Paris will be at the center of tomorrow's debate.

[MineralMan]

That's clear. It will be interesting to see how our candidates handle it. Now, I'm planning to stay up and watch. Yes, indeed...

[valerief]

1. Yes, it'll be very interesting. nt

[MineralMan]

5. Just as I said, yes.

The answers will have an impact on next week's poll numbers, too. I'll make no predictions, though.

[guillaumeb]

2. And how the question is framed will also be interesting.

Here is how I would ask it, if I were the moderator,

Given the centuries long history of French colonialism and oppression, given that France, like the US, and Russia, and Britain, is still interfering in the affairs of other countries, does this latest attack really surprise you?

My follow up would be:

Do you consider this to be "blow back"?

[brooklynite]

18. Answer: no, not at all

This is an internal problem. French has had problems integrating muslim immigrants for decades for cultural and economic reasons. And by cultural, I don't mean a "colonial" mindset, I mean a fierce secularism that appears to be incompatible with the religious practices of the muslims (remember the fight over barring the hijab in schools?). What happened in Algeria or Senegal 60 years ago has played a limited role.

[Fumesucker]

19. There have been reports that some attackers were shouting that it was for Iraq and Syria

I don't think anyone has enough information to say what this attack was all about yet.

France has religious freedom, just not enough of it to keep radical Muslims happy since their idea of religious freedom means they are free to force you to worship Allah in their prescribed manner. They are like quite a few Christians in the USA in that regard.

[AgingAmerican]

32. So Bush/Cheney are off the hook for igniting this crap in the first place?

Wow, that's telling...

[guillaumeb]

56. I disagree. What happened in Algeria plays a large role.

Jean le Pen, founder of the FN, is a "pied noir", an Algerian born French citizen who has never given up his colonial mentality. His daughter, Marine Le Pen, is the current head of the FN. The FN is a ferociously nativist, right wing party that uses racism as a rallying point.

The colonial/racist mindset, combined with the laiicite that is the de facto official philosophy of the Republic, are equally to blame for the French problem with North Africans.

And that does not even account for all the colonial intervention that France engaged in, and still engages in.

[Sheepshank]

53. I doubt the moderators or the candidates will be assigning blame on the victims

I think they will be asking what the US should do if anything, and how to proceed with dismantling Isis without creating just another head on this hydra.

[Armstead]

3. I kind of wish we'd show a little respect and shut down the stuff tonight

[MineralMan]

7. It's a crucial issue, though. we will get a look

at t h e candidates in a way that can't be simulated. I have no comment in advance. We will see.

[DCBob]

4. I have no question how Hillary will handle it..

but how Bernie handles it is unclear.

[MineralMan]

6. I can't predict either response, but I'll be very interested.

This the kind of issue that tests the mettle of Presidents. Responses will provide clues to how each would handle a similar event. The question is forced to the front. It cannot be avoided. We will see what is said.

[DCBob]

8. I am sure Hillary will respond much the same way President Obama has.

Bernie.. not sure.

[MineralMan]

9. I wouldn't predict. I'll watch.

We can discuss it afterward.

[askew]

25. Hillary's much more of a hawk than Obama and her statement tonight should make people

very nervous. She is rattling for war.

[DCBob]

40. I think most of the world is rattling for war.

We are probably headed that way. This incident is a tipping point for many.

[askew]

48. I disagree. That's what the media wants you to think. They are pushing for war.

We'll get to see who has the character to be president tonight. Will Hillary embrace the rush for war again? Will Sanders and O'Malley have the strength to stand behind their beliefs tonight? There is a lot of pressure in the media for both to just agree with whatever Hillary says on FP and that would be a mistake.

[DCBob]

50. Dont think there has been any rush to war.. quite the contrary.

President Obama and most Democrats have been resisting the RW warmongers like McCain, Lindsay Graham, etc who think we should have been on full war throttle to take out the ISIS and AQ.

[askew]

52. Unfortunately, Obama isn't going to be deciding policy in 2017 and Hillary has never shown the

strength necessary to resist calls to war.

[DCBob]

67. President Obama will be deciding what will be done in response to this incident...

and he has been very deliberate so far in dealing with ISIS threats.

[plus5mace]

10. What I want to hear is someone who is willing to bring everyone to the table.

ISIS has a great many enemies. Some are friends of ours, others not. Unfortunately they also have many friends, and again some are "friends" of ours and some aren't. I want Bernie to say he will release the full 9-11 report, finally giving credit where it is due, to Saudi Arabia. I want him to say he will work with everyone who wants to end this conflict and destroy ISIS and Salafism, and that he is prepared to take action against false allies of ours who are attempting to use this movement to further their political control of the region. People need to know that we will act to this threat, and that we will have the right objective.

[DCBob]

11. I dont think having a "table discussion" is what is about to happen.

This incident is going to change things dramatically and rapidly... imo.

[MineralMan]

13. I tend to agree. It could change the course of things

to a large degree, unless everyone is on the same page on how to respond. Lots of thinking going on in meetings tonight and into tomorrow, I suspect.

Meanwhile President Obama is having a different sort of meeting. He is the President. A very stressful job, with many difficult decisions.

[plus5mace]

15. The discussion would only be about carving up the war zone.

The US/France can't do it alone without going with a full out genocide. But we could make peace with Iran, Syria, and Russia, countries that aren't sending terrorists to attack us, and make war on ISIS and it's supporters in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. We've been tolerating radical Islamic terrorism for decades as a tool in the cold war, and I hope the time for that tolerance has ended.

[LiberalArkie]

12. For the last year I have pictured ISIS as Shurman's army. Looting and burning and killing for profit

I do not one one moment think that Islam has anything at all to do with it, just make money. They loot a historic site and sell the stuff to rich people and the destroy the site so no one knows what was stolen and sold.

[MineralMan]

14. I'm afraid it isn't that simple,

unfortunately.

[Codeine]

21. That dastardly Shurman (sic).

[Nye Bevan]

16. Bernie voted for the Afghanistan invasion in the wake of 9/11.

I expect that there will not be very much difference between the candidates on this issue.

[jfern]

20. Only one Democrat vote against Afghanistan. Most Democrats voted against Iraq.

[DCBob]

43. Actually most Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution of 2002.

58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#United_States_Senate

[jfern]

55. But enough voted nay in the House that a majority of Democrats in Congress voted nay

[DCBob]

60. True but the discussion refers to Senator Sanders and Senator Clinton.

The most relevant stat is how the rest of Senate voted.

[jfern]

61. Bernie wasn't in the Senate

[DCBob]

62. Right. I stand corrected.

But any comparison to Hillary should be to other senators.

[jfern]

63. Why? New York is one of the most liberal states

And she wasn't up for re-election for 4 years. She really could have voted the right way, rather than giving a speech even more hawkish than Joe Lieberman.

[DCBob]

64. New York was also still smoldering from 9/11 attacks.

Her constituents wanted justice for anyone involved and the Bush administration convinced many Iraq was involved and possibly planning another attack. Although I disagreed with her, it made some sense, under the circumstances, she would vote that way.

[jfern]

65. Most of the members of Congress from NYC voted against the Iraq war

[DCBob]

66. Looks like it was very close count for House Reps from NY.. 9 for and 10 against.

Shows how difficult the vote was for members of congress from NY.

[askew]

24. Sanders and O'Malley were against Iraq War because it would destabilize the ME.

Hillary voted for it. ISIS grew out of that destabilization. There are huge policy differences on foreign policy. We'll see if Sanders or O'Malley call her out for bad judgment.

[senseandsensibility]

26. Very good point.

Not that anyone in the corporate media, or even many here on this thread, will acknowledge it.

[Aerows]

36. You hit the nail on the head

with regard to ISIS growing out of destabilization.

The problem with Clinton's track record is she seems to be eager to use war as a tool, without wondering what we could do to prevent one.

[askew]

49. Yep, I'd love to see Bernie and O'Malley call her out on that rush to war that she has embraced

over and over again.

[sufrommich]

17. So will border security and guns. That's a given now. nt

[Aerows]

37. I couldn't care less if every damn handgun

in this nation was melted in a big ball of metal.

Everybody that needs a gun uses a long gun - rifle and shotgun. Both are effective against intruders and deadly wildlife.

I have no need for a constant side arm, but woe be to the person that attempts to break into my house. Lead for days.

[BootinUp]

22. I agree. nt

[askew]

23. Hillary is terrifying on foreign policy.

She has hawkish tendencies and poor judgment. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has said publicly that the entire debate questions need to change. Expect Hillary to go all in on beating the war drum and the media to eat it up. We'll get almost no questions on domestic policy.

The difference between Hillary and O'Malley's statements on the Paris attack really show the how out of step she is with the Democratic Party.

If Sanders and O'Malley are smart, they will go after her on bad foreign policy judgment and not let her own the foreign policy debate.

If we get a domestic question, I'd love to see if Hillary shifts back to the right on refugees and immigration issues. I am seeing a lot of calls to close our borders and not take any refugees in.

[Blue_In_AK]

27. If people thought clearly,

they would sympathize with the Syrian refugees rather than turn them away. What Paris is dealing with today, they've been dealing with for years now on a daily basis. We don't give it much thought when hundreds of people are killed in Syria or Mosul or Kobane, etc. etc. etc.

[askew]

29. I think it is less voters in general and more the media ginning up fear. It reminds me so

much of after 9/11 when the media worked to keep us in a state of fear until we ended up in an unnecessary war in Iraq. I worry because Hillary fell for that culture of fear with her Iraq War vote.

[Blue_In_AK]

30. Yes, the media.

With a more honest media, people would surely be aware that ordinary, nonviolent Syrians and citizens of other Mideast countries are the main victims of Isis terror. We barely notice when these acts occur in those countries. Oh, another 60 people blown up in Iraq, neighborhoods leveled in Syria, on and on, but all we seem to notice is when Americans or Europeans are the targets.

I am truly sorry for what happened in Paris, but unfortunately this is the world we live in and share some responsibility for creating.

[Aerows]

34. I'm glad I'm not the only one

Her foreign policy decisions scare the crap out of me.

[askew]

47. Yep, and media is already spinning that Hillary won the debate because she is the only

one with foreign policy experience. Not a word about her repeated poor judgement on FP matters.

[CoffeeCat]

28. Most of the pre-media articles...

...have indicated that this debate will focus on the economy---and in particular how the middle class is weathering the storm. I was under the impression that the candidates would be asked many questions about their plans for helping the middle class--including their tax plans, college affordability, income inequality, etc.

I live in Iowa, where the debate is happening and our local media has been talking about the debate being focused on the economy.

However, it is clear that a major terrorist attack happened today, and I'm sure the subject will be brought up. As you said, the Paris tragedy may shift the entire focus of the debate.

It will be an interesting evening, for sure.

[bigdarryl]

46. I dought that highly in light of Paris the international and U.S. media

Is heavily invested in talking about this attack.Sorry the billionaires and Wallstreet will not be on people's minds tonight.

[longship]

31. Well, one hopes the moderators will frame things with some intelligence.

And I do not mean the CIA type nor the conspiracy theory type. I fear both.

Keep it simple! That is all one can do at this point, until information is revealed. Hopefully, it will be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, the GOP spin their horrible webs. Which is our problem.

[Aerows]

35. 100 People died

can we not reduce this to scoring points!?

[Aerows]

33. It's a tragedy

It's sad as hell.

[mmonk]

38. An issue free media created circus based on speculations.

My prediction.

[UglyGreed]

39. '

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/13/french-tv-slams-conservatives-for-politicizing-paris-attacks-newt-gingrich-shame-on-you-video/

Ann Coulter ✔ @AnnCoulter
They can wait if they like until next November for the actual balloting, but Donald Trump was elected president tonight.
9:17 PM - 13 Nov 2015

Seems like some ideas cross Party lines

[Todays_Illusion]

41. It will be totally stupid if the Democratic fall for this, it will keep the dialog from economic

issues and individual issues and the real problems.

[MineralMan]

42. The Democratic what?

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Todays_Illusion]

44. I am saying the Democratic candidates will be fools to spend their debate time on this event

instead of focusing on the economic and political issues that are the heart of our problems.

Next thing they will be calling for tax cuts and expanding the war machine, just like Republicans.

[MineralMan]

45. Presidents also have to deal with international issues.

Clearly, such an issue is the top story right now. So, the candidates will be asked, and rightly so, how they would handle an incident like this one. What part of the job of a President are you not understanding?

They will also be asked other questions, but this is one of the questions voters want to hear tonight, and they will.

[Todays_Illusion]

51. Are you implying that the U.S. is responsible for the French terrorist attack?

[MineralMan]

54. What the Hell Gave You That Idea?

Of course not, but the candidates will need to address how they would handle such situations.

For pity's sake!

[Todays_Illusion]

68. Oh really and what should the U.S. do about an attack on France unless France asks us to do so?

This is France's issue, not a U.S. attack.

[MineralMan]

69. No, it is not just France's issue.

Not by a long shot. It's a worldwide issue.

[Todays_Illusion]

70. You comment implying that the Democratic candidates must provide some formal statement when

this is an attack on France, not the U.S.

[MineralMan]

71. You may have noticed that President Obama had a statement.

He's on his way to Turkey for meetings on this ISIS issue. He'll be meeting with other world leaders. The events in Paris will play a large role.

Isolationism isn't possible in today's global reality.

And now, I'm done with this subthread.

[Todays_Illusion]

72. And? Did he throw out some big plan to drone Paris to kill the terrorists? He didn't even claim to

to know who the perpetrators were.

[riderinthestorm]

57. I'll be watching for the candidate that vows to find and destroy ISIS' funding

That candidate will be the one who truly cares to destroy ISIS since it will mean playing hard-ball with our "allies" (cough) like the Saudis and Gulf States.

Starve the beast!

These are a few things that will not solve the terrible and tangled web of causation and violence in which the attacks of Friday night were spawned. A 242-ship Navy will not stop one motivated murderous fanatic from emptying the clip of an AK-47 into the windows of a crowded restaurant. The F-35 fighter plane will not stop a group of motivated murderous fanatics from detonating bombs at a soccer match. A missile-defense shield in Poland will not stop a platoon of motivated murderous fanatics from opening up in a jammed concert hall, or taking hostages, or taking themselves out with suicide belts when the police break down the doors. American soldiers dying in the sands of Syria or Iraq will not stop the events like what happened in Paris from happening again because American soldiers dying in the sands of Syria or Iraq will be dying there in combat against only the most obvious physical manifestation of a deeper complex of ancient causes and ancient effects made worse by the reach of the modern technology of bloodshed and murder. Nobody's death is ever sacrifice enough for that.

...

Abandoning the Enlightenment values that produced democracy will not plumb the depths of the vestigial authoritarian impulse that resides in us all, the wish for kings, the desire for order, to be governed, and not to govern. Flexing and posturing and empty venting will not cure the deep sickness in the human spirit that leads people to slaughter the innocent in the middle of a weekend's laughter. The expression of bigotry and hatred will not solve the deep desperation in the human heart that leads people to kill their fellow human beings and then blow themselves up as a final act of murderous vengeance against those they perceive to be their enemies, seen and unseen, real and imagined. Tough talk in the context of what happened in Paris is as empty as a bell rung at the bottom of a well.

...

It's not like this is any kind of secret. In 2010, thanks to WikiLeaks, we learned that the State Department, under the direction of then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, knew full well where the money for foreign terrorism came from. It came from countries and not from a faith. It came from sovereign states and not from an organized religion. It came from politicians and dictators, not from clerics, at least not directly. It was paid to maintain a political and social order, not to promulgate a religious revival or to launch a religious war. Religion was the fuel, the ammonium nitrate and the diesel fuel. Authoritarian oligarchy built the bomb. As long as people are dying in Paris, nobody important is dying in Doha or Riyadh.

...

It's time for this to stop. It's time to be pitiless against the bankers and against the people who invest in murder to assure their own survival in power. Assets from these states should be frozen, all over the west. Money trails should be followed, wherever they lead. People should go to jail, in every country in the world. It should be done state-to-state. Stop funding the murder of our citizens and you can have your money back. Maybe. If we're satisfied that you'll stop doing it. And, it goes without saying, but we'll say it anyway – not another bullet will be sold to you, let alone advanced warplanes, until this act gets cleaned up to our satisfaction. If that endangers your political position back home, that's your problem, not ours. You are no longer trusted allies. Complain, and your diplomats will be going home. Complain more loudly, and your diplomats will be investigated and, if necessary, detained. Retaliate, and you do not want to know what will happen, but it will done with cold, reasoned and, yes, pitiless calculation. It will not be a blind punch. You will not see it coming. It will not be an attack on your faith. It will be an attack on how you conduct your business as sovereign states in a world full of sovereign states.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-middle-eastern-oligarchies/

[MineralMan]

58. Hmm...I doubt that any of them will

take that line, frankly. It's too complicated for a debate answer, frankly. I'm not competent to discuss the article at the link, so I won't attempt to do that.

[riderinthestorm]

59. It's easy to say "I vow to find ISIS's funding and cut it off".

Extremely easy to understand by virtually anyone.

Specifics? Also easy.

"I'd work with our Five Eyes allies (or even simpler, the UN) to collaborate on a criminal investigation team to focus on eradicating ISIS funding. ISIS cannot function without money. We stop the money spigot, we stop them".

This will be a virtually impossible statement for a war hawk to make since it would mean pissing off the Gulf States and the MIC - the prime financiers of terrorist organizations like AQ and ISIS.

This isn't too complicated. Not by any stretch.

[hay rick]

73. Yes. The Military Industrial Paranoia Complex will hijack this debate.

We account for close to half of the world's military spending despite having about 5% of the world's population. We spend as much as the next 10 countries combined- and most of those are our allies. Yes it's time we got tough on "defense."