Attempt to demonize Trump backfires gloriously on MSNBC host

a reply to: vjr1113

Perhaps you lack basic English comprehension. Because he never said to "Ban muslims"

He said to halt Syrian refugees until they can be vetted properly.

Banning muslims is a broad term that you use foolishly. That would mean banning existing people here who are muslims as well, and THAT was never said.

But go on living in your indoctrinated fantasy world. Don't let simple facts stop you.

a reply to: poncho1982

call it what you will i dont think syrian refugees are a threat to the US security. there are already laws and background checks in place. im not buying into the media, if muslim refugees werent a threat after 9/11, why would syrian refugees be more of a threat? because theyre from syria?

Do you even know whats going on in Europe right now? Try Google. Trump needs to explain to Merkel what common sense is. Germany is on the brink because of her crazy policies re muslim illegal immigration. Trump's answer is simple logic - and a very good idea. a reply to: vjr1113

Ever heard of ISIS?
ISIS are based in Syria. Thousands of ISIS terrorists have already slipped into Europe via the migrant invasion - as confirmed officially by EU security operatives. You were saying? a reply to: vjr1113

a reply to: jimbo999

yea and europe is not the US, isis is just islamic terrorism and has existed a lot longer than isis. germany's problems arent our problems, we have different laws and a different national defense. why didnt we reject a certain group of muslim refugees after 9/11? because there was no threat. and if the threat to us was real, we would have halted refugee immigration years ago. this seems more like media fear tactics.

I choked on my cigarette.

Her reaction was PRICELESS. I hope their viewership enjoyed that as much as I did.

Just to add to the conversation, the fact that the klan is being brought to public attention may not be such a bad thing. It' sucks for Trump though. I'm only speculating here, but it could raise more questions as to who else has ties to the klan and societies of the like. Maybe Trump will mention Skull and Cross Bones in one of his speeches just to get the media hounds off his back.

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: LostThePlot


i understand the terrorist problem, what i am against is solutions that make no sense.

Tell me your solution to the problem then....i am waiting.

a reply to: torok67

what problem? germany's problem? its none of my business. whats my solution for islamic extremism? secularisation

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: TheBulk
And I believe it's this perception by left wingers/liberals that leads them to fervently defend Islam like zealots. You'll never hear a left winger accuse someone of Christianphobia for example (since they perceive Christians as white and their ever shifting standards don't include those people).

Proper liberals dont defend islam..no more than they would defend any other religion anyhow.

progressives will, and will do so while trying to insist islam is a skintone that needs protection and sympathy.
Progressives aren't liberal. they are radical fringe leftists trying to bring back segregation disguised as social "justice" (instead of individual justice).

well said. I too tire of all these Regressive Leftist apologizing for an achaic and brutal religious belief system that has us all in its crosshairs. How do these people actually justify defending rape, pedophilia, stoning to death of women, and beheading people for the sake of a book written by an 8th century warlord from Arabia? It seems these days that the new "Left" have veered into dangerously totalitarian territory, whilst they loudly denounce everyone else as right wing extemeists and racists. Ironically, they are the ones guilty of their own accusations.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: jimbo999

yea and europe is not the US, isis is just islamic terrorism and has existed a lot longer than isis. germany's problems arent our problems, we have different laws and a different national defense. why didnt we reject a certain group of muslim refugees after 9/11? because there was no threat. and if the threat to us was real, we would have halted refugee immigration years ago. this seems more like media fear tactics.

There was no threat? Of course there was. Don't you think perhaps 9/11 might have clued people onto that? ISIS announced last year that they are planning on slipping in thousands of their people into the West VIA the "refugee crisis". This is a new tactic which logically requires a new response. Germany should be your concern: because if Germany falls, so does Europe - and Europe is the US's greatest ally on this planet.

a reply to: jimbo999

the point is we didnt need any laws stopping muslims refugees after 9/11, sure we had increased security but has security and national defense decreased since 9/11? no, they have in fact gotten better. im not afraid of threats from ISIS, north korea or any other boogie man the media gives us.

germany are big boys. should we send troops to protect their borders? should we start building bases all over europe? good luck selling that to anyone.

i or anyone on this forum, or Trump is more qualified to school the US national defence agencies.

its so obvious Trump is using fear tactics then offering vague, undetailed solutions, its disgusting so many people are buying it.

ill tell you what, ill extend an olive branch for the sake argument. you find me the quotes or statements from all of the US national defense agencies that say we need to halt the immigration of syrian refugees because theyre an immediate threat to out national security, and ill reconsider. im not taking the media's word, and im certaintly not taking Trumps. He's not an expert, he's not in charge of any national agency and he's certaintly not qualified.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: SlapMonkey

its one thing to say we need better immigration screening but id never say x nationality, race, religious group isnt allowed to immigrate. like i said we didnt have to reject muslims from entering the country after 9/11, at a time when we expected another attack. ill just have to disagree with you.

That's fine if you disagree, I would just ask you to research and understand the difference between immigrating and seeking refugee status, as they're not the same thing nor are they the same process. Immigrating into the U.S. is a much more rigorous process, and done by people who, generally speaking, want to assimilate into our culture. Refugees don't necessarily bring that mentality with them--they are just trying to get away from war and terrible living conditions.

It's a difference worth noting, and I purposefully differentiate between the two when I discuss this issue.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

yea i already have looked up refugee laws and policies. ill have to echo my above post. the second someone of authority says refugees are an immediate threat to OUR national secutity and we need Trumps proposal, ill change my mind. im not buying fear mongering by the media or a single politician.

i have trust our laws and national defense is better than germany's and they are the people we should be listening to, not a politician.

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: vjr1113
yea the black guy thinks we should stop all the racism, then Trump says ban muslims. you dont need msnbc to tell you how crazy trump is, he will tell you himself/

Look at the end of the day not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims. .

Not all white guys are serial killers, but most serial killers are white guys.

Not all gun owners conduct mass shootings in America, but all mass shootings in America are conducted by gun owners.

Not all men are rapists, but most rapists are men..

Not all White men are members of the KKK, but most KKK members are white?

....I am not sure policy deriving from Trump logic will be a good thing for America..

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: SlapMonkey

yea i already have looked up refugee laws and policies. ill have to echo my above post. the second someone of authority says refugees are an immediate threat to OUR national secutity and we need Trumps proposal, ill change my mind. im not buying fear mongering by the media or a single politician.

i have trust our laws and national defense is better than germany's and they are the people we should be listening to, not a politician.

I don't think that you're paying attention, then, because the FBI director has flat out said that we don't have enough information in our system to properly vet Syrian refugees.

You can have blind faith in our national defense and our laws all that you want, but laws don't stop criminals, and bad people slip through our national defenses all the time.

a reply to: vjr1113

The problem is with the undocumented Financial Migrants(most are not war refugees) with no papers to prove who or where they come from. The background checks you mentioned above isnt applicable to 90% of migrants rushing from the ME

You cant just let them flow in, no matter where they claim to be from or how white they are/arent.

"Wolves in sheeps clothing", "Trojan Horse", do these not even get considered by you? What better tactic this is to destabilize European economies and morale? Wouldnt this be easier for an enemy to kick into effect instead of ground war which they are not able to stand against?

originally posted by: Indigo5
Not all white guys are serial killers, but most serial killers are white guys.

Right, so if the world is in the grips of overt mass shootings conducted by lots of white guys, it'd make sense to look more closely at white guys if there is a large group of them trying to obtain refugee status in your country.

Not all gun owners conduct mass shootings in America, but all mass shootings in America are conducted by gun owners.

Actually, they're often guns obtained either illegally or taken from family members. So, I don't know what your definition of "gun owner" is, but I don't lump those who steal guns or purchase them illegally into the same group as legal gun owners.

But yes, it would make sense to look at gun owners with a jaundiced eye if a mass shooting occurs. It only makes sense.

Not all men are rapists, but most rapists are men..

Right, because it's a statistically provable number, and being such, I will be sure that my daughter knows what rape is and hopefully teach her the skills to protect herself as much as possible from it.

And same as with my other comments, if there were mass rapes happening in the world (and they have happened recently), it'd make sense to look at those responsible (and others like them with similar ideology or cultural upbringing) with concern to be skeptical about letting them into your country.

Not all White men are members of the KKK, but most KKK members are white?

Same logic as above applies here.

....I am not sure policy deriving from Trump logic will be a good thing for America..

Actually, if you're purely looking at it through logical eyes and removing the messenger from the equation, it makes sense to halt giving refugee status to people who have proven to be infiltrated by those wishing to do harm until we can better vet them and keep our citizens safe.

Not all "Trump logic" is truly logical, but that doesn't negate the logic that is sound, just because Trump said it.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

i think its always been US policy that a refugee must be eligible to enter the US, obviously refugees that cant be verified to be a threat cant be eligible. im not saying refugee laws shouldnt exist. im not for the rejection of refugees that are eligible and confirmed to not be a threat. i can agree to that, there are a large number of women and children that i wouldnt consider a threat if they have no prior flags of being threats.

here's the process.

ive read a lot of the statements made by most governors and they all seem to not want any refugees of any kind, even if theyre confirmed for being non-threatening. correct me if im wrong.


furthermore a database is in place that tracks refugees without spying on them more than you or me. and im completely aware that NSA knows everything we do digitally. should he have stricter refugee laws or have refugee eligibility conditions reformed? whole other topic.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: SlapMonkey

yea i already have looked up refugee laws and policies. ill have to echo my above post. the second someone of authority says refugees are an immediate threat to OUR national secutity and we need Trumps proposal, ill change my mind. im not buying fear mongering by the media or a single politician.

i have trust our laws and national defense is better than germany's and they are the people we should be listening to, not a politician.

I don't think that you're paying attention, then, because the FBI director has flat out said that we don't have enough information in our system to properly vet Syrian refugees.

"If someone has never made a ripple in the pond"...listen to him carefully...

He is saying that they do not have enough information in their database to screen out with certainty terrorists, but that also goes for local homegrowns as well.

Does the FBI want more surveillance freedom? Of course..

At what point do we acknowledge that we can't predict every nut-job and weigh that against how much surveillance freedom we want to give to the FBI?