Are we talking about the conservative legend Ronald Reagan? Wait... He was responsible for deaths of Americans and illegally sold weapons to Iran, who would always be allies. TROLOLOLOLOLOL What else ya got?
It will be great to see you crawl back into your cave when a Democrat is elected President for the third straight time. And then, of course, the cycle will repeat with you reappearing four years later, begging for rep.
The point is that Hillary's campaign would have to be built around her experience, and her therefore being the one you can trust. That's pretty much shot. So, they're on much more even footing on that, now.
If you review a checklist, Pence is what Trump needs to have the best chance to win. However, his star has fallen since he left the House and ran for governor. His first gubernatorial campaign was very lackluster and I think he was concerned about losing this time.
No, Clinton is up 67% to 33%... http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/ To be fair, you actually said something accurate. "She's that bad of a candidate" is sadly accurate. The problem for you and your ideological brethren is that Trump is worse.
Though the betting markets are also pretty accurate. http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=481727
I got to say Hillary would be much better fighting ISIS then Obama. She seems less PC then Obama in regards to radical Islam and more straightforward.
Do people like rocketslegend believe that Obama not explicitly using the words 'Islamic extremism' at a public speech confuses DEVGRU operators and CIA paramilitary officers on who to look for? Do people actually think that?
As a head of state, he understands that he also is the president of 4 million American Muslims who are crucial the the fight agaisnt lone wolf terrorism as they are the only ones who can report whatever suspicious behavior they see in Mosques. If he alienates that population by attacking their faith, many Muslims might not be as cooperative. Keep in mind that even President Bush stated that Islam 'is a religion of peace' something any conservative today would be offended by if they head such a statement. Do I think a large swath of American Muslims would suddenly be offended if he use the phrase "Islamic Extremism"? No, not really, however, I can't see how it hinders the fight against terrorism also/
Our bombers, drones, and special forces are far less effective when Obama fails to use the proper terminology.
That rationality has some holes in it. You would think progressive/ moderate / liberal muslims have enough sense in them to cooperate and fight terrorism instead of joining them, regardless what a president says let along a harmless term like "radical islam" . If they can't bare to hear someone say "radical islam" and that word would make you want join ISIS then who has the real problem? Obama has no problem with alienate himself with the police or law abiding gun owners but muslims is one thing he can't go against.
And one more thing, not saying radical islam will not stop any terrorist attacks. They hate us no matter what.
I assume you are referring to 'they' as in extremists? If so, that isn't who the president is speaking to when he avoids using 'Islamic Extremism'. He is talking to the law abiding Muslims who do like us and he wants to keep it that way so they can report some terrorists.
Trump was asked recently what his favorite Bible verse is. His response- "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you deport him you never have to feed him again."
http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/latest-presidential-polls-2016-trump-vs-clinton-current-polling-numbers-general-election-national-matchup-gary-johnson-hillary/ Trump has caught up yet again and in the lead in a few polls.
So, you think under President Trump, with a ban on entry into the country for Muslims, a Sharia test perhaps for visa-holders, and perhaps sprinkle on some rhetoric from the oval office about how we don't know which Muslims to trust -- you figure a moderate muslim will feel comfortable calling the police's attention to his mosque (attended by his friends and family) because a member is speaking a little too stridently? It only works if informants feel confident that the government reaction will be rational and measured, that they won't harass or defame innocent people who might be casually associated. The relationship with local law enforcement is probably a big factor there, but the president's approach does a lot to set the tenor. On the margin, they'll be incrementally more likely to figure this member isn't certain to commit any crime and that they can perhaps handle internally, or perhaps exclude him from their community. The cost and risk of including law enforcement will go up. Certainly, in extreme cases you'll still get informants because the risk of saying nothing is obviously greater. But, in marginal cases where it might just be a guy blowing off steam, in a hostile environment you might figure the risk of saying something is higher than the risk of saying nothing. On cops and gun-owners, Obama has made similar overtures. He condemned the murder of cops as racist. He's told gun owners he respected their Second Amendment rights. He hasn't embraced those groups like Republicans want because he is still pressuring them to make changes. The Republican approach doesn't ask for them to make any changes, or it gives them additional license. You can't reasonably expect Obama to fully adopt that language. I'd say it's the exact same balance Obama strikes with Islam -- he validates Muslims in being Muslim, but condemns terrorism, violent jihad, and extremist Islamism. Maybe the comparison will help you understand the Muslim extremist experience -- they probably get just as mad about Obama's opposition to Islam as you get about his opposition to cops.
