent the whole.

But the majority, otherwise you wouldn't have so much support for the NRA.

hillary and obama cant stand the idea of russia and the US teaming up. Look at how they are already sabotaging the deal they made.

The Middle East is incredibly nuanced with lots of moving parts. It will take Trump a very long time to learn. If he wins, that means his advisors will most likely run the show and he will have to try to keep up so he can speak publicly on the issues. And he will have to be very careful about the words that he uses.

Very dangerous for everyone.

what hillary said was tacky and demeaning... That is self-serving, low, and frankly a despicable thing to say.

And when Trump outright lied and called Obama the founder of ISIS and Clinton the co-founder? At least Clinton's comment is based on facts and reality. Tacky and demeaning... Have you been watching Trump at all?

he will have to be very careful about the words that he uses.

May as well ask the beach to stop having sand.

Few people in Washington today bear as much responsibility for the bloodshed in the middle east and the rise of ISIS as Hillary herself. She was one of the architects of the Iraq war, and has held a high position in the current administration as the middle east has deteriorated.

To hear her criticize Trump or anyone else about giving aid and comfort to terrorists is the heigh of hypocrisy.

To run for president, you need to show your skill sets. Not pander.

You need to have skill sets before you can show them off. In her case, pandering is the only thing she can do to get elected. She certainly can't run on her past record of accomplishments, can she? Anyone here care to make a list of the positive things which Hillary has done? Anyone care to make a list of the campaign promises she has kept?

But the majority, otherwise you wouldn't have so much support for the NRA.

Come again? Roughly 1.5% of Americans support the NRA--and the 'come and take it' gun fondlers are a subset of that.

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/new-nra-tax-filing-shows-membership-revenues-dropped-by-47-million-following-sandy-hook-surge/

Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of giving “aid and comfort” to Islamic terrorists -- article

Mrs. Clinton pushed for overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya and created a safe haven for radical Islamic terrorists like ISIS to train and she's saying Trump is aiding the terrorists?

It's now official. Mr. Trump is running unopposed. . . .

“I’m the only candidate in this race who’s been part of the hard decisions to take terrorists off the battlefield,”

These terrorists are trying to blow people up in places like Boston and New York, not some "battlefield".

And when Trump outright lied and called Obama the founder of ISIS and Clinton the co-founder?

Trump sometimes has a problem with articulating his sentences and words, Obama wasn't the founder of ISIS, but he didn't do anything to stop the rise of them, didn't listen to his senior advisers when he was warned about them and allowed them to flourish and expand their caliphate.

At least Clinton's comment is based on facts and reality. Tacky and demeaning... Have you been watching Trump at all?

Yeah, by the way, what ever happened to that Russian ridiculous reset button Clinton and Lavrov pushed?

angetsu03: To hear her criticize Trump or anyone else about giving aid and comfort to terrorists is the heigh of hypocrisy.

I'll be honest. Recently, I haven't made it to the end of your posts. I just down vote you after the first or second sentence and move on.

Texas A&M: Mrs. Clinton pushed for overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya and created a safe haven for radical Islamic terrorists like ISIS to train and she's saying Trump is aiding the terrorists?

Of course he is. One of the main goals of terrorist organizers is a war between Islam and The West. Trump feeds into that. (Just so you know I don't blame you for not knowing this.)

superlib, you buyi into that "feeding into war between islam and the west" crock that is the favorite of the regressive progressives.

Trump sometimes has a problem with articulating his sentences and words

Sometimes? And it's not a problem with his words, but with his thought processes. He means exactly what he says, and even doubled down on his Obama founding ISIS comment when given a chance to clarify.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis/

Trump: "I don't care (about the facts). He was the founder."

He doesn't make excuses for himself, so you should stop making them too.

Yeah, by the way, what ever happened to that Russian ridiculous reset button Clinton and Lavrov pushed?

It didn't work out. Are you complaining about an attempt at peaceful diplomacy? Foreign policy isn't as easy as invading countries and taking their resources like Trump would have you believe.

" Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of giving “aid and comfort” to Islamic terrorists Monday, declaring his anti-Muslim rhetoric helps groups like ISIS recruit new fighters. "

That is the height of hypocrisy, seeing that she created ISIS in Libya by murdering Gaddafi and is aiding ISIS aka the "vetted rebels" in Syria. Good grief, one shudders at the thought of that woman in the white house.

“I’m the only candidate in this race who’s been part of the hard decisions to take terrorists off the battlefield,” Clinton, a former secretary of state, told reporters. “I know how to do this.”

Good grief... Hillary and Obama are the ones who have let ISIS grow in power.

"Clinton touted her national security credentials"

This is laughable, as she could not now pass an FBI background check being as how she is a walking cyber security risk.

This is interesting: "Clinton Losing to Trump. Trump Tied With HRC In Swing States, Nationally After DNC Cheated Bernie" ( Youtuber, author, columnist and journalist H. A. Goodman, and he ain't a Trump fan,he's voting for Jill Stein )

Seriously Clinton? You want to lose saying stupid stuff like this? Isn't Trump the one that wants to build the wall and deport everyone?

This is interesting: "Clinton Losing to Trump. Trump Tied With HRC In Swing States, Nationally After DNC Cheated Bernie"

No, it's frightening. Idiot culture is winning. We might as well make Kanye or Kim Kardashian president, as they have the exact same qualifications. Actually, they might be better and more successful in business than Trump.

She's the one along with the neocons and Obama that made the mess in Iraq Libya and Syria in the first place!! What world is she living in? All this blow back is from her failed policies in the Middle East along with the refugee crisis. She's setting herself up to fall! Pun intended.

That was HC being stupid. And people wonder why I didn't like either of our candidates. Too bad we couldn't get Bernie... Or I could toss my vote at the "Nobody knows who you are" Gary Johnson. If GJ does get elected it could send a message to both parties, "We're tired of your establishment BS".

"Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, promises to close U.S. borders"

This is misleading, Trump is not ant-immigrant, he's anti-illegal immigrant, see the diference? And he's not promising to close the border, he's promising to control the border, see the difference?

These latest segments from Youtuber Styxhexenhammer666are interesting:

"Former President of Haitian Senate Accuses Clinton of Drug Running and Fraud"

"Obama Gives Israel 38 Billion of our Tax Dollars, Ignores US Affairs"

@MrBum What's frightening about Trump? You have to pass bills and so on to make it new law. It's not going to happen.

Are you thinking Trump is going to start a nuclear war...How?

Do you think Trump want's to kill his wife and kids + family members? lmao.

Wake up to reality and that is Trump is the man for the job.

For many Muslims, especially the type that would be attracted to ISIS ideological rhetoric, having a woman running for president is a clear example of the corruption of western ideas. Her candidacy as much as Trump's rhetoric could be seen as feeding the extremist pipeline.

"But while much of the foreign policy establishment has rallied around Clinton,"

The foreign policy establishment bites the big one.

This is interesting: "BREAKING NEWS: President Obama Blames Sexism For Donald Trump Defeating Hillary Clinton In Polls" ( Youtuber, author, columnist and journalist H.A.Goodman - he's voting for Jill Stein, not Trump )

What's frightening about Trump?

Aside from America electing it's first reality-show-star president being solid proof that the idiot culture is winning?

Trump has no clue what he's doing. He'll rely heavily on the advisors in his party for the hard decisions (i.e., most of them). On the first day of the job when they hand him the file detailing how complicated everything really is, Trump will internally crap himself and proceed to do whatever his advisors tell him because he has no ideas of his own. The man wondered aloud about using nukes for Christ's sake. He has a child's understanding of the world.

About those advisors, establishment Republicans are so much worse than Clinton when it comes to money and corruption. For proof, check out the latest on Scott Walker (google scott walker lead poisoning).

There's also that empty Supreme Court position. I'd say there's plenty to worry about.

@MrBum "Aside from America electing it's first reality-show-star president being solid proof that the idiot culture is winning?" But Bush was ok for 2 terms?

You mean electing a guy to backs the rebels that are 1 million times more evil then Assad?

Rebels behead kids and have held hostage 200 rights works.

MrBum Obama is backing criminals that have behead a kids. How can a tv icon do worse?

Sometimes? And it's not a problem with his words, but with his thought processes. He means exactly what he says, and even doubled down on his Obama founding ISIS comment when given a chance to clarify.

That's good, at least he's honest, with Hillary, we just have No idea at all what she thinks or what she will do. One minute, she's says one thing, the next something else.

It didn't work out. Are you complaining about an attempt at peaceful diplomacy?

No, so don't complain when Trump tries the same thing with Mexico and Russia.

Foreign policy isn't as easy as invading countries and taking their resources like Trump would have you believe.

Hmmmm.....Trump has always been an anti-war guy even before he became a Republican. Hillary has always been a hawk and Hillary without a doubt wouldn't hesitate to use military action.

hillary laughing at qaddafi's brutal murder (he was an ally in the war against terror lets not forget) is one of the things shes said/done that are sickening. There are more.

Doubling down on a complete and utter lie is "honest" to you? I don't even know what to say to that.

What's the lie? Please explain to me what's the difference between Hillary lying and Trump lying?

"What's frightening about Trump?"

"Aside from America electing it's first reality-show-star president being solid proof that the idiot culture is winning? "

Yeah, we in Hillary's basket of deplorables are so dumb.

How about what's frightening about Hillary? Aside from being the biggest liar and the most corrupt person ever to be elected president, she's a neo-con supported by the likes of Henry Kissinger.

What's the lie?

You said it yourself, Obama didn't found ISIS. You and others have tried to make reasonable explanations for the claim, but Trump himself refuses them. The difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton will sometimes admit to her lies and mistakes. Trump never does.

Obama wasn't the founder of ISIS,

Not True: "ISIS is honoring President Obama," he said. "He is the founder of ISIS. He is the founder of ISIS, okay? He is the founder. He founded ISIS. Trump

Please explain to me what's the difference between Hillary lying and Trump lying?

Trump says that Obama was born in Kenya. He also says that all Mexicans are rapists and criminals. On top of that he says he will make companies bring back jobs to the USA like Apple (Apple CEO called out Trump on this). He also said that he would work to put Clinton in prison. He also said he will build a 50 footx2,000 mile solid brick wall which is impossible (and the cost will be stuck with US tax payers). He also said that judge who is overseeing the Trump U. lawsuit is a bad Mexican.

If Trump wins it will be a real comedy. And he very well could have an amnesty deal like Reagan did.

Pointing to her “aid and comfort” remark and others, Trump’s campaign said Clinton was accusing him of treason, going beyond the bounds of acceptable campaigning and trying to change the subject from her own failures.

Isn't that the same as saying Obama created IS? Why is it okay for Trump to say things like that but not Clinton?

Hillary Clinton never admits to any of her significant deliberate actions that caused harm to the USA while acting in office such as the private email server, Bengazi- Clinton is an "experienced" politician. Trump has never been in office so admitting to "mistakes" or deliberate actions is not relevant. Saying crazy stuff does not compare to providing access to the Russia for US secrets. It actually doesn't matter to Islamic recruiters what happens or is spoken in the US- the whole idea of Western freedom is AntiMuslim to them.

Hillary Clinton never admits to any of her significant deliberate actions that caused harm to the USA while acting in office such as the private email server. Powell even did some of the same stuff as Hillary.

Other Secretaries did the same thing. It's just the Hillary haters obsessing over the same issue. The Hillary haters believe that Obama and Hillary created ISIS and Trump's comments prove this.

OK, Hillary haters would like to have a clown for president and Trump is the perfect thing for that.

hillary laughing at qaddafi's brutal murder

Can you be more specific? Was she giggling while pointing at the TV screen? And so what even if she did?

The difference between Trump and Clinton is that Clinton has proven that she is a screwup, Trump has yet to do so!

@MrBum Well the CIA do, so then he does.

Answer this. After the Iraq war was won, why didn't the CIA go after the ISIS / terrorist fleeing Iraq?

Yes the CIA let them rebuild, and new Iraqi prisons had guy getting out and fleeing there....They wanted this.

Is Obama backing the rebels that held hostage 200 rights workers and behead kids and people?

What kind of guy is Obama MrBum?

Last comment you forgot to reply to the last bit.

The difference between Trump and Clinton is that Clinton has proven that she is a screwup, Trump has yet to do so!

What are you talking about? Ignoring his multitude of screwups in this campaign alone (he'd be absolutely destroying her if he didn't say so much stupid stuff), he's filed for bankruptcy for his companies four times.

Trump has yet to do so!

Trump University? How he screwed his investors? It's one thing to want a businessman to be president. But Trump?

Let's stay on topic, namely, why Trump is the best thing ISIS could ask for in a n American president.

Specifically, Trump's unrelenting drumbeat against Muslims and Islam perfectly fits the Islam vs. the West narrative that radicalized Islamic radical terrorists rely on to boost membership and generate support, both moral and financial from the broader global Muslim community. He stands as the epitome of so-called Western agression towards Islam, and thus sets the stage for a religious war that doesn't actually exist.

And why is Trump such a paragon of discord? J.M. “Mac” Stipanovich, veteran Republican lobbyist and political strategist, sums the man up nicely, yet terrifyingly:

"[Trump] is a boor, a bully, a carnival barker and an embarrassment. Politically, by intent or instinct, he is a neo-fascist — a nativist, an ultranationalist, a racist, a misogynist, an anti-intellectual, a demagogue and a palingenetic authoritarian to whom clings the odor of the political violence he encourages.”

5 unlikes and no reply. Oh its like likes when people can't reply :)

"Yeah, we in Hillary's basket of deplorables are so dumb."

I don't know why you are so keen to put yourself in this basket. Clinton described less than one eighth of the US population as deplorables which is a conservative estimate in my opinion. A large number of Trump supporters think the abolition of slavery was a mistake and gays should not be allowed to enter the US. These people are below deplorable in my opinion.

Have more self-respect.

You said it yourself, Obama didn't found ISIS. You and others have tried to make reasonable explanations for the claim, but Trump himself refuses them. The difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton will sometimes admit to her lies and mistakes. Trump never does.

Really? Clinton didn't admit her lies about Benghazi, her mails or server.

"Trump sometimes has a problem with articulating his sentences and words"

He is remarkably fluent in trash but slips into incoherent babble on important issues. Knowing bugger all about important issues is the most likely cause. His jaw-dropping gibberish on Ukraine was the worst I've seen since Sarah Palin.

Answer this. After the Iraq war was won, why didn't the CIA go after the ISIS / terrorist fleeing Iraq?

Oblique, the US never "won" the war. The population in towns garrisoned by troops acquiesced during the daytime; otherwise, it was Middle East business as usual, with scores to be settled and future plans to be made by multiple actors on multiple sides. The US could barely defend the Green Zone even up to the day of its withdrawal. Bush's "plan," consisting as it did of "let's topple Saddam and the rest will be a cakewalk," was ill-conceived and poorly executed. No, no one won the Iraq War.

Also, to paraphrase Napoleon, how many divisions does the CIA have? Your comment was nonsensical.

Really? Clinton didn't admit her lies about Benghazi, her mails or server.

There were no arrests. FBI cleared that all up. If you want to find the last criminal in the WH look to GWB's- namely Scooter Libby. Clinton is clean. It's just the Hillary haters who hate her so much. The last WH official to be convicted was Libby. the Clinton case is closed. Hillary haters just want to keep on hating her.

The difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton will sometimes admit to her lies and mistakes.

LOL, now that's funny!!

Trump's problem is that he doesn't know enough about the issues, and doesn't seem like he's willing to spend he time to learn.

@Laguna Rubbish they 100% won. 0 American troops deaths for over a year? nah they lost lol.

The terrorist fled where attacks became less and less. The only attacks left was inside fighting...Normal Sunni v shitte.

Thanks for replying to bit of it.

Laguna if U.S troops took zero deaths for over a year, how did you get this...... "The US could barely defend the Green Zone even up to the day of its withdrawal" Umm zero deaths.

Are you aware in 2007 things changed? You know in 2008 they lost almost no troops then none in 09 also?

You know that the terrorist raids took place in the city then by 08 out in the sticks. They got forced out of Iraq 100%.

Clinton is clean.

Well yeah, if we lived in a world where opposites were fact.

How can you simply dismiss the 17 counts of sexual misconduct brought against her disgusting partner? And those are the ones bold enough to come forward.

Politics aside, this should speak to your humanity.

Trump's problem is that he doesn't know enough about the issues, and doesn't seem like he's willing to spend he time to learn.

I was thinking that Hillary has the same problem. Her middle east policies have been a complete and utter disaster since she became "Madame Secretary"

Answer this. After the Iraq war was won, why didn't the CIA go after the ISIS / terrorist fleeing Iraq?

Oblique, the US never "won" the war.

That's what so many people fail to realize. You cannot win in the Middle East. There is no winning there. If the formation of ISIS after the Collapse of the Iraqi government didn't prove that to someone, then they lack the intellectual capacity to grasp it.

The idea that the US won the war in Iraq is ridiculous. The only thing the US was successful in there was eliminating Saddam.

(he'd be absolutely destroying her if he didn't say so much stupid stuff),

This is so funny. That a reality tv personality and colorful tabloid character can give Clinton a run for her money says less about about how good a candidate he is than about how lousy a candidate she is.

The funniest thing is that Hillary was never supposed to be the winning candidate. The democrat party (that which exists in Washington) does not like Clinton. They want Elizabeth Warren to be their candidate. Hillary was supposed to be the sacrificial lamb in this election, and the election was to be won by another republican puppet. And after the puppet was defeated in 4 or 8 years, Warren would be the democrat party's first female president. But neither of the puppets Washington wanted to run were nominated. Now the democrat party has no choice but to support Hillary as much as possible. Worse yet, should Hillary win, it means Warren will likely never get a chance to run.

This is so funny. That a reality tv personality and colorful tabloid character can give Clinton a run for her money says less about about how good a candidate he is than about how lousy a candidate she is.

Nope. The right has run an amazing smear campaign against her. If they had put up a decent candidate as part of a one-two punch, they'd be destroying the democrats. Conversely, if the Democrats had managed to find a way to defend against the smear campaign effectively, she'd be destroying him. It's only the fact that the right didn't follow up their smear campaign with a decent candidate, combined with the strength she actually has as a candidate even while being smeared, that is keeping them anywhere close in the polls.

Well yeah, if we lived in a world where opposites were fact.

It is the fact. FBI checked it out. It's just more obsessing from the Hillary haters. On the other hand Libby was arrested and convicted. Any convictions of Hillary? No? Then she's clean.

How can you simply dismiss the 17 counts of sexual misconduct brought against her disgusting partner?

So? Then you guys have Dennis Hastert who was molesting boys and he was the Speaker. That's sick. At least Bill was with another adult. And why obsess over what one consenting adult does with another? Dennis Hastert was going after boys under the age of 18.

This shows that Hillary is a clean and ethical person. And the Hillary haters will continue with their relentless hate of Hillary.

Are you aware in 2007 things changed?

Yup. I was 42 that year, so I was paying attention. The Shiites were champing at the bit for the US to finally make their long-promised withdrawal. Bush was not happy about this, and his team did their best to persuade the Iraqi government to negotiate a SOFA - but to no avail. The Shiites would not budge - and to remind the US of who was really in charge, they kept up the pressure, with the Sunni adding on. Some 900 US soldiers were killed in Iraq in 2007, its deadliest year since the invasion. Sort of a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" message.

Even the Green Zone was a mess, with daily mortar strikes from all sides, Shiite, Sunni, all sorts of factions. And remember, this was Baghdad. Your suggestion that the US military, which could barely defend its own military bases, could police a porous, anarchic 800-mile long desert border lined with hostile governments and unruly factions on both sides is preposterous. Sheesh, were you even alive then? http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/iraq-s-last-safe-haven-baghdad-s-green-zone-under-attack-a-544373.html

Laguna lol joke

@Strangerland They did win and they sabotaged the final strategy's.

Nope. If they had won, the country would have been stable when they left. Stability was only possible as long as an American presence was there. That's not stability, that's controlled anarchy.

If the formation of ISIS after the Collapse of the Iraqi government didn't prove that to someone, then they lack the intellectual capacity to grasp it.

You failed to mention the complicity of the government de jour in arming them? Or are you one of those folk that believe they armed themselves magically by clicking their heels?

You failed to mention the complicity of the government de jour in arming them? Or are you one of those folk that believe they armed themselves magically by clicking their heels?

I have no idea if that is true or not, but if it is, it proves my point. And if it's not, my point still stands.

Trump clarified things in his typical opaque way today (though, thankfully, obviously aided by a teleprompter):

This weekend’s attacks, from Minnesota to Manhattan, are just the latest to be carried out on U.S. soil under President Obama. ... I will bring an end to these senseless acts of violence. When I am president, terrorists like today's suspect in the New York and New Jersey bombings, Ahmad Khan Rahami, and Saturday’s knife-wielding ISIS sympathizer in Minnesota, Dahir Adan, will be stopped. We will not look the other way. We will not allow political correctness and soft-on-terror, soft-on-crime policies to threaten our security and our lives.

For those paying attention, "soft on terror and/or crime" do in no way describe the United States of 2016. You can Google the rest if you'd like to waste your time - I'll summarize it here: it is a mixture of Animal House "double secret probation" and Ghostbusters "Get her!" stuff.

Don't worry, though; in the meantime, he intends to turn the "War on Terror" into a clash of civilizations by targeting an entire religion. Meanwhile, he'd get rid of those onerous gun regulations. Feel safer yet?

What are you talking about ? I don't see Hillary flying about in her own jetliner but I do see Trump doing so!

If that is a failure then sign me up quick!

What are you talking about ? I don't see Hillary flying about in her own jetliner but I do see Trump doing so!

Trump was given money by his dad. The increase in his worth between then and now isn't much different than if he had just dumped the money in a bank account and accrued interest.

He's successful insofar as he has been able to maintain his value, but at that much value, that's actually not that hard.

but I do see Trump doing so!

Bill Gates has a better jet than Trump, I bet. The person with the best jet gets the WH? Then Bill Gates for president. And unlike Trump Gates did not screw anyone over like investors or with the cheesy Trump University. Just because you have a jet does not measure the quality person you are.

Clinton says Trump gives 'aid, comfort' to ISIS recruiters

Clinton created a terrorists haven with her ill conceived Libya policy. More like she was the one giving aid and comfort to ISIS.

Trump also leads in the polls in spite of Clinton being carried by Wall Street to the tune of millions of dollars (wasted)

As I said, if Trump is such a failure then sign me up already!!!!

Basically the Hillary approach is to be nice to Islamics and hope fewer will become radicalized. Trump doesn't worry about how Islamics feel; instead he would take a pokay okay approach to prevent nonsense regardless of anybody's feelings. I think my business school education permits me to understand why Trump's approach might be more effective. You can't put the onus on human volition; you have to make the process idiot proof.

As I said, if Trump is such a failure then sign me up already!!!!

You would enroll in Trump University? Or become an investor of his? How many times has he gone bankrupt?

Nope. The right has run an amazing smear campaign against her. If they had put up a decent candidate as part of a one-two punch, they'd be destroying the democrats.

Honestly? I mean really? The "right" as you call it, does not support Trump. We have Bush Sr coming out to vote for Hillary, the republican speaker of the house, numerous senators and others do not support Trump. They support their own, and Hillary is one of their own. You still don't understand that in Washington there is no left or right, that is garbage fed to the sheep to keep them bleating at each other. The only party in Washington is the party of power, and it exists neither on the left or the right, it consists of all parties.

As for business and politics, politics is business. No one becomes a politician for any other reason than to exercise political power to accumulate wealth. It doesn't matter which side you support or believe in, because they are both the same. They lie to you, manipulate you, empty your pockets, and they can still count on your vote.

You are probably not aware that I caucused for Hillary back in 2008. I was a supporter of her at the time. It was an interested experience to see how the political machine works, and how utterly brainwashed many people are. You would be amazed at how much people can be made to believe, and how easily they can be manipulated. Hillary was robbed in 2008, she should have won the nomination back then. The nomination was stolen from her, and given to Obama. Why? Because Obama was a weak, inexperienced, and ineffective nobody whom could be easily manipulated. Hillary was not. The party did not want Hillary as the candidate back then because they knew she would win. And the last thing the party wanted was Hillary as president, because she would be the master of the party, and not the other way around.

The experience was enlightening, and disillusioning. The party still does not want Hillary as president, but they are much more afraid of Trump. And that goes for the republican party in Washington as well. That Trump does well in the polls despite opposition from both left and right doesn't show much other than a lot of people are pissed off at both parties. And I am one of those.

I don't believe Trump will build a wall on the border, nor will he restrict trade, or greatly increase military spending. I believe nothing any politician says, and when someone runs for public office, they become politicians, whether they win or not. But I do believe that Trump will be a hair in the backside of the party of power in Washington, which has long been able to keep out anyone but those whom they select to be president.

All I can do when I see Trump tell another big one, with his orange face and orange hair, is laugh. And I know that this drives typical politicians crazy, because they wish they could lie as obviously as Trump does and get away with it. They all lie, as the old saying goes "how can you tell when a polticidal lies? When his lips move." But it is not about lies or the truth, it is about disgust and distrust, which are both the result of the party politics for the past several decades. People are tired of the system as it is, and even Lassie would put in a strong run against Hillary. And if Lassie were running against Hillary, I would vote for Lassie in a heartbeat. But since it is Trump, I like him less than Lassie, but more than Hillary, so he gets my vote.

The "right" as you call it, does not support Trump.

The 'right' as I call it voted Trump as their candidate, and the huge majority of them are supporting him.

We have Bush Sr coming out to vote for Hillary, the republican speaker of the house, numerous senators and others do not support Trump. They support their own, and Hillary is one of their own.

Ridiculous. Maybe you should take that tin-foil hat off.

Nothing else you said changes anything that I said in my last post.

But I do believe that Trump will be a hair in the backside of the party of power in Washington

Going back in the past with Perot. I remember during the Bush/Clinton/Perot debates Perot was commanding: I am going to straighten this country out I.....I.....I......I......I....am going to do this...this...this...this....this!!!!!

Clinton turned and said calmly It doesn't work that way Ross. And it doesn't. Lee Iaccoca who brought back Chrysler from the brink (some say selling crappy cars, but still a corporate hero either way) said why he himself or any REAL business executive would not fit in high level politics like that. Trump just wants to be president for his own entertainment.

"He's successful insofar as he has been able to maintain his value, but at that much value, that's actually not that hard."

It would be interesting to know if he has maintained his value but the straight-talking, no-nonsense antithesis to evasive and slimy politicians won't show the electorate his true worth.

Slippery as an eel and about as well informed.

"Clinton described less than one eighth of the US population as deplorables which is a conservative estimate in my opinion."

Oh, so in your opinion, only one eighth of the U.S. population are deplorable! You just dissed like 40 million people. But Clinton said "half" of Trump supporters are deplorable, which means a quarter of the electorate, not an eighth, since they're neck and neck right now, but o course that's before the next batch of Wikileaks mails and the first debate in which Hillary is going to get creamed.

"A large number of Trump supporters think the abolition of slavery was a mistake and gays should not be allowed to enter the US"

How many of those are there? 500? 5,000? The vast majority of Trump supporters are people sick and tired of the corrupt establishment politics which are seriously screwing this country. At least Trump is not supported by Henry Kissinger.

"Clinton is clean"

Har!

As clean as a stagnant drain pipe cleaner......

You would enroll in Trump University? Or become an investor of his? How many times has he gone bankrupt?

Failures are common in life and in all endeavors in life. Science, invention, business, etc it's all the same. It is what you do after the failure that counts. Do you quit and wallow in your defeat or do you continue to try to achieve your goals. There are a lot of bad things you can say about Trump but he has become successful. Saying he hasn't when he clearly has is nonsensical. He used the same corrupt system that all business people must navigate to build a business. The big different between Trump and Clinton is that when Clinton failed, as in Libya, people died and ISIS has a place from which to project terrorism. Hillary got the call at 3AM - and she failed. Now she is asking that American's double down on failure.

Let's stay on topic, namely, why Trump is the best thing ISIS could ask for in a n American president.

How so? By targeting them? By limiting and vetting Muslims domestic and foreign in this country? No, I think Trump is the worst thing for Democrats, that's putting it in its proper context.

Specifically, Trump's unrelenting drumbeat against Muslims and Islam perfectly fits the Islam vs. the West narrative that radicalized Islamic radical terrorists rely on to boost membership and generate support, both moral and financial from the broader global Muslim community.

So that means, we should deal with the Obama approach, do nothing, ignore radical Islam,(even though we know what it really is) turn our heads, pretend this didn't happen, walk away, don't make the Jihadists angry, let them blow things up, let them do whatever they want, whenever they want, tippy-toe around the problem, tell the majority of Americans: Obama is always right and everyone else is wrong, call it workplace violence, disgruntled individual, angry individual, misguided individual, rebellious individual, forget all the domestic or international connections. Seriously? We have been doing that for the last 8 years. Ignore radical Jihadism. The people have had enough of it, this actually could push Trump over to win the election, people are tired of hearing this president ignore and talk down to people and force-feeding them the narrative HE wants everyone to believe. Obama lives in pure fantasy land where he sees the world as HE WANTS to see it and NOT for what it really is.

He stands as the epitome of so-called Western aggression towards Islam, and thus sets the stage for a religious war that doesn't actually exist.

Sorry, I don't think anyone put the radical left believe that crap.

"Oh, so in your opinion, only one eighth of the U.S. population are deplorable! You just dissed like 40 million people. But Clinton said "half" of Trump supporters are deplorable, which means a quarter of the electorate, not an eighth"

No. 'Electorate' means people who are entitled to vote, and electorate obviously doesn't equal population. About half of the American electorate don't bother and I don't count any of them as Trump supporters. Less than half of the electorate who do bother are Trump supporters. Clinton described half of that less than a quarter of the US electorate as deplorables. It's actually less than an eighth.

Yes, I'm very comfortable in describing these people as deplorable. This isn't US bashing. In my own country around 10% think gays should be thrown in jail. These types would whoop at a Trump rally if they obtained US citizenship.

Failures are common in life and in all endeavors in life

Oh that's what you Republicans are calling it now is it? No, in the real world it is called fraud. He lost many people a lot of money and somehow has been allowed to do this over and over again. If someone is bankrupt, the law should provide for people to gain that money back one way or the other.

Maybe back in the days it was common to apply for bankruptcy and then start over again like nothing happened but through retrospective action this fraud (Trump) has to be held accountable for every little thing, meaning having to pay everything back, with interest, then hit him with penalties and then jail this fraud.

Simple.

How so? By targeting them? By limiting and vetting Muslims domestic and foreign in this country? No, I think Trump is the worst thing for Democrats, that's putting it in its proper context. You really have no clue what you are talking about.

We already vet immigrants of all races, religions, and creeds.

ISIS is no doubt a terrorist organization. They do not commit attacks without purpose. As a terrorist group, they must have an aim. Tell us, what is it, and how do they view interactions between the Muslim world and the West?

Question: If top U.S. law enforcement officers including FBI Director Comey say ISIS will infiltrate the Syrian refugees coming into the U.S., ( the refugee problem caused by Obama and Hillary's poor decisions ) why does Hillary want a 550% increase in the number of Syrian refugees?

"Actually it's more like 64 million because that's the number of racist Americans think that Obama was born in Kenya. "

Wow, you just dissed 64 million Americans! Well, maybe not 64 million, but there are nowhere near that number who think Obama was born in Kenya. But wait... there are tens of millions who don't know that Hillary's life-long ambition has been to become president and that she doesn't give a whit about the middle class or anything else ... OK, 64 million think Obama was born in Kenya! Are you sure it's not 100 million? lol

Yes, I'm very comfortable in describing these people as deplorable. This isn't US bashing. In my own country around 10% think gays should be thrown in jail. These types would whoop at a Trump rally if they obtained US citizenship.

Believe me, there are a lot of people that think the same about this current admin. Deplorable would be the safest word to describe them or should I say, the cleanest word.

We already vet immigrants of all races, religions, and creeds.

Not well enough and not thorough enough when dealing with radical Islam.

ISIS is no doubt a terrorist organization. They do not commit attacks without purpose. As a terrorist group, they must have an aim. Tell us, what is it, and how do they view interactions between the Muslim world and the West?

I could care less what their twisted minds want. That they want to establish a caliphate throughout the western world and cleanse it of anyone that doesn't believe in Sharia is all I need to know.

Not well enough and not thorough enough when dealing with radical Islam.

Oh, really? Can you give even one single instance of a vetted refugee committing an act of terror? Of course you can't because they are being vetted?

I could care less what their twisted minds want.

You could care less? Then why don't you? Roflmaobenghazi

That they want to establish a caliphate throughout the western world and cleanse it of anyone that doesn't believe in Sharia is all I need to know.

True, but you miss the whole apocalyptic part of their belief. You miss how they believe the west and Islam are incompatible and there will be one final battle between Muslims and crusaders at Dabiq. So, when you and Trump want to lump all Muslims together, you play right into their hands. What exactly are the millions of peaceful Muslim Americans to do when they find they are not welcomed in America?

Oh, really? Can you give even one single instance of a vetted refugee committing an act of terror? Of course you can't because they are being vetted?

You can believe that garbage, I don't and would never, especially from this president.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/sen_sessions_obama_in_denial_about_inadequate_vetting_of_refugees.html

Senator Jeff Sessions is once again issuing a warning to the administration about its inadequate vetting procedures that could lead to terrorist attacks here at home.

It's not that no one has been sounding the alarm. FBI director Comey and many in the intelligence community have been straightforward about the threat from the connection between refugee resettlement and terrorism. The problem is no one in the administration is listening to them.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-isis-smuggles-terrorists-among-syrian-refugees-453039

This is what happens when governments don't listen to the people.

Merkel was wrong to dismiss the concerns of her people and of European Union member states. She didn’t take the public’s anxieties seriously. Not only did this heighten security risks, but it erodes people’s confidence in the German government and in the E.U., the latter of which dictates immigration quotas for member states. This was part of the motivation for last month’s vote among Britons to exit the E.U.

As this confidence wanes, far-right populist parties are gaining traction. Earlier this year, Merkel’s ruling party lost badly in local elections to the Alternative for Germany party, which takes a firm anti-immigrant stance and has been very critical of Merkel. France’s far-right National Front candidate, Marine Le Pen, has recently soared in polls, with twice as many voters saying they’d vote for her as for sitting Socialist President François Hollande.

True, but you miss the whole apocalyptic part of their belief. You miss how they believe the west and Islam are incompatible and there will be one final battle between Muslims and crusaders at Dabiq.

I didn't miss it, I summarized it and regardless what the reasons are! We are infidels for them, either we convert, pay a tax or die!

So, when you and Trump want to lump all Muslims together, you play right into their hands. What exactly are the millions of peaceful Muslim Americans to do when they find they are not welcomed in America?

This is what gets me so infuriated about the left, NO ONE is talking about the ENTIRE MUSLIM community, I have never said that or believed that or advocated that notion and NO ONE is talking about the law-abiding Muslims in America. I have always talked about radical Jihadists Whether they be native born or foreign, we need to do a lot more scrutinizing. So how many terror attacks so far within this year?

NO ONE is talking about the ENTIRE MUSLIM community

Not true (again):

Donald Trump "would certainly implement" a database system tracking Muslims in the United States, the Republican front-runner told NBC News on Thursday night. "I would certainly implement that. Absolutely," Trump said in Newton, Iowa, in between campaign town halls. "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases," he added. "We should have a lot of systems." When asked whether Muslims would be legally obligated to sign into the database, Trump responded, "They have to be — they have to be."

beyond databases

This means tracking chips so every Muslim can be tracked in the USA by satellite. Trump is talking about the ENTIRE MUSLIM community.

Just for fun....

When the criminal Clinton cabal announces that their infamous foe and now world renowned 'basket of deplorables' are threats to their power establishment, you are really hearing an admission that they are losing the war of ideas. It has long been a well established fact that psychopaths on the loony left are existing in a parallel universe, but it is relatively new just how desperate they have become since the public is waking up to their century long scheme to destroy America.

You can believe that garbage, I don't and would never, especially from this president.

What you call "garbage" is the simple truth. I asked you to give me one-just one- example terrorists posing as refugees to gain access and ultimately attack Americans here at home. You have not done that- because you cannot. It simply has never happened. Now, don't give me some article on Germany or Europe. Our situation is fundamentally different from Europe where there are millions of Muslim refugees; men, women, and children fleeing to Europe in rubber boats. That hasn't happened in America where we've agreed to take in 10,000 and it won't.

This is what gets me so infuriated about the left, NO ONE is talking about the ENTIRE MUSLIM community, I have never said that or believed that or advocated that notion and NO ONE

Then get mad. I'll go long heart meds. When you talk about profiling and tracking Muslims, you are talking about all Muslims. When you support murdering in cold blood, the families of "suspected" terrorists, you lose the moral high ground. This is a problem that cannot be solved through increasing military spending or stereotyping folks by religion. Doing this just feeds right into their hands and so you should care about it.

What you call "garbage" is the simple truth. I asked you to give me one-just one- example terrorists posing as refugees to gain access and ultimately attack Americans here at home.

San Bernardino, Boston, NY, Florida, Fort Hood, New Jersey, Texas. I just gave you 7.

It simply has never happened.

You didn't read the news I assume....

Now, don't give me some article on Germany or Europe. Our situation is fundamentally different from Europe where there are millions of Muslim refugees; men, women, and children fleeing to Europe in rubber boats. That hasn't happened in America where we've agreed to take in 10,000 and it won't.

So you're saying there is a fundamental difference between a European radical Jihadi compared to a North American Jihadi? Besides the language, what else is different? Also, the majority of Americans don't want an influx of refugees in their communities without properly vetting them. Maybe we should hold them in a camp and slowly vet each one thoroughly as possible before allowing them among the general population. The problem with this guy in the White House is that he refuses to listen ,just like Merkel to the people. If you have a majority of the country against allowing in thousands of refugees, he should listen, but then again, we're talking about Obama......

Also, the majority of Americans don't want an influx of refugees

Trump says he's going to put them in databases. It should be safe. So once Trump becomes president then that means more Muslims can come to the US?

When the criminal Clinton

No arrest then no criminal. It's just the Hillary haters who just love to hate Hillary!

San Bernardino, Boston, NY, Florida, Fort Hood, New Jersey, Texas. I just gave you 7.

None of those were refugees. Try again.

So you're saying there is a fundamental difference between a European radical Jihadi compared to a North American Jihadi? Besides the language, what else is different?

No, I'm saying the circumstance are entirely different. You have not, because you cannot, site one example of refugees in America committing terrorist attacks. It doesn't happen. Why? Because vetting works, and if you wanted to commit to attack Americans, it would be far easier to get a terrorist visa than come to America as refugee.

Again, distance from ME to Europe a few hundred miles of sea. Distance from ME to America, a few thousand miles of rough, open sea. Thanks for playing.

Day number two after Clinton id's Trump as an aider and abetter of terrorist.

Notice the great upswell of rage against her nailing Trump as a traitor?

Me neither.

None of those were refugees. Try again.

Trump voters think that refugees just come to the US the minute they escape their countries.

Trump voters think...

Half of Trump voter are deplorable. The other half, ignoramuses.

Half of Trump voter are deplorable. The other half, ignoramuses.

I think your reflecting.

Everywhere Trump goes, it's like he's a Rock Star. and it's like Hillary is running for school board president. She can't half-fill a high school gymnasium. It is EMBARRASSING.

They HAVE to know they are going to get SLAUGHTERED in November, even with the entire federal government, the entire left-wing media, and all of Hollyweird lying for her.

I think your reflecting.

"Projecting." You mean to say "I think you are projecting."

So, right, you kinda make my point.

None of those were refugees. Try again.

Doesn't matter, from the optics of all of this, doesn't ease the fear for most Americans. 36 governors on behalf of their constituents told Obama they do not want to accept any foreigners in their state, Obama told them if they don't, they won't receive federal funding. So in other words, who gives a d...what the voters think. This is helping Trump, as long as Obama wants to show a finger to the people, his numbers go up, another reason the polls are really tightening.

No, I'm saying the circumstance are entirely different. You have not, because you cannot, site one example of refugees in America committing terrorist attacks. It doesn't happen. Why?

We don't know that because like with EVERYTHING else, this admin. is so secretive, fast and furious, Bergdahl, the Iran money transfer, the IRS targeting of conservative donors during the 2012 election cycle, taking Bernie Sanders out of the election cycle and on and on, we didn't get to Hillary yet, so NO, I don't believe it and millions of Americans don't either and that's based on the history of them being caught with their pants down.

Because vetting works, and if you wanted to commit to attack Americans, it would be far easier to get a terrorist visa than come to America as refugee.

Fine, we just have a difference of opinion, you trust this president and I don't. I respect your opinion, but I totally disagree.

Again, distance from ME to Europe a few hundred miles of sea. Distance from ME to America, a few thousand miles of rough, open sea.

As I said, the ONLY difference is the language, nothing more...ok, the food. Other than that, the exact same thing and Americans have EVERY right to be concerned and NOT go the same route as Europe.

declaring his anti-Muslim rhetoric helps groups like ISIS recruit new fighters.

ISIS was doing a pretty good job at getting recruits well before Trump decided to enter the Presidential race. To say that they are motivated to join this group because of his supposed beliefs in radical Islam it to put you hole in the sand and not realize that this group is based on an ideology that goes back centuries. They want to spread their brand of Islam, and will kill us Infidels as well as other Muslims who don't submit to their interpretations. They will get their recruits with or without Trump.

Iraq was stable before America left. Try stopping all crimes in any country?

The green zone was very safe, but like in all country's things do happen....It's the %.

Yes they did win the battle and could of won the war.

The Left believes that any sentiment or action against Islamic extremism inspires the extremists to try harder. So they ignore the problem hoping it will go away. Neville Chamberlain tried that approach in WWII and it naturally only invited further aggression. The aggression was only ended when Churchill gave the aggressors the Sal Alinsky treatment. He identified it, froze it, polarized it, and ultimately defeated it. I prefer the Churchill approach.

Iraq was stable before America left. Try stopping all crimes in any country?

No it wasn't. And stopping all crimes in a country is the extreme opposite of non-violence due to martial law propped up by the military. If 'stability' requires a full military presence (by the most powerful military in the world at that) than it can hardly be called stability. Stability is when the military leaves, and things remain relatively unchanged.

The Left believes that any sentiment or action against Islamic extremism inspires the extremists to try harder.

Not sentiment, but action in their countries. You don't seem to realize, the US is an invader in the Middle East. It does the land of the US, and millions of people have died at the hands of the US. As long as the US maintains a presence in the US, the people there will fight back. If there was an invading force killing people in my country, and I wasn't old (maybe even if I was), I'd be pretty tempted to extremism too. And any true American who thinks they wouldn't be as well is kidding themselves.

The 'right' as I call it voted Trump as their candidate, and the huge majority of them are supporting him.

No, the traditional "right" does not support Trump. Religious conservatives cannot stand the thought of a candidate as colorful as Trump is, and hate the thought of voting for a man who does not say his prayers at meals. Businessmen are leery of Trump's economic and trade ideas, companies and corporations are even less supportive of him. The banking sector doesn't look upon him kindly either, which is why they have paid Hillary so much in the past.

Since Trump managed to rob the right of the nomination, and become the republican candidate, he will naturally get most of the votes of the fools who vote along party lines. These voters don't see past the "r" next to his name on the ballot, just like those in the opposing party can't see past the "d" in front of the names of the candidates they will vote for. People are fools.

The funniest thing is if that Trump were the democrat candidate, the majority of democrat voters would vote for him. Of course he would have to stop lying about what he would to about immigration, trade, and national defense, and start lying about what he would to do fight income inequality and climate change. And you would believe him, because you know nothing at all about the nature of these people, and you would give him your vote.

It's all too funny.

No, the traditional "right" does not support Trump. Religious conservatives cannot stand the thought of a candidate as colorful as Trump is, and hate the thought of voting for a man who does not say his prayers at meals.

He is the chosen leader of the Republicans, the party of the right. And he's a direct result of the hatred they've been pushing for years.

Businessmen are leery of Trump's economic and trade ideas, companies and corporations are even less supportive of him. The banking sector doesn't look upon him kindly either, which is why they have paid Hillary so much in the past.

This is why economic republicans should have separated from the 'moral' republicans years ago. I've agreed with many republican stances on fiscal matters. I've almost never agreed with them on moral matters. A split in the party would bring a lot of people over to the fiscal side that would never consider voting Republican due to the screwed up moral stance and hatred they've been promoting.

Since Trump managed to rob the right of the nomination

The right gave him the nomination. As far as I know, it's only registered Republicans who vote in the primaries (someone correct me if I'm wrong). There was no 'robbing' about it. He put himself up to be chosen, and they chose him.

Iraq was stable before America left.

This is so wrong as to beggar belief. Stable? Not only were violence levels against civilians in Iraq still high when the US started pulling combat troops out in 2007, but they were the highest they had ever been since the start of the actual war.

What happened after the US pullout began? The number of Iraqi cilivian deaths dropped steadily, reaching an all-time low for the war with some 220 in late 2010 and hovered in the range of 280 beats per year up to and beyond the withdrawal of the last US combat troops in 2011. The truth is the polar opposite of what you are claiming.

Then in 2013, the number of civilian deaths began to incrementally rise. The cause? Certainly not ISIS. It was the Syrian civil war, an ongoing crisis that had virtually nothing to do with the presence or lack thereof of US troops.

To try and point a finger of blame for ISIS squarely at one person or persons shows a shocking lack of knowledge of the actual history of the Middle East, not to mention no small degree of emotional and intellectual immaturity.

The right gave him the nomination. As far as I know, it's only registered Republicans who vote in the primaries (someone correct me if I'm wrong). There was no 'robbing' about it. He put himself up to be chosen, and they chose him.

You have a short memory. The "right" as you called it first poured their money and support into Jeb Bush. And when Jeb sank in the polls, they diverted this money and support into Ted Cruz (who was the candidate the "right" wanted). And despite their best efforts, none of it worked. Trump still managed to beat them, with none of the considerable financial resources they had. Of course he "robbed" them, the party didn't want him as their candidate, they tried everything they could to prevent him from being their candidate. But he is their candidate now, and now they have to play along.

The people who chose Trump are not all republicans, a considerable amount are independents, and there are more than a few democrats as well. Trump does not belong to the right, and he is not a product of it, as you probably already know. Trump's supporters are not ideologues who belong to the right. They are people who are pissed off at the current system. And no one can honestly say that the system hasn't done anything to piss people off.

He is the chosen leader of the Republicans, the party of the right. And he's a direct result of the hatred they've been pushing for years.

Think for a moment, what are republicans? What are democrats? Why are there two parties? What kind of people make up each party? In reality, the people are very much alike. They all do more or less the same things to get by, they are for the most part honest and hardworking people. What makes them identify with one party or the other? What drives them to believe so fervently in their party, and causes them to utterly hate the other party?

Hate is one of the oldest tools in politics. You are expressing it yourself in your posts. Where does that hatred come from? Has a republican robbed your house? Stolen your girlfriend? Called you names on the train? And the same is true for republicans, no democrat has personally done anything to them to cause hatred.

The hatred comes not from the people, but from the politicians who exploit small differences in belief or ideals. These small differences are enlarged, using a mixture of lies and half-truths. Politicians take small issues of a usually personal nature, and try to create policies with these issues. In this way they stir up controversy, anger, hate, and loyalty. This political practice of "divide and rule" has existed as long as there have been people. But despite thousands of years of being manipulated by this strategy, people continue to be manipulated by it.

You and the other posters above are the products of this manipulation, anyone who identifies with a political party has been manipulated to do so. You are lied to on a daily basis, your independence and freedom are reduced on a daily basis. Every day they take a little more of your money, be it through direct taxation, indirect taxation, or, with their favorite method, inflation. Each year you are a little worse off financially, and your opportunities are being gradually reduced. All of what is being taken away from you is going to those whom you voted for because they promised to give you more. But the more authority you give them to take from the haves to give to the have nots, the more they keep for themselves.

In Washington parties are irrelevant. The party system is simply a tool to distract the people, and to manipulate the people into giving their leaders more money and power. If you look at the governments of developed countries around the world today, you will see the same thing. They may have many parties, but the main power is always divided among the two largest parties, universally described as right and left.

The saddest part is that the corruption of this system has led to the point where we are forced to choose between the likes of Hillary and Trump to be president. Of all the millions of people in America, many of whom are truly outstanding, we are reduced to a carnival barker showman with orange skin and orange hair, and a... Well, I don't have enough vocabulary to adequately describe Hillary.

But keep believing, even though your beliefs are the product of lies, deceit, and personal ignorance. It's a free country, though it gets a little less free each day.

@Strangerland Not sentiment, but action in their countries.

I agree about the actions in other nations. I'm sick of it too. America needs to mind it's own numerous problems. It's the sentiments from Obama that are so surreal. If the Islamic extremists were only blowing up things in France and Germany I would be fine with those nations denying the reality of Islamic extremism. But they are setting off bombs all over Obama's country and his response is more appeasement than opposition.

@Strangerland Yes Iraq was 99% stable.

Ok If they put up "2 meter high checkpoints" around gov building, what would of that done Strangerland?

Let's see how smart you are.

Iraq war was stable to a point they wanted it to be a small % unstable to stay in Iraq. If it was 100% won, what does that mean American troops would have to do?

How did the ISIS come about? They fled Iraq with the massive ops or going after the bomb makers and re-built in Iraq, something the CIA new about.

The battle was won and they didn't wan't Iraq 100% stable.

Yes Iraq was 99% stable.

Not only was it stable, but the only thing Obama had to do was reinforce the SOFA agreement and made sure we had a sizable amount of troops stationed and listened to his senior advisers, Iraq would be a different place then it is today and that would have been a huge notch on his belt, but we all know the guy knows better than the rest of the world, since he is the all omnipotent one.

That was rebuilt/grouped in Syria 2....Last comment.

The charts are done by the CIA and even so look at 2011. They changed the charts so why?

Where does the data come from? So why now have they changed the date for?

If they put up 2 meter high checkpoints around gov buildings and so on, all truck bombings would have stopped. No more putting them on the spot because the truck couldn't fit.

If they build pop up pole checkpoints that had trained sniffer dogs smell first before they pulled up to the troops, it would have what? Look at cover photo on this fb page. https://www.facebook.com/Oblique-weapons-1668384160061114/

The battle was won but the CIA didn't want to pull out troops from Iraq.

Why didn't they do them 2 strategy's for? Are you saying a truck can fit under a 2 meter high checkpoint when it can't? So why did they want attacks to still happen?

The battle was won and the war could have been won. Inside fight car bombs would have 100% been all stopped with them 2 strategy's not done.

The stats you see have changed from the original 1s. These states come from the army gov and CIA.

The guy that won them the battle and could of won the war why stopping inside fighting car bomb attacks with pop up pole sniffer dog checkpoints "but" he walks like a po&f.

The stats have changed and the less reporting on attack by people there with cameras proves the original stats are the truth. Car bomb attacks way down and they last car bomb attacks could have been stopped, so reply to how the top 2 strategy's wouldn't work when they would?

The CIA don't wan't no gay walking guy to make the history book for saving them.

Strategy's not done and stats now changed. They wanted the ISIS to form and why and how do you think they got all them Toyota cars from?

The proof is there and just reply how it would have failed and ill correct you.

I am saying the battle was won and sabotage and undone strategy's would have won that war.

Let's not forget here a CIA agent is in jail for proving the CIA tried to frame Iran with nuclear blueprints. The world and U.N said show us the proof and the CIA could not. Now after that the agent come out showing the proof of the CIA trying to plant blueprints in Iran to go to war.

Ok people how many civilians and troops would have died if the CIA didn't get busted thanks to Jeffrey Sterling?

Jeffrey Sterling proved how evil the CIA are.

You have a short memory. The "right" as you called it first poured their money and support into Jeb Bush. And when Jeb sank in the polls, they diverted this money and support into Ted Cruz (who was the candidate the "right" wanted). And despite their best efforts, none of it worked. Trump still managed to beat them, with none of the considerable financial resources they had. Of course he "robbed" them, the party didn't want him as their candidate

The party voted Trump as their representative. You can claim that they didn't want him all you want, but facts show otherwise. The fact being that the person chosen by the party was Trump. Now maybe some of the party didn't want him, but they are a minority, as evidenced by the fact that he was chosen by a majority.

There is no 'robbing' about it. It's how the democratic process works.

The people who chose Trump are not all republicans, a considerable amount are independents, and there are more than a few democrats as well.

How exactly were democrats and independents able to choose the Republican leader? When did they get a say in who becomes the leader of the party?

Trump does not belong to the right, and he is not a product of it

Trump doesn't belong to the right, he leads it. The republicans are the party of the right, and he is the one they selected to lead their party. And he is most definitely a product of years of hatefulness by the party. He's not just a product, he's the end result. And hopefully the end of the party altogether.

Hate is one of the oldest tools in politics. You are expressing it yourself in your posts. Where does that hatred come from?

I don't hate republicans - I have a couple of close friends who support Trump. I just think that they have been deceived by their party. Many of them have been deceived into supporting a party that does not represent their economic interests, using the 'squirrel' of immigration and other issues that play into their fears. Republicans are not the enemy, they are our neighbors, the people we do business with, people in our families. It's exactly this pitting people against each other that has brought Trump to power. It's exploiting people's fear for economic gain.

The battle was won

Exactly. The battle was won. Not the war. There is no winning in the middle east.

@Strangerland You have not replied to 99% of the discussion / reply.

i have proven they could have stopped all truck bombings and car bombs.

Not without me, and then again if they back terrorist groups they have no plan to win.

The battle was won. Not the war. There is no winning in the middle east.

Very true, but you can bomb them into oblivion and make things safer, I'm not for starting wars, but I'm not for calling it other than what it is and to take whatever necessary steps I need to in order to keep my country safe,.you don't have to be a victim like Europe. Israel doesn't and never wil. You will always have terrorism, but you don't have to take it or be in denial like Obama always is and the days of making excuses for the radical jihadists is coming to an end very soon.

@Strangerland You have not replied to 99% of the discussion / reply.

I can only understand about 1% of what you write.

i have proven they could have stopped all truck bombings and car bombs.

No you haven't.

If a military presence is required to maintain stability, it's not true stability.

to take whatever necessary steps I need to in order to keep my country safe

The problem being that the steps you want to take, are what keeps them attacking your country. It has the exact opposite effect of what you are trying to achieve.

If you really were for taking whatever steps necessary, you'd drop your ego, and be calling for an complete and entire withdrawal from the middle east by American troops.

Projecting." You mean to say "I think you are projecting."

You're right. Thanks for the correction. What am I gonna do come November when you have to go bye bye for 6 months? Lol

@S Hahaha and yes i have :).

A 2 meter high checkpoint will stop a truck fitting under it. So why are truck bombs happening?

Are you saying the checkpoints around gov departments with a height of 2 meters is dumb?

I'm starting to see why you don't understand much.

And the Obama administration of giving material support of the ISIS. So who is the worst?

to keep my country safe

Japan is already safe.

you don't have to be a victim like Europe

That means that the USA is not a victim yet. It means that Obama is doing a good job as a great president.

Not so good as to stop New York being bombed.....

I don't like either candidate, but if Clinton were to try and be the more positive candidate instead of stooping to Trump's level of negativity, then she just MIGHT get more support. But she's as unlikable as Nixon. Bill's charisma sure as hell didn't rub off on her.

The party voted Trump as their representative. You can claim that they didn't want him all you want, but facts show otherwise. The fact being that the person chosen by the party was Trump.

Trump only pulled off what Sanders only just failed to do - overthrow the will of the party oligarchs. The Democrat National Committee was in name only a fair arbiter between Hillary and Bernie. They were in fact an arm of her campaign. The leaked documents revealed that to be a plain fact. The Democrat party remains in the thrall of the apparatchiks. Now if you are a hardcore Democrat, that's a good thing. If you are one of the Bernie voters who wanted real hope and change... not so much.

The Democrat party remains in the thrall of the apparatchiks. Now if you are a hardcore Democrat, that's a good thing. If you are one of the Bernie voters who wanted real hope and change... not so much.

I rather have this option than to have it in the hands of billionaires whose sole drive is to eliminate their taxes, pollute the environment without any consequences, and loot the treasury, and impoverish the people,and dumb them down to create a world whereby they control everything for a thousand years. Trump is sick, reminds me of that "figure"'in Revelations (not that I am religious mind you, BUT the parallels are too striking) who wants to own the world and tries to bar code everyone in it. Funny thing: the churches support Trump too!!! HA HA HA, you can not make up this comedy!

Wolfpack,

Trump only pulled off what Sanders only just failed to do - overthrow the will of the party oligarchs.

No one -- and I mean no one -- buys into this recent and utterly ridiculous effort on your part to recast yourself as someone even remotely concerned with what Bernie supporters want. Nor does anyone believe even for a moment that you have even a passing interest in confronting, much less overthrowing, any sort of (cough!) "oligarchy" out of concern for the We the People.

Your streak of hardcore conservatism and impassioned defense of GOP "oligarchs" like George W. Bush are both well established here at JT.

No is fooled here in the least.

How you get voted down for putting forward a basic strategy that would work is beyond me.

Trucks are 2.3 meters hi and checkpoint cops get put on the spot or bribed. If the truck can't fit under, you can't put them on the spot or bribe them.

Looks like CIA agent voting me down lol.

True, but you miss the whole apocalyptic part of their belief. You miss how they believe the west and Islam are incompatible and there will be one final battle between Muslims and crusaders at Dabiq. So, when you and Trump want to lump all Muslims together, you play right into their hands.

You miss the part where the ISIS prophecy says that they will lose this final battle. The prophesy states that out of the destruction will rise a great leader who will spread their sick version of Islam across the world.

So unless you actually believe this rubbish yourself, why would you care that we are "playing into their hands?"

You also seem to suggest that ISIS represent Muslims in the comment "final battle between Muslims and crusaders." They don't. The final battle will be between ISIS and western backed forces.

Always good to know what a psychotic lunatic is thinking, just in case. But once you start hesitating over taking clear action because the lunatic might "want it" then you are crossing over the line and starting to believe the lunacy yourself.

Hillary and Obama actually funded and provided weapons to the actually group in Iraq, which became Isis. There is actual evidence of Obama and Hillary knowing it was a risk to fund such a group to start Arab spring in Syria and they did it anyway. Sorry left wingers and Hillary supporters but your candidate actually did aid Isis buy funding them enough to exist