Democrats Must End Trump's Terrorism Advantage

[ericson00]

By now, people have noticed that Trump's polling numbers are moving up, and one issue that he polls very well for, given his national security non-experience is the issue of terrorism. See these numbers:

"Who do you trust more to handle terrorism: Clinton or Trump?" Options rotated. Half sample A.

Clinton Trump

% %

5/16-19/16

47 44

3/3-6/16

54 40

Or the fox poll (yes its fox, but it still is onto something)


This should not be happening? Why might it be?

Recently, Donald Trump tweeted:

Crooked Hillary wants a radical 500% increase in Syrian refugees. We can’t allow this. Time to get smart and protect America!

and

How can Crooked Hillary say she cares about women when she is silent on radical Islam, which horribly oppresses women?

Bill Maher said it best about the Islamic Terrorism controversy:

Let's get clear on something: I absolutely don't believe that we should ban all Muslims coming into this country. One, we need Muslims in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Two, it's not American. It's just un-American to do that, and it sacrifices who we are, and we can't do that. But let's not kid ourselves: A certain percentage of them will be radicalized. The more Muslims in your country, the more that is a possibility.

So no, Donald Trump is not right — but he will win the election if the American people have to choose between his demagoguery and a party that won't even say the words "Islamic terrorism." I think the Democrats could lose on that issue alone, especially if there's another attack.

On the Syrian refugees, 25% of House Dems voted with the GOP. One of the reason Edwards managed to win in Louisiana was that he defied Obama as well on the issue:

Americans are both against letting large amounts of Syrian refugees in, but do oppose the blanket ban on Muslims. This is the stance I take, as do most Americans.

Hillary has been pushed to the left by Bernie during this primary, by a lot of people who can't seem to be satisfied, but also, by a lot of people who can't ever be critical of Islam.

11 years ago, she did use the words "Islamic extremism" before some on the far-left tarred her into a "neo-con" in 2008, which she did understandably want to avoid this time:

It is precisely those values that we share that are under attack from the radical Islamist extremists. Their
ideology disdains our liberal democratic values and seeks to destroy all that we hold dear.

Another time:

When Islamic extremists, including the leaders of nations, proclaim death to America, death to Israel, we understand that our two nations are fighting a shared threat.

The part of the left that wants to whitewash Islamism, that has forced the Democrats into a position against Trump they shouldn't be in, given his neo-phyte status, really needs to think about what matters; keeping abortion legal, gun control, keeping marriage equality legal, protecting the environment, or whitewashing Islamism under the guise of "anti-Imperialism."

Dems need to listen to Bill Maher, just use the term Islamic terrorism, and move to the center on refugees, and WIN.

[AgerolanAmerican]

1. Not possible with a Clinton nomination

Clinton consistently supported terrorists - and not just any terrorists, actual Al-Qaeda terrorists (!) - in Libya and Syria, and is wholly unrepentant about it.

How do we win on the terrorism issue when we have a genuine, real-life, material aider and abetter of the very terrorist group that started the whole War on Terror as our party nominee?

This is once again one of the plethora of issues (including warmongering, crony corporatism, money-driven political corruption, and sexual predation) that normally we'd be able to take advantage of Republican weakness, but we can't because we're likely to nominate someone who is worse.

[imari362]

5. Exactly n/t

[rockfordfile]

10. From the looks of it Clinton will be the Democratic nominee

I will vote and support Clinton. She will make a good President.

You sound like a Trump supporter. why are you here?

[Hoyt]

2. Trump leads because his supporters are bigoted warmongers. Don't know what can be done about

that.

[ericson00]

3. while many of his primary supporters are bigots,

not everyone of his potential GE supporters (which is close to half the country) are bigots.

[AgerolanAmerican]

6. and the biggest warmongers ALL prefer Clinton to Trump

They're real vocal about it, they've been throwing tantrums ever since Trump won the nomination over their designated war puppets.

When Bill Kristol prefers the Democratic candidate over the Republican one, there's something VERY VERY WRONG with the Democratic candidate.

[rockfordfile]

11. If you support trump, then yes you're a bigot

[imari362]

4. fox news love war

Bill Maher is a bigot and hates Muslims

Bel Edward won the election not because he "defied Obama" but because...

1. Republican Piyush Jindal destroyed Louisiana

2. Republican David Vitter frequented prostitutes and got off without facing charges which he should have, help destroy Louisiana with the same give all you can to the rich and corporations and while f'ing the people

All and all John Bel Edward won the Governorship of Louisiana because of the economy, we've seen once again what giving Republican the reins would lead us and we were ready to let someone who would work for us....The People.

Lastly, I don't believe that any poll coming from the right that asks the question who will handle terrorism best would ever have Hillary topping Trump no matter what word buzzes their ears, the rightwing HATE her and the use of the words "Islamic Terrorist" will change that.
In reality they should love her because she has no problem doing what they like best....Wars and the rumor of Wars.

[Uponthegears]

8. Most certainly

And we should do it by getting behind Senator Sanders' approach.

[basselope]

9. It would involve a Delorean, flux capacitor and 1.21 gigawatts.