Attempt to demonize Trump backfires gloriously on MSNBC host

a reply to: vjr1113

I think that you're missing my point, though. I want a stricter vetting process, but you can only use available information for vetting individuals. If there is not enough information from which to vet someone, we should err on the side of caution and not let them in, especially en masse. But if we do, I agree that we should do a better job tracking them.

I just don't trust the government to be able to keep track of people, let alone vet them properly before letting them in.

The Homeland Security Department has lost track of more than 1 million people who it knows arrived in the U.S. but who it cannot prove left the country, according to an audit Tuesday that also found the department probably won’t meet its own goals for deploying an entry-exit system.

...

This is a few years old, but is a problem with government management of things that will never end.

a reply to: Indigo5

No one thinks that we can predict every nut job, but refugees are not citizens, and if we're letting them into our country based basically on good faith that they're here to do no harm, they should be told up front that they will be tracked and monitored in a more strict and invasive way. If they don't like that, they don't need to seek refuge in America.

It sounds harsh, but it's our government's main job to protect its citizens, not play charity to the rest of the world. That's a secondary role that we've decided we should do, and it's morally good to do so, but not at the expense of the safety of those who will be taxed with supporting these incoming individuals.

And to be fair and accurate to me, I've stated many times that the reason that we need a better vetting process is precisely because those coming from the ME are coming from countries that keep relatively terrible records on their citizens who are criminals--that doesn't mean that we should just welcome them with open arms and hope for the best.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

But we are also residents of planet earth and even if we can lock down they're still out in the world wanting to turn every square inch of the planet into Afganistan.

This is Jihad. There's only passion and blind dedication to religion. There's no let's sit down and talk this over. It's like trying to convince a dog to be a cat.

Nothing short of the second coming is going to affect the situation .
Osama loved Afghanistan. He loved Pakistan even though they wouldn't fully commit to sharia law. A fortune of his families money was poured into the extremists movement and it's not going away with a treaty or a cease fire or a cup of coffee.
I nor any of us can pretend we have a solution to Isis or al Qaida or the Taliban or what ever guise they choose to mobilize under. All we can do is watch.

a reply to: vjr1113

I don't know..There's a little blonde with a Brooklyn accent who comes into my store to pay a bill. She covers her head before she goes out. She doesn't wear a burka but she also doesn't go out unescorted. . I really only know her from the store but she could just be a chick in a kerchief.
You don't know from looks or language.

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: Raggedyman

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/

What race or country do muslims come from, if you don't mind me asking

its about prejudice against a minority

But it's still not racism. You progressive types looooove to play semantics when it suits your agenda.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: angryhulk

why dont we ban everyone just in case anything bad happens? its flawed logic, its stupid and Trump speaks loudly but he's not very bright. unfortunately the loudest points he makes happen to be the stupidest and most harmful.

Why do we have recalls of millions of items food products and automobile parts like brake liners or pedals just because a few items are toxic or faulty?

originally posted by: DanteMustDie

I choked on my cigarette.

That might be lung cancer, you better get that checked.

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/

Right on !

'Cause people are born religious!

Oh for crying outl loud.

MSNBC is prolly hiring.

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/

Since when was Muslim a race?

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: LostThePlot

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/

Here's a video that may help you understand the problem with the Muslim population.Good luck.

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

So what is your solution that is so obvious to you? What is your solution that is obviously better than Trumps?

a reply to: angryhulk

Totally agree and wish more would as its a human response, following this crazy election... one must ask questions of these ideal humans unaffected by reality, a stigma these news anchors project of us with an acceptance to all religions and skin colors... "I dislike all races and religions equally" none of them raise the idea of revealed religion and its falsehood affects on America and nobody seems to ask Trump of his faith or ideals in mass media ... he would get my vote no matter what because hes a change from the status quo and either protected by an immense force or this is a massive staged event on the GOPs to give Hillary the house and thats my premonition so far as its a little hard to believe the possibility of challenging the CIA & Industrial military complex backed Bush Clinton oligarchs, where after Trump would have them all tried for crimes of epic proportions which they are so guilty of... you can chuck congress in there also.

Stupid libral Commies! lol

a reply to: SlapMonkey

stricter vetting process would be fine, the current laws say if a person is not eligible they cant be let in. so basically we agree here. honestly i want specifics, where are the flaws in our system and what specific improvements must be made? im not buying a promise from anyone that can claim to be able to solve the apparent flaws without providing specifics. i hear a lot of problems being addressed and the only solution i hear is not to let any refugees even if they're eligible by our system, meanwhile there are no specific solutions being made to fix the system. if there are no detailed solutions proposed now, trusting any politician to figure it out eventually, maybe years from now, is faith.

a reply to: Deistworld

time.com...

Does no one remember the last 8 years?

OMG, its like the freaking pod people.

He endorsed her SEVERAL TIMES. I think she was a guest at his wedding....!?

He is as part of the establis.......NM

Trump 2016 all the way. Peoples champion.....

originally posted by: neo96

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/

Right on !

'Cause people are born religious!

Oh for crying outl loud.

MSNBC is prolly hiring.

neo you just proved that even if we stopped everyone from coming into the country, homegrown terrorist would pop up. which is a much more realistic threat that syriam refugees because i can account for at least one homegrown terrorist incident that has happened recently, and no recent syrian refugee terrorist incidents.

even if we ban all refugees from everywhere, forever, would that solve the problem of islamist extremism? no way in hell

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

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/

Since when was Muslim a race?

go back and read my posts, im not retyping everything ive already addresses for anyone new that lazily skips thru pages and expect a response.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: SlapMonkey

stricter vetting process would be fine, the current laws say if a person is not eligible they cant be let in. so basically we agree here. honestly i want specifics, where are the flaws in our system and what specific improvements must be made? im not buying a promise from anyone that can claim to be able to solve the apparent flaws without providing specifics. i hear a lot of problems being addressed and the only solution i hear is not to let any refugees even if they're eligible by our system, meanwhile there are no specific solutions being made to fix the system. if there are no detailed solutions proposed now, trusting any politician to figure it out eventually, maybe years from now, is faith.

The major flaw in the system is that it relies on data from a database that generally has no data (as far as Syrians go, at least). That's the main problem, and it nullifies claims of eligibility because the "eligible" status is based mostly on a lack of information more than a relatively good assurance that the person is benign and safe based off of an abundance of information.

Sometimes the fix must be to stop the inflow of people from a country where we cannot obtain enough information on them to intelligently assess their threat status to our own citizens and country. It may sound harsh and inhumane, but if it ends up keeping more people safe in our country, that's one of the main roles of government--to provide for the general welfare.

Our welfare is more important than putting lives at possible risk because we default to saying someone is eligible for refugee status simply because we have no information on them. That's not a good plan. At all.

And you must keep in mind that politicians are the only ones authorized to figure out the solution--that's why they run the government. You keep claiming that we shouldn't rely on politicians for the solution...then who is going to create it? It's their job to run the government and create the systems and policies. Why you keep claiming that we shouldn't rely on politicians for the answer is absolutely confusing, because they're the only ones allowed to implement a solution.

Plus, the president is fully authorized to stop the inflow of "aliens" for any reason they deem fit, so it's not like Trump's (and other politicians actually in office) idea is illegal--it's expressly provided for.

originally posted by: jimbo999
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

Google is always better than finding out for yourself.

It allows you to ignore any facts you don't like.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: vjr1113

I don't know..There's a little blonde with a Brooklyn accent who comes into my store to pay a bill. She covers her head before she goes out. She doesn't wear a burka but she also doesn't go out unescorted. . I really only know her from the store but she could just be a chick in a kerchief.
You don't know from looks or language.

She could be an orthodox Jew.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: angryhulk

why dont we ban everyone just in case anything bad happens? its flawed logic, its stupid and Trump speaks loudly but he's not very bright. unfortunately the loudest points he makes happen to be the stupidest and most harmful.

Why do we have recalls of millions of items food products and automobile parts like brake liners or pedals just because a few items are toxic or faulty?

So the companies don't get sued into bankruptcy. It has nothing to do with risk.