Debate Now The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath

[Foxfyre]

The thread title asks about the aftermath of the 2016 election cycle. Physics tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When it comes to matters involving humans, however, physics may not be as good a too for predicting events and their outcome(s). Even so, I think there are a number of plausible outcomes:

• Political Campaigning -- A clearer and more present application of B-school marketing principles to election campaigns. That's not to say those principles aren't being applied now or having been in the past. It's to say that going forward, they'll be applied in the methodical way discretionary goods producers do. Whoo hoo for MBAs! Of course that will also make the political process more expensive too.
  
  
• Legislation and Enforcement -- It's hard to say what will happen. Either
  • We're going to become more a democracy and less a republic, or
  • We're going to become a republic led by pathos rather than logos...Lord only knows what role ethos will have, or
  • We're going to become a republic that has much more in common with a feudal monarchy than it already has.
• Policy -- This is totally impossible to say. If Mrs. Clinton becomes President, we know roughly what she'll seek to achieve. If Trump becomes President, there's no way in hell to know because short of building a damn wall and banning Muslims, the man hasn't state or published anything that's close to clear in terms of a course of action. He's only made very high level vision statements.

• Government Corruption
  • Trump Presidency -- Ulysses Grant will seem downright ethical in comparison.
  • Clinton Presidency -- More or less the same as we've seen following Nixon.

Manipulation, fueled with good intent, can be a blessing. But when used wickedly, it is the beginning of a magician's karmic calamity.
― T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise​

And I have a very different analysis. I understand Trump's campaign strategy and have conceded that the man is brilliant because it works. I also read and hear those who know him in other settings and know him to be the good listener, reasoned, experienced, and competent strategist, and both generous and principled person who would occupy the White House if that is to be. I believe he will make good on his campaign promise and will build the wall. He has never suggested banning Muslims--only that we have a means to determine who the good Muslims are and the ones who we don't want in this country for any reason because they intend nobody any good. And this is based on the reality that most domestic terrorism in the last several decades has been committed by militant Islam who continue to vow to destroy and bury us. Is he politically incorrect? Absolutely. But does he make sense? Also absolutely.

I trust Trump as much as I trust ANY candidate running to do the best thing re monetary policy, trade, and the economy overall. I trust him to surround himself with intelligent and competent people to accomplish that. I wish somebody else has his skill sets there.

But he has not convinced me that he is a constitutionalist or that he has a grasp of why this country was founded and what made it work so superbly before we gave in to authoritarian government. I want a candidate who understands and respects that deeply.

As for Hillary. Based on her words and her track record, I think she would be Obama II on steroids plus there would be even greater indifference toward what works and what the country most needs from government. And her SCOTUS appointments would be disastrous.

 

[longknife]

Election 2016 — Republican Delegate Count

This is where you get a detailed response as to what has happened and what's scheduled for the future. I tried to download this as a jpg (A poster on discussionist.com posted the pdg. For us). But couldn't get it to work. Check it out @ RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 â?? Republican Delegate Count

This is great Longknife. Thanks so much.

But is Missouri finally decided? And if it shows 52 delegates and it is a winner take all state, why does Trump only get 15 delegates?

The 15 delegates are from counties where 100% of the votes have been counted.

Missouri is home to Fort Lenard Wood and Whiteman AFB and has a large number of registered voters who are overseas. They are waiting to give a chance for all absentee ballots to arrive so they can be counted. For that reason, no winner has been announced.

I am not certain, but the difference between Trump and Cruz isn't very big and they may have some mechanism for an automatic recount for that.

 

[longknife]

The thread title asks about the aftermath of the 2016 election cycle. Physics tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When it comes to matters involving humans, however, physics may not be as good a too for predicting events and their outcome(s). Even so, I think there are a number of plausible outcomes:

• Political Campaigning -- A clearer and more present application of B-school marketing principles to election campaigns. That's not to say those principles aren't being applied now or having been in the past. It's to say that going forward, they'll be applied in the methodical way discretionary goods producers do. Whoo hoo for MBAs! Of course that will also make the political process more expensive too.
  
  
• Legislation and Enforcement -- It's hard to say what will happen. Either
  • We're going to become more a democracy and less a republic, or
  • We're going to become a republic led by pathos rather than logos...Lord only knows what role ethos will have, or
  • We're going to become a republic that has much more in common with a feudal monarchy than it already has.
• Policy -- This is totally impossible to say. If Mrs. Clinton becomes President, we know roughly what she'll seek to achieve. If Trump becomes President, there's no way in hell to know because short of building a damn wall and banning Muslims, the man hasn't state or published anything that's close to clear in terms of a course of action. He's only made very high level vision statements.

• Government Corruption
  • Trump Presidency -- Ulysses Grant will seem downright ethical in comparison.
  • Clinton Presidency -- More or less the same as we've seen following Nixon.

Manipulation, fueled with good intent, can be a blessing. But when used wickedly, it is the beginning of a magician's karmic calamity.
― T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise​

And I have a very different analysis. I understand Trump's campaign strategy and have conceded that the man is brilliant because it works. I also read and hear those who know him in other settings and know him to be the good listener, reasoned, experienced, and competent strategist, and both generous and principled person who would occupy the White House if that is to be. I believe he will make good on his campaign promise and will build the wall. He has never suggested banning Muslims--only that we have a means to determine who the good Muslims are and the ones who we don't want in this country for any reason because they intend nobody any good. And this is based on the reality that most domestic terrorism in the last several decades has been committed by militant Islam who continue to vow to destroy and bury us. Is he politically incorrect? Absolutely. But does he make sense? Also absolutely.

I trust Trump as much as I trust ANY candidate running to do the best thing re monetary policy, trade, and the economy overall. I trust him to surround himself with intelligent and competent people to accomplish that. I wish somebody else has his skill sets there.

But he has not convinced me that he is a constitutionalist or that he has a grasp of why this country was founded and what made it work so superbly before we gave in to authoritarian government. I want a candidate who understands and respects that deeply.

As for Hillary. Based on her words and her track record, I think she would be Obama II on steroids plus there would be even greater indifference toward what works and what the country most needs from government. And her SCOTUS appointments would be disastrous.

Thank you. I agree 100%

 

[320 Years of History]

The thread title asks about the aftermath of the 2016 election cycle. Physics tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When it comes to matters involving humans, however, physics may not be as good a too for predicting events and their outcome(s). Even so, I think there are a number of plausible outcomes:

• Political Campaigning -- A clearer and more present application of B-school marketing principles to election campaigns. That's not to say those principles aren't being applied now or having been in the past. It's to say that going forward, they'll be applied in the methodical way discretionary goods producers do. Whoo hoo for MBAs! Of course that will also make the political process more expensive too.
  
  
• Legislation and Enforcement -- It's hard to say what will happen. Either
  • We're going to become more a democracy and less a republic, or
  • We're going to become a republic led by pathos rather than logos...Lord only knows what role ethos will have, or
  • We're going to become a republic that has much more in common with a feudal monarchy than it already has.
• Policy -- This is totally impossible to say. If Mrs. Clinton becomes President, we know roughly what she'll seek to achieve. If Trump becomes President, there's no way in hell to know because short of building a damn wall and banning Muslims, the man hasn't state or published anything that's close to clear in terms of a course of action. He's only made very high level vision statements.

• Government Corruption
  • Trump Presidency -- Ulysses Grant will seem downright ethical in comparison.
  • Clinton Presidency -- More or less the same as we've seen following Nixon.

Manipulation, fueled with good intent, can be a blessing. But when used wickedly, it is the beginning of a magician's karmic calamity.
― T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise​

And I have a very different analysis. I understand Trump's campaign strategy and have conceded that the man is brilliant because it works. I also read and hear those who know him in other settings and know him to be the good listener, reasoned, experienced, and competent strategist, and both generous and principled person who would occupy the White House if that is to be. I believe he will make good on his campaign promise and will build the wall. He has never suggested banning Muslims--only that we have a means to determine who the good Muslims are and the ones who we don't want in this country for any reason because they intend nobody any good. And this is based on the reality that most domestic terrorism in the last several decades has been committed by militant Islam who continue to vow to destroy and bury us. Is he politically incorrect? Absolutely. But does he make sense? Also absolutely.

I trust Trump as much as I trust ANY candidate running to do the best thing re monetary policy, trade, and the economy overall. I trust him to surround himself with intelligent and competent people to accomplish that. I wish somebody else has his skill sets there.

But he has not convinced me that he is a constitutionalist or that he has a grasp of why this country was founded and what made it work so superbly before we gave in to authoritarian government. I want a candidate who understands and respects that deeply.

As for Hillary. Based on her words and her track record, I think she would be Obama II on steroids plus there would be even greater indifference toward what works and what the country most needs from government. And her SCOTUS appointments would be disastrous.

And therein are two consecutive illustrations of what I've been saying about Trumpeteers for months now. Folks who find Trump's promises appealing are succumbing to his skillful message delivery, not to the truth.

Both your statements are factually incorrect.

Red:
On banning Muslims entry to the U.S:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.​

You'll note that the ban and the investigation are both elements of what Trump wants to do.


Blue:
On the religious affiliation of the perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S:



(click on the chart for the source and discussion there)​

Other:
Of course, it's not just Trump supporters who fail to find out "the whole story" or whether the facts as presented are indeed true. Similarly, Trump is not the only seeker of elected office to deliver lies and half-truths. It's just that in the current election cycle, he's the candidate who's utter more by far than have his opponents.

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

At this point, I have little choice but to consider his inclination to say something that bears a fleeting at best correlation to the truth as an indication of his dishonest more so than I can give him the benefit of the doubt and write it off as pardonable ignorance. I mean, really...less than 10% of what the man has said is factually true or mostly true. Even among politicians that is exceptionally bad.

Now you may believe that Trump will do what he's at the moment saying he will do, but I don't. And with his less than 10% of the time being factually accurate (honest), I see no good reason to do so more so than any of his competitors. Heck, my Alzheimer's afflicted mother more often makes accurate statements than does Donald Trump. LOL

Trust, but verify.
-- Ronald Reagan​

 

[320 Years of History]

The thread title asks about the aftermath of the 2016 election cycle. Physics tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When it comes to matters involving humans, however, physics may not be as good a too for predicting events and their outcome(s). Even so, I think there are a number of plausible outcomes:

• Political Campaigning -- A clearer and more present application of B-school marketing principles to election campaigns. That's not to say those principles aren't being applied now or having been in the past. It's to say that going forward, they'll be applied in the methodical way discretionary goods producers do. Whoo hoo for MBAs! Of course that will also make the political process more expensive too.
  
  
• Legislation and Enforcement -- It's hard to say what will happen. Either
  • We're going to become more a democracy and less a republic, or
  • We're going to become a republic led by pathos rather than logos...Lord only knows what role ethos will have, or
  • We're going to become a republic that has much more in common with a feudal monarchy than it already has.
• Policy -- This is totally impossible to say. If Mrs. Clinton becomes President, we know roughly what she'll seek to achieve. If Trump becomes President, there's no way in hell to know because short of building a damn wall and banning Muslims, the man hasn't state or published anything that's close to clear in terms of a course of action. He's only made very high level vision statements.

• Government Corruption
  • Trump Presidency -- Ulysses Grant will seem downright ethical in comparison.
  • Clinton Presidency -- More or less the same as we've seen following Nixon.

Manipulation, fueled with good intent, can be a blessing. But when used wickedly, it is the beginning of a magician's karmic calamity.
― T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise​

And I have a very different analysis. I understand Trump's campaign strategy and have conceded that the man is brilliant because it works. I also read and hear those who know him in other settings and know him to be the good listener, reasoned, experienced, and competent strategist, and both generous and principled person who would occupy the White House if that is to be. I believe he will make good on his campaign promise and will build the wall. He has never suggested banning Muslims--only that we have a means to determine who the good Muslims are and the ones who we don't want in this country for any reason because they intend nobody any good. And this is based on the reality that most domestic terrorism in the last several decades has been committed by militant Islam who continue to vow to destroy and bury us. Is he politically incorrect? Absolutely. But does he make sense? Also absolutely.

I trust Trump as much as I trust ANY candidate running to do the best thing re monetary policy, trade, and the economy overall. I trust him to surround himself with intelligent and competent people to accomplish that. I wish somebody else has his skill sets there.

But he has not convinced me that he is a constitutionalist or that he has a grasp of why this country was founded and what made it work so superbly before we gave in to authoritarian government. I want a candidate who understands and respects that deeply.

As for Hillary. Based on her words and her track record, I think she would be Obama II on steroids plus there would be even greater indifference toward what works and what the country most needs from government. And her SCOTUS appointments would be disastrous.

Thank you. I agree 100%

If only the more people who believe something the more it be true.

Argumentum ad numerum

It really doesn't matter how many people actually jump off a cliff. Doing so with them is still a lousy idea unless one has a death wish.

Our society's penchant for ascribing to the idea of majority rule in all things is why I keep my options open for emigrating to become a citizen of some other state. (Though not listed, Monaco is another place I've had in mind, not only for its beauty, but also for it's very objective and minimal immigration requirements.)

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread title asks about the aftermath of the 2016 election cycle. Physics tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When it comes to matters involving humans, however, physics may not be as good a too for predicting events and their outcome(s). Even so, I think there are a number of plausible outcomes:

• Political Campaigning -- A clearer and more present application of B-school marketing principles to election campaigns. That's not to say those principles aren't being applied now or having been in the past. It's to say that going forward, they'll be applied in the methodical way discretionary goods producers do. Whoo hoo for MBAs! Of course that will also make the political process more expensive too.
  
  
• Legislation and Enforcement -- It's hard to say what will happen. Either
  • We're going to become more a democracy and less a republic, or
  • We're going to become a republic led by pathos rather than logos...Lord only knows what role ethos will have, or
  • We're going to become a republic that has much more in common with a feudal monarchy than it already has.
• Policy -- This is totally impossible to say. If Mrs. Clinton becomes President, we know roughly what she'll seek to achieve. If Trump becomes President, there's no way in hell to know because short of building a damn wall and banning Muslims, the man hasn't state or published anything that's close to clear in terms of a course of action. He's only made very high level vision statements.

• Government Corruption
  • Trump Presidency -- Ulysses Grant will seem downright ethical in comparison.
  • Clinton Presidency -- More or less the same as we've seen following Nixon.

Manipulation, fueled with good intent, can be a blessing. But when used wickedly, it is the beginning of a magician's karmic calamity.
― T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise​

And I have a very different analysis. I understand Trump's campaign strategy and have conceded that the man is brilliant because it works. I also read and hear those who know him in other settings and know him to be the good listener, reasoned, experienced, and competent strategist, and both generous and principled person who would occupy the White House if that is to be. I believe he will make good on his campaign promise and will build the wall. He has never suggested banning Muslims--only that we have a means to determine who the good Muslims are and the ones who we don't want in this country for any reason because they intend nobody any good. And this is based on the reality that most domestic terrorism in the last several decades has been committed by militant Islam who continue to vow to destroy and bury us. Is he politically incorrect? Absolutely. But does he make sense? Also absolutely.

I trust Trump as much as I trust ANY candidate running to do the best thing re monetary policy, trade, and the economy overall. I trust him to surround himself with intelligent and competent people to accomplish that. I wish somebody else has his skill sets there.

But he has not convinced me that he is a constitutionalist or that he has a grasp of why this country was founded and what made it work so superbly before we gave in to authoritarian government. I want a candidate who understands and respects that deeply.

As for Hillary. Based on her words and her track record, I think she would be Obama II on steroids plus there would be even greater indifference toward what works and what the country most needs from government. And her SCOTUS appointments would be disastrous.

And therein are two consecutive illustrations of what I've been saying about Trumpeteers for months now. Folks who find Trump's promises appealing are succumbing to his skillful message delivery, not to the truth.

Both your statements are factually incorrect.

Red:
On banning Muslims entry to the U.S:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.​

You'll note that the ban and the investigation are both elements of what Trump wants to do.


Blue:
On the religious affiliation of the perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S:



(click on the chart for the source and discussion there)​

Other:
Of course, it's not just Trump supporters who fail to find out "the whole story" or whether the facts as presented are indeed true. Similarly, Trump is not the only seeker of elected office to deliver lies and half-truths. It's just that in the current election cycle, he's the candidate who's utter more by far than have his opponents.

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

At this point, I have little choice but to consider his inclination to say something that bears a fleeting at best correlation to the truth as an indication of his dishonest more so than I can give him the benefit of the doubt and write it off as pardonable ignorance. I mean, really...less than 10% of what the man has said is factually true or mostly true. Even among politicians that is exceptionally bad.

Now you may believe that Trump will do what he's at the moment saying he will do, but I don't. And with his less than 10% of the time being factually accurate (honest), I see no good reason to do so more so than any of his competitors. Heck, my Alzheimer's afflicted mother more often makes accurate statements than does Donald Trump. LOL

Trust, but verify.
-- Ronald Reagan​

I am not going to respond to every point in your post, but as for your chart of who has committed terrorism in the United States, what time period does that cover? Who was committing terrorism 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago is irrelevent. What is relevent is what we are dealing with here and now.

 

[320 Years of History]

The thread title asks about the aftermath of the 2016 election cycle. Physics tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When it comes to matters involving humans, however, physics may not be as good a too for predicting events and their outcome(s). Even so, I think there are a number of plausible outcomes:

• Political Campaigning -- A clearer and more present application of B-school marketing principles to election campaigns. That's not to say those principles aren't being applied now or having been in the past. It's to say that going forward, they'll be applied in the methodical way discretionary goods producers do. Whoo hoo for MBAs! Of course that will also make the political process more expensive too.
  
  
• Legislation and Enforcement -- It's hard to say what will happen. Either
  • We're going to become more a democracy and less a republic, or
  • We're going to become a republic led by pathos rather than logos...Lord only knows what role ethos will have, or
  • We're going to become a republic that has much more in common with a feudal monarchy than it already has.
• Policy -- This is totally impossible to say. If Mrs. Clinton becomes President, we know roughly what she'll seek to achieve. If Trump becomes President, there's no way in hell to know because short of building a damn wall and banning Muslims, the man hasn't state or published anything that's close to clear in terms of a course of action. He's only made very high level vision statements.

• Government Corruption
  • Trump Presidency -- Ulysses Grant will seem downright ethical in comparison.
  • Clinton Presidency -- More or less the same as we've seen following Nixon.

Manipulation, fueled with good intent, can be a blessing. But when used wickedly, it is the beginning of a magician's karmic calamity.
― T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise​

And I have a very different analysis. I understand Trump's campaign strategy and have conceded that the man is brilliant because it works. I also read and hear those who know him in other settings and know him to be the good listener, reasoned, experienced, and competent strategist, and both generous and principled person who would occupy the White House if that is to be. I believe he will make good on his campaign promise and will build the wall. He has never suggested banning Muslims--only that we have a means to determine who the good Muslims are and the ones who we don't want in this country for any reason because they intend nobody any good. And this is based on the reality that most domestic terrorism in the last several decades has been committed by militant Islam who continue to vow to destroy and bury us. Is he politically incorrect? Absolutely. But does he make sense? Also absolutely.

I trust Trump as much as I trust ANY candidate running to do the best thing re monetary policy, trade, and the economy overall. I trust him to surround himself with intelligent and competent people to accomplish that. I wish somebody else has his skill sets there.

But he has not convinced me that he is a constitutionalist or that he has a grasp of why this country was founded and what made it work so superbly before we gave in to authoritarian government. I want a candidate who understands and respects that deeply.

As for Hillary. Based on her words and her track record, I think she would be Obama II on steroids plus there would be even greater indifference toward what works and what the country most needs from government. And her SCOTUS appointments would be disastrous.

And therein are two consecutive illustrations of what I've been saying about Trumpeteers for months now. Folks who find Trump's promises appealing are succumbing to his skillful message delivery, not to the truth.

Both your statements are factually incorrect.

Red:

On banning Muslims entry to the U.S:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.​

You'll note that the ban and the investigation are both elements of what Trump wants to do.



Blue:
On the religious affiliation of the perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S:



(click on the chart for the source and discussion there)​

Other:
Of course, it's not just Trump supporters who fail to find out "the whole story" or whether the facts as presented are indeed true. Similarly, Trump is not the only seeker of elected office to deliver lies and half-truths. It's just that in the current election cycle, he's the candidate who's utter more by far than have his opponents.

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

At this point, I have little choice but to consider his inclination to say something that bears a fleeting at best correlation to the truth as an indication of his dishonest more so than I can give him the benefit of the doubt and write it off as pardonable ignorance. I mean, really...less than 10% of what the man has said is factually true or mostly true. Even among politicians that is exceptionally bad.

Now you may believe that Trump will do what he's at the moment saying he will do, but I don't. And with his less than 10% of the time being factually accurate (honest), I see no good reason to do so more so than any of his competitors. Heck, my Alzheimer's afflicted mother more often makes accurate statements than does Donald Trump. LOL

Trust, but verify.
-- Ronald Reagan​

I am not going to respond to every point in your post, but as for your chart of who has committed terrorism in the United States, what time period does that cover? Who was committing terrorism 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago is irrelevent. What is relevent is what we are dealing with here and now.

Red:
The data for that pie charge pertain to 1980 to 2005. It's very relevant when making or evaluating the statement, "most domestic terrorism in the last several decades." While "last several decades" is an indeterminate span of time it's certainly more than "a couple decades," which would be two of them, and from 1986 to 2016 is a span of three decades.

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread title asks about the aftermath of the 2016 election cycle. Physics tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When it comes to matters involving humans, however, physics may not be as good a too for predicting events and their outcome(s). Even so, I think there are a number of plausible outcomes:

• Political Campaigning -- A clearer and more present application of B-school marketing principles to election campaigns. That's not to say those principles aren't being applied now or having been in the past. It's to say that going forward, they'll be applied in the methodical way discretionary goods producers do. Whoo hoo for MBAs! Of course that will also make the political process more expensive too.
  
  
• Legislation and Enforcement -- It's hard to say what will happen. Either
  • We're going to become more a democracy and less a republic, or
  • We're going to become a republic led by pathos rather than logos...Lord only knows what role ethos will have, or
  • We're going to become a republic that has much more in common with a feudal monarchy than it already has.
• Policy -- This is totally impossible to say. If Mrs. Clinton becomes President, we know roughly what she'll seek to achieve. If Trump becomes President, there's no way in hell to know because short of building a damn wall and banning Muslims, the man hasn't state or published anything that's close to clear in terms of a course of action. He's only made very high level vision statements.

• Government Corruption
  • Trump Presidency -- Ulysses Grant will seem downright ethical in comparison.
  • Clinton Presidency -- More or less the same as we've seen following Nixon.

Manipulation, fueled with good intent, can be a blessing. But when used wickedly, it is the beginning of a magician's karmic calamity.
― T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise​

And I have a very different analysis. I understand Trump's campaign strategy and have conceded that the man is brilliant because it works. I also read and hear those who know him in other settings and know him to be the good listener, reasoned, experienced, and competent strategist, and both generous and principled person who would occupy the White House if that is to be. I believe he will make good on his campaign promise and will build the wall. He has never suggested banning Muslims--only that we have a means to determine who the good Muslims are and the ones who we don't want in this country for any reason because they intend nobody any good. And this is based on the reality that most domestic terrorism in the last several decades has been committed by militant Islam who continue to vow to destroy and bury us. Is he politically incorrect? Absolutely. But does he make sense? Also absolutely.

I trust Trump as much as I trust ANY candidate running to do the best thing re monetary policy, trade, and the economy overall. I trust him to surround himself with intelligent and competent people to accomplish that. I wish somebody else has his skill sets there.

But he has not convinced me that he is a constitutionalist or that he has a grasp of why this country was founded and what made it work so superbly before we gave in to authoritarian government. I want a candidate who understands and respects that deeply.

As for Hillary. Based on her words and her track record, I think she would be Obama II on steroids plus there would be even greater indifference toward what works and what the country most needs from government. And her SCOTUS appointments would be disastrous.

And therein are two consecutive illustrations of what I've been saying about Trumpeteers for months now. Folks who find Trump's promises appealing are succumbing to his skillful message delivery, not to the truth.

Both your statements are factually incorrect.

Red:

On banning Muslims entry to the U.S:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.​

You'll note that the ban and the investigation are both elements of what Trump wants to do.



Blue:
On the religious affiliation of the perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S:



(click on the chart for the source and discussion there)​

Other:
Of course, it's not just Trump supporters who fail to find out "the whole story" or whether the facts as presented are indeed true. Similarly, Trump is not the only seeker of elected office to deliver lies and half-truths. It's just that in the current election cycle, he's the candidate who's utter more by far than have his opponents.

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

At this point, I have little choice but to consider his inclination to say something that bears a fleeting at best correlation to the truth as an indication of his dishonest more so than I can give him the benefit of the doubt and write it off as pardonable ignorance. I mean, really...less than 10% of what the man has said is factually true or mostly true. Even among politicians that is exceptionally bad.

Now you may believe that Trump will do what he's at the moment saying he will do, but I don't. And with his less than 10% of the time being factually accurate (honest), I see no good reason to do so more so than any of his competitors. Heck, my Alzheimer's afflicted mother more often makes accurate statements than does Donald Trump. LOL

Trust, but verify.
-- Ronald Reagan​

I am not going to respond to every point in your post, but as for your chart of who has committed terrorism in the United States, what time period does that cover? Who was committing terrorism 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago is irrelevent. What is relevent is what we are dealing with here and now.

Red:
The data for that pie charge pertain to 1980 to 2005. It's very relevant when making or evaluating the statement, "most domestic terrorism in the last several decades." While "last several decades" is an indeterminate span of time it's certainly more than "a couple decades," which would be two of them, and from 1986 to 2016 is a span of three decades.

No. What was promoting terrorism in the USA was very different iin the 1980's than it is now.

The Heritage Organization has done a pretty comprehensive job here documenting and illustrating most of the terrorist plots against the United States since 9/11 Terrorism in this sense is different than the stupid mass shootings etc. for which no motive is identified. The link:
60 Terrorist Plots Since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism

 

[320 Years of History]

The thread title asks about the aftermath of the 2016 election cycle. Physics tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. When it comes to matters involving humans, however, physics may not be as good a too for predicting events and their outcome(s). Even so, I think there are a number of plausible outcomes:

• Political Campaigning -- A clearer and more present application of B-school marketing principles to election campaigns. That's not to say those principles aren't being applied now or having been in the past. It's to say that going forward, they'll be applied in the methodical way discretionary goods producers do. Whoo hoo for MBAs! Of course that will also make the political process more expensive too.
  
  
• Legislation and Enforcement -- It's hard to say what will happen. Either
  • We're going to become more a democracy and less a republic, or
  • We're going to become a republic led by pathos rather than logos...Lord only knows what role ethos will have, or
  • We're going to become a republic that has much more in common with a feudal monarchy than it already has.
• Policy -- This is totally impossible to say. If Mrs. Clinton becomes President, we know roughly what she'll seek to achieve. If Trump becomes President, there's no way in hell to know because short of building a damn wall and banning Muslims, the man hasn't state or published anything that's close to clear in terms of a course of action. He's only made very high level vision statements.

• Government Corruption
  • Trump Presidency -- Ulysses Grant will seem downright ethical in comparison.
  • Clinton Presidency -- More or less the same as we've seen following Nixon.

Manipulation, fueled with good intent, can be a blessing. But when used wickedly, it is the beginning of a magician's karmic calamity.
― T.F. Hodge, From Within I Rise​

And I have a very different analysis. I understand Trump's campaign strategy and have conceded that the man is brilliant because it works. I also read and hear those who know him in other settings and know him to be the good listener, reasoned, experienced, and competent strategist, and both generous and principled person who would occupy the White House if that is to be. I believe he will make good on his campaign promise and will build the wall. He has never suggested banning Muslims--only that we have a means to determine who the good Muslims are and the ones who we don't want in this country for any reason because they intend nobody any good. And this is based on the reality that most domestic terrorism in the last several decades has been committed by militant Islam who continue to vow to destroy and bury us. Is he politically incorrect? Absolutely. But does he make sense? Also absolutely.

I trust Trump as much as I trust ANY candidate running to do the best thing re monetary policy, trade, and the economy overall. I trust him to surround himself with intelligent and competent people to accomplish that. I wish somebody else has his skill sets there.

But he has not convinced me that he is a constitutionalist or that he has a grasp of why this country was founded and what made it work so superbly before we gave in to authoritarian government. I want a candidate who understands and respects that deeply.

As for Hillary. Based on her words and her track record, I think she would be Obama II on steroids plus there would be even greater indifference toward what works and what the country most needs from government. And her SCOTUS appointments would be disastrous.

And therein are two consecutive illustrations of what I've been saying about Trumpeteers for months now. Folks who find Trump's promises appealing are succumbing to his skillful message delivery, not to the truth.

Both your statements are factually incorrect.

Red:

On banning Muslims entry to the U.S:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.​

You'll note that the ban and the investigation are both elements of what Trump wants to do.



Blue:
On the religious affiliation of the perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S:



(click on the chart for the source and discussion there)​

Other:
Of course, it's not just Trump supporters who fail to find out "the whole story" or whether the facts as presented are indeed true. Similarly, Trump is not the only seeker of elected office to deliver lies and half-truths. It's just that in the current election cycle, he's the candidate who's utter more by far than have his opponents.

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

At this point, I have little choice but to consider his inclination to say something that bears a fleeting at best correlation to the truth as an indication of his dishonest more so than I can give him the benefit of the doubt and write it off as pardonable ignorance. I mean, really...less than 10% of what the man has said is factually true or mostly true. Even among politicians that is exceptionally bad.

Now you may believe that Trump will do what he's at the moment saying he will do, but I don't. And with his less than 10% of the time being factually accurate (honest), I see no good reason to do so more so than any of his competitors. Heck, my Alzheimer's afflicted mother more often makes accurate statements than does Donald Trump. LOL

Trust, but verify.
-- Ronald Reagan​

I am not going to respond to every point in your post, but as for your chart of who has committed terrorism in the United States, what time period does that cover? Who was committing terrorism 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago is irrelevent. What is relevent is what we are dealing with here and now.

Red:
The data for that pie charge pertain to 1980 to 2005. It's very relevant when making or evaluating the statement, "most domestic terrorism in the last several decades." While "last several decades" is an indeterminate span of time it's certainly more than "a couple decades," which would be two of them, and from 1986 to 2016 is a span of three decades.

No. What was promoting terrorism in the USA was very different iin the 1980's than it is now.

The Heritage Organization has done a pretty comprehensive job here documenting and illustrating most of the terrorist plots against the United States since 9/11 Terrorism in this sense is different than the stupid mass shootings etc. for which no motive is identified. The link:
60 Terrorist Plots Since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism

...And that stopped it from nonetheless being terrorism in what way?

Are you intimating that mass shootings, the Olympic Park bombing, the Unabomber's deeds, the Murrah Building's demolishing, etc. are not terrorism? I realize you can claim that and, strictly speaking, be as right as be those who claim those events are acts of terrorism because there is no formal or universally accepted definition of what terrorism is. That's one thing terrorism has in common with pornography.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within [by the term pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

-- SCOTUS Justice, Hon. Potter Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio​

 

[Militants]

Both your statements are factually incorrect.

Red:
On banning Muslims entry to the U.S:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.​

You'll note that the ban and the investigation are both elements of what Trump wants to do.


Blue:
On the religious affiliation of the perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S:



(click on the chart for the source and discussion there)​

So there are little communist in America. Only little are better than bigger strenght.

 

[Militants]

Just a little . .

 

[Foxfyre]

And I have a very different analysis. I understand Trump's campaign strategy and have conceded that the man is brilliant because it works. I also read and hear those who know him in other settings and know him to be the good listener, reasoned, experienced, and competent strategist, and both generous and principled person who would occupy the White House if that is to be. I believe he will make good on his campaign promise and will build the wall. He has never suggested banning Muslims--only that we have a means to determine who the good Muslims are and the ones who we don't want in this country for any reason because they intend nobody any good. And this is based on the reality that most domestic terrorism in the last several decades has been committed by militant Islam who continue to vow to destroy and bury us. Is he politically incorrect? Absolutely. But does he make sense? Also absolutely.

I trust Trump as much as I trust ANY candidate running to do the best thing re monetary policy, trade, and the economy overall. I trust him to surround himself with intelligent and competent people to accomplish that. I wish somebody else has his skill sets there.

But he has not convinced me that he is a constitutionalist or that he has a grasp of why this country was founded and what made it work so superbly before we gave in to authoritarian government. I want a candidate who understands and respects that deeply.

As for Hillary. Based on her words and her track record, I think she would be Obama II on steroids plus there would be even greater indifference toward what works and what the country most needs from government. And her SCOTUS appointments would be disastrous.

And therein are two consecutive illustrations of what I've been saying about Trumpeteers for months now. Folks who find Trump's promises appealing are succumbing to his skillful message delivery, not to the truth.

Both your statements are factually incorrect.

Red:

On banning Muslims entry to the U.S:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.​

You'll note that the ban and the investigation are both elements of what Trump wants to do.



Blue:
On the religious affiliation of the perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S:



(click on the chart for the source and discussion there)​

Other:
Of course, it's not just Trump supporters who fail to find out "the whole story" or whether the facts as presented are indeed true. Similarly, Trump is not the only seeker of elected office to deliver lies and half-truths. It's just that in the current election cycle, he's the candidate who's utter more by far than have his opponents.

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

At this point, I have little choice but to consider his inclination to say something that bears a fleeting at best correlation to the truth as an indication of his dishonest more so than I can give him the benefit of the doubt and write it off as pardonable ignorance. I mean, really...less than 10% of what the man has said is factually true or mostly true. Even among politicians that is exceptionally bad.

Now you may believe that Trump will do what he's at the moment saying he will do, but I don't. And with his less than 10% of the time being factually accurate (honest), I see no good reason to do so more so than any of his competitors. Heck, my Alzheimer's afflicted mother more often makes accurate statements than does Donald Trump. LOL

Trust, but verify.
-- Ronald Reagan​

I am not going to respond to every point in your post, but as for your chart of who has committed terrorism in the United States, what time period does that cover? Who was committing terrorism 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago is irrelevent. What is relevent is what we are dealing with here and now.

Red:
The data for that pie charge pertain to 1980 to 2005. It's very relevant when making or evaluating the statement, "most domestic terrorism in the last several decades." While "last several decades" is an indeterminate span of time it's certainly more than "a couple decades," which would be two of them, and from 1986 to 2016 is a span of three decades.

No. What was promoting terrorism in the USA was very different iin the 1980's than it is now.

The Heritage Organization has done a pretty comprehensive job here documenting and illustrating most of the terrorist plots against the United States since 9/11 Terrorism in this sense is different than the stupid mass shootings etc. for which no motive is identified. The link:
60 Terrorist Plots Since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism

...And that stopped it from nonetheless being terrorism in what way?

Are you intimating that mass shootings, the Olympic Park bombing, the Unabomber's deeds, the Murrah Building's demolishing, etc. are not terrorism? I realize you can claim that and, strictly speaking, be as right as be those who claim those events are acts of terrorism because there is no formal or universally accepted definition of what terrorism is. That's one thing terrorism has in common with pornography.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within [by the term pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

-- SCOTUS Justice, Hon. Potter Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio​

I am intimating that one or two low lifes going nuts and shooting up a place or an environmental extremist who goes way over the line or any other RANDOM acts of violence, however unconscionable or tragic, cannot begin to compare with an organized and committed radicalized, militant ISLAM determined to kill, maim, and destroy as many as it takes and for long as it takes until all of America is destroyed or brought under the authority of Allah. And I sure as heck want leaders who understand that.

We did not have that concern back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or even the 90's. We do now.

 

[Militants]

I wanted Cruz or Sanders. If Sanders won this 2016 year he will maybe force back his forces in 2020 to Huckabee, Kasich or Cruz or even Fiorina if she have victorious way in 2020 ??

 

[Militants]

Cruz are both Liberal and Conservative ??

 

[Foxfyre]

I wanted Cruz or Sanders. If Sanders won this 2016 year he will maybe force back his forces in 2020 to Huckabee, Kasich or Cruz or even Fiorina if she have victorious way in 2020 ??

Alas we don't have the luxury of waiting it out though. I cringe at the thought of what sort of Supreme Court justices Sanders would nominate. We have had 5/4 splits in SCOTUS votes for years now. If the justices were committed to interpreting law instead of making law, committed to following the letter and intent of the Constitution instead of deciding that other bad votes have changed the Constitution, those votes would be consistently much closer with maybe one or two dissenting out of genuine difference of opinion. When the balance falls on the side of judicial activism, we will lose our government by the people. We will have government by the dictates of nine unelected people accountable to nobody.

 

[Militants]

I wanted Cruz or Sanders. If Sanders won this 2016 year he will maybe force back his forces in 2020 to Huckabee, Kasich or Cruz or even Fiorina if she have victorious way in 2020 ??

Alas we don't have the luxury of waiting it out though.

It goes !!

 

[Foxfyre]

Cruz are both Liberal and Conservative ??

Cruz is a libertarian conservative--very strong on small, efficient, effective government limited to what the Constitution authorizes it to do and maximum liberty for the people. I don't think he has a liberal bone in his body.

Sanders is pretty much the polar opposite of Cruz--you can't find many conservative concepts there.

 

[Foxfyre]

Following Trump's impressive success in Tuesday's primaries, all the talk now is what happens if there is a brokered convention and the folly of the GOP continuing to oppose and attack Trump.

. . .Right now, 36% of Republican voters say they are likely to vote for Trump if he runs as a third-party presidential candidate. That includes 24% who say they are Very Likely to do so, up six points from 18% last August. It isn’t difficult to see that number going up if Trump’s die-hard supporters see any funny business at the GOP convention. Again, Clinton benefits.

The argument that a Trump nomination will be a disaster for Republican candidates down the ticket is losing steam, too.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, perhaps the Republicans’ savviest political analyst, noted recently on Fox News that the GOP has two courses it can follow this year: The elites can reject Trump like they did voter favorite Barry Goldwater in 1964, and Republicans will lose horrendously like they subsequently did. Or, said Gingrich, the elites can embrace Trump, albeit reluctantly, like they did Ronald Reagan in 1980 and potentially win as big a victory this year as they did back then. . .​

Now What Do the GOP Elites Do? - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't mean to pick on Bernie Sanders here specifically--I actually like Sanders though IMO he would be a disastrous President--but here is one of the things we're dealing with. The doublespeak and hypocrisy is so overwhelming sometimes that it boggles the mind. Here Bernie says Trump must take responsibility for violence at his rallies and stand up and denounce violence, but when it comes to the violent actions of his own supporters, he isn't responsible?

 

[320 Years of History]

And therein are two consecutive illustrations of what I've been saying about Trumpeteers for months now. Folks who find Trump's promises appealing are succumbing to his skillful message delivery, not to the truth.

Both your statements are factually incorrect.

Red:

On banning Muslims entry to the U.S:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.​

You'll note that the ban and the investigation are both elements of what Trump wants to do.



Blue:
On the religious affiliation of the perpetrators of terrorism in the U.S:



(click on the chart for the source and discussion there)​

Other:
Of course, it's not just Trump supporters who fail to find out "the whole story" or whether the facts as presented are indeed true. Similarly, Trump is not the only seeker of elected office to deliver lies and half-truths. It's just that in the current election cycle, he's the candidate who's utter more by far than have his opponents.

• True and mostly true statements by 2016 GOP Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Trump -- 9 out of 112
    • Pants on fire: 21
  • Cruz -- 25 out of 100
    • Pants on fire: 7
  • Rubio -- 50 out of 139
    • Pants on fire: 4
  • Kasich -- 30 out of 60
    • Pants on fire: 3
• True and mostly true statements by 2016 Democratic Presidential candidates, as of March 3, 2016.
  • Clinton -- 88 out of 172
    • Pants n Fire: 2
  • Sanders -- 38 out of 75
    • Pants on Fire: 0
    • False: 11 (I show the false for Mr. Sanders because it's as close as he got to "pants on fire.")

At this point, I have little choice but to consider his inclination to say something that bears a fleeting at best correlation to the truth as an indication of his dishonest more so than I can give him the benefit of the doubt and write it off as pardonable ignorance. I mean, really...less than 10% of what the man has said is factually true or mostly true. Even among politicians that is exceptionally bad.

Now you may believe that Trump will do what he's at the moment saying he will do, but I don't. And with his less than 10% of the time being factually accurate (honest), I see no good reason to do so more so than any of his competitors. Heck, my Alzheimer's afflicted mother more often makes accurate statements than does Donald Trump. LOL

Trust, but verify.
-- Ronald Reagan​

I am not going to respond to every point in your post, but as for your chart of who has committed terrorism in the United States, what time period does that cover? Who was committing terrorism 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago is irrelevent. What is relevent is what we are dealing with here and now.

Red:
The data for that pie charge pertain to 1980 to 2005. It's very relevant when making or evaluating the statement, "most domestic terrorism in the last several decades." While "last several decades" is an indeterminate span of time it's certainly more than "a couple decades," which would be two of them, and from 1986 to 2016 is a span of three decades.

No. What was promoting terrorism in the USA was very different iin the 1980's than it is now.

The Heritage Organization has done a pretty comprehensive job here documenting and illustrating most of the terrorist plots against the United States since 9/11 Terrorism in this sense is different than the stupid mass shootings etc. for which no motive is identified. The link:
60 Terrorist Plots Since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism

...And that stopped it from nonetheless being terrorism in what way?

Are you intimating that mass shootings, the Olympic Park bombing, the Unabomber's deeds, the Murrah Building's demolishing, etc. are not terrorism? I realize you can claim that and, strictly speaking, be as right as be those who claim those events are acts of terrorism because there is no formal or universally accepted definition of what terrorism is. That's one thing terrorism has in common with pornography.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within [by the term pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

-- SCOTUS Justice, Hon. Potter Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio​

I am intimating that one or two low lifes going nuts and shooting up a place or an environmental extremist who goes way over the line or any other RANDOM acts of violence, however unconscionable or tragic, cannot begin to compare with an organized and committed radicalized, militant ISLAM determined to kill, maim, and destroy as many as it takes and for long as it takes until all of America is destroyed or brought under the authority of Allah. And I sure as heck want leaders who understand that.

We did not have that concern back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or even the 90's. We do now.

Okay. I agree that the origin, nature, and extent of the acts carried out by the various types of terrorists is different, and those differences necessarily call for varying approaches to curtailing them. Recognizing the need to design and implement various, and at times greatly differing, tactics and resources to overcome a problem, in this case terrorism, is among the things I expect be understood by elected and appointed leaders.

With regard to current and would-be Presidents, I think everyone of them recognizes that there is no "one size fits all" solution to terrorism. I seriously doubt any of them does not. Something I'd expect to learn about the candidates' approaches to, and ideas concerning, terrorism is given that there are surely different approaches necessary for dealing with the varied types and perpetrators of terrorism, what are the strategies they see as being best suited to dealing with each of them and why.

I agree further that the nature, extent and impetuses of terrorism and terrorists have changed over time. I'd expect a Presidential candidate to recognize that too, and again, I think they all do. With regard to the changes' origin(s) and extancy, I expect the candidates, in evaluating it, to apply good sense and first determine at a high level what has not changed and whether those things that held steady have or have had a causal and time affected impact on the nature and extent of the changes in terrorism and terrorists. In other words, I expect leaders to have the objectivity to consider both internal and external causes of change and design and implement programs/solutions to deal with both, either concurrently or in succession, as befits what their analysis shows.

Be those things as valid and sensible they are, none of them make the statement that gave rise to this line of discussion -- "most domestic terrorism in the last several decades has been committed by militant Islam" -- any less inaccurate.