How YOU should act now.

[hadit]

It seems to be the only way the GOP can win...

Playing by the rules and winning the battles that really count. In this case, the EC instead of the popular vote that's concentrated in a few fever swamps.

 

[Slade3200]

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and do not intend to be condescending... Chicago has the highest crime rate in the US. Stats show that poor black males are involved in the majority of violent crime. Per your views do you find it acceptable for myself as the owner of an airline to not allow black individuals with Chicago addresses in a specific zip codes with high crime to fly on my airline? My reasoning would be to protect the safety of my other clients...

I believe I've been more than crystal clear of my position. Without much of a response as to why we should allow ourselves to be vulnerable to areas of known terrorist threats. If you would rather do the humanitarian deed with no concern for the lives of those in this country, I'm not going to change your view. I explained the kind of ideology we are facing and that determination behind their view of those who don't share in their faith. I'm not going to be supportive of a policy I feel puts our nation at greater risk - never, no matter how you try to justify that risk.

Immigaration is a core element of our country, it was how we were founded and how you and I came to be here. We were just lucky but what makes us deserve to be an American any more than anybody else? I realize this is a separate discussion so we don't need to dive into it. But I would like an answer about the Chicago scenario that I asked you about in my last post... if you would indulge me.

Also, during your time in the service, did you ever do humanitarian aid? Work with or interact with refugees or people who were fleeing for their lives? If so, what was that experience like?

I never said that I opposed people of muslim faith entering this country did I? Now you're are moving the discussion to do a play on words because you don't happen to like my particular position. My reply to your post is this: Can you in fact provide for me proof where the United States indeed had an open door policy for Japanese immigrants from the empire of the sun, who wanted to come here during World War II? This would bring more credibility to your argument than this "Immigration is a core element of our country" kind of response. .

Now unlike that war, as I have said, we are engaged with an enemy with no uniform, through an ideology that also is influential of women and children. Judging by your responses, you really don't appear to care that much about who enters our borders at all.

Your Chicago senecio also has nothing to do with the discussion of a wide open border policy VS. preventing foreign immigrants from known terrorist regions that have hostile intentions, seeking an open opportunity into our country. Based on all your responses, are you suggesting that nations are not allowed to, nor are they involved in, making decisions to enforce their own borders?

My Chicago analogy goes right to the heart of the argument. I wasn't suggesting banning all poor black males from entering Indiana or an airline... just the ones from inner city Chicago as they statistically pose a higher crime risk. It is the same line of thinking as u use for your arguement. When you cut through the protection BS you end up with the same kind of profiling and discrimination that we have evolve beyond as a country.. at least I hope we have.

I'm all for improving our vetting system and integrating psychological tests based on sex, age, background and origin etc. but the idea that the US as a world leading superpower and we would refuse to help any of the millions of people that are being slaughtered and driven from their homes, while our allies take in the bulk of them... well that's a sad and cowardly proposition. Not one I'd proudly hold my head up in support of.

We have an airport security system that checks for bottled liquids, as well as sharp objects such as box cutter knives, with random pat downs. It's a tested, as well as proven very effective security system that resulted out of and in response to 9-11. So what possible threat do you think they pose, that wasn't just rendered null and void by my argument? Crime violence is very different argument from an ideology based on hatred towards all those who don't share in their Muslim faith. How many violent acts can you provide proof of occurring out of Chicago, that involved the killing through explosives or other means to target thousands of innocent civilians REGARDLESS of the color of their skin? Are you capable of telling the difference between an isolated killing of an individual, with a well organized plan stemming from an ideological belief?

Now, I would like you to answer my question that was posed to you. This reflects more accurately with regard to the situation we are now being faced with, which is during a time of war. Can you provide me proof to where the United States had an open border policy towards a nation [which could be changed to mean region in our case] that was hostile towards us allowing immigrants from the empire of the sun to become citizens of the United States? Now this is what I consider to be a more valid argument, not "street crime".

To answer your question... I'm not proposing an open border solution. I support reforms to our immigration process including e-verify and better visa tracking. I also support makin our vetting process as secure as possible. Nothing will ever be 100%, that is not a realistic expectation. Neither are your TSA security checks

You keep dodging the point but we don't need to beat a dead horse. The airport/Indiana scenario I posed goes to how far can we protect ourselves against the risk of crime by groups that pose a statistical higher risk. Discriminating against Muslims from Syria is similar to discriminating against black males from Chicago as they both statistically pose a high crime risk. The only difference is that our laws protect poor blacks and all of groups in this country from discrimination. You can make the argument that our laws don't provide the same protections for foreigners but the principle behind the law stays true. That's my point.

 

[Slade3200]

I believe I've been more than crystal clear of my position. Without much of a response as to why we should allow ourselves to be vulnerable to areas of known terrorist threats. If you would rather do the humanitarian deed with no concern for the lives of those in this country, I'm not going to change your view. I explained the kind of ideology we are facing and that determination behind their view of those who don't share in their faith. I'm not going to be supportive of a policy I feel puts our nation at greater risk - never, no matter how you try to justify that risk.

Immigaration is a core element of our country, it was how we were founded and how you and I came to be here. We were just lucky but what makes us deserve to be an American any more than anybody else? I realize this is a separate discussion so we don't need to dive into it. But I would like an answer about the Chicago scenario that I asked you about in my last post... if you would indulge me.

Also, during your time in the service, did you ever do humanitarian aid? Work with or interact with refugees or people who were fleeing for their lives? If so, what was that experience like?

I never said that I opposed people of muslim faith entering this country did I? Now you're are moving the discussion to do a play on words because you don't happen to like my particular position. My reply to your post is this: Can you in fact provide for me proof where the United States indeed had an open door policy for Japanese immigrants from the empire of the sun, who wanted to come here during World War II? This would bring more credibility to your argument than this "Immigration is a core element of our country" kind of response. .

Now unlike that war, as I have said, we are engaged with an enemy with no uniform, through an ideology that also is influential of women and children. Judging by your responses, you really don't appear to care that much about who enters our borders at all.

Your Chicago senecio also has nothing to do with the discussion of a wide open border policy VS. preventing foreign immigrants from known terrorist regions that have hostile intentions, seeking an open opportunity into our country. Based on all your responses, are you suggesting that nations are not allowed to, nor are they involved in, making decisions to enforce their own borders?

My Chicago analogy goes right to the heart of the argument. I wasn't suggesting banning all poor black males from entering Indiana or an airline... just the ones from inner city Chicago as they statistically pose a higher crime risk. It is the same line of thinking as u use for your arguement. When you cut through the protection BS you end up with the same kind of profiling and discrimination that we have evolve beyond as a country.. at least I hope we have.

Now I'm all for improving our vetting system and integrating psychological tests based on sex, age, background and origin etc. but the idea that the US as a world leading superpower and we would refuse to help any of the millions of people that are being slaughtered and driven from their homes, while our allies take in the bulk of them... well that's a sad and cowardly proposition. Not one I'd proudly hold my head up in support of.

Error #1: Helping them doesn't require us to import them into our country.

Error #2: It doesn't matter what our allies do. We aren't required to copy their stupidity.

Error #3: Our allies are reconsidering their policy on refugees.

Error #4: "Courage" isn't a desirable trait of government when its citizens will be taking all the risk.

Slade is probably unfamiliar with humanitarian efforts such as Manna and Chowhound which were used during the war, and allowed the United States to BE engaged in ways that helped those found in occupied hostile areas. Also, where is the case for the United Nations?Should we not allow them to get more involved and engaged militarily in aiding with the need to move those trapped refugees from that region where they are threatened, or is the left admitting the organization is too beurocratic? Looking to the UN to assist the refugees would give the UN relevance to the skeptics of the world, that they are capable to move beyond diplomatic debates and a mere fundraising effort. I still can recall there were are a lot of liberals, and individuals like Slade, who didn't WANT the United States involved in "nation building", yet we are still finding ourselves entangled in the problems of these regions. Only now we are looking to bring those problems over here into this country, while opening ourselves up to those threats that our own airport security is meant to prevent from those travelers wishing to enter our nation from overseas. What valid reason is there to undermine our national security that was in place since 9-11? He is just choosing to be ignorant of those threats that exist and the kind of enemy we are facing, and quite frankly he hasn't validated his argument. There are other options, like humanitarian air drops that I mentioned, which has yet to be used.

How does my difference in opinion translate to me being ignorant. Isn't that the jab to conservatives are always accusing liberals of? Being intolerant of and attacking those that don't agree

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I believe I've been more than crystal clear of my position. Without much of a response as to why we should allow ourselves to be vulnerable to areas of known terrorist threats. If you would rather do the humanitarian deed with no concern for the lives of those in this country, I'm not going to change your view. I explained the kind of ideology we are facing and that determination behind their view of those who don't share in their faith. I'm not going to be supportive of a policy I feel puts our nation at greater risk - never, no matter how you try to justify that risk.

Immigaration is a core element of our country, it was how we were founded and how you and I came to be here. We were just lucky but what makes us deserve to be an American any more than anybody else? I realize this is a separate discussion so we don't need to dive into it. But I would like an answer about the Chicago scenario that I asked you about in my last post... if you would indulge me.

Also, during your time in the service, did you ever do humanitarian aid? Work with or interact with refugees or people who were fleeing for their lives? If so, what was that experience like?

I never said that I opposed people of muslim faith entering this country did I? Now you're are moving the discussion to do a play on words because you don't happen to like my particular position. My reply to your post is this: Can you in fact provide for me proof where the United States indeed had an open door policy for Japanese immigrants from the empire of the sun, who wanted to come here during World War II? This would bring more credibility to your argument than this "Immigration is a core element of our country" kind of response. .

Now unlike that war, as I have said, we are engaged with an enemy with no uniform, through an ideology that also is influential of women and children. Judging by your responses, you really don't appear to care that much about who enters our borders at all.

Your Chicago senecio also has nothing to do with the discussion of a wide open border policy VS. preventing foreign immigrants from known terrorist regions that have hostile intentions, seeking an open opportunity into our country. Based on all your responses, are you suggesting that nations are not allowed to, nor are they involved in, making decisions to enforce their own borders?

My Chicago analogy goes right to the heart of the argument. I wasn't suggesting banning all poor black males from entering Indiana or an airline... just the ones from inner city Chicago as they statistically pose a higher crime risk. It is the same line of thinking as u use for your arguement. When you cut through the protection BS you end up with the same kind of profiling and discrimination that we have evolve beyond as a country.. at least I hope we have.

I'm all for improving our vetting system and integrating psychological tests based on sex, age, background and origin etc. but the idea that the US as a world leading superpower and we would refuse to help any of the millions of people that are being slaughtered and driven from their homes, while our allies take in the bulk of them... well that's a sad and cowardly proposition. Not one I'd proudly hold my head up in support of.

We have an airport security system that checks for bottled liquids, as well as sharp objects such as box cutter knives, with random pat downs. It's a tested, as well as proven very effective security system that resulted out of and in response to 9-11. So what possible threat do you think they pose, that wasn't just rendered null and void by my argument? Crime violence is very different argument from an ideology based on hatred towards all those who don't share in their Muslim faith. How many violent acts can you provide proof of occurring out of Chicago, that involved the killing through explosives or other means to target thousands of innocent civilians REGARDLESS of the color of their skin? Are you capable of telling the difference between an isolated killing of an individual, with a well organized plan stemming from an ideological belief?

Now, I would like you to answer my question that was posed to you. This reflects more accurately with regard to the situation we are now being faced with, which is during a time of war. Can you provide me proof to where the United States had an open border policy towards a nation [which could be changed to mean region in our case] that was hostile towards us allowing immigrants from the empire of the sun to become citizens of the United States? Now this is what I consider to be a more valid argument, not "street crime".

To answer your question... I'm not proposing an open border solution. I support reforms to our immigration process including e-verify and better visa tracking. I also support makin our vetting process as secure as possible. Nothing will ever be 100%, that is not a realistic expectation. Neither are your TSA security checks

You keep dodging the point but we don't need to beat a dead horse. The airport/Indiana scenario I posed goes to how far can we protect ourselves against the risk of crime by groups that pose a statistical higher risk. Discriminating against Muslims from Syria is similar to discriminating against black males from Chicago as they both statistically pose a high crime risk. The only difference is that our laws protect poor blacks and all of groups in this country from discrimination. You can make the argument that our laws don't provide the same protections for foreigners but the principle behind the law stays true. That's my point.

There is no threat that would require African Americans to be singled out at an airport. You are giving an example of street crime, which is in a vastly different element from an religious ideology. It's not even remotely in the same category, yet you are using it as if the two are somehow the same ... they are not. Security checkpoints at airports which screen bagages for liquids, tooth paste tube which can be used for plastic explosive, random pat downs that check for sharp objects. Your best scenario has been nullified, there is no threat example that you could name to even justify your analogy of Chicago street crime as somehow being equivalent to a terrorist planned bombing. You can not be serious.

The argument of not allowing refugees that originate from a known highly terrorist activity region, is the use of common sense backs up historically. Again, (1) during a time of war when have we as a nation historically allowed immigrants to come over from the empire of the sun, a known nation with hostile intentions against the United States? You can't even answer that question and it has everything to do with this situation, NOT RACISM.

(2) Are you suggesting that NO nation has the ability to make decisions that pertain to enforcing their own borders?

You only call it racism if that's what you want to make the argument, however I said
(3) immigrants (especially including muslims) from other regions or nations would be allowed to enter the United States

Those three points means the case is not racist in nature. Just like Japan, a known hostile enemy during Workd War II, the United States would be suspending immigration and civilian travel between those two nations. All diplomats from Japan that had embassies or foreign interests within the United States was ordered to return back to their nation of origin, while all forms of diplomacy ceased. That is if you knew anything at all concerning our nation's history and events that transpired from our government in Washington DC following the Japanese led attack on Pearl Harbor. Was that DISCRIMINATION to suspend relations with that country and order their representative to return back to Japan, cutting off all forms of ties ... including diplomatic ties to Japan? It was not deemed racism then, and suspending travel and immigration passage from known hostile terrorist threat regions to our nation is not racism now. Its border enforcement to protect our citizens from attack.

Our president has been given the responsibility to defend this nation from ALL threats foreign and domestic to this nation. It's his duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the citizens of this country from ALL forms of threats that can lead to a possible attack.

 

[Onyx]

Act in a manner that you'd like your opponent to act if the results of the election were reversed. It's very simple.

The Golden Rule never fails.

That involves them casting aside their knowledge of what 'their' opponent is going to do.

Not everything is black and white. Imagine if the Polish took your advice after their army was defeated by the Nazis and Soviets.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What would possess me to do what?

Tell people how to act.

Because I'm a dirty liberal I guess and I like telling people what to do! Really, it's just a thought that I had after seeing many Trumpsters on this board taking the low road and continuing to throw out classless insults and trying to rub in the victory. It's ugly and petty and childish so I thought i'd make a post about my thoughts. That ok with you?

At any point before the election, did you tell Candy, Lakhota, RDean, Wry etc. how to act? Of course not.

I put down and called out lies that I saw on both sides. Campaigns naturally take on a more heated debate and critique, I was tough on Trump because I saw through his con and I really couldn't stand the thought of him in the white house. But campaigns are forums for protest and fights for causes and representatives. After elections we need to be reminded that we are all on the same team and it is imperative to work together if we ever want to get things done.

What con was that, his Barnum and bailey act? You should go out and tell the idiot protestors... The guy will probably win 49states in 2020

 

[Slade3200]

Immigaration is a core element of our country, it was how we were founded and how you and I came to be here. We were just lucky but what makes us deserve to be an American any more than anybody else? I realize this is a separate discussion so we don't need to dive into it. But I would like an answer about the Chicago scenario that I asked you about in my last post... if you would indulge me.

Also, during your time in the service, did you ever do humanitarian aid? Work with or interact with refugees or people who were fleeing for their lives? If so, what was that experience like?

I never said that I opposed people of muslim faith entering this country did I? Now you're are moving the discussion to do a play on words because you don't happen to like my particular position. My reply to your post is this: Can you in fact provide for me proof where the United States indeed had an open door policy for Japanese immigrants from the empire of the sun, who wanted to come here during World War II? This would bring more credibility to your argument than this "Immigration is a core element of our country" kind of response. .

Now unlike that war, as I have said, we are engaged with an enemy with no uniform, through an ideology that also is influential of women and children. Judging by your responses, you really don't appear to care that much about who enters our borders at all.

Your Chicago senecio also has nothing to do with the discussion of a wide open border policy VS. preventing foreign immigrants from known terrorist regions that have hostile intentions, seeking an open opportunity into our country. Based on all your responses, are you suggesting that nations are not allowed to, nor are they involved in, making decisions to enforce their own borders?

My Chicago analogy goes right to the heart of the argument. I wasn't suggesting banning all poor black males from entering Indiana or an airline... just the ones from inner city Chicago as they statistically pose a higher crime risk. It is the same line of thinking as u use for your arguement. When you cut through the protection BS you end up with the same kind of profiling and discrimination that we have evolve beyond as a country.. at least I hope we have.

I'm all for improving our vetting system and integrating psychological tests based on sex, age, background and origin etc. but the idea that the US as a world leading superpower and we would refuse to help any of the millions of people that are being slaughtered and driven from their homes, while our allies take in the bulk of them... well that's a sad and cowardly proposition. Not one I'd proudly hold my head up in support of.

We have an airport security system that checks for bottled liquids, as well as sharp objects such as box cutter knives, with random pat downs. It's a tested, as well as proven very effective security system that resulted out of and in response to 9-11. So what possible threat do you think they pose, that wasn't just rendered null and void by my argument? Crime violence is very different argument from an ideology based on hatred towards all those who don't share in their Muslim faith. How many violent acts can you provide proof of occurring out of Chicago, that involved the killing through explosives or other means to target thousands of innocent civilians REGARDLESS of the color of their skin? Are you capable of telling the difference between an isolated killing of an individual, with a well organized plan stemming from an ideological belief?

Now, I would like you to answer my question that was posed to you. This reflects more accurately with regard to the situation we are now being faced with, which is during a time of war. Can you provide me proof to where the United States had an open border policy towards a nation [which could be changed to mean region in our case] that was hostile towards us allowing immigrants from the empire of the sun to become citizens of the United States? Now this is what I consider to be a more valid argument, not "street crime".

To answer your question... I'm not proposing an open border solution. I support reforms to our immigration process including e-verify and better visa tracking. I also support makin our vetting process as secure as possible. Nothing will ever be 100%, that is not a realistic expectation. Neither are your TSA security checks

You keep dodging the point but we don't need to beat a dead horse. The airport/Indiana scenario I posed goes to how far can we protect ourselves against the risk of crime by groups that pose a statistical higher risk. Discriminating against Muslims from Syria is similar to discriminating against black males from Chicago as they both statistically pose a high crime risk. The only difference is that our laws protect poor blacks and all of groups in this country from discrimination. You can make the argument that our laws don't provide the same protections for foreigners but the principle behind the law stays true. That's my point.

There is no threat that would require African Americans to be singled out at an airport. You are giving an example of street crime, which is in a vastly different element from an religious ideology. It's not even remotely in the same category, yet you are using it as if the two are somehow the same ... they are not. Security checkpoints at airports which screen bagages for liquids, tooth paste tube which can be used for plastic explosive, random pat downs that check for sharp objects. Your best scenario has been nullified, there is no threat example that you could name to even justify your analogy of Chicago street crime as somehow being equivalent to a terrorist planned bombing. You can not be serious.

The argument of not allowing refugees that originate from a known highly terrorist activity region, is the use of common sense backs up historically. Again, (1) during a time of war when have we as a nation historically allowed immigrants to come over from the empire of the sun, a known nation with hostile intentions against the United States? You can't even answer that question and it has everything to do with this situation, NOT RACISM.

(2) Are you suggesting that NO nation has the ability to make decisions that pertain to enforcing their own borders?

You only call it racism if that's what you want to make the argument, however I said
(3) immigrants (especially including muslims) from other regions or nations would be allowed to enter the United States

Those three points means the case is not racist in nature. Just like Japan, a known hostile enemy during Workd War II, the United States would be suspending immigration and civilian travel between those two nations. All diplomats from Japan that had embassies or foreign interests within the United States was ordered to return back to their nation of origin, while all forms of diplomacy ceased. That is if you knew anything at all concerning our nation's history and events that transpired from our government in Washington DC following the Japanese led attack on Pearl Harbor. Was that DISCRIMINATION to suspend relations with that country and order their representative to return back to Japan, cutting off all forms of ties ... including diplomatic ties to Japan? It was not deemed racism then, and suspending travel and immigration passage from known hostile terrorist threat regions to our nation is not racism now. Its border enforcement to protect our citizens from attack.

Our president has been given the responsibility to defend this nation from ALL threats foreign and domestic to this nation. It's his duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the citizens of this country from ALL forms of threats that can lead to a possible attack.

You seem like an intelligent person but at this point you are either being bullish in your argument or i'm giving your abilities to comprehend and reason too much credit. I am not speaking about racism or ideology, i'm talking quite simply about risk. You say muslims from "high risk" regions should be banned from the US, and I say that rationale falls in line with my argument of banning black males from Chicago from Indiana or from businesses because they statistically pose more of a risk. Both come down to the concept of making discriminatory characterizations, which has been disenvowed by our country decades ago.

Your question about history is loaded as there is not a time in history that we can compare to our current situation. A close example could point to Vietnam where we resettled the greater portion of 130,000 Vietnamese in the mid to late 70's. However, we are not at war with another country, we are fighting Isis, Terrorist thugs, which you mistakenly simulate to Islam. If this is an ideologically war against islam then we have millions of the enemy already in our country. The war is against terrorists, not muslims. Yes they rationalize their violence and recruit by distorting the Islamic religion, but for us to react by banning and discriminating against all muslims or their ideology is a very small minded response.

For the record, i'm not saying bring them all over... I'm in support of helping them resettle in their own country, creating safe zones, assisting with rebuilding and opportunity etc etc etc. For the refugees that we do take, I am all for detailed vetting and background checks. Many of these Syrian refugee's are christians, women, children, elderly etc etc. Their biggest crime was being born in the wrong area which is now being destroyed by not only their own countrymen, but also as a reaction to what our country has done over seas. If you feel that we have no responsibility to do what we can to help, then frankly, I think you need help.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I never said that I opposed people of muslim faith entering this country did I? Now you're are moving the discussion to do a play on words because you don't happen to like my particular position. My reply to your post is this: Can you in fact provide for me proof where the United States indeed had an open door policy for Japanese immigrants from the empire of the sun, who wanted to come here during World War II? This would bring more credibility to your argument than this "Immigration is a core element of our country" kind of response. .

Now unlike that war, as I have said, we are engaged with an enemy with no uniform, through an ideology that also is influential of women and children. Judging by your responses, you really don't appear to care that much about who enters our borders at all.

Your Chicago senecio also has nothing to do with the discussion of a wide open border policy VS. preventing foreign immigrants from known terrorist regions that have hostile intentions, seeking an open opportunity into our country. Based on all your responses, are you suggesting that nations are not allowed to, nor are they involved in, making decisions to enforce their own borders?

My Chicago analogy goes right to the heart of the argument. I wasn't suggesting banning all poor black males from entering Indiana or an airline... just the ones from inner city Chicago as they statistically pose a higher crime risk. It is the same line of thinking as u use for your arguement. When you cut through the protection BS you end up with the same kind of profiling and discrimination that we have evolve beyond as a country.. at least I hope we have.

I'm all for improving our vetting system and integrating psychological tests based on sex, age, background and origin etc. but the idea that the US as a world leading superpower and we would refuse to help any of the millions of people that are being slaughtered and driven from their homes, while our allies take in the bulk of them... well that's a sad and cowardly proposition. Not one I'd proudly hold my head up in support of.

We have an airport security system that checks for bottled liquids, as well as sharp objects such as box cutter knives, with random pat downs. It's a tested, as well as proven very effective security system that resulted out of and in response to 9-11. So what possible threat do you think they pose, that wasn't just rendered null and void by my argument? Crime violence is very different argument from an ideology based on hatred towards all those who don't share in their Muslim faith. How many violent acts can you provide proof of occurring out of Chicago, that involved the killing through explosives or other means to target thousands of innocent civilians REGARDLESS of the color of their skin? Are you capable of telling the difference between an isolated killing of an individual, with a well organized plan stemming from an ideological belief?

Now, I would like you to answer my question that was posed to you. This reflects more accurately with regard to the situation we are now being faced with, which is during a time of war. Can you provide me proof to where the United States had an open border policy towards a nation [which could be changed to mean region in our case] that was hostile towards us allowing immigrants from the empire of the sun to become citizens of the United States? Now this is what I consider to be a more valid argument, not "street crime".

To answer your question... I'm not proposing an open border solution. I support reforms to our immigration process including e-verify and better visa tracking. I also support makin our vetting process as secure as possible. Nothing will ever be 100%, that is not a realistic expectation. Neither are your TSA security checks

You keep dodging the point but we don't need to beat a dead horse. The airport/Indiana scenario I posed goes to how far can we protect ourselves against the risk of crime by groups that pose a statistical higher risk. Discriminating against Muslims from Syria is similar to discriminating against black males from Chicago as they both statistically pose a high crime risk. The only difference is that our laws protect poor blacks and all of groups in this country from discrimination. You can make the argument that our laws don't provide the same protections for foreigners but the principle behind the law stays true. That's my point.

There is no threat that would require African Americans to be singled out at an airport. You are giving an example of street crime, which is in a vastly different element from an religious ideology. It's not even remotely in the same category, yet you are using it as if the two are somehow the same ... they are not. Security checkpoints at airports which screen bagages for liquids, tooth paste tube which can be used for plastic explosive, random pat downs that check for sharp objects. Your best scenario has been nullified, there is no threat example that you could name to even justify your analogy of Chicago street crime as somehow being equivalent to a terrorist planned bombing. You can not be serious.

The argument of not allowing refugees that originate from a known highly terrorist activity region, is the use of common sense backs up historically. Again, (1) during a time of war when have we as a nation historically allowed immigrants to come over from the empire of the sun, a known nation with hostile intentions against the United States? You can't even answer that question and it has everything to do with this situation, NOT RACISM.

(2) Are you suggesting that NO nation has the ability to make decisions that pertain to enforcing their own borders?

You only call it racism if that's what you want to make the argument, however I said
(3) immigrants (especially including muslims) from other regions or nations would be allowed to enter the United States

Those three points means the case is not racist in nature. Just like Japan, a known hostile enemy during Workd War II, the United States would be suspending immigration and civilian travel between those two nations. All diplomats from Japan that had embassies or foreign interests within the United States was ordered to return back to their nation of origin, while all forms of diplomacy ceased. That is if you knew anything at all concerning our nation's history and events that transpired from our government in Washington DC following the Japanese led attack on Pearl Harbor. Was that DISCRIMINATION to suspend relations with that country and order their representative to return back to Japan, cutting off all forms of ties ... including diplomatic ties to Japan? It was not deemed racism then, and suspending travel and immigration passage from known hostile terrorist threat regions to our nation is not racism now. Its border enforcement to protect our citizens from attack.

Our president has been given the responsibility to defend this nation from ALL threats foreign and domestic to this nation. It's his duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the citizens of this country from ALL forms of threats that can lead to a possible attack.

You seem like an intelligent person but at this point you are either being bullish in your argument or i'm giving your abilities to comprehend and reason too much credit. I am not speaking about racism or ideology, i'm talking quite simply about risk. You say muslims from "high risk" regions should be banned from the US, and I say that rationale falls in line with my argument of banning black males from Chicago from Indiana or from businesses because they statistically pose more of a risk. Both come down to the concept of making discriminatory characterizations, which has been disenvowed by our country decades ago.

Your question about history is loaded as there is not a time in history that we can compare to our current situation. A close example could point to Vietnam where we resettled the greater portion of 130,000 Vietnamese in the mid to late 70's. However, we are not at war with another country, we are fighting Isis, Terrorist thugs, which you mistakenly simulate to Islam. If this is an ideologically war against islam then we have millions of the enemy already in our country. The war is against terrorists, not muslims. Yes they rationalize their violence and recruit by distorting the Islamic religion, but for us to react by banning and discriminating against all muslims or their ideology is a very small minded response.

For the record, i'm not saying bring them all over... I'm in support of helping them resettle in their own country, creating safe zones, assisting with rebuilding and opportunity etc etc etc. For the refugees that we do take, I am all for detailed vetting and background checks. Many of these Syrian refugee's are christians, women, children, elderly etc etc. Their biggest crime was being born in the wrong area which is now being destroyed by not only their own countrymen, but also as a reaction to what our country has done over seas. If you feel that we have no responsibility to do what we can to help, then frankly, I think you need help.

You simply dont have an understanding of the ideological threat that we face beyond what the news media has informed you of. I on the other hand, have served overseas where marines have died as a result of an extremist following their ideological faith. We are at war with an ideological belief, not a clear nation nor a known enemy you can pick out from among a group of civilians. Their influence has extended to the hearts and minds of women as well as children. When such an influence of belief takes hold over various age groups, while a strong group of terrorists still have a foothold of violence in a specified region, you don't simply open a door to anyone on the belief they are nothing more than just civilians seeking asylum, and that you can quite simply pick out and identify a civilian from among them. US soldiers are often finding themselves involved in a war where there is no clear distinction nor certainty that the individual you are conversing with is a militant, civilian, or extremist sympathizer. Our nation is very much at war with an enemy who's interpretation of their Koran is to kill and cleanse that region of those who don't accept or willing o follow THEIR specific Islamic religion. How can anyone isolated cozy within their own borders have an understanding of the kind of influential threat we face, unless they find themselves having to face such an environment? Many who stand in opposition to such security concerns just don't have the comprehension or experience of what it's like to face such an twisted religious influence, who has proven itself to intellectually infiltrate and kill innocent women and children as a testament to their commitment of that belief. Trying to allow what may be innocent civilians in a region we don't have complete control over and where known violent terrorists have a strong foothold, is putting our nation at risk from those militants who would take advantage of such efforts. You can't base your decisions on emotions. We don't even have boots on the ground with the experience and intelligence to judge a situation, that are committed to know what we are in fact walking ourselves into. If you want to lay blame on someone, put that on Obama who would rather use anyone (even the UN) over our own troops. If Obama wants to use foreign troops, then allow him to put his faith and trust on those troops as well as involve the United Nations to stabilize the region. He owns that mess you are talking about. After how he has handled foreign conflicts, and based on the knowledge of the kind of ideology we are facing, I don't trust his judgment regarding this policy. I just believe our perceptions on this subject are vastly different based on our own varied personal experience and knowledge that guides our particular point of view.

 

[Slade3200]

My Chicago analogy goes right to the heart of the argument. I wasn't suggesting banning all poor black males from entering Indiana or an airline... just the ones from inner city Chicago as they statistically pose a higher crime risk. It is the same line of thinking as u use for your arguement. When you cut through the protection BS you end up with the same kind of profiling and discrimination that we have evolve beyond as a country.. at least I hope we have.

I'm all for improving our vetting system and integrating psychological tests based on sex, age, background and origin etc. but the idea that the US as a world leading superpower and we would refuse to help any of the millions of people that are being slaughtered and driven from their homes, while our allies take in the bulk of them... well that's a sad and cowardly proposition. Not one I'd proudly hold my head up in support of.

We have an airport security system that checks for bottled liquids, as well as sharp objects such as box cutter knives, with random pat downs. It's a tested, as well as proven very effective security system that resulted out of and in response to 9-11. So what possible threat do you think they pose, that wasn't just rendered null and void by my argument? Crime violence is very different argument from an ideology based on hatred towards all those who don't share in their Muslim faith. How many violent acts can you provide proof of occurring out of Chicago, that involved the killing through explosives or other means to target thousands of innocent civilians REGARDLESS of the color of their skin? Are you capable of telling the difference between an isolated killing of an individual, with a well organized plan stemming from an ideological belief?

Now, I would like you to answer my question that was posed to you. This reflects more accurately with regard to the situation we are now being faced with, which is during a time of war. Can you provide me proof to where the United States had an open border policy towards a nation [which could be changed to mean region in our case] that was hostile towards us allowing immigrants from the empire of the sun to become citizens of the United States? Now this is what I consider to be a more valid argument, not "street crime".

To answer your question... I'm not proposing an open border solution. I support reforms to our immigration process including e-verify and better visa tracking. I also support makin our vetting process as secure as possible. Nothing will ever be 100%, that is not a realistic expectation. Neither are your TSA security checks

You keep dodging the point but we don't need to beat a dead horse. The airport/Indiana scenario I posed goes to how far can we protect ourselves against the risk of crime by groups that pose a statistical higher risk. Discriminating against Muslims from Syria is similar to discriminating against black males from Chicago as they both statistically pose a high crime risk. The only difference is that our laws protect poor blacks and all of groups in this country from discrimination. You can make the argument that our laws don't provide the same protections for foreigners but the principle behind the law stays true. That's my point.

There is no threat that would require African Americans to be singled out at an airport. You are giving an example of street crime, which is in a vastly different element from an religious ideology. It's not even remotely in the same category, yet you are using it as if the two are somehow the same ... they are not. Security checkpoints at airports which screen bagages for liquids, tooth paste tube which can be used for plastic explosive, random pat downs that check for sharp objects. Your best scenario has been nullified, there is no threat example that you could name to even justify your analogy of Chicago street crime as somehow being equivalent to a terrorist planned bombing. You can not be serious.

The argument of not allowing refugees that originate from a known highly terrorist activity region, is the use of common sense backs up historically. Again, (1) during a time of war when have we as a nation historically allowed immigrants to come over from the empire of the sun, a known nation with hostile intentions against the United States? You can't even answer that question and it has everything to do with this situation, NOT RACISM.

(2) Are you suggesting that NO nation has the ability to make decisions that pertain to enforcing their own borders?

You only call it racism if that's what you want to make the argument, however I said
(3) immigrants (especially including muslims) from other regions or nations would be allowed to enter the United States

Those three points means the case is not racist in nature. Just like Japan, a known hostile enemy during Workd War II, the United States would be suspending immigration and civilian travel between those two nations. All diplomats from Japan that had embassies or foreign interests within the United States was ordered to return back to their nation of origin, while all forms of diplomacy ceased. That is if you knew anything at all concerning our nation's history and events that transpired from our government in Washington DC following the Japanese led attack on Pearl Harbor. Was that DISCRIMINATION to suspend relations with that country and order their representative to return back to Japan, cutting off all forms of ties ... including diplomatic ties to Japan? It was not deemed racism then, and suspending travel and immigration passage from known hostile terrorist threat regions to our nation is not racism now. Its border enforcement to protect our citizens from attack.

Our president has been given the responsibility to defend this nation from ALL threats foreign and domestic to this nation. It's his duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the citizens of this country from ALL forms of threats that can lead to a possible attack.

You seem like an intelligent person but at this point you are either being bullish in your argument or i'm giving your abilities to comprehend and reason too much credit. I am not speaking about racism or ideology, i'm talking quite simply about risk. You say muslims from "high risk" regions should be banned from the US, and I say that rationale falls in line with my argument of banning black males from Chicago from Indiana or from businesses because they statistically pose more of a risk. Both come down to the concept of making discriminatory characterizations, which has been disenvowed by our country decades ago.

Your question about history is loaded as there is not a time in history that we can compare to our current situation. A close example could point to Vietnam where we resettled the greater portion of 130,000 Vietnamese in the mid to late 70's. However, we are not at war with another country, we are fighting Isis, Terrorist thugs, which you mistakenly simulate to Islam. If this is an ideologically war against islam then we have millions of the enemy already in our country. The war is against terrorists, not muslims. Yes they rationalize their violence and recruit by distorting the Islamic religion, but for us to react by banning and discriminating against all muslims or their ideology is a very small minded response.

For the record, i'm not saying bring them all over... I'm in support of helping them resettle in their own country, creating safe zones, assisting with rebuilding and opportunity etc etc etc. For the refugees that we do take, I am all for detailed vetting and background checks. Many of these Syrian refugee's are christians, women, children, elderly etc etc. Their biggest crime was being born in the wrong area which is now being destroyed by not only their own countrymen, but also as a reaction to what our country has done over seas. If you feel that we have no responsibility to do what we can to help, then frankly, I think you need help.

You simply dont have an understanding of the ideological threat that we face beyond what the news media has informed you of. I on the other hand, have served overseas where marines have died as a result of an extremist following their ideological faith. We are at war with an ideological belief, not a clear nation nor a known enemy you can pick out from among a group of civilians. Their influence has extended to the hearts and minds of women as well as children. When such an influence of belief takes hold over various age groups, while a strong group of terrorists still have a foothold of violence in a specified region, you don't simply open a door to anyone on the belief they are nothing more than just civilians seeking asylum, and that you can quite simply pick out and identify a civilian from among them. US soldiers are often finding themselves involved in a war where there is no clear distinction nor certainty that the individual you are conversing with is a militant, civilian, or extremist sympathizer. Our nation is very much at war with an enemy who's interpretation of their Koran is to kill and cleanse that region of those who don't accept or willing o follow THEIR specific Islamic religion. How can anyone isolated cozy within their own borders have an understanding of the kind of influential threat we face, unless they find themselves having to face such an environment? Many who stand in opposition to such security concerns just don't have the comprehension or experience of what it's like to face such an twisted religious influence, who has proven itself to intellectually infiltrate and kill innocent women and children as a testament to their commitment of that belief. Trying to allow what may be innocent civilians in a region we don't have complete control over and where known violent terrorists have a strong foothold, is putting our nation at risk from those militants who would take advantage of such efforts. You can't base your decisions on emotions. We don't even have boots on the ground with the experience and intelligence to judge a situation, that are committed to know what we are in fact walking ourselves into. If you want to lay blame on someone, put that on Obama who would rather use anyone (even the UN) over our own troops. If Obama wants to use foreign troops, then allow him to put his faith and trust on those troops as well as involve the United Nations to stabilize the region. He owns that mess you are talking about. After how he has handled foreign conflicts, and based on the knowledge of the kind of ideology we are facing, I don't trust his judgment regarding this policy. I just believe our perceptions on this subject are vastly different based on our own varied personal experience and knowledge that guides our particular point of view.

When these thugs rape and murder women and children and other Muslims are you saying that they do this because you think they believe the Koran tells them to?

 

[Slade3200]

My Chicago analogy goes right to the heart of the argument. I wasn't suggesting banning all poor black males from entering Indiana or an airline... just the ones from inner city Chicago as they statistically pose a higher crime risk. It is the same line of thinking as u use for your arguement. When you cut through the protection BS you end up with the same kind of profiling and discrimination that we have evolve beyond as a country.. at least I hope we have.

I'm all for improving our vetting system and integrating psychological tests based on sex, age, background and origin etc. but the idea that the US as a world leading superpower and we would refuse to help any of the millions of people that are being slaughtered and driven from their homes, while our allies take in the bulk of them... well that's a sad and cowardly proposition. Not one I'd proudly hold my head up in support of.

We have an airport security system that checks for bottled liquids, as well as sharp objects such as box cutter knives, with random pat downs. It's a tested, as well as proven very effective security system that resulted out of and in response to 9-11. So what possible threat do you think they pose, that wasn't just rendered null and void by my argument? Crime violence is very different argument from an ideology based on hatred towards all those who don't share in their Muslim faith. How many violent acts can you provide proof of occurring out of Chicago, that involved the killing through explosives or other means to target thousands of innocent civilians REGARDLESS of the color of their skin? Are you capable of telling the difference between an isolated killing of an individual, with a well organized plan stemming from an ideological belief?

Now, I would like you to answer my question that was posed to you. This reflects more accurately with regard to the situation we are now being faced with, which is during a time of war. Can you provide me proof to where the United States had an open border policy towards a nation [which could be changed to mean region in our case] that was hostile towards us allowing immigrants from the empire of the sun to become citizens of the United States? Now this is what I consider to be a more valid argument, not "street crime".

To answer your question... I'm not proposing an open border solution. I support reforms to our immigration process including e-verify and better visa tracking. I also support makin our vetting process as secure as possible. Nothing will ever be 100%, that is not a realistic expectation. Neither are your TSA security checks

You keep dodging the point but we don't need to beat a dead horse. The airport/Indiana scenario I posed goes to how far can we protect ourselves against the risk of crime by groups that pose a statistical higher risk. Discriminating against Muslims from Syria is similar to discriminating against black males from Chicago as they both statistically pose a high crime risk. The only difference is that our laws protect poor blacks and all of groups in this country from discrimination. You can make the argument that our laws don't provide the same protections for foreigners but the principle behind the law stays true. That's my point.

There is no threat that would require African Americans to be singled out at an airport. You are giving an example of street crime, which is in a vastly different element from an religious ideology. It's not even remotely in the same category, yet you are using it as if the two are somehow the same ... they are not. Security checkpoints at airports which screen bagages for liquids, tooth paste tube which can be used for plastic explosive, random pat downs that check for sharp objects. Your best scenario has been nullified, there is no threat example that you could name to even justify your analogy of Chicago street crime as somehow being equivalent to a terrorist planned bombing. You can not be serious.

The argument of not allowing refugees that originate from a known highly terrorist activity region, is the use of common sense backs up historically. Again, (1) during a time of war when have we as a nation historically allowed immigrants to come over from the empire of the sun, a known nation with hostile intentions against the United States? You can't even answer that question and it has everything to do with this situation, NOT RACISM.

(2) Are you suggesting that NO nation has the ability to make decisions that pertain to enforcing their own borders?

You only call it racism if that's what you want to make the argument, however I said
(3) immigrants (especially including muslims) from other regions or nations would be allowed to enter the United States

Those three points means the case is not racist in nature. Just like Japan, a known hostile enemy during Workd War II, the United States would be suspending immigration and civilian travel between those two nations. All diplomats from Japan that had embassies or foreign interests within the United States was ordered to return back to their nation of origin, while all forms of diplomacy ceased. That is if you knew anything at all concerning our nation's history and events that transpired from our government in Washington DC following the Japanese led attack on Pearl Harbor. Was that DISCRIMINATION to suspend relations with that country and order their representative to return back to Japan, cutting off all forms of ties ... including diplomatic ties to Japan? It was not deemed racism then, and suspending travel and immigration passage from known hostile terrorist threat regions to our nation is not racism now. Its border enforcement to protect our citizens from attack.

Our president has been given the responsibility to defend this nation from ALL threats foreign and domestic to this nation. It's his duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the citizens of this country from ALL forms of threats that can lead to a possible attack.

You seem like an intelligent person but at this point you are either being bullish in your argument or i'm giving your abilities to comprehend and reason too much credit. I am not speaking about racism or ideology, i'm talking quite simply about risk. You say muslims from "high risk" regions should be banned from the US, and I say that rationale falls in line with my argument of banning black males from Chicago from Indiana or from businesses because they statistically pose more of a risk. Both come down to the concept of making discriminatory characterizations, which has been disenvowed by our country decades ago.

Your question about history is loaded as there is not a time in history that we can compare to our current situation. A close example could point to Vietnam where we resettled the greater portion of 130,000 Vietnamese in the mid to late 70's. However, we are not at war with another country, we are fighting Isis, Terrorist thugs, which you mistakenly simulate to Islam. If this is an ideologically war against islam then we have millions of the enemy already in our country. The war is against terrorists, not muslims. Yes they rationalize their violence and recruit by distorting the Islamic religion, but for us to react by banning and discriminating against all muslims or their ideology is a very small minded response.

For the record, i'm not saying bring them all over... I'm in support of helping them resettle in their own country, creating safe zones, assisting with rebuilding and opportunity etc etc etc. For the refugees that we do take, I am all for detailed vetting and background checks. Many of these Syrian refugee's are christians, women, children, elderly etc etc. Their biggest crime was being born in the wrong area which is now being destroyed by not only their own countrymen, but also as a reaction to what our country has done over seas. If you feel that we have no responsibility to do what we can to help, then frankly, I think you need help.

You simply dont have an understanding of the ideological threat that we face beyond what the news media has informed you of. I on the other hand, have served overseas where marines have died as a result of an extremist following their ideological faith. We are at war with an ideological belief, not a clear nation nor a known enemy you can pick out from among a group of civilians. Their influence has extended to the hearts and minds of women as well as children. When such an influence of belief takes hold over various age groups, while a strong group of terrorists still have a foothold of violence in a specified region, you don't simply open a door to anyone on the belief they are nothing more than just civilians seeking asylum, and that you can quite simply pick out and identify a civilian from among them. US soldiers are often finding themselves involved in a war where there is no clear distinction nor certainty that the individual you are conversing with is a militant, civilian, or extremist sympathizer. Our nation is very much at war with an enemy who's interpretation of their Koran is to kill and cleanse that region of those who don't accept or willing o follow THEIR specific Islamic religion. How can anyone isolated cozy within their own borders have an understanding of the kind of influential threat we face, unless they find themselves having to face such an environment? Many who stand in opposition to such security concerns just don't have the comprehension or experience of what it's like to face such an twisted religious influence, who has proven itself to intellectually infiltrate and kill innocent women and children as a testament to their commitment of that belief. Trying to allow what may be innocent civilians in a region we don't have complete control over and where known violent terrorists have a strong foothold, is putting our nation at risk from those militants who would take advantage of such efforts. You can't base your decisions on emotions. We don't even have boots on the ground with the experience and intelligence to judge a situation, that are committed to know what we are in fact walking ourselves into. If you want to lay blame on someone, put that on Obama who would rather use anyone (even the UN) over our own troops. If Obama wants to use foreign troops, then allow him to put his faith and trust on those troops as well as involve the United Nations to stabilize the region. He owns that mess you are talking about. After how he has handled foreign conflicts, and based on the knowledge of the kind of ideology we are facing, I don't trust his judgment regarding this policy. I just believe our perceptions on this subject are vastly different based on our own varied personal experience and knowledge that guides our particular point of view.

I've been to Turkey, went there just over a year ago, I've spoken to Syrian refugees and heard many stories and experiences. Ive seen the tears in their eyes as they genuinely fear for their lives and the lives of their family that they are separated from. My old business partner is a Muslim from Pakistan and we used to have very deep discussions about the ideology of Islam. I'm not cozy in my borders getting spoon fed by the media as you falsely assume. The side of Islam that I've seen and been exposed to is very different than what you portray, it is very different from what you and the media say Isis follows. The terrorist are whackos. They are glorified gangsters. They live in a desperate testosterone filled culture dominated by guns and power. They feed on the weak minded and yes they use ideology to manipulate their followers, but many just get off on fucking shit up. Jihadists are to Islam as violent KKK members are to Christianity.

I'm not opposed to tight measures placed on refugees and immigrates at times of war and civil unrest. I am opposed to much of the hateful rhetoric that is being used as of late, and the mischaracterization of Islam that people like you used to divide and demonize a very large group of peaceful people.

 

[jon_berzerk]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump.

.

1/5th of one point.....

how many of which are illegal casts

 

[Slade3200]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump.

.

1/5th of one point.....

how many of which are illegal casts

You tell me, how many? Please back your response up with evidence

 

[jon_berzerk]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump.

.

1/5th of one point.....

how many of which are illegal casts

You tell me, how many? Please back your response up with evidence

time will tell

 

[Jackson]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

2. Keep in mind that not everybody who voted opposite of you is a rude insulting partisan wingnut. The majority are good hard working people that want the best for themselves, their family, their community, and their country... and more people thought Hillary was the better choice.

So how should you act?

Act in a manner that you'd like your opponent to act if the results of the election were reversed. It's very simple.

The Golden Rule never fails.

Actually, neither of us know if she received a bonafide majority of the votes. We are not sure how many illegals voted which means that would lower her count.

 

[Jackson]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump.

.

1/5th of one point.....

how many of which are illegal casts

You tell me, how many? Please back your response up with evidence

Unfortunately, illegals seldom contact the Federal Election Commission to tell they voted without being citizens.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

You only believe that because the people telling you this are the SAME people who told us endlessly that Trump didn't have a chance.

Sorry, I don't believe Hillary won the popular vote

 

[Jackson]

Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

You only believe that because the people telling you this are the SAME people who told us endlessly that Trump didn't have a chance.

Sorry, I don't believe Hillary won the popular vote

Nor do I.

 

[Slade3200]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

2. Keep in mind that not everybody who voted opposite of you is a rude insulting partisan wingnut. The majority are good hard working people that want the best for themselves, their family, their community, and their country... and more people thought Hillary was the better choice.

So how should you act?

Act in a manner that you'd like your opponent to act if the results of the election were reversed. It's very simple.

The Golden Rule never fails.

Actually, neither of us know if she received a bonafide majority of the votes. We are not sure how many illegals voted which means that would lower her count.

What evidence do have that any illegals voted? That's like me saying that we dont know how many skinheads double and triple votes for Trump. Stop throwing around baseless claims

 

[Slade3200]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump.

.

1/5th of one point.....

how many of which are illegal casts

You tell me, how many? Please back your response up with evidence

Unfortunately, illegals seldom contact the Federal Election Commission to tell they voted without being citizens.

And what makes you think an illegal immigrant would risk a felines and deportation by trying to place an illegal vote?

 

[Slade3200]

Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

You only believe that because the people telling you this are the SAME people who told us endlessly that Trump didn't have a chance.

Sorry, I don't believe Hillary won the popular vote

Look at the numbers. Those aren't polls, those are counted votes