Defiantly not the first idiotic president we have had. Look back at over 50% in a realistic US History course. America is full of corruption and not the best country to be in. All politicians care about is getting their name out there and don't care how they do it. I live in the Bible Belt of Tennessee. Appalachia or the backwards parts of America you could say. This guy definitely has our votes here bcause there are so many people who are uneducated on matters of anything. Personally. Between him and Clinton, I am not voting in this election. If anyone believes in curses, every president except for 2 voted on a year divisible by 20 has been assassinated. And this is a very very very big reason why I believe it will happen in 2020.

THQ wrote Defiantly not the first idiotic president we have had. Look back at over 50% in a realistic US History course. America is full of corruption and not the best country to be in. All politicians care about is getting their name out there and don't care how they do it. I live in the Bible Belt of Tennessee. Appalachia or the backwards parts of America you could say. This guy definitely has our votes here bcause there are so many people who are uneducated on matters of anything. Personally. Between him and Clinton, I am not voting in this election. If anyone believes in curses, every president except for 2 voted on a year divisible by 20 has been assassinated. And this is a very very very big reason why I believe it will happen in 2020.

That's actually interesting, but I think it's more of a coincidence than a conspiracy, or a guarantee.

Its ashame this is what has to happen in order to prevent terrorist attacks. I understand that not all muslims are terrorists. But i dont recall a white person in 9/11 or the Boston bombing. However for all the conspirators about 9/11 disreguard it

Section187 wrote Its ashame this is what has to happen in order to prevent terrorist attacks. I understand that not all muslims are terrorists. But i dont recall a white person in 9/11 or the Boston bombing. However for all the conspirators about 9/11 disreguard it

Double the amount of people have been killed by white supremacists, anti-government advocates, and other non-muslim extremists in terror attacks compared to Islam inspired attacks.
This isn't even mentioning the 5,147 attacks on abortion clinics since 1977 by Christian extremists.
But we're not banning White people, anti-government people, Christians, Jews, Latino's, Blacks, or any other of the multitude of groups responsible for terrorist attacks in America.

This isn't the solution to stopping terrorist attacks, this is the solution to ISIS' marketing team missing deadlines.
The statement 'America hates all Muslims' is slowly becoming more realistic and they love it.

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.

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).

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?

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

[hide/]

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?

[hide/]

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

Besides that,

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

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

-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.

Its not JUST the attacks that could happen. The list goes on

EDIT: Crap.. Guess I dont remember the 'hide' command anymore...

-Deano wrote Trump is such a buffoon, it's unreal.

A tiny, minute fraction of Muslims are anything to do with ISIS. Better ban the entirety of them.

That's like banning people based on their preference for liking cheese just because one serial killer said he liked cheese.

Unbelievably stupid. I don't get how he has such a strong foothold. I worry for the US.

Your post is incredibly stupid, let's say that tiny fraction of Muslims were hidden amongst the legitimate people trying to seek refuge in the U.S. And the U.S made a mistakes and some of the people let into the country were terrorists, how would you feel if they bombed and killed thousands of innocent people including children. Yes, they don't have anywhere to go and yes there are legitimate Muslims who do not wish to destroy or terorise the west but it's better to be safe than sorry for the sake of the U.S and innocent children and women and men.