Not fore president, but I wonder if she would consider vice-president. She seems like the obvious choice for Sanders.

"I committed that we would continue to engage in a responsible way that understands how important Canada has a role to play in the fight against ISIL (Islamic State), but he (Barack Obama) understands the commitments I've made around ending the combat mission," he told reporters in Ottawa on Tuesday.

However, he said he would keep Canadian military trainers in northern Iraq, the AFP news agency reports."

So, no, they are not "pulling out of the fight against terrorism".

And, in other news:

"David Cameron would be guilty of embarking on a “high-risk and pointless endeavour” if he sought to extend the British bombing mission against Islamic State forces in Iraq to Syria, a senior Tory MP and a former UK ambassador to Syria have warned."

British airstrikes against Isis forces in Syria 'high risk and pointless' | World news | The Guardian

It's encouraging to see that Trudeau will keep Canada's 70 troops in Iraq. Certainly a major contribution by our peerless ally. Since one of their major tasks was directing Canadian airstrikes against ISIS, we'll have to see what else they will be doing once the strike fighters have bugged out.

Early in the year it was disclosed that some of them had accompanied Iraqi troops they had been training and been engaged in a firefight, which brought heavy criticism from the NDP bench, including Justin. They'll probably be pulled well out of danger and remain there as a marker of Canada's commitment to the War on Terror. The next shoe to drop will be Canada's presence in Afghanistan.

Right, because the bombing campaign against ISIS has been such an unqualified success, it's hard to see any reason why Canada wouldn't continue it

Not sure what this has to do with the '16 election though; maybe you should take it over to the Canada forum. I'm sure people will treat you nicer there.

Success, qualified or unqualified, takes more than a few pinpricks from the air. The Russians did 90 missions in one day - equivalent to what the allies did in 3 months. What they're telling us is if you're not serious, go home, and so they are. One interesting tidbit is that the US is sending its 12 A-10 Warthogs to Turkey. If they get involved in the fight against ISIS that could be a game changer. But I don't expect that to happen, it may only be window dressing.

The Russians are also correct that if Assad falls - atrocious a dictator as he is - ISIS will win and turn Syria into a failed state where they can incubate terrorists to be sent all over the world. Since we don't see the logic of that it's time to bow out.

Cameron's critics point out that using the RAF to create a "safe haven" no fly zone on Syrian soil risks tangling with the Russian and Syrian air forces.

It's part of the overall discussion about national security, which might or might not become a major issue in the election if the Republicans would stop talking about Planned Parenthood and the importance of God.

I don't really care how people treat me here - my expectations are pretty low anyway. About what you and the RoadWarrior could expect if you ventured onto the Free Republic forum and expressed your views. It's true, though, the Brits on the Canada forum seem more polite - goes with the territory I suppose.

I brought it up in light of the election result in Canada bringing in a liberal party to power. I think Trudeau and Sanders would get along quite well, though the later is hardly that liberal compared to Trudeau.

While it is true that Assad falling would create a power vacuum perfect for ISIS to step into, I feel that Russia's effort against ISIS is rather token and they are there solely to support Assad. It is producing a very messy situation, it won't be long before a US jet shoots down a Russian one or vice versa. I don't blame the Canadians for wanting to get out.

I think you're right that at present the Russian effort is token against ISIS. Right now they're pounding "our guys" who want to overthrow Assad. Of course, if our guys were to succeed, ISIS would overthrow them in a couple of days. If the Russians destroy our guys, then ISIS will undoubtedly move to take Damascus. Can Russian air power stop that? Interesting question.

About the Canadians. If somehow the "deconfliction" doesn't work and we find ourselves in a "situation" with the Russians, it's always comforting to know that our gallant allies are nowhere to be found.

Right. Paul Ryan certainly deserves some props for the way he's rolling this thing out. Shockingly intelligent political savvy -- considering the children that he is forced to keep daily company with in the Republican party. He's definitely threading a very narrow needle. IMO, he's more mercenary than noble but that's not necessarily an insult.

1. Ryan doesn't want to be speaker, he has much higher aspirations, but he doesn't want to be painted as a complete dick for not having stepped up during the crisis.

2. He's putting himself out there as moderate and reasonable yet in reality he's extremely conservative and right wing.

3. He's giving the GOP a laundry list of things he just won't abide by, that way he has an "out" when any of his requirements aren't met. He knows the Freedom Caucus (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) are going to blow everything up ... he just wants to be sure they're the ones that get the blame.

I think the Freedom Caucus is already painting Ryan as "Boehner Lite" and they won't toe the line if he appears to be reaching across the aisle.

This doesn't look good and if they can't get their act together it doesn't bode well for the Republicans in the general election - not only for the top of the ticket but for their Congressional re-election campaigns as well. We could see a repeat of the 2008 results. In won't be the first time they've snatched defeat...

Yeah, I was just listening to some of the reporting on that. That escalated quickly. The situation is completely untenable as Ryan well knows. The establishment Republicans are the ones that want Ryan in there. The nutjobs don't seem to want anybody in there ... who exactly are they offering up as an alternative? There are two completely different Republican parties operating within the Congress. Why don't they just admit they don't love each other anymore and go ahead and file for divorce?

The Freedom Caucus was touting a guy named Daniel Webster, R. FL, who shares a name made famous in US history. The brief blurb below also describes the current Daniel as to what he stands for and how he feels about himself (R party grew out of the ashes of the Whigs):

Daniel Webster (January 18, 1782 – October 24, 1852) was a leading American senator and statesman during the era of the Second Party System. He was the outstanding spokesman for American nationalism with powerful oratory that made him a key Whig leader. He spoke for conservatives, and led the opposition to Democrat Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party. He was a spokesman for modernization, banking, and industry, but not for the common people who composed the base of his opponents in Jacksonian Democracy. "He was a thoroughgoing elitist, and he reveled in it," says biographer Robert Remini.

Definitely some political savvy from Ryan (or his establishment backers) realizing if someone didn't step up and they went with the freedom caucus candidate the GOP would decend further into the porcelain.

Circling the drain as it is.

Now that Biden is out, frankly I can't see any candidate from either side being "electable" in a "landslide" sort of way. And for that reason, America's Berlusconi, "the Don" is holding the best hand of all the gangsters in the game.

I reckon it will be yet another choice of "lesser of the evils"... Tough choice, though. They're all pretty much living in a dream world.