Nocebo wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

Jeez wrote

Nocebo wrote

Nocebo wrote

Scizor wrote Probably the biggest con of America accepting the refugees into America, would be the cost. The refugees who are escaping to here are coming to a completely new world, in which many of them will be unable to provide for themselves. I mean it isn't their fault that a bunch of dicks with a religious agenda blew up their house, but it puts an expensive burden on the US to provide for them.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

$582 Million Yearly to relocate, train, and integrate newly immigrated Refugees into the US, that is a LOT of money. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be spending that much, because the money is doing a lot more good than spending $38 Million on an F-14. However, think of what we could have done with the money. How many/much schools, hospitals, infastructure, could have been improved?

Why couldn't the US take the money it spends on its military and use it for either improving infrastructure, or helping refugees?

The money is there, it's just being put in the wrong place.

Jeez wrote Not true at all. We know we are being killed by those things, all the time. Its not a surprise. I get that this a free country, but the more we bring in that aren't originally from here, the more we are putting ourselves at risk.

His point was the risk, not whether or not we know if they are killing us.
You know that terrorists kill people, just like you know that car crashes kill people.
You still take the risk of driving a car, but for some reason you won't take the risk of letting any Muslims into the country?

Jeez wrote In this day and age, you can never be too careful. There are far too many domestic and international threats that harm this country every single day. Inviting those (possible) threats in with wide open arms is asking for trouble and is a magnet for attacks.

Sacrificing the principle that your country is founded on for security is being too careful.
You are scared of the terrorists who have killed just 3,380 Americans since 2001, including the deaths on 9/11, but are willing to deny safety to the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing ISIS just in case a couple of terrorists slip in with them?

Have you actually looked at the vetting process America uses to decide whether or not they let a refugee in?
It takes, on average, 18 - 24 months for a refugee to gain admittance to the US.
They must go through multiple high level security checks done by top intelligence agencies, including the FBI, a medical and biometric screening process,
an interview with the Department of Homeland Security, and a 'Cultural Orientation' program which includes videos on housing, education, employment, and hygiene.
They are not stood on the coast waiting for rafts to wash up, handing them a leaflet and directing them to the nearest job center.

Jeez wrote Look at Paris, thought they were doing the right thing, all of the sudden they got blind sided by their new "friends thats just needed some help" for no apparent reason. Lock those boarders, seal us in, seal everything our and let stuff work out. Then things can continue.

France knew that some of the refugees they were letting in could be terrorists. They accepted that fact and did not cower in fear like you and Donald Trump want to do.
He talks about 'Making America Great Again'. What is great about hiding behind a wall, turning your back on the principles the US was founded on, and lumping all Muslims into the group of 'potential terrorists.'
This is cowardly, offensive and stupid behavior which should not be being espoused by a front runner in the presidential race for one of the most powerful countries on the planet.

Jeez wrote That is not true, actually. I've read many articles on it and talked to quite a few members in the military that will disagree with that process. Its a PROVEN fact that over 25% of all Syrians have some sort of ties to terrorism (whether they are anywhere close to react is another story).

I don't believe that it's a 'proven fact' that 25% of Syrians have ties to terrorist groups [depending on your definition of 'ties'] and I'll need to see a source before I do.
But let's say you're right, and let's even bump it up to 50%.
So what? If they have ties to terrorism the vetting process will see it [because apparently it's a proven fact] and they won't be allowed in.
Link me to these articles and tell me why I should believe your second hand account of military members saying it's not good enough, and then tell me why I should believe them and take their judgement as truth.

Jeez wrote The whole 'getting on their side thing to keep us safe' is BS too. Think about it, how many people have ILLEGALLY obtained a gun in the US to cause harm? (Yes, not only Muslims can do terrorstic acts, I know that...). Even by trying to get on their side, are they gonna love us and give us love? No, they couldnt give a single crap about that. If they get here, they WILL cause damage whether we give them the best living or not. So, why welcome them?

This is the point though, not all Muslims want to hurt the US. You are basically saying that just because they are Muslim if we let them in they are going to shoot people. Do you not realize how absolutely insane that sounds? Just because they are Muslim doesn't mean that they hate the US and want to kill people.

Jeez wrote Little flash back. (this was back before 9/11) I live just south of Minneapolis, MN. We have one of the busiest airports in the country. Along with that, we have a very high ranking training facility in Eagan, MN, which is about 8 minutes south east of the airport. Prior to 9/11, one of the pilots that actually took control of the plane, trained in Eagan. There was someone (dont remember who at the facility) had suspicion of said pilot, but decided to let it slide. After 9/11, during the investigation, they went thru that mans laptop and found ALL the plans. Also, this laptop was left at the facility for weeks months prior...

Well that was pointless.
It's well known that the US has upped its game in terms of security since 9/11 because of 9/11.
That's like saying that a person from the revolutionary war got killed by a knife because he didn't have time to reload his musket and proves that knives are more dangerous than guns, so the US shouldn't ban guns.
That's how much sense your point makes.

Jeez wrote My point is here is that we are too weak to stop attacks. We are too nice to people, and that is a HUGE hole in the system. I am sure a lot of you stopped reading the articles after "Trump wants to ban Muslims" which is total BS. He wants to ban Muslims UNTIL, and I quote, "the idiot figure out what the hell is going on". Then the boarders will be opened once again. Its called looking out of the country before helping others.

Too nice? You call drone striking innocent people and destabilizing entire regions of the planet is the US being 'too nice' ?
I know what Donald Trump is saying and he is still being stupid. This problem isn't going to be solved in the next 4 weeks. If the US bans Muslims from entering now it is likely that it could be 10, 15, 20 years before the problem is 'solved.' Considering it has already been 14 years since the US and its allies started the 'War on Terror' and terrorism has done nothing but increase all around the world.

Jeez wrote Not to mention why are we giving these random people houses, lives, food, money, insurance, everything when 1 and 50,000 vets are homeless. Priorities are elsewhere and THAT is why Trump is the only person to flip this country the right way up

I agree, let's take that money that is being overspent on the military and spend it on homes for both the veterans and the refugees.

My post about the guy in Eagan was just to point out facts that we miss stuff, we dont look into them. ANY refugee can act as an innocent member and cause havoc AFTER the fact.

Nocebo wrote ...already been 14 years since the US and its allies started the 'War on Terror' and terrorism has done nothing but increase all around the world.

That should answer you question on why we SHOULDNT allow them in right there. We started a War on Terror, nothing has gotten better, in fact its gotten worse. So why take that chance (even if it was the French, or Cubans, or Asians, or Russians is irrelevant). The point is, is that keeping our doors open, even if 100% of them are not here to cause harm, thats not always gonna stay like that. What about past attacks besides 9/11? More than likely, that person(s) came to the US for legit reasons. Only AFTER that, they decide to radicalize and do damage.

You missed the entire point about the vetting process. The point is that the US doesn't miss things any more. That people can't just 'pose as innocent people.'
If you're worried about people being radicalized once they have already gained citizenship then why aren't you advocating for the deportation of every single Muslim currently in the United States, whether they were born there or not?

You want to build a wall [physical or otherwise] around the US, wait for the rest of the world to destroy the monster that you helped to create, and then open yourselves up again, all the while espousing that you are the greatest country on Earth, land of the free and home of the brave?

Jeez wrote Cant hide? Sure they can.. If the California shooters just last week couldnt 'hide', how did they not get caught before hand?

We're talking about the refugees. They weren't refugees.

Jeez wrote Being brave has nothing to do with it, its about protecting what we already have.. Did I EVER say anything about deporting those already in here? No, but when those people are being watched more intensely, why add more to the mix that could possibly go wrong.

No, but you did say: "More than likely, that person(s) came to the US for legit reasons. Only AFTER that, they decide to radicalize and do damage."
That is exactly the same as saying "Any Muslim currently in the US could be a terrorist."
So why are you saying that we should keep out "All Muslims not in the US because they could be terrorists." but aren't saying the same about deporting Muslims in the US now?
You say, 'Why risk it?' well why don't you take that logic to its conclusion. If all Muslims in the US are capable of being terrorists, then why risk it and not just deport them all?

Jeez wrote I have nothing against Muslims, I really dont. One of my good friends is a Muslim. But just like every race out there, they create a name for themselves. Its THEIR fault they are seen as possible terrorists. Its not my fault I want to protect my family, and not see them die if something were to go wrong.

Your 'good friend' could possibly be a terrorist and should be deported by your logic.
ISIS created a name for themselves, you are conflating them with all Muslims. I agree that the number of Islamic fundamentalists is a lot higher than the liberal media likes to say, but it is insane to say that all Muslims should be banned from a country because they could possibly be terrorists.

Jeez wrote -they have their own ways of living. They believe in Sharia Law, why would we EVER want that to start becoming a thing.

You do know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Islam, yes? Not all Muslims believe that Sharia Law should be imposed on the world.

Jeez wrote -numbers are expected to rise to double in the next year or two of the refugees = ALOT more money being spent

I feel like a broken record: military funding.

Jeez wrote -The increase in Mosques and Islamic schools - More than 80% of mosques in the United States teach jihad and/or advance the idea of sharia law while many Islamic schools indoctrinate their students to distain non-believers. We cannot afford to have more Islamic institutions that teach hate and incite members to violence.

You can't have a percentage and then and/or in the same sentence.
That could mean that 79% teach about Jihad, which is perfectly fine, and 1% advance Jihad.
Considering the source you took that from verbatim also says that Islam is bad because they're all inbred, it's quite obvious that they're being purposefully misleading.

As more info comes out, go Google "ISIS passports". Now your vetting system that you're so confident in, will no longer work...

Thats right, ISIS may have the ability to print real, authentic passports... Know what that means, ANYONE of those refugees could be ANYONE and we would have zero idea. Shutting down the boarders for the time being doesnt sound so crazy now, does it?

Lavish wrote

aNaughtyCuban wrote

CODLTHAT1OR3O wrote

Xioko wrote

But, sanders has a far better idea of how to help the common people (especially his free college plan, since I am about to go), and he wants to break big banks, (keyword, wants), and as such, I believe he is the best candidate

I really didn't want to do this, but I guess I'll get a little politically involved, and I'll try to keep it more factual than interjecting my opinions. The problem with all these social programs that Sanders is wanting to implement, is that they take away incentive to work as hard as you possibly can, causing not as many new technologies to be invented, thus causing an overall decline in innovation, and possibly economic growth. Right now I'm in High School, so my opinion on what I'm about to say could very much change. If I were to "benefit" from Sander's "free" college system, I would have much lower incentive to get into the work force, and thus help economic growth, as I wouldn't have debts to pay off. I can agree with a few of Sander's views, like the big bank thing you mentioned, but the reality of the matter is, that's not the most important issue right now, so, as much as I hate it, it can be, and possibly should be left alone for now.

There is no evidence you can point to that validates the point you just made. Sanders wants a to level the playing field, not give anyone an advantage. That means taxing the rich and giving money back to the common-man and cutting outrageous college costs that, if anything, inhibit innovation. Giving me free college means I don't have to worry about a shadow of debt that will follow me for 30 years and I can focus on my career. I'm not seeing how that is unfriendly to innovation. And anyways, if you were to benefit from the free college system and then not be motivated to enter the workforce then there's no purpose in post-secondary education for you. That's a you thing.

I'm in college because I'm inspired to do something great with my life. Having no debt would merely be a convenience. Debt associated with college is like the getting wet aspect of swimming. I swim for fun. I inevitably get wet. But I deal with it because swimming is fun.

It's free college for you, but it's the "common-man" that is having to pick up the tab when it comes to paying for it.

The same situation is happening with Obamacare right now. Insurers are being forced to cover high-risk people, so the normal folks are having their premiums nearly doubled to pick up the tab.

Actually, providing free college would not be paid for by the common man. You can fund it completely by taxing Wall Street.

Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street.

This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of
0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005%
fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year
which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country,
it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Even if that wasn't enough, there's plenty of cash to take away from our absurdly unnecessary defense budget. And I'm sick of the profit profit profit mentality this country has. There's no investing in the country, we're all concerned with capitalism and making America great again. Yet there's no serious movements about fixing infrastructure, education reform, affordable medication, or making post-secondary education affordable.

It's keep immigrants out and kill ISIS. That'll make America great again. Yep.

Watch the debates and the interview with alex jones on infowars; it becomes more understandable if you listen or read into the actual context. With everything going on regarding the "Syrian" refugees, the nato sanctioned nation of Turkey shooting down a russian jet, then exectuting the pilot, then claiming it was a hoax, then russia leaks sat images containing evidence of turkeys rogue dealings with isis (namely the iraqi oil we left behind after "winning" a $2 trillion war). Backtack 50-60 yrs JFK reveals a conspiratorial force we must act upon, urges media to push the speech, they dont. He also publicly elaborated on the fact the media is covered under the first amendment, etc. I strongly suggest you look a little into the whole JFK story. I would just advise against jumping on the bandwagon. IMO trump haters are the same ignorant people who voted for bush and obama; gullible and easily fooled to think whatever the media want them to. But then again Trump might be **** Hilary anyway.
Anyway im canadian so i got trudeau to worry about
sorry if anyone finds this offending, not sorry
lol

Jeez wrote

Nocebo wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

Jeez wrote

Nocebo wrote

Nocebo wrote

Scizor wrote Probably the biggest con of America accepting the refugees into America, would be the cost. The refugees who are escaping to here are coming to a completely new world, in which many of them will be unable to provide for themselves. I mean it isn't their fault that a bunch of dicks with a religious agenda blew up their house, but it puts an expensive burden on the US to provide for them.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

$582 Million Yearly to relocate, train, and integrate newly immigrated Refugees into the US, that is a LOT of money. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be spending that much, because the money is doing a lot more good than spending $38 Million on an F-14. However, think of what we could have done with the money. How many/much schools, hospitals, infastructure, could have been improved?

Why couldn't the US take the money it spends on its military and use it for either improving infrastructure, or helping refugees?

The money is there, it's just being put in the wrong place.

Jeez wrote Not true at all. We know we are being killed by those things, all the time. Its not a surprise. I get that this a free country, but the more we bring in that aren't originally from here, the more we are putting ourselves at risk.

His point was the risk, not whether or not we know if they are killing us.
You know that terrorists kill people, just like you know that car crashes kill people.
You still take the risk of driving a car, but for some reason you won't take the risk of letting any Muslims into the country?

Jeez wrote In this day and age, you can never be too careful. There are far too many domestic and international threats that harm this country every single day. Inviting those (possible) threats in with wide open arms is asking for trouble and is a magnet for attacks.

Sacrificing the principle that your country is founded on for security is being too careful.
You are scared of the terrorists who have killed just 3,380 Americans since 2001, including the deaths on 9/11, but are willing to deny safety to the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing ISIS just in case a couple of terrorists slip in with them?

Have you actually looked at the vetting process America uses to decide whether or not they let a refugee in?
It takes, on average, 18 - 24 months for a refugee to gain admittance to the US.
They must go through multiple high level security checks done by top intelligence agencies, including the FBI, a medical and biometric screening process,
an interview with the Department of Homeland Security, and a 'Cultural Orientation' program which includes videos on housing, education, employment, and hygiene.
They are not stood on the coast waiting for rafts to wash up, handing them a leaflet and directing them to the nearest job center.

Jeez wrote Look at Paris, thought they were doing the right thing, all of the sudden they got blind sided by their new "friends thats just needed some help" for no apparent reason. Lock those boarders, seal us in, seal everything our and let stuff work out. Then things can continue.

France knew that some of the refugees they were letting in could be terrorists. They accepted that fact and did not cower in fear like you and Donald Trump want to do.
He talks about 'Making America Great Again'. What is great about hiding behind a wall, turning your back on the principles the US was founded on, and lumping all Muslims into the group of 'potential terrorists.'
This is cowardly, offensive and stupid behavior which should not be being espoused by a front runner in the presidential race for one of the most powerful countries on the planet.

Jeez wrote That is not true, actually. I've read many articles on it and talked to quite a few members in the military that will disagree with that process. Its a PROVEN fact that over 25% of all Syrians have some sort of ties to terrorism (whether they are anywhere close to react is another story).

I don't believe that it's a 'proven fact' that 25% of Syrians have ties to terrorist groups [depending on your definition of 'ties'] and I'll need to see a source before I do.
But let's say you're right, and let's even bump it up to 50%.
So what? If they have ties to terrorism the vetting process will see it [because apparently it's a proven fact] and they won't be allowed in.
Link me to these articles and tell me why I should believe your second hand account of military members saying it's not good enough, and then tell me why I should believe them and take their judgement as truth.

Jeez wrote The whole 'getting on their side thing to keep us safe' is BS too. Think about it, how many people have ILLEGALLY obtained a gun in the US to cause harm? (Yes, not only Muslims can do terrorstic acts, I know that...). Even by trying to get on their side, are they gonna love us and give us love? No, they couldnt give a single crap about that. If they get here, they WILL cause damage whether we give them the best living or not. So, why welcome them?

This is the point though, not all Muslims want to hurt the US. You are basically saying that just because they are Muslim if we let them in they are going to shoot people. Do you not realize how absolutely insane that sounds? Just because they are Muslim doesn't mean that they hate the US and want to kill people.

Jeez wrote Little flash back. (this was back before 9/11) I live just south of Minneapolis, MN. We have one of the busiest airports in the country. Along with that, we have a very high ranking training facility in Eagan, MN, which is about 8 minutes south east of the airport. Prior to 9/11, one of the pilots that actually took control of the plane, trained in Eagan. There was someone (dont remember who at the facility) had suspicion of said pilot, but decided to let it slide. After 9/11, during the investigation, they went thru that mans laptop and found ALL the plans. Also, this laptop was left at the facility for weeks months prior...

Well that was pointless.
It's well known that the US has upped its game in terms of security since 9/11 because of 9/11.
That's like saying that a person from the revolutionary war got killed by a knife because he didn't have time to reload his musket and proves that knives are more dangerous than guns, so the US shouldn't ban guns.
That's how much sense your point makes.

Jeez wrote My point is here is that we are too weak to stop attacks. We are too nice to people, and that is a HUGE hole in the system. I am sure a lot of you stopped reading the articles after "Trump wants to ban Muslims" which is total BS. He wants to ban Muslims UNTIL, and I quote, "the idiot figure out what the hell is going on". Then the boarders will be opened once again. Its called looking out of the country before helping others.

Too nice? You call drone striking innocent people and destabilizing entire regions of the planet is the US being 'too nice' ?
I know what Donald Trump is saying and he is still being stupid. This problem isn't going to be solved in the next 4 weeks. If the US bans Muslims from entering now it is likely that it could be 10, 15, 20 years before the problem is 'solved.' Considering it has already been 14 years since the US and its allies started the 'War on Terror' and terrorism has done nothing but increase all around the world.

Jeez wrote Not to mention why are we giving these random people houses, lives, food, money, insurance, everything when 1 and 50,000 vets are homeless. Priorities are elsewhere and THAT is why Trump is the only person to flip this country the right way up

I agree, let's take that money that is being overspent on the military and spend it on homes for both the veterans and the refugees.

My post about the guy in Eagan was just to point out facts that we miss stuff, we dont look into them. ANY refugee can act as an innocent member and cause havoc AFTER the fact.

Nocebo wrote ...already been 14 years since the US and its allies started the 'War on Terror' and terrorism has done nothing but increase all around the world.

That should answer you question on why we SHOULDNT allow them in right there. We started a War on Terror, nothing has gotten better, in fact its gotten worse. So why take that chance (even if it was the French, or Cubans, or Asians, or Russians is irrelevant). The point is, is that keeping our doors open, even if 100% of them are not here to cause harm, thats not always gonna stay like that. What about past attacks besides 9/11? More than likely, that person(s) came to the US for legit reasons. Only AFTER that, they decide to radicalize and do damage.

You missed the entire point about the vetting process. The point is that the US doesn't miss things any more. That people can't just 'pose as innocent people.'
If you're worried about people being radicalized once they have already gained citizenship then why aren't you advocating for the deportation of every single Muslim currently in the United States, whether they were born there or not?

You want to build a wall [physical or otherwise] around the US, wait for the rest of the world to destroy the monster that you helped to create, and then open yourselves up again, all the while espousing that you are the greatest country on Earth, land of the free and home of the brave?

Jeez wrote Cant hide? Sure they can.. If the California shooters just last week couldnt 'hide', how did they not get caught before hand?

We're talking about the refugees. They weren't refugees.

Jeez wrote Being brave has nothing to do with it, its about protecting what we already have.. Did I EVER say anything about deporting those already in here? No, but when those people are being watched more intensely, why add more to the mix that could possibly go wrong.

No, but you did say: "More than likely, that person(s) came to the US for legit reasons. Only AFTER that, they decide to radicalize and do damage."
That is exactly the same as saying "Any Muslim currently in the US could be a terrorist."
So why are you saying that we should keep out "All Muslims not in the US because they could be terrorists." but aren't saying the same about deporting Muslims in the US now?
You say, 'Why risk it?' well why don't you take that logic to its conclusion. If all Muslims in the US are capable of being terrorists, then why risk it and not just deport them all?

Jeez wrote I have nothing against Muslims, I really dont. One of my good friends is a Muslim. But just like every race out there, they create a name for themselves. Its THEIR fault they are seen as possible terrorists. Its not my fault I want to protect my family, and not see them die if something were to go wrong.

Your 'good friend' could possibly be a terrorist and should be deported by your logic.
ISIS created a name for themselves, you are conflating them with all Muslims. I agree that the number of Islamic fundamentalists is a lot higher than the liberal media likes to say, but it is insane to say that all Muslims should be banned from a country because they could possibly be terrorists.

Jeez wrote -they have their own ways of living. They believe in Sharia Law, why would we EVER want that to start becoming a thing.

You do know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Islam, yes? Not all Muslims believe that Sharia Law should be imposed on the world.

Jeez wrote -numbers are expected to rise to double in the next year or two of the refugees = ALOT more money being spent

I feel like a broken record: military funding.

Jeez wrote -The increase in Mosques and Islamic schools - More than 80% of mosques in the United States teach jihad and/or advance the idea of sharia law while many Islamic schools indoctrinate their students to distain non-believers. We cannot afford to have more Islamic institutions that teach hate and incite members to violence.

You can't have a percentage and then and/or in the same sentence.
That could mean that 79% teach about Jihad, which is perfectly fine, and 1% advance Jihad.
Considering the source you took that from verbatim also says that Islam is bad because they're all inbred, it's quite obvious that they're being purposefully misleading.

As more info comes out, go Google "ISIS passports". Now your vetting system that you're so confident in, will no longer work...

Thats right, ISIS may have the ability to print real, authentic passports... Know what that means, ANYONE of those refugees could be ANYONE and we would have zero idea. Shutting down the boarders for the time being doesnt sound so crazy now, does it?

You think that big list of things I gave for the vetting process, which include high level checks by multiple intelligence agencies including the FBI and Department of Homeland security, which will most definitely include lie detector and other psychological tests, will be circumvented by fake passports?

They won't just look at a passport and think, "Hm. This looks real, we'll let them in."

I strongly disagree with the statement of no Muslims entering the USA.

But, i think that the borders should be controlled better.

Nocebo wrote

Jeez wrote

Nocebo wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

Jeez wrote

Nocebo wrote

Nocebo wrote

Scizor wrote Probably the biggest con of America accepting the refugees into America, would be the cost. The refugees who are escaping to here are coming to a completely new world, in which many of them will be unable to provide for themselves. I mean it isn't their fault that a bunch of dicks with a religious agenda blew up their house, but it puts an expensive burden on the US to provide for them.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

$582 Million Yearly to relocate, train, and integrate newly immigrated Refugees into the US, that is a LOT of money. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be spending that much, because the money is doing a lot more good than spending $38 Million on an F-14. However, think of what we could have done with the money. How many/much schools, hospitals, infastructure, could have been improved?

Why couldn't the US take the money it spends on its military and use it for either improving infrastructure, or helping refugees?

The money is there, it's just being put in the wrong place.

Jeez wrote Not true at all. We know we are being killed by those things, all the time. Its not a surprise. I get that this a free country, but the more we bring in that aren't originally from here, the more we are putting ourselves at risk.

His point was the risk, not whether or not we know if they are killing us.
You know that terrorists kill people, just like you know that car crashes kill people.
You still take the risk of driving a car, but for some reason you won't take the risk of letting any Muslims into the country?

Jeez wrote In this day and age, you can never be too careful. There are far too many domestic and international threats that harm this country every single day. Inviting those (possible) threats in with wide open arms is asking for trouble and is a magnet for attacks.

Sacrificing the principle that your country is founded on for security is being too careful.
You are scared of the terrorists who have killed just 3,380 Americans since 2001, including the deaths on 9/11, but are willing to deny safety to the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing ISIS just in case a couple of terrorists slip in with them?

Have you actually looked at the vetting process America uses to decide whether or not they let a refugee in?
It takes, on average, 18 - 24 months for a refugee to gain admittance to the US.
They must go through multiple high level security checks done by top intelligence agencies, including the FBI, a medical and biometric screening process,
an interview with the Department of Homeland Security, and a 'Cultural Orientation' program which includes videos on housing, education, employment, and hygiene.
They are not stood on the coast waiting for rafts to wash up, handing them a leaflet and directing them to the nearest job center.

Jeez wrote Look at Paris, thought they were doing the right thing, all of the sudden they got blind sided by their new "friends thats just needed some help" for no apparent reason. Lock those boarders, seal us in, seal everything our and let stuff work out. Then things can continue.

France knew that some of the refugees they were letting in could be terrorists. They accepted that fact and did not cower in fear like you and Donald Trump want to do.
He talks about 'Making America Great Again'. What is great about hiding behind a wall, turning your back on the principles the US was founded on, and lumping all Muslims into the group of 'potential terrorists.'
This is cowardly, offensive and stupid behavior which should not be being espoused by a front runner in the presidential race for one of the most powerful countries on the planet.

Jeez wrote That is not true, actually. I've read many articles on it and talked to quite a few members in the military that will disagree with that process. Its a PROVEN fact that over 25% of all Syrians have some sort of ties to terrorism (whether they are anywhere close to react is another story).

I don't believe that it's a 'proven fact' that 25% of Syrians have ties to terrorist groups [depending on your definition of 'ties'] and I'll need to see a source before I do.
But let's say you're right, and let's even bump it up to 50%.
So what? If they have ties to terrorism the vetting process will see it [because apparently it's a proven fact] and they won't be allowed in.
Link me to these articles and tell me why I should believe your second hand account of military members saying it's not good enough, and then tell me why I should believe them and take their judgement as truth.

Jeez wrote The whole 'getting on their side thing to keep us safe' is BS too. Think about it, how many people have ILLEGALLY obtained a gun in the US to cause harm? (Yes, not only Muslims can do terrorstic acts, I know that...). Even by trying to get on their side, are they gonna love us and give us love? No, they couldnt give a single crap about that. If they get here, they WILL cause damage whether we give them the best living or not. So, why welcome them?

This is the point though, not all Muslims want to hurt the US. You are basically saying that just because they are Muslim if we let them in they are going to shoot people. Do you not realize how absolutely insane that sounds? Just because they are Muslim doesn't mean that they hate the US and want to kill people.

Jeez wrote Little flash back. (this was back before 9/11) I live just south of Minneapolis, MN. We have one of the busiest airports in the country. Along with that, we have a very high ranking training facility in Eagan, MN, which is about 8 minutes south east of the airport. Prior to 9/11, one of the pilots that actually took control of the plane, trained in Eagan. There was someone (dont remember who at the facility) had suspicion of said pilot, but decided to let it slide. After 9/11, during the investigation, they went thru that mans laptop and found ALL the plans. Also, this laptop was left at the facility for weeks months prior...

Well that was pointless.
It's well known that the US has upped its game in terms of security since 9/11 because of 9/11.
That's like saying that a person from the revolutionary war got killed by a knife because he didn't have time to reload his musket and proves that knives are more dangerous than guns, so the US shouldn't ban guns.
That's how much sense your point makes.

Jeez wrote My point is here is that we are too weak to stop attacks. We are too nice to people, and that is a HUGE hole in the system. I am sure a lot of you stopped reading the articles after "Trump wants to ban Muslims" which is total BS. He wants to ban Muslims UNTIL, and I quote, "the idiot figure out what the hell is going on". Then the boarders will be opened once again. Its called looking out of the country before helping others.

Too nice? You call drone striking innocent people and destabilizing entire regions of the planet is the US being 'too nice' ?
I know what Donald Trump is saying and he is still being stupid. This problem isn't going to be solved in the next 4 weeks. If the US bans Muslims from entering now it is likely that it could be 10, 15, 20 years before the problem is 'solved.' Considering it has already been 14 years since the US and its allies started the 'War on Terror' and terrorism has done nothing but increase all around the world.

Jeez wrote Not to mention why are we giving these random people houses, lives, food, money, insurance, everything when 1 and 50,000 vets are homeless. Priorities are elsewhere and THAT is why Trump is the only person to flip this country the right way up

I agree, let's take that money that is being overspent on the military and spend it on homes for both the veterans and the refugees.

My post about the guy in Eagan was just to point out facts that we miss stuff, we dont look into them. ANY refugee can act as an innocent member and cause havoc AFTER the fact.

Nocebo wrote ...already been 14 years since the US and its allies started the 'War on Terror' and terrorism has done nothing but increase all around the world.

That should answer you question on why we SHOULDNT allow them in right there. We started a War on Terror, nothing has gotten better, in fact its gotten worse. So why take that chance (even if it was the French, or Cubans, or Asians, or Russians is irrelevant). The point is, is that keeping our doors open, even if 100% of them are not here to cause harm, thats not always gonna stay like that. What about past attacks besides 9/11? More than likely, that person(s) came to the US for legit reasons. Only AFTER that, they decide to radicalize and do damage.

You missed the entire point about the vetting process. The point is that the US doesn't miss things any more. That people can't just 'pose as innocent people.'
If you're worried about people being radicalized once they have already gained citizenship then why aren't you advocating for the deportation of every single Muslim currently in the United States, whether they were born there or not?

You want to build a wall [physical or otherwise] around the US, wait for the rest of the world to destroy the monster that you helped to create, and then open yourselves up again, all the while espousing that you are the greatest country on Earth, land of the free and home of the brave?

Jeez wrote Cant hide? Sure they can.. If the California shooters just last week couldnt 'hide', how did they not get caught before hand?

We're talking about the refugees. They weren't refugees.

Jeez wrote Being brave has nothing to do with it, its about protecting what we already have.. Did I EVER say anything about deporting those already in here? No, but when those people are being watched more intensely, why add more to the mix that could possibly go wrong.

No, but you did say: "More than likely, that person(s) came to the US for legit reasons. Only AFTER that, they decide to radicalize and do damage."
That is exactly the same as saying "Any Muslim currently in the US could be a terrorist."
So why are you saying that we should keep out "All Muslims not in the US because they could be terrorists." but aren't saying the same about deporting Muslims in the US now?
You say, 'Why risk it?' well why don't you take that logic to its conclusion. If all Muslims in the US are capable of being terrorists, then why risk it and not just deport them all?

Jeez wrote I have nothing against Muslims, I really dont. One of my good friends is a Muslim. But just like every race out there, they create a name for themselves. Its THEIR fault they are seen as possible terrorists. Its not my fault I want to protect my family, and not see them die if something were to go wrong.

Your 'good friend' could possibly be a terrorist and should be deported by your logic.
ISIS created a name for themselves, you are conflating them with all Muslims. I agree that the number of Islamic fundamentalists is a lot higher than the liberal media likes to say, but it is insane to say that all Muslims should be banned from a country because they could possibly be terrorists.

Jeez wrote -they have their own ways of living. They believe in Sharia Law, why would we EVER want that to start becoming a thing.

You do know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Islam, yes? Not all Muslims believe that Sharia Law should be imposed on the world.

Jeez wrote -numbers are expected to rise to double in the next year or two of the refugees = ALOT more money being spent

I feel like a broken record: military funding.

Jeez wrote -The increase in Mosques and Islamic schools - More than 80% of mosques in the United States teach jihad and/or advance the idea of sharia law while many Islamic schools indoctrinate their students to distain non-believers. We cannot afford to have more Islamic institutions that teach hate and incite members to violence.

You can't have a percentage and then and/or in the same sentence.
That could mean that 79% teach about Jihad, which is perfectly fine, and 1% advance Jihad.
Considering the source you took that from verbatim also says that Islam is bad because they're all inbred, it's quite obvious that they're being purposefully misleading.

As more info comes out, go Google "ISIS passports". Now your vetting system that you're so confident in, will no longer work...

Thats right, ISIS may have the ability to print real, authentic passports... Know what that means, ANYONE of those refugees could be ANYONE and we would have zero idea. Shutting down the boarders for the time being doesnt sound so crazy now, does it?

You think that big list of things I gave for the vetting process, which include high level checks by multiple intelligence agencies including the FBI and Department of Homeland security, which will most definitely include lie detector and other psychological tests, will be circumvented by fake passports?

They won't just look at a passport and think, "Hm. This looks real, we'll let them in."

Lol are you serious? Have you seen what Obumer as done? Thats EXACTLY what he would say...

And these arent "fake" passports... They have an authentic passport machine along with probably other real document printing machines. If you really think they will go into that much work for EVERY single refugee, you're high.

Jeez wrote

Nocebo wrote

Jeez wrote

Nocebo wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

Jeez wrote

Nocebo wrote

Nocebo wrote

Scizor wrote Probably the biggest con of America accepting the refugees into America, would be the cost. The refugees who are escaping to here are coming to a completely new world, in which many of them will be unable to provide for themselves. I mean it isn't their fault that a bunch of dicks with a religious agenda blew up their house, but it puts an expensive burden on the US to provide for them.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

$582 Million Yearly to relocate, train, and integrate newly immigrated Refugees into the US, that is a LOT of money. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be spending that much, because the money is doing a lot more good than spending $38 Million on an F-14. However, think of what we could have done with the money. How many/much schools, hospitals, infastructure, could have been improved?

Why couldn't the US take the money it spends on its military and use it for either improving infrastructure, or helping refugees?

The money is there, it's just being put in the wrong place.

Jeez wrote Not true at all. We know we are being killed by those things, all the time. Its not a surprise. I get that this a free country, but the more we bring in that aren't originally from here, the more we are putting ourselves at risk.

His point was the risk, not whether or not we know if they are killing us.
You know that terrorists kill people, just like you know that car crashes kill people.
You still take the risk of driving a car, but for some reason you won't take the risk of letting any Muslims into the country?

Jeez wrote In this day and age, you can never be too careful. There are far too many domestic and international threats that harm this country every single day. Inviting those (possible) threats in with wide open arms is asking for trouble and is a magnet for attacks.

Sacrificing the principle that your country is founded on for security is being too careful.
You are scared of the terrorists who have killed just 3,380 Americans since 2001, including the deaths on 9/11, but are willing to deny safety to the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing ISIS just in case a couple of terrorists slip in with them?

Have you actually looked at the vetting process America uses to decide whether or not they let a refugee in?
It takes, on average, 18 - 24 months for a refugee to gain admittance to the US.
They must go through multiple high level security checks done by top intelligence agencies, including the FBI, a medical and biometric screening process,
an interview with the Department of Homeland Security, and a 'Cultural Orientation' program which includes videos on housing, education, employment, and hygiene.
They are not stood on the coast waiting for rafts to wash up, handing them a leaflet and directing them to the nearest job center.

Jeez wrote Look at Paris, thought they were doing the right thing, all of the sudden they got blind sided by their new "friends thats just needed some help" for no apparent reason. Lock those boarders, seal us in, seal everything our and let stuff work out. Then things can continue.

France knew that some of the refugees they were letting in could be terrorists. They accepted that fact and did not cower in fear like you and Donald Trump want to do.
He talks about 'Making America Great Again'. What is great about hiding behind a wall, turning your back on the principles the US was founded on, and lumping all Muslims into the group of 'potential terrorists.'
This is cowardly, offensive and stupid behavior which should not be being espoused by a front runner in the presidential race for one of the most powerful countries on the planet.

Jeez wrote That is not true, actually. I've read many articles on it and talked to quite a few members in the military that will disagree with that process. Its a PROVEN fact that over 25% of all Syrians have some sort of ties to terrorism (whether they are anywhere close to react is another story).

I don't believe that it's a 'proven fact' that 25% of Syrians have ties to terrorist groups [depending on your definition of 'ties'] and I'll need to see a source before I do.
But let's say you're right, and let's even bump it up to 50%.
So what? If they have ties to terrorism the vetting process will see it [because apparently it's a proven fact] and they won't be allowed in.
Link me to these articles and tell me why I should believe your second hand account of military members saying it's not good enough, and then tell me why I should believe them and take their judgement as truth.

Jeez wrote The whole 'getting on their side thing to keep us safe' is BS too. Think about it, how many people have ILLEGALLY obtained a gun in the US to cause harm? (Yes, not only Muslims can do terrorstic acts, I know that...). Even by trying to get on their side, are they gonna love us and give us love? No, they couldnt give a single crap about that. If they get here, they WILL cause damage whether we give them the best living or not. So, why welcome them?

This is the point though, not all Muslims want to hurt the US. You are basically saying that just because they are Muslim if we let them in they are going to shoot people. Do you not realize how absolutely insane that sounds? Just because they are Muslim doesn't mean that they hate the US and want to kill people.

Jeez wrote Little flash back. (this was back before 9/11) I live just south of Minneapolis, MN. We have one of the busiest airports in the country. Along with that, we have a very high ranking training facility in Eagan, MN, which is about 8 minutes south east of the airport. Prior to 9/11, one of the pilots that actually took control of the plane, trained in Eagan. There was someone (dont remember who at the facility) had suspicion of said pilot, but decided to let it slide. After 9/11, during the investigation, they went thru that mans laptop and found ALL the plans. Also, this laptop was left at the facility for weeks months prior...

Well that was pointless.
It's well known that the US has upped its game in terms of security since 9/11 because of 9/11.
That's like saying that a person from the revolutionary war got killed by a knife because he didn't have time to reload his musket and proves that knives are more dangerous than guns, so the US shouldn't ban guns.
That's how much sense your point makes.

Jeez wrote My point is here is that we are too weak to stop attacks. We are too nice to people, and that is a HUGE hole in the system. I am sure a lot of you stopped reading the articles after "Trump wants to ban Muslims" which is total BS. He wants to ban Muslims UNTIL, and I quote, "the idiot figure out what the hell is going on". Then the boarders will be opened once again. Its called looking out of the country before helping others.

Too nice? You call drone striking innocent people and destabilizing entire regions of the planet is the US being 'too nice' ?
I know what Donald Trump is saying and he is still being stupid. This problem isn't going to be solved in the next 4 weeks. If the US bans Muslims from entering now it is likely that it could be 10, 15, 20 years before the problem is 'solved.' Considering it has already been 14 years since the US and its allies started the 'War on Terror' and terrorism has done nothing but increase all around the world.

Jeez wrote Not to mention why are we giving these random people houses, lives, food, money, insurance, everything when 1 and 50,000 vets are homeless. Priorities are elsewhere and THAT is why Trump is the only person to flip this country the right way up

I agree, let's take that money that is being overspent on the military and spend it on homes for both the veterans and the refugees.

My post about the guy in Eagan was just to point out facts that we miss stuff, we dont look into them. ANY refugee can act as an innocent member and cause havoc AFTER the fact.

Nocebo wrote ...already been 14 years since the US and its allies started the 'War on Terror' and terrorism has done nothing but increase all around the world.

That should answer you question on why we SHOULDNT allow them in right there. We started a War on Terror, nothing has gotten better, in fact its gotten worse. So why take that chance (even if it was the French, or Cubans, or Asians, or Russians is irrelevant). The point is, is that keeping our doors open, even if 100% of them are not here to cause harm, thats not always gonna stay like that. What about past attacks besides 9/11? More than likely, that person(s) came to the US for legit reasons. Only AFTER that, they decide to radicalize and do damage.

You missed the entire point about the vetting process. The point is that the US doesn't miss things any more. That people can't just 'pose as innocent people.'
If you're worried about people being radicalized once they have already gained citizenship then why aren't you advocating for the deportation of every single Muslim currently in the United States, whether they were born there or not?

You want to build a wall [physical or otherwise] around the US, wait for the rest of the world to destroy the monster that you helped to create, and then open yourselves up again, all the while espousing that you are the greatest country on Earth, land of the free and home of the brave?

Jeez wrote Cant hide? Sure they can.. If the California shooters just last week couldnt 'hide', how did they not get caught before hand?

We're talking about the refugees. They weren't refugees.

Jeez wrote Being brave has nothing to do with it, its about protecting what we already have.. Did I EVER say anything about deporting those already in here? No, but when those people are being watched more intensely, why add more to the mix that could possibly go wrong.

No, but you did say: "More than likely, that person(s) came to the US for legit reasons. Only AFTER that, they decide to radicalize and do damage."
That is exactly the same as saying "Any Muslim currently in the US could be a terrorist."
So why are you saying that we should keep out "All Muslims not in the US because they could be terrorists." but aren't saying the same about deporting Muslims in the US now?
You say, 'Why risk it?' well why don't you take that logic to its conclusion. If all Muslims in the US are capable of being terrorists, then why risk it and not just deport them all?

Jeez wrote I have nothing against Muslims, I really dont. One of my good friends is a Muslim. But just like every race out there, they create a name for themselves. Its THEIR fault they are seen as possible terrorists. Its not my fault I want to protect my family, and not see them die if something were to go wrong.

Your 'good friend' could possibly be a terrorist and should be deported by your logic.
ISIS created a name for themselves, you are conflating them with all Muslims. I agree that the number of Islamic fundamentalists is a lot higher than the liberal media likes to say, but it is insane to say that all Muslims should be banned from a country because they could possibly be terrorists.

Jeez wrote -they have their own ways of living. They believe in Sharia Law, why would we EVER want that to start becoming a thing.

You do know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Islam, yes? Not all Muslims believe that Sharia Law should be imposed on the world.

Jeez wrote -numbers are expected to rise to double in the next year or two of the refugees = ALOT more money being spent

I feel like a broken record: military funding.

Jeez wrote -The increase in Mosques and Islamic schools - More than 80% of mosques in the United States teach jihad and/or advance the idea of sharia law while many Islamic schools indoctrinate their students to distain non-believers. We cannot afford to have more Islamic institutions that teach hate and incite members to violence.

You can't have a percentage and then and/or in the same sentence.
That could mean that 79% teach about Jihad, which is perfectly fine, and 1% advance Jihad.
Considering the source you took that from verbatim also says that Islam is bad because they're all inbred, it's quite obvious that they're being purposefully misleading.

As more info comes out, go Google "ISIS passports". Now your vetting system that you're so confident in, will no longer work...

Thats right, ISIS may have the ability to print real, authentic passports... Know what that means, ANYONE of those refugees could be ANYONE and we would have zero idea. Shutting down the boarders for the time being doesnt sound so crazy now, does it?

You think that big list of things I gave for the vetting process, which include high level checks by multiple intelligence agencies including the FBI and Department of Homeland security, which will most definitely include lie detector and other psychological tests, will be circumvented by fake passports?

They won't just look at a passport and think, "Hm. This looks real, we'll let them in."

Lol are you serious? Have you seen what Obumer as done? Thats EXACTLY what he would say...

And these arent "fake" passports... They have an authentic passport machine along with probably other real document printing machines. If you really think they will go into that much work for EVERY single refugee, you're high.

With the amount of money the US spends on its military and intelligence agencies, do you really think that they couldn't go into that much detail on every single refugee, even with the numbers being bumped up to 10,000?

Anyway, I think the vetting process topic is getting a little tired. So I won't be talking about it any more, feel free to respond to that point though.

Besides, my original point does not rely on the veracity of the US' vetting process.

Sacrificing the principle that your country is founded on for security is being too careful.
You are scared of the terrorists who have killed just 3,380 Americans since 2001, including the deaths on 9/11, but are willing to deny safety to the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing ISIS just in case a couple of terrorists slip in with them?

If the US doesn't want to help these people then that's fine, they can come and live in my country, which has easily accessible healthcare and a police force which knows how to respond to terrorist threats.
I won't let myself become so scared of terrorism that I am willing to turn my back on thousands of innocent people and say that my life is more important than theirs.

That's a bit extreme, you can't stop that many people xD

Trumps an idiot. Like why is he running for prez

They can go back to wherever they came from #Trump