Terrorism has become a growing topic in recent years. The post-9/11 era has become defined by a fear of various threats abroad from those who would seek to destroy us. First, it was Al Qaeda, and we invaded Afghanistan to avenge the many fallen Americans. This occurred with widespread support from a wounded and scared country, living in fear after the biggest terrorist attack in our history.

It’s been almost fifteen years, though, and for many years people forgot what it was like that day. The broken emotion of seeing those towers up in smoke, knowing that many people perished on impact either traveling or sitting at their desks at work. The horror of the towers following and coating New York City with smoke and debris has long become a faded memory.

We see the issue arising again with recent attacks ranging from California to Europe. ISIS is battling in the Middle East and the world is facing a global crisis.

Who will properly address the issue?

Recent polls suggest Americans trust Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, as some media headlines note. This is an extremely simplistic view of the situation. A greater breakdown of polling related to voter concern of terrorism complicates the narrative.

More Americans trust Clinton to handle terrorism, but a bulk of those who trust Clinton more don’t view terrorism as a problem. A recent Quinnipac Poll found that 96% of Trump voters viewed a terrorist attack as “somewhat likely” and 57% viewed it as “very likely.” Those who trust Trump more view terrorism as a greater threat. This isn’t entirely surprising given the respective campaigns.

The Republican presidential nominee has placed an enormous emphasis on the threat of terrorism. As ISIS continues to slaughter people in the Middle East and as attacks occur across America and Europe, Trump has called for a stronger stand against those who seek to destroy us. This emphasis on strength has also included controversial stances like stopping immigration and building border walls.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has placed a great emphasis on herself. She’s running on her name, her political credentials, and the idea that her career makes her a respectable public servant. This point she’s had to reiterate time and time again as evidence suggests the contrary.

Clinton supporters do not view terrorism as a threat, but then again they don’t view sending classified information over unsecured private servers as a threat, either. Conduct deemed “extremely careless” by the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is seen as a partisan conspiracy theory. The truth is that it is an issue, because it illustrates a lack of understanding about the issues.

The election is more about issues as opposed to personalities than previously thought. While Trump is widely criticized for having fluid positions and bending to the wind, his overall candidacy has placed a special emphasis on security. Those who underestimate the threat of terrorists that have attacked Paris, Nice, San Berardino and Orlando, among other places, have spoken. They want Clinton.

But to say Hillary Clinton is more trusted by all Americans to handle terrorism is an assessment that is careless at best and dishonest at worst. This is more of the same out of the Clinton propaganda machine we know as the mainstream media. It neglects the fact that those who trust Clinton do not view terrorism or national security as legitimate issues. Should the ability to handle terrorism be judged by those who view the terrorist threat as non-existent?