User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:53:29 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fucking hilarious. Trump appears to say something off the cuff. The media picks up on it and attempts to twist it into a dumb and insane comment. An old man spewing racist blubber. Standard operating procedure for them. Then it turns out that not only would it be constitutional, but the law is already on the books and has been used before. Used by immortal democrat presidents, even. This has happened a few times. No way is this shit luck or coincidence. Trump is playing the left and its sycophants like a dime store harmonica. Either it is true genius or some weird fate thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:56:30 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My feelings as well. He is working for the dems. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
15 pages... Trump is playing to his base. They love this kind of rhetoric. But that's all it is, rhetoric. First, we have to get past the idea of barring people, based solely on religion, from entering the country. Considering America's history, and principles, that is a HUGE hurdle. I'm not sure I'm ready to surrender my principles to terrorist. After we get past this, and accept the nastiness of it, then we run into all sorts of practical problems. Cincinnatus and others have asked some very good questions, and I can't find any good answers. 1. How are you going to screen for religion? What's the process, how many resources and how much money will be dedicated to the process? 2. How are you going to explain this to your Muslim allies, diplomats, business and trading partners, ...the 1.5 billion or so Muslims who aren't radical terrorist. Trump is a showman, and a pretty slick salesman. He's playing to the lowest common denominator of his angry base, and they seem to be eating it up. But at the end of the day, this kind of rhetoric doesn't win general elections. This kind of comment will eventually bite him. The resources do not exist to successfully vet everyone coming to this country. Heck, the resources don't exist to successfully vet the current crop of "refugees." I honestly think Trump is surprised at his popularity. I don't think he really wants to be President, and I think as we get closer to the convention he'll ramp up his radical rhetoric. IF by some chance he wins the nomination, he will have won it on perhaps one of the most "unAmerican strongman platforms" in our nations history. It's disconcerting that he has gotten this far, and in my opinion doesn't bode well for the nation. But I don't think he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning a general election. I don't think he wants it. I think IF he wins the party nomination, he'll simply ramp up his rhetoric until he eliminates himself from the running. Then he'll be able to go back to being who and what he is, a slick, narcissistic salesman, and showman building a "brand". My feelings as well. He is working for the dems. I think he's working for his brand. I think he's an egotistical salesman, and showman. That's all he is. I believe he will continue to make more and more radical statements into the nomination, and while I believe (hope) it's unlikely he'll win the nomination, If he does, he'll just up his rhetoric to ensure he doesn't win the general election. Trump wants to increase the value of his brand, and enjoy the life it provides him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:57:36 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't suggest anything. All I did was quote Trump. You confirmed his quote, so let's talk about that. Trump suggests the government censor the internet, and you seem to support that idea because you like what he wants to censor. So, after we censor the things you want, what prevents the government from one day censoring the things you don't want censored? Freedom of speech is the first amendment to our constitution, for a reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It doesn't. He criticized the quote I posted, with the quote I posted... Ok, lets go about it another way...your way of saying it is crappy ...hows that..what Trump is saying is we need to stop terrorist from openly communicating /recruiting american kids over the internet from the ME..and yes if its possible to do that with the with technology we should be doing that.. no different then trying to stop pedophiles...the way you phrase it makes it sound like instead he just wants to completely shutdown the internet.. but of course you knew that...and thats why you did it that way... I didn't suggest anything. All I did was quote Trump. You confirmed his quote, so let's talk about that. Trump suggests the government censor the internet, and you seem to support that idea because you like what he wants to censor. So, after we censor the things you want, what prevents the government from one day censoring the things you don't want censored? Freedom of speech is the first amendment to our constitution, for a reason. Que? Is child porn not illegal on the internet? Is advocating violent jihad not illegal? They are in the US. Are those prohibitions violations of the First Amendment in your book? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 1:07:54 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not just that it's not 100% effective. It would require a massive expansion of government, a new agency capable of so many investigations. And even then, it would be totally ineffective at keeping terrorists out. It would be a shining example of the "status quote"; bloated, expensive and ineffective. And terrorists would not be deterred one bit. Says the guy who was Arfcom's most vociferous proponent of the Patriot Act and associated warrantless surveillance. You don't even believe your own bullshit, do you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 1:11:43 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cliff's Notes from reality: If Trump doesn't get the nomination and runs as an Independant, Hilary will easily become the next President. The GOP is not withdrawing their nominee. An absurd thought to phrase it politely. Nobody likes Bush. Nobody mentioned Bush. Doesn't matter who the nominee is for the GOP......if it's not Trump and he runs as an Independent, it's game fuckin over.....and that's not an unlikely scenario. His ego would never believe he'd lose as an Independent, he'd run. And he'd split the vote, lose, and usher in Hilary on a silver platter. We'd all lose.....and to an extent I'm pretty sure you're not grasping the incredible gravity of. If he gets the nomination, he's got my full support. If he doesn't and runs as an independent, he should have his head held under water until no more bubbles come up. And why not? If the GOP refuses to withdraw, then a democrat win would be their responsibility. What is more important to the GOP? Keeping the opposition party out of the white house, or running their candidate like a bunch of petulant children even if it means certain defeat for the ideological right in this country? Why should the default position be that the independent should bow out of the election? The GOPe has proven time and again with their herd of pro-amnesty RINOs (Bohener, Ryan, Rubio, Jeb, Christie, McCain, ad nauseam) that they don't care what is best for the average American. I would prefer Cruz over any of them, but one way or another as an independent or as the GOP nominee, Trump will be in the general election. That's a given. So if the GOP isn't willing to accept than as a given and insists upon screwing all of us by nominating someone other than Trump, well... the split vote and democrat victory is on their heads, not the voters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 2:37:05 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BRITISH police officers have today sensationally backed Donald Trump’s controversial claim that parts of the country are no-go areas because of growing Islamist extremism.http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/625545/Donald-Trump-Muslims-speech-British-police-ISIS-radicalisation-LondonNo they haven't. Read the article. This was already covered in another thread. Don't fall for the sensationalist bollocks of the tabloids. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 3:27:54 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no way in hell that 50% of likely voters oppose ending Muslim immigration. None. We elected FBHO. Twice. Half of America is completely detached from reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 5:24:06 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So for folks coming over on business visas? A TS investigation? Of a foreigner? Would Americans count as "foreign contacts"? Would investments in the US be foreign investments? Would we send OPM investigators into foreign countries to ask people is the applicant was a Muslim? That's as good an idea as Trump's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My proposal is that every one desiring entrance into the US for anything more than a tourist visa undergo a TS level investigation at their own expense. big world out there. other countries can take the refuse. So for folks coming over on business visas? A TS investigation? Of a foreigner? Would Americans count as "foreign contacts"? Would investments in the US be foreign investments? Would we send OPM investigators into foreign countries to ask people is the applicant was a Muslim? That's as good an idea as Trump's. oh well. sounds expensive. 100 million working age americans dont work. whatever shall we do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 5:29:24 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No they haven't. Read the article. This was already covered in another thread. Don't fall for the sensationalist bollocks of the tabloids. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
BRITISH police officers have today sensationally backed Donald Trump’s controversial claim that parts of the country are no-go areas because of growing Islamist extremism.http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/625545/Donald-Trump-Muslims-speech-British-police-ISIS-radicalisation-LondonNo they haven't. Read the article. This was already covered in another thread. Don't fall for the sensationalist bollocks of the tabloids. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 6:00:59 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In this context, references are worthless, unless they are official documents that come from a foreign government that meet our established criteria. You hand me papers with stories on them? Do these so-called "references" live in a foreign country? How do I know they are who they claim? How much is the US government expected to spend on investigating your claim that you aren't a Muslim? If we are to do this in keeping with Trump's stated plan, this would be for EVERY person who seeks to come to the US; every tourist, every businessman, every visiting scholar, etc. Handing over pieces of paper with foreign words from a foreign land proves nothing. They would just be a starting point for an investigation that would have to be done for every single person. That is, IF we were to ban all Muslims from every/any country. And remember, 50,000,000 people visit the US every year. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Prove to me that YOU aren't an undercover Muslim. Ready....go! At work so keeping it short and sweet. I will provide references from 10 individuals outside of my family stating my nationality, my religion, my relationship with them and a statement from each of them that I am not a Muslim. You can do a check on the references. In this context, references are worthless, unless they are official documents that come from a foreign government that meet our established criteria. You hand me papers with stories on them? Do these so-called "references" live in a foreign country? How do I know they are who they claim? How much is the US government expected to spend on investigating your claim that you aren't a Muslim? If we are to do this in keeping with Trump's stated plan, this would be for EVERY person who seeks to come to the US; every tourist, every businessman, every visiting scholar, etc. Handing over pieces of paper with foreign words from a foreign land proves nothing. They would just be a starting point for an investigation that would have to be done for every single person. That is, IF we were to ban all Muslims from every/any country. And remember, 50,000,000 people visit the US every year. Like I said before, it won't be fair and it will lead to much much fewer people, mostly from the middle East, entering the country based on the complexity. Remember this is until the feds admit they have a viable vetting process and are comfortable with opening the doors back up. Banning people from certain countries does not stop Muslims from entering the country and the problem is Islamic extremists not Nationalistic terrorism from x,y,z nations. Banning people from certain countries does reduce the amount of Muslims coming over here so its better than the status quo at this time. Let's face it, a terrorist who wants to come here is going to walk across the border if legally doing so is going to be thwarted. I just don't want to welcome them with open arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 6:24:38 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Says the guy who was Arfcom's most vociferous proponent of the Patriot Act and associated warrantless surveillance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's not just that it's not 100% effective. It would require a massive expansion of government, a new agency capable of so many investigations. And even then, it would be totally ineffective at keeping terrorists out. It would be a shining example of the "status quote"; bloated, expensive and ineffective. And terrorists would not be deterred one bit. Says the guy who was Arfcom's most vociferous proponent of the Patriot Act and associated warrantless surveillance. You don't even believe your own bullshit, do you? Do you? Is there anything I said that is untrue? Tell me how to effectively investigate tens of millions of foreign visitors (not talking about immigration). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 6:45:05 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am now and have always been a proponent of the truth. Do you? Is there anything I said that is untrue? Tell me how to effectively investigate tens of millions of foreign visitors (not talking about immigration). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not just that it's not 100% effective. It would require a massive expansion of government, a new agency capable of so many investigations. And even then, it would be totally ineffective at keeping terrorists out. It would be a shining example of the "status quote"; bloated, expensive and ineffective. And terrorists would not be deterred one bit. Says the guy who was Arfcom's most vociferous proponent of the Patriot Act and associated warrantless surveillance. You don't even believe your own bullshit, do you? Do you? Is there anything I said that is untrue? Tell me how to effectively investigate tens of millions of foreign visitors (not talking about immigration). Foreign visitors are simple..make them file X amount of months ahead of trip with all info needed and do a full check on them..its not hard..It's what we have done here for at least 20 years for a yearly sled ride to Canada that happens in the heart of winter when the border crossing is closed..all riders file all info in the fall, trip goes in the spring..if you don't get cleared to leave before the start of the trip you don't get to leave AK... simple ..when you arrive at the hotel in Canada, first stop is customs when you get off the sled..never been an issue..so yes its childishly simple with just a little common sense..something most in government lack for some reason.... As for middle east people/countries, my guess, I doubt anyone is better at identifying the dangerous ones then the Israelis, so I would start with asking their help, I am quite sure it would take all countries working together and maybe starting a new world terrorist tracking system that all countries add their trouble makers to..that all tie to that may just be the answer, and maybe we fund the major part of it..but if thats what it takes oh well it makes everybody world wide safer... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 6:54:14 AM EST
[#13]
Cincinnatus..............you and I both KNOW that if Trump becomes president he will allow tourist and business visas to stand and be ok.
He is sensationalizing this issue because the Obama Administration has shown itself to be a bunch radical Islamic sympathizers. Obama is doing this because he has a deep down hatred of America IMHO. I mean, he and Hillary blamed an obscure American for Benghazi when they both knew it was a lie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 6:57:02 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And why not? If the GOP refuses to withdraw, then a democrat win would be their responsibility. What is more important to the GOP? Keeping the opposition party out of the white house, or running their candidate like a bunch of petulant children even if it means certain defeat for the ideological right in this country? Why should the default position be that the independent should bow out of the election? The GOPe has proven time and again with their herd of pro-amnesty RINOs (Bohener, Ryan, Rubio, Jeb, Christie, McCain, ad nauseam) that they don't care what is best for the average American. I would prefer Cruz over any of them, but one way or another as an independent or as the GOP nominee, Trump will be in the general election. That's a given. So if the GOP isn't willing to accept than as a given and insists upon screwing all of us by nominating someone other than Trump, well... the split vote and democrat victory is on their heads, not the voters. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Cliff's Notes from reality: If Trump doesn't get the nomination and runs as an Independant, Hilary will easily become the next President. The GOP is not withdrawing their nominee. An absurd thought to phrase it politely. Nobody likes Bush. Nobody mentioned Bush. Doesn't matter who the nominee is for the GOP......if it's not Trump and he runs as an Independent, it's game fuckin over.....and that's not an unlikely scenario. His ego would never believe he'd lose as an Independent, he'd run. And he'd split the vote, lose, and usher in Hilary on a silver platter. We'd all lose.....and to an extent I'm pretty sure you're not grasping the incredible gravity of. If he gets the nomination, he's got my full support. If he doesn't and runs as an independent, he should have his head held under water until no more bubbles come up. And why not? If the GOP refuses to withdraw, then a democrat win would be their responsibility. What is more important to the GOP? Keeping the opposition party out of the white house, or running their candidate like a bunch of petulant children even if it means certain defeat for the ideological right in this country? Why should the default position be that the independent should bow out of the election? The GOPe has proven time and again with their herd of pro-amnesty RINOs (Bohener, Ryan, Rubio, Jeb, Christie, McCain, ad nauseam) that they don't care what is best for the average American. I would prefer Cruz over any of them, but one way or another as an independent or as the GOP nominee, Trump will be in the general election. That's a given. So if the GOP isn't willing to accept than as a given and insists upon screwing all of us by nominating someone other than Trump, well... the split vote and democrat victory is on their heads, not the voters. I too am pulling hard for Cruz. I'm simply speaking of reality....not idealistically. The GOP establishment will NEVER step aside for Trump. That's just never going to happen. I'm not saying I support that position at all.....what I am saying is that is reality. You think any GOP candidate running for the Presidency who gets the nomination other than Trump is going to abdicate their candidacy for Trump? Never. A split between Trump as an "I" and another GOP nominee will, without question, serve Hilary the presidency by a wide margin. What will follow that scenario in the country is a disaster that I believe is absolutely unrecoverable not only for the GOP but for the country as a whole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 7:25:50 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I too am pulling hard for Cruz. I'm simply speaking of reality....not idealistically. The GOP establishment will NEVER step aside for Trump. That's just never going to happen. I'm not saying I support that position at all.....what I am saying is that is reality. You think any GOP candidate running for the Presidency who gets the nomination other than Trump is going to abdicate their candidacy for Trump? Never. A split between Trump as an "I" and another GOP nominee will, without question, serve Hilary the presidency by a wide margin. What will follow that scenario in the country is a disaster that I believe is absolutely unrecoverable not only for the GOP but for the country as a whole. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cliff's Notes from reality: If Trump doesn't get the nomination and runs as an Independant, Hilary will easily become the next President. The GOP is not withdrawing their nominee. An absurd thought to phrase it politely. Nobody likes Bush. Nobody mentioned Bush. Doesn't matter who the nominee is for the GOP......if it's not Trump and he runs as an Independent, it's game fuckin over.....and that's not an unlikely scenario. His ego would never believe he'd lose as an Independent, he'd run. And he'd split the vote, lose, and usher in Hilary on a silver platter. We'd all lose.....and to an extent I'm pretty sure you're not grasping the incredible gravity of. If he gets the nomination, he's got my full support. If he doesn't and runs as an independent, he should have his head held under water until no more bubbles come up. And why not? If the GOP refuses to withdraw, then a democrat win would be their responsibility. What is more important to the GOP? Keeping the opposition party out of the white house, or running their candidate like a bunch of petulant children even if it means certain defeat for the ideological right in this country? Why should the default position be that the independent should bow out of the election? The GOPe has proven time and again with their herd of pro-amnesty RINOs (Bohener, Ryan, Rubio, Jeb, Christie, McCain, ad nauseam) that they don't care what is best for the average American. I would prefer Cruz over any of them, but one way or another as an independent or as the GOP nominee, Trump will be in the general election. That's a given. So if the GOP isn't willing to accept than as a given and insists upon screwing all of us by nominating someone other than Trump, well... the split vote and democrat victory is on their heads, not the voters. I too am pulling hard for Cruz. I'm simply speaking of reality....not idealistically. The GOP establishment will NEVER step aside for Trump. That's just never going to happen. I'm not saying I support that position at all.....what I am saying is that is reality. You think any GOP candidate running for the Presidency who gets the nomination other than Trump is going to abdicate their candidacy for Trump? Never. A split between Trump as an "I" and another GOP nominee will, without question, serve Hilary the presidency by a wide margin. What will follow that scenario in the country is a disaster that I believe is absolutely unrecoverable not only for the GOP but for the country as a whole. Are we talking about the same GOP establishment here? These people are born followers who ALWAYS take the path of least resistance. I mean, I could see how they would try to wiggle their preferred candidate in there if we go to the convention without any one candidate having secured a majority in the primaries, but if Trump absolutely crushes everyone in the primaries, they will just back down like they always do. In fact, look for defections early if it becomes clear that Trump is going to win. It's pretty simple to understand. Remember that the defining characteristic of the GOP establishment is NOT their ideological commitment to moderatism or some bullshit. It's their lack of a spine. Whichever path requires the least backbone is the one you can bank on them taking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 8:56:24 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Foreign visitors are simple..make them file X amount of months ahead of trip with all info needed and do a full check on them..its not hard..It's what we have done here for at least 20 years for a yearly sled ride to Canada that happens in the heart of winter when the border crossing is closed..all riders file all info in the fall, trip goes in the spring..if you don't get cleared to leave before the start of the trip you don't get to leave AK... simple ..when you arrive at the hotel in Canada, first stop is customs when you get off the sled..never been an issue..so yes its childishly simple with just a little common sense..something most in government lack for some reason.... As for middle east people/countries, my guess, I doubt anyone is better at identifying the dangerous ones then the Israelis, so I would start with asking their help, I am quite sure it would take all countries working together and maybe starting a new world terrorist tracking system that all countries add their trouble makers to..that all tie to that may just be the answer, and maybe we fund the major part of it..but if thats what it takes oh well it makes everybody world wide safer... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not just that it's not 100% effective. It would require a massive expansion of government, a new agency capable of so many investigations. And even then, it would be totally ineffective at keeping terrorists out. It would be a shining example of the "status quote"; bloated, expensive and ineffective. And terrorists would not be deterred one bit. Says the guy who was Arfcom's most vociferous proponent of the Patriot Act and associated warrantless surveillance. You don't even believe your own bullshit, do you? Do you? Is there anything I said that is untrue? Tell me how to effectively investigate tens of millions of foreign visitors (not talking about immigration). Foreign visitors are simple..make them file X amount of months ahead of trip with all info needed and do a full check on them..its not hard..It's what we have done here for at least 20 years for a yearly sled ride to Canada that happens in the heart of winter when the border crossing is closed..all riders file all info in the fall, trip goes in the spring..if you don't get cleared to leave before the start of the trip you don't get to leave AK... simple ..when you arrive at the hotel in Canada, first stop is customs when you get off the sled..never been an issue..so yes its childishly simple with just a little common sense..something most in government lack for some reason.... As for middle east people/countries, my guess, I doubt anyone is better at identifying the dangerous ones then the Israelis, so I would start with asking their help, I am quite sure it would take all countries working together and maybe starting a new world terrorist tracking system that all countries add their trouble makers to..that all tie to that may just be the answer, and maybe we fund the major part of it..but if thats what it takes oh well it makes everybody world wide safer... We already check to see if visitors are on a list of bad guys. THAT is the status quo. Is that what you're advocating? Because that is a far different creature from an actual "full check" background investigation. Doing a background investigation on a foreigner is quite a challenge. Doing it to a level of granularity that would satisfy a requirement to determine whether or not someone is lying about their religion, would require a major effort. It would require us to deploy investigators to that country to conduct interviews -just as we do here. As RDak accurately pointed out, it just isn't going to happen. It's not feasible to do this for the tens of millions of visitors. Once again, Trump shoots his mouth off, and his supporters are left holding the bag; bending over backwards, trying to explain his idiocy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 9:05:32 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because that is a far different creature from an actual "full check" background investigation. Doing a background investigation on a foreigner is quite a challenge. Doing it to a level of granularity that would satisfy a requirement to determine whether or not someone is lying about their religion, would require a major effort. It would require us to deploy investigators to that country to conduct interviews -just as we do here. As RDak accurately pointed out, it just isn't going to happen. It's not feasible to do this for the tens of millions of visitors. Once again, Trump shoots his mouth off, and his supporters are left holding the bag; bending over backwards, trying to explain his idiocy. tourists are a red herring. If someone violates a 2 week tourist visa, you can put a warrant out for his arrest. and enforce it. any jurisdiction that fails to do so loses all federal funding. you are coming up with tactical and logistical hurdles which if not made up, are certainly not insurmountable. If we reduced immigration from threat regions by 90%, we have reduced the threat they might pose by 90% as for the full background check on actual immigrants. oh fucking well. if they can't afford it, guess they won't be making the trip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 9:07:31 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
tourists are a red herring. If someone violates a 2 week tourist visa, you can put a warrant out for his arrest. and enforce it. any jurisdiction that fails to do so loses all federal funding. you are coming up with tactical and logistical hurdles which if not made up, are certainly not insurmountable. If we reduced immigration from threat regions by 90%, we have reduced the threat they might pose by 90% as for the full background check on actual immigrants. oh fucking well. if they can't afford it, guess they won't be making the trip. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because that is a far different creature from an actual "full check" background investigation. Doing a background investigation on a foreigner is quite a challenge. Doing it to a level of granularity that would satisfy a requirement to determine whether or not someone is lying about their religion, would require a major effort. It would require us to deploy investigators to that country to conduct interviews -just as we do here. As RDak accurately pointed out, it just isn't going to happen. It's not feasible to do this for the tens of millions of visitors. Once again, Trump shoots his mouth off, and his supporters are left holding the bag; bending over backwards, trying to explain his idiocy. tourists are a red herring. If someone violates a 2 week tourist visa, you can put a warrant out for his arrest. and enforce it. any jurisdiction that fails to do so loses all federal funding. you are coming up with tactical and logistical hurdles which if not made up, are certainly not insurmountable. If we reduced immigration from threat regions by 90%, we have reduced the threat they might pose by 90% as for the full background check on actual immigrants. oh fucking well. if they can't afford it, guess they won't be making the trip. But don't you think that is what Trump is really going to go for? The rest is to bring the issue to the forefront with "shock" value? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 9:11:15 AM EST
[#19]
They are still not doing enough in their own community and they never will. If Muslims will not confront it......and will continue to ignore it... Then they need to be shut down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 9:13:46 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BRITISH police officers have today sensationally backed Donald Trump’s controversial claim that parts of the country are no-go areas because of growing Islamist extremism.http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/625545/Donald-Trump-Muslims-speech-British-police-ISIS-radicalisation-LondonNo they haven't. Read the article. This was already covered in another thread. Don't fall for the sensationalist bollocks of the tabloids. http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2013/12/19/two-men-convicted-of-british-soldier-beheading/jcr:content/image.img.2000.jpg/1400420684724.cached.jpg That should be a Trump campaign poster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 10:32:07 AM EST
[#21]
And has the public rejected Trump because of his statement on Muslims?
Hardly. His poll numbers have gone up. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/09/fox-news-poll-trump-clinton-dominate-primary-races-in-south-carolina.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 10:37:17 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
tourists are a red herring. If someone violates a 2 week tourist visa, you can put a warrant out for his arrest. and enforce it. any jurisdiction that fails to do so loses all federal funding. you are coming up with tactical and logistical hurdles which if not made up, are certainly not insurmountable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because that is a far different creature from an actual "full check" background investigation. Doing a background investigation on a foreigner is quite a challenge. Doing it to a level of granularity that would satisfy a requirement to determine whether or not someone is lying about their religion, would require a major effort. It would require us to deploy investigators to that country to conduct interviews -just as we do here. As RDak accurately pointed out, it just isn't going to happen. It's not feasible to do this for the tens of millions of visitors. Once again, Trump shoots his mouth off, and his supporters are left holding the bag; bending over backwards, trying to explain his idiocy. tourists are a red herring. If someone violates a 2 week tourist visa, you can put a warrant out for his arrest. and enforce it. any jurisdiction that fails to do so loses all federal funding. you are coming up with tactical and logistical hurdles which if not made up, are certainly not insurmountable. If we reduced immigration from threat regions by 90%, we have reduced the threat they might pose by 90%
as for the full background check on actual immigrants. oh fucking well. if they can't afford it, guess they won't be making the trip. There's no such thing as a TS style background check for foreigners, and it's not a matter of cost. We check to see if they are already on OUR radar. You know that such a thing is impossible. You aren't having a serious discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 10:44:35 AM EST
[#23]
Can any Trump supporter explain this?
Trump told Bill O’Reilly on “The O’Reilly Factor” that his plan, which has sparked a political firestorm, “is about security, it’s not about religion.” “It’s a temporary ban on not everybody, but many,” the GOP presidential frontrunner said. “I would set up a system to see who qualifies to come in, who doesn’t.” "I mean you're going to have — I'm not going to say you can't come into the country," the Manhattan billionaire explained, qualifying his earlier declaration. "And the one thing people didn't pick up, at the end of that sentence, it said until we get our hands around it, essentially, until we find out what the hell is going on, which is the expression I used." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 10:58:45 AM EST
[#24]
Uh, how they slip by screening, how they are radicalized, where, how they get money, communicate, etc.
Call me a Trump observer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 10:59:50 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh, how they slip by screening, how they are radicalized, where, how they get money, communicate, etc. That's not what Trump said... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:01:33 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not what Trump said... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Uh, how they slip by screening, how they are radicalized, where, how they get money, communicate, etc. That's not what Trump said... What did he say.? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:07:15 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not the one who advocates background checks for all Tourists, or to check to see if their non-Muslim claims are true. It's the Trmp plan, not mine. There's no such thing as a TS style background check for foreigners, and it's not a matter of cost. We check to see if they are already on OUR radar. You know that such a thing is impossible. You aren't having a serious discussion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because that is a far different creature from an actual "full check" background investigation. Doing a background investigation on a foreigner is quite a challenge. Doing it to a level of granularity that would satisfy a requirement to determine whether or not someone is lying about their religion, would require a major effort. It would require us to deploy investigators to that country to conduct interviews -just as we do here. As RDak accurately pointed out, it just isn't going to happen. It's not feasible to do this for the tens of millions of visitors. Once again, Trump shoots his mouth off, and his supporters are left holding the bag; bending over backwards, trying to explain his idiocy. tourists are a red herring. If someone violates a 2 week tourist visa, you can put a warrant out for his arrest. and enforce it. any jurisdiction that fails to do so loses all federal funding. you are coming up with tactical and logistical hurdles which if not made up, are certainly not insurmountable. If we reduced immigration from threat regions by 90%, we have reduced the threat they might pose by 90%
as for the full background check on actual immigrants. oh fucking well. if they can't afford it, guess they won't be making the trip. There's no such thing as a TS style background check for foreigners, and it's not a matter of cost. We check to see if they are already on OUR radar. You know that such a thing is impossible. You aren't having a serious discussion. I know there is no such thing as a TS style background check for all foreigners. There should be. It is not impossible. It will be onerous. Oh well. For those who truly have something to contribute to American society they can either afford it personally or will find sponsors who will. What should be impossible is having 20 terrorists on expired tourist visas and student visas hijacking 4 aircraft and murdering 3000 citizens. and having a president stand next to a muslim brotherhood representative and babble about the religion of peace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:21:51 AM EST
[#28]
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-to-consider-easing-passage-into-u-s-for-immigrants/
Congress may vote on some right to emigrate without regards to relifious affiliation. And they might not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:26:32 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What did he say.? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, how they slip by screening, how they are radicalized, where, how they get money, communicate, etc. That's not what Trump said... What did he say.? Trump: "I would try to find out what is going. Why the hatred, why are people willing to fly planes into the World Trade Center? Why did those two people last week go into a room and start shooting people? It's a very serious problem and somebody had to bring it up." He is instituting a temporary ban on Muslims until we can figure out why they hate us and why they want to kill us? What kind of measure is that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:37:56 AM EST
[#30]
He hits all the right triggers and feels
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:40:10 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump is on O Reilly right now. Loofah O’Reilly is a fucking tool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:42:24 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
not really. It would be a simple question. More to the point, the guy floats an idea in a speech. He forwarded a legitimate, albiet extreme idea to combat a legitimate problem. we do not vet immigrants properly. 9-11 proves this, as does several other instances. and you have first generation americans from immigrant communitees. this is a problem that needs to be fixed. he didn't say permanently. he said until we can fix the problem. Its legitimate and legal. the debate is feasibility. but its quite clear that the democrats, and the majority of republicans see no problem with our immigration situation. trump does. and thats why he is leading in the polls. a vetted muslim immigrant killed 14 americans a week ago. every indicator, in hindsight, shows that she was a risk. first step, do no more damage. stop letting them in. My proposal is that every one desiring entrance into the US for anything more than a tourist visa undergo a TS level investigation at their own expense. big world out there. other countries can take the refuse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Regardless, every one of the 50,000,000 visitors to the US cannot be investigated to ensure that they aren't really a secret Muslim. It's impossible. right. so if it isn't 100% guaranteed, fuck it. Only solutions that are 100% guaranteed to work should be considered. Until then, status quo. the smarter solution is to simply ban immigrants by country, but it would kinda suck for the actual minorities that are being slaughtered. but we aren't bring them in anyway so really nothing would change except fewer jihadis. ¡JEB! The country ban is smart. It would be doable. The worldwide Muslim ban is stupid. It won't work. It's not just that it's not 100% effective. It would require a massive expansion of government, a new agency capable of so many investigations. And even then, it would be totally ineffective at keeping terrorists out. It would be a shining example of the "status quote"; bloated, expensive and ineffective. not really. It would be a simple question. More to the point, the guy floats an idea in a speech. He forwarded a legitimate, albiet extreme idea to combat a legitimate problem. we do not vet immigrants properly. 9-11 proves this, as does several other instances. and you have first generation americans from immigrant communitees. this is a problem that needs to be fixed. he didn't say permanently. he said until we can fix the problem. Its legitimate and legal. the debate is feasibility. but its quite clear that the democrats, and the majority of republicans see no problem with our immigration situation. trump does. and thats why he is leading in the polls. a vetted muslim immigrant killed 14 americans a week ago. every indicator, in hindsight, shows that she was a risk. first step, do no more damage. stop letting them in. My proposal is that every one desiring entrance into the US for anything more than a tourist visa undergo a TS level investigation at their own expense. big world out there. other countries can take the refuse. When you find yourself in a hole..........STOP digging. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:43:46 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From tonight. Lou Dobbs & Stuart Varney Weigh In Donald Trump On O'Reilly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4aBvFdVK8s  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4aBvFdVK8sLoofah O’Reilly was pissed they didn’t bow down to him and agree. Bravo Dobbs and Varney. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:46:12 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can any Trump supporter explain this? Trump told Bill O’Reilly on “The O’Reilly Factor” that his plan, which has sparked a political firestorm, “is about security, it’s not about religion.” “It’s a temporary ban on not everybody, but many,” the GOP presidential frontrunner said. “I would set up a system to see who qualifies to come in, who doesn’t.” "I mean you're going to have — I'm not going to say you can't come into the country," the Manhattan billionaire explained, qualifying his earlier declaration. "And the one thing people didn't pick up, at the end of that sentence, it said until we get our hands around it, essentially, until we find out what the hell is going on, which is the expression I used." Oh. Well i guess he was just kidding about that other stuff. Never mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:46:29 AM EST
[#35]
A Colorado Springs radio station (kvor.com) has a poll on this issue. The wording is as follows:
" Do you agree with Donald Trump? Should all Muslims be banned from entering the U.S.?" Results after I voted Yes as follows: Yes 98% No 2% No doubt this is not a scientific poll but it is one data point that suggests that Trump's position has wide approval. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:49:36 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know there is no such thing as a TS style background check for all foreigners. There should be. It is not impossible. It will be onerous. Oh well. For those who truly have something to contribute to American society they can either afford it personally or will find sponsors who will. What should be impossible is having 20 terrorists on expired tourist visas and student visas hijacking 4 aircraft and murdering 3000 citizens. and having a president stand next to a muslim brotherhood representative and babble about the religion of peace. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because that is a far different creature from an actual "full check" background investigation. Doing a background investigation on a foreigner is quite a challenge. Doing it to a level of granularity that would satisfy a requirement to determine whether or not someone is lying about their religion, would require a major effort. It would require us to deploy investigators to that country to conduct interviews -just as we do here. As RDak accurately pointed out, it just isn't going to happen. It's not feasible to do this for the tens of millions of visitors. Once again, Trump shoots his mouth off, and his supporters are left holding the bag; bending over backwards, trying to explain his idiocy. tourists are a red herring. If someone violates a 2 week tourist visa, you can put a warrant out for his arrest. and enforce it. any jurisdiction that fails to do so loses all federal funding. you are coming up with tactical and logistical hurdles which if not made up, are certainly not insurmountable. If we reduced immigration from threat regions by 90%, we have reduced the threat they might pose by 90%
as for the full background check on actual immigrants. oh fucking well. if they can't afford it, guess they won't be making the trip. There's no such thing as a TS style background check for foreigners, and it's not a matter of cost. We check to see if they are already on OUR radar. You know that such a thing is impossible. You aren't having a serious discussion. I know there is no such thing as a TS style background check for all foreigners. There should be. It is not impossible. It will be onerous. Oh well. For those who truly have something to contribute to American society they can either afford it personally or will find sponsors who will. What should be impossible is having 20 terrorists on expired tourist visas and student visas hijacking 4 aircraft and murdering 3000 citizens. and having a president stand next to a muslim brotherhood representative and babble about the religion of peace. Domestically, sure. We can make that impossible. Hell, we can do anything here, if we have the will and a compliant Supreme Court. Overseas, not so much. We can't really investigate every foreigner in their own country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:50:58 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cliff's Notes from reality: If Trump doesn't get the nomination and runs as an Independant, Hilary will easily become the next President. The GOP is not withdrawing their nominee. An absurd thought to phrase it politely. Nobody likes Bush. Nobody mentioned Bush. Doesn't matter who the nominee is for the GOP......if it's not Trump and he runs as an Independent, it's game fuckin over.....and that's not an unlikely scenario. His ego would never believe he'd lose as an Independent, he'd run. And he'd split the vote, lose, and usher in Hilary on a silver platter. We'd all lose.....and to an extent I'm pretty sure you're not grasping the incredible gravity of. If he gets the nomination, he's got my full support. If he doesn't and runs as an independent, he should have his head held under water until no more bubbles come up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Here's the potential (and not unlikely) disaster for those Trump fans still clinging. Trump doesn't get the nomination. His bombastic, hyper-emotional, poorly delivered, poorly thought out, polarizing rants catch up to him. It's already begun BIG TIME. Trump is not going to back down or honor that pledge. He'll state all bets are off because he was treated unfairly. Trump will run as an Independant. The GOP nominee and Trump split the republican vote. Hilary wins the election by a wide margin. That decade long AWB? Guess what? It's coming back and there will be no sunset this time. Amnesty, taxes, stifling regulation, socialism creep, continued castration of the military, Obama Part II. Once a full blown amnesty POTUS gets elected and has both houses once again, the demographic pendulum will be permanently a fixed to the left. Period. Done. Let's not forget the final nail in the American coffin pending such an outcome. The SCOTUS goes completely social activist with more young, socialist/Marxist judges. Game, set, match. Seriously folks, if you're not seeing the above unfolding, you're living (dangerously) in Lala Land. He was fun to watch, shook things up, spoke bombastically about non-PC stuff. It was fun....at first. Now? He's a threat and a very serious one at that. Try to separate the fun of hearing Trump going completely against the political grain. Have some fucking vision of how that can seriously backfire. The potential to fracture the GOP vote is very real....and if that does happen, get ready for Hilary....because she'll be in the White House. If you can't see that, and the potential consequences......I don't know what to tell you. 
Save your speech for the GOP delegates, who are the people your message really need to be directed at. Make sure they know that if they nominates some jackass like jeb they are fucking themselves and all the rest of us. Don't blame the voters. ETA: Come to think of it, if polling leading up to the election indicated that the conservative vote was divided enough by Trump running 3rd party, the only responsible thing the GOP could do would be to resign their candidacy so the vote would be consolidated against hillary. Cliff's Notes from reality: If Trump doesn't get the nomination and runs as an Independant, Hilary will easily become the next President. The GOP is not withdrawing their nominee. An absurd thought to phrase it politely. Nobody likes Bush. Nobody mentioned Bush. Doesn't matter who the nominee is for the GOP......if it's not Trump and he runs as an Independent, it's game fuckin over.....and that's not an unlikely scenario. His ego would never believe he'd lose as an Independent, he'd run. And he'd split the vote, lose, and usher in Hilary on a silver platter. We'd all lose.....and to an extent I'm pretty sure you're not grasping the incredible gravity of. If he gets the nomination, he's got my full support. If he doesn't and runs as an independent, he should have his head held under water until no more bubbles come up. You are almost spot on. If Trump gets the GOP nomination.....he is the next POTUS. Any other situation results in Hillary POTUS. Doesn’t matter if Trump slits the GOP or not. If the GOP nominates ANY one of the candidates besides TRUMP....Hillary, with the help of the MSM, will squash them like a bug. So....make your choice. Do you want Hillary or Trump. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 11:52:06 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are almost spot on. If Trump gets the GOP nomination.....he is the next POTUS. Any other situation results in Hillary POTUS. Doesn’t matter if Trump slits the GOP or not. If the GOP nominates ANY one of the candidates besides TRUMP....Hillary, with the help of the MSM, will squash them like a bug. So....make your choice. Do you want Hillary or Trump. Trump in a landslide. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:00:52 PM EST
[#39]
[above]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump in a landslide. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are almost spot on. If Trump gets the GOP nomination.....he is the next POTUS. Any other situation results in Hillary POTUS. Doesn’t matter if Trump slits the GOP or not. If the GOP nominates ANY one of the candidates besides TRUMP....Hillary, with the help of the MSM, will squash them like a bug. So....make your choice. Do you want Hillary or Trump. Trump in a landslide. 
based on what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:01:32 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[above]
based on what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
[above] Quoted:
Quoted:
You are almost spot on. If Trump gets the GOP nomination.....he is the next POTUS. Any other situation results in Hillary POTUS. Doesn’t matter if Trump slits the GOP or not. If the GOP nominates ANY one of the candidates besides TRUMP....Hillary, with the help of the MSM, will squash them like a bug. So....make your choice. Do you want Hillary or Trump. Trump in a landslide.
based on what? My finely honed sense of irony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:17:02 PM EST
[#41]
Now that gay marriage is legal in the land, how soon before the closet jihadis in the US of A start wanting fiancee visas for their gay jihadi lovers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:18:38 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump: "I would try to find out what is going. Why the hatred, why are people willing to fly planes into the World Trade Center? Why did those two people last week go into a room and start shooting people? It's a very serious problem and somebody had to bring it up." He is instituting a temporary ban on Muslims until we can figure out why they hate us and why they want to kill us? What kind of measure is that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, how they slip by screening, how they are radicalized, where, how they get money, communicate, etc. That's not what Trump said... What did he say.? Trump: "I would try to find out what is going. Why the hatred, why are people willing to fly planes into the World Trade Center? Why did those two people last week go into a room and start shooting people? It's a very serious problem and somebody had to bring it up." He is instituting a temporary ban on Muslims until we can figure out why they hate us and why they want to kill us? What kind of measure is that? Ineffective unless he becomes President. I watched a great program on AIDS last night. The US action in AFRICA helped save millions from being infected through childbirth. We're talking about vetting thousands. I bet we can do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:20:19 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ineffective unless he becomes President. I watched a great program on AIDS last night. The US action in AFRICA helped save millions from being infected through childbirth. We're talking about vetting thousands. I bet we can do it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, how they slip by screening, how they are radicalized, where, how they get money, communicate, etc. That's not what Trump said... What did he say.? Trump: "I would try to find out what is going. Why the hatred, why are people willing to fly planes into the World Trade Center? Why did those two people last week go into a room and start shooting people? It's a very serious problem and somebody had to bring it up." He is instituting a temporary ban on Muslims until we can figure out why they hate us and why they want to kill us? What kind of measure is that? Ineffective unless he becomes President. I watched a great program on AIDS last night. The US action in AFRICA helped save millions from being infected through childbirth. We're talking about vetting thousands. I bet we can do it. So you believe that a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US until we can figure out why they hate us is a valid plan? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:29:09 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That should be a Trump campaign poster. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BRITISH police officers have today sensationally backed Donald Trump’s controversial claim that parts of the country are no-go areas because of growing Islamist extremism.http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/625545/Donald-Trump-Muslims-speech-British-police-ISIS-radicalisation-LondonNo they haven't. Read the article. This was already covered in another thread. Don't fall for the sensationalist bollocks of the tabloids. http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2013/12/19/two-men-convicted-of-british-soldier-beheading/jcr:content/image.img.2000.jpg/1400420684724.cached.jpg That should be a Trump campaign poster. Except they were British Citizens, born to Christian families, in Britain.......which might undermine the whole "immigration" thing if you want to use it as a poster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:32:48 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you believe that a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US until we can figure out why they hate us is a valid plan? What alternative are you proposing, aside from "Trump dumb!! Trump supporters also dumb!!! LOLLLLanimatedlaughingsmileyLLL!"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:33:03 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except they were British Citizens, born to Christian families, in Britain.......which might undermine the whole "immigration" thing if you want to use it as a poster. If any of that mattered this thread wouldn't exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:33:43 PM EST
[#47]
We could. We could contract investigators, who are US citizens, have them live overseas and verify statements and do personal background checks. Again. This is doable. EVERY foreigner. No. But if we can't, we don't let them in. We aren't vetting them now. We ask them questions, they lie, we let them in. That can't go on. Currently going on a re-investigation where they are crawling through every fucking thing (thanks Snowden). But Jihadi Jane can roll in from Paki-land and kill 14 Americans without so much as a "Hey, wait a minute" You can have more significant investigations, at the discretion of the President, based upon country of origin. Lichtenstein may get less than Saudi Arabia. Too fucking bad. And with oil the way it is, House of Saud can't say shit right now. We put a man on the moon and were the arsenal of democracy. We can do this. Easily. What we can't do is continue a charade where CAIR is the only arbitrator of what is permissible and what is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:35:41 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except they were British Citizens, born to Christian families, in Britain.......which might undermine the whole "immigration" thing if you want to use it as a poster. I bet his Imam wasn't, however. I was addressing the idea that growing radicalization was a threat in Britain. And all those people standing around doing nothing. Try that shit in Texas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:46:14 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What alternative are you proposing, aside from "Trump dumb!! Trump supporters also dumb!!! LOLLLLanimatedlaughingsmileyLLL!"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you believe that a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US until we can figure out why they hate us is a valid plan? What alternative are you proposing, aside from "Trump dumb!! Trump supporters also dumb!!! LOLLLLanimatedlaughingsmileyLLL!"? How will we know when our Representatives have Figured What the Heck is Going On? Will they form a committee and issue a report? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2015 12:47:42 PM EST
[#50]
J
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you believe that a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US until we can figure out why they hate us is a valid plan? Are you really fixated on the "why they hate us?" I'd vett them for ties to terrorism. I'm pretty sure that would be anyone's bottom line that is considering this. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
