A lot of public commentators call on the Muslim world or Muslim-American community to do more to stem radicalization.

It’s largely a talking point, done out of convenience because most people aren’t actually engaged with the discussion or communities involved.

For example, Muslim-Americans are less likely to support the killing of civilians than Christians or Jews.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascinating-look-at-the-political-views-of-muslim-americans/242975/

Or the fact that in Western nations–the UK for example–have seen 1% of their Muslim prisoners arrested for terrorism-related offenses but a 200% increase in the rate of incarceration for Muslims.

http://www.vice.com/read/radicalisation-in-prison-355

Criminal histories and documented mental health problems did not prevent at least eight of the gunmen in 15 recent mass shootings from obtaining their weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html

O'Malley has a point. The convergence of non-state terrorism and lone-wolf terrorism will yield security risks to countries so long as they remain engaged in regional conflicts, regime change, and other policies that feed a vicious cycle of hate and violence

On lone wolf terrorism:

Lone wolves are just that: alone. They self-radicalize, self-train, and then carry out their horrific visions for violence. While they may be inspired by a terrorist organization and even have some tenuous ties to them they are still loners. And it is the lone that makes them dangerous.

Previously, Sanders specifically said that “99 percent of all new income (is) going to the top 1 percent”.

While economists across the field generally agree with him, they add as a caveat that it’s pre-tax income from 2009-13.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/19/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/

The most recent spending bill included a bit of both in its $685 billion tax cut package.

There are permanent increases to tax credits for children and college, along with tax loopholes for capital gains and corporate expenditures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/us/politics/house-approves-huge-package-of-tax-breaks.html

He’s proposing to do the exact same thing Obama is doing.

Recent leaks via Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept document how the drone assassination program works and while terrorists are being killed, so are scores of innocents civilians.

Furthermore, the candidates spent time during the debate actually arguing about who would kill more innocent civilians, one of the main sticking points with Obama’s drone program because it has killed excess of 1,000 civilians across multiple Middle Eastern and African nations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-debate-terrorism_5670d22ee4b0648fe30184ae

How would ISIS, a faux state at best that cannot reliably project power outside of its borders, destroy the most powerful political entity to exist in the history of mankind?

How would it destroy America given that ISIS has lost 40% of its Iraqi territory? How when Saudi Arabia, in parts its originator, announced a 34-nation coalition opposed in part to ISIS?

It could harm us, scare us, terrorize us, but it’s honestly inconceivable that it could destroy us. It could take over the European Union and still be hard pressed to destroy the United States.

Just more rhetoric.