Also this is an exaggeration at best and a lie at face value. Immigration was proposed to be halted until a proper vetting process can be done, not banning a religion from this country.
It's a slippery slope when taking extreme measures in the name of patriotism and national security. Whats next, taking all our guns in the name of national security?
Until a vetting process or procedure was established, like Regan said trust but verify current belief is to just trust and how has that worked in Paris, Brussels, Germany etc?
You can not compare giving non citizens the same rights as citizens to taking rights away from citizens in this country.
While this wasn't even directed towards you, I guess I'll ask you instead to elaborate. BTW, a yes/no format question cannot be an exaggeration or bold faced lie. I didn't imply/state anything. I asked for a statement to be clarified. A post mentions "banning all muslims and building a wall" and the next post refers to the topic as "patriotism and national security" Building a wall can easily be linked to national security, so I was asking if the poster was actually making the reference that "banning all muslims" is equal to "patriotism" in his eyes. Sorry for the many quotes, just breaking down what was actually said for those lacking certain reading comprehension skills. I myself was against mass intake of syrian refugees. I am pro tightening down our borders. What I am NOT against, is people equating other religions/ethnicities to being detrimental to our country. Radical people are what is detrimental to our country. Radical conservatives, radical liberals, radical muslims, radical christians, radical race baiters, radical _______. Level headed, rational people are what is now missing in our country. It's easier to sensationalize or make blanket statements than to actually discuss topics lending merit to the valid points on both sides.
#3 would be to not sell yourself out like a *****. Not delusional. How many issues do you actually agree on with Trump? How many of those do you actually think he will try to get implemented? And the big question. How many of those will change by election day?
There is no procedure or process that can say with 100% that a person doesn't have bad intents when coming to this country. Are they all banned forever then?
My big problem with Trump is that he makes many grandiose statements of things that will happen once he's in office without any specifics on how to back it up. That and I think he's a liberal posing as a Republican to get elected.
Anyone who thinks the country/government can be fixed without first having a major economic or monetary disaster, or collapse of government is delusional. We are so far deep in the bowels of corruption and waste, none of this minute banter even compares to the bigger picture. We the people are stuck arguing which turd sandwich will taste better. Honestly.
That is like saying there is no way to prevent 100% of murders so why have laws to try. This isn't vetting somebody from France, or Canada where they have databases and histories on the people. There is little information to be had on most of them and with the volume of people the ability for somebody who wants to do harm to Americans to blend and slip in with others is very likely. Besides there is no reason we have to bring them here in the first place. We are more than capable to supply them aid and assistance across the ocean so they can return to their homeland.
Maybe we cut off all foreign aid and stop all immigration, then deport anyone here illegally. I would actually support that over anything else to be honest. I've never been fond of overpopulation anyway.
One thing I'd like to point out about all recent candidates for the past 20 years on both sides, they've all either been a tad crazy or hard line turds with no charm. If you look back Reagan was the last president who actually had a charm, a liking, a connection with the American people. He was not only a tremendous speaker but he was exactly what he was perceived to be. Perception is reality and even if there were a few things he did that people didn't agree with, he didn't beat around the bush, he didn't deceive, and he was able to joke about himself. We need someone like that again, to rebuild the trust between government and the people.
Whitewater. Travel gate. Private servers. White House property gone missing. A shell foundation. Benghazi. Wall Street millions for speeches. Fired from employment for immorality. Incessant flipping. And the list goes on and on. I try to take a middle of the isle approach. But honestly, if you support Hillary, you are either just uninformed or you just don't give a crap. She is the epitome of dirty politics and big money corruption on a global scale. There is no reasonable defense for her.
Sorry, I wasn't ignoring this thread I've just been out in the field all day. This post /question made me laugh, I don't know if you're genuinely that dense or just being intentionally obtuse. First off the post I quoted said banning all muslims, that claim is false...Trump only suggested stopping unknown muslims from immigrating to the US. That is not the same thing as "banning all muslims". What Trump suggested was just halting acceptance of new muslim immigrants who had no history and who we had/have no way to verify their level of threat. That's no different than locking the door to your house when you leave because you don't have any way to tell who may try to get in or what they may do. It's a question of security and a reasonable one. In turn, being sensitive about the well being of the country, national security and it's rightful citizenry is patriotic. This applies equally to the wall on the southern border...we have immigration laws and borders for a reason just like we have law and order and an appetite for both, for a reason. An environment lacking those is nothing but anarchy and chaos.
Nice straw man, no comparison there. Halting immigration from a group of any kind that has proven to be a threat and impossible to properly vet or screen in order to mitigate or quantify their level of threat is not taking an extreme measure, it's favoring caution and common sense over bleeding heart illogical ignorance. How many times do muslims have to be allowed to murder the hell out of us stupid infidels before taking reasonable precautions is justifiable?
