I just listened to Hillary's speech about how

She also knows what to do which makes people comfortable with her leadership.

dignity, seriousness, or solemnity of manner.

I'd have to say that she does.

It comes straight from campaign HQ talking points devised by grad school political science majors.

I think when looking for a word to describe the stature or ability of a person to convince other people that we have to do difficult things, that gravitas can be an appropriate word to use.

who are politically aware and involved. It's a good word, with a very specific meaning. It's very descriptive in a way that would take many other words to replace.

Dictionary definition:
gravitas
noun grav·i·tas \ˈgra-və-ˌtäs, -ˌtas\
: a very serious quality or manner

Etymology:
gravitas (n.) Look up gravitas at Dictionary.com
1924, usually in italics, from Latin gravitas "weight, heaviness;" figuratively, of persons, "dignity, presence, influence" (see gravity). A word wanted when gravity acquired a primarily scientific meaning.

So, what "regular people" are you discussing?

Gravitas...? No.

Your friends are busy tearing down FDR as a someone who cemented racism into public policy.

We're not much on the Sanders Mob mentality. Perfectly understandable that others in my camp don't see things the same way.

Unlike your side... I'm not only okay with that, I think it's great. Lets more sides and opinions be heard.

Her story about the Muslim immigrant butcher who saved his Jewish patrons at a deli attack in Paris was beautiful . She said he was offered French citizenship though he embodied the spirit of citizenship long before.

EOM

That's the only battle front that matters.

It was full-throated support for MIC.

is ISIS at war with the 1%? It seems most of their attacks are at sites where us plebeians congregate.

It's a win-win for Wall Street mic sectors. Take a look their earnings & stock values.

Hillary's "solution" only creates more terrorists. This causes more outrage and demand for more military involvement.

But, don't worry. It's working just fine for some.

leadership that has kept you safe. Such is the kind, Madam President will provide for you, in your "neck of the woods" and for the rest of the nation.

These colors don't run.

P.S. Clinton is not President yet.

Sad that you believe that 139 dead French victims of terrorism is the basis for a joke.

To human life.

Yeah it is sad DSB that you like many others are buying the the terrorism script again.

You would think we would have collectively learned from what happened during the Bush years.

Yes 139 French people are dead due to sick and brutal digusting human beings but that is not the greatest threat to "us plebs".

Even if you add up all the deaths from foreign and domestic terrorism, including mass shootings and McVeigh style terrorism that have occured in this country ever it is nothing compared to the death toll that poverty and wealth inequality has racked up in a matter of the past year.

Terrorism, as a threat, pales in comparison to what really kills people in this country.

So no, I don't accept your notion that I am somehow callous to death. No I think I understand it and care about it more than you.

And no I am not going to fall for this "be afraid....vote for me so I can protect you act". I dont buy it and smart citizens shouldn't either.

Is terrorism a threat, yes. But the amount of fear and over reaction we spend on it is exactly what terrorists want. It is the whole goal of terrorism.

That doesn't mean we give in to barbarism but it does meam we take a measured approach, strike where and when we need to, and not allow ourselves to let our freedoms and good sense be driven asunder with demagoguery and fear mongering.

You can't beat terrorism because it is an ideology and a method. It is not a for that can sign a surrender docment.

Can we kill ISIS and cut the head of the snake? Yes, for now. But there will be another terrorist group when that one is destructed. Just like when we destroyed al qaeda.

The underlying sentiment, resentment, and will to oppose the West will remain.

It is an intergenerational fight and to be honest Mrs. Weathervane does not have the fortitude and consistency for that kind of fight.

As soon as fighting ISIS doesn't serve her politically she will be off chasing squirrels.

So, what is the best approach to ISIS that doesn't involve the MIC?

The Horticultural Expressmail Complex.

Still part of the 1%ers, but they smell nicer.

But, we know that's not happening anytime soon with full throated support for it from almost all of the candidates.
Hil seems to want to merge silicon valley into/the GWOT - suggesting that we find a way to get them to open up their encryption methodologies to the MIC.
I guess that we're supposed to think that its OK for them to have access to ALL of our privacy, for whatever reason they can come up with as part of a wide ranging trans generational response to anti imperialist terror.
Sounds like a real win/win for the corporate war mongers.

EOM

Economically even people can still be subject to terrorist attacks. Economically even POC can still be subject to racial profiling and murdered by cops.

However, we got a live one further upthread, railing on and on about MIC.

but my washing machine thinks I am.

Bernie Sanders will soon tell us how screwing the 1% will stop terrorism dead in its tracks.

And making the accusation that Sanders supporters are advocating raising taxes on the wealthy to stop terrorism only reflects on your ability to have a rational discussion of both those issues.

I see plenty of snark on this site, but apparently when I do it it warrants an insult from you. Thanks. Duly noted.

I think the "fair share" description is a bad one. It doesn't convince people that pay what they consider a lot of taxes to want to tax anyone any more. Many people think that a lot of people pay no income taxes at all, and that is true in some respects. I in no way subscribe to these opinions, I just know what my some friends and family think. They don't think in terms of percentages, they think in terms dollars. If they make a million a year and pay 200K in tax, well, they think that 200K is a lot of money, and it is.
They don't give a shit about it only being 20%. It is 200K for god's sake.

So, in my opinion, a better phrase might be warranted. Not sure what that could be.

First, you seem to have missed her call for regime change in Iraq.

The Shia that dominate Iraq's government are not about to arm the factions that want to separate Iraq into three countries. Also, arming the Kurds is going to make Turkey very, very angry.

Second, she throws out the magic reconciliation fairy in Syria

The rebel groups in Syria are "preoccupied with fighting Assad"? WTF? The entire reason they exist is to fight Assad.

Also, they are multiple factions because they don't all agree with each other. That's why Assad still has the largest military in Syria.

Also, "our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units" has been the primary method that ISIS has armed itself.

Next big problem: She seems to forget Russia is actually in Syria right now:

Uh...there's this other superpower on the planet that's flying planes in Syria. And they are not our "European partner". In fact, they are bombing those "viable Syrian opposition units" Clinton wants to build up. Why on Earth would they respect our "no-fly zone"?

She also seems utterly unaware of the military capabilities of the countries in the region.

Jordan can't do more, because Jordan lacks precision bombs. They only have "dumb" bombs that are going to blow up large numbers of civilians.

She also doesn't seem to understand Turkey's situation at all:

Turkey is attempting to fend off a civil war. Roughly the Eastern 1/3rd of Turkey is Kurdish, and they very much want to join a newly-formed Kurdistan. Which would be created by the US arming Iraqi Kurds.

Her plan is to tell Turkey to just ignore the brewing civil war because we want them to fight ISIS instead. Why on Earth would they agree to the destruction of their country because we want them to?

Next, she seems to not know the religious sects involved:

Uh...Iran doesn't like ISIS. Iran is Shiite. ISIS is Suni. ISIS wants to destroy Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas too. If you actually want to exploit the sectarian conflict in the Middle East to destroy ISIS, you need to let Iran loose on ISIS. Not contain them.

She shifts to the "broader fight" and immediately calls for more spying:


She also gives yet another pass to Wall Street:

Apparently, UBS's "Ooops! Sorry! We won't do it again!" was sufficient.

Hey look! Internet Censorship! That works SO well!


Also, we can't allow the little people to have encryption:



This is a speech designed to sound like she knows foreign policy. The actual policy she lays out is crap.

It really needs to be shared.

There is no where in her speech where she says this stuff is going to be easy, or quick. Its called a strategy, and she is putting it together not only from her experience, but also with the help of experts she trusts.

There was definitely discussion both in the speech and after the speech about Russia's goals vs. our desired outcome, diplomatic efforts currently underway that involve Russia and that she supports, how she sees a no-fly zone as a key part of the strategy and as leverage.

Her speech is getting high marks already.

Assad doesn't have much of a functional air force left. That's why Russia is bombing for him.

She calls for a "no fly zone" to protect the rebels. The threat to the rebels is Russia. Why would they respect our "no fly zone"? And how, exactly, does she intend to enforce that "no fly zone" when Russia ignores it?

As for "high marks", that's not exactly much praise. The media will say it was great if it sounds great. They won't bother looking at the content, because evaluating the content requires effort. Remember, Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech got very high marks too.

I think you need to catch up to current events. But in any event, the US most certainly could build a coalition with NATO members or and Saudi Arabia to enforce a no-fly zone that Russia would respect.

I think you need to realize that what Putin says he is doing is less important than where his bombs are actually falling. The vast majority are not falling on ISIS-controlled areas.


Why would they respect it?

Are you willing to shoot down Russian aircraft? If not, there's no reason for Russia to respect it. And if you are willing to shoot down Russian aircraft, you are fucking insane.

it would have have broad international support.

Oooo! A lot of people would be disappointed in Russia! I'm sure they're terrified!

support against him. Russia and Iran support him.

But if someone says they don't think we could either arrange a deal with Russia to put one up, nor, could we under the auspices of a NATO coalition + SA + Other, put one up and keep Russia out of it, then I just don't understand where that is coming from. We certainly could push Russia around if we need to. Is it without risk? No, but there are plenty of pieces on the chess board that could be played to minimize the risk.

Talk about ponies. Putin doesn't give 2 sh*ts about "international support". Any chance he has to dare the US into an armed conflict with Russia is a win for him because he knows we won't do it. Talk about ponies...

But we will eventually triumph won't we!

No need for advisers to bring her up-to-date on foreign policy.

Not in my name, h, not in my name.

And do we really believe she wrote the speech, in its entirety?

I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in ...

Experience matters when choosing a President.


Dan Merica ‏@danmericaCNN 18m18 minutes ago

Clinton, per aides, had a substantial role in writing this ISIS speech and wasn't finished w/ it until this AM. http://cnn.it/1MWUQtM

Dan Merica ‏@danmericaCNN 2h2 hours ago

De Blasio and Clinton chat after her speech on ISIS.

News at 11.

would be over in 6 months because Dubya's Dummies were out of the picture so an intervention would be clean and even progressive

Honduras, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Ukraine--who'd I forget? they've just gone back to poking the Bear and then wondering why things go to shit

for votes.

... but Jeff47 is a LOT more thorough and comprehensive in taking her speech apart. Worth reading even if you don't like what he says.

Her knowledge of foreign affairs and it is showing by statements made by other candidates.

Chest thumping with other people's blood. Boots on the ground. Bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb Assad...

What does she plan to do about Putin? Tell him to cut it out?

it s time to get this information out to the people, you want people to get to know him, put it out for all to see.

Exactly how arming a section of the population of someone elses country against the will of their government, is the action of a democratically minded President? Seriously, we're going to turn around to the government of Iraq and say 'Well if you don't want us to give this section of your population lots of weapons, then tough luck we'll do it anyway!'.

That's really disturbing..