How YOU should act now.

[Slade3200]

Liberals of all ages act that way. I'd like the right to get along with the left, unfortunately that means joining the left.

It does not require joining the left, rather exposing their position of race baiting. You have to confront and unarm their racist tone on issues like refugees by stating the welcome of Muslim immigrants except where those regions have proven themselves a threat and hostile towards our nation. That by using a message that reiterates the intolerance of such racist accusations, that the left is asking our nation to be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks without much concern for the security of those lives of Americans in this country. Allow that concern to resonate straight from the presidential podium to the American people. We believe in airport security, but do we honestly believe in border security, as our enemies will most certainly exploit every weakness we allow them to take full advantage of... 9-11 was a proven event of that weakness we allowed.

You are close but still missing the point. The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

There is no guarantee that vetting can be 100% effective. How EXACTLY do you know as well as recognize the mindset of an individual who believes in THEIR faith to a degree they will do anything to inflict harm into the heart of a nation because of a devoted honor to that religion or pure righteous to their cause. Japanese Kamikazes could not be swayed or reasoned with from their suicide path, to dive their plane into the heart of an enemy warship. This is an extreme value of devotion that goes well beyond the value of their own life.

You may believe this is a lack of compassion, I submit there is a true lack in understanding of the kind of ideological extremism in faith we are facing . Could any of those terrorists who piloted those planes into the world trade tower be reasoned with? Are these extremists somehow believed to be unintelligent, that a series of interrogated questions by a customs agent is believed to be the best tool in uncovering their true intentions where our airport security couldn't (except to see what means of explosive chemicals, sharp instruments, or a series of names on a no fly "watchlist" might find?). Location has everything to do with where these refugees are coming from, when terrorists groups are thriving and growing in numbers. Is there any example in our own history where we have allowed Japanese civilians to freely travel into the United States from their home in the rising sun during World War II? Did I say we need to ban ALL muslims from entering the United States? No. However, we must be honest with ourselves as well as be real about the kind of world and enemy we are facing. They have no uniforms, they are not acknowledged to have association with any one specific nation. This is an extreme ideology that sees death with the taking of their OWN life as an honor to their faith. Ignorance of the truth in the kind of enemy we are facing, will be our nation's downfall.

Nothing is ever 100%. Are you saying unless we can create a 100% full proof system then we should not allow people into our country? What about travelers? Where is the line?

We have a very extensive vetting process set up, if you, or security analysts see holes or areas for improvement then let's talk about them and make it better. But when you have a mother and her children whose father was killed by Isis, that fled in fear of there lives, and this can be proven and traced, then perhaps we have the opportunity to help people like this... perhaps the people who we can't run a thorough and detailed background check on, or people with red flags, don't become refugees... does that sound reasonable?

We can allow immigrants and muslims from parts [Regions] of the world where terrorism is NOT a stronghold, encouraged, or thrives. We have to understand, the extremists who bombed the World Trade Center in '94, was involved in the San Bernardino shootings, or took control of our airliners on 9-11 don't care how compassionate we are or how welcoming we are to helping muslims. Their only concern is how they can infiltrate into the United States to kill American infidels (they don't even recognize us as citizens or innocent civilians) to further their beliefs in their extremist faith. There is no compromising with them, no noble peace prize, no amount of humanity that will alter their view of what they believe. Take the time and look at the killing that goes on of those who don't share their faith. Unless you believe as they do, they will continue to pursue their radical cause and use any "opportunity", open border, (no matter how small) to achieve it If you think I'm hard to convince, imagine those terrorist extremist that desire to inflict harm to civilians [stop and let that thought sink in] .... not military .... our elderly, women, and children ... within our own borders.

im not suggesting we try and reason, negotiate or sympathize with them. Im simply stating the simple fact that there is a distinction between these terrorist thugs and the Muslim community. Your statement while not completely untrue, blur the lines between good honest Muslims and the terrorist

 

[PredFan]

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.

You act as if it was a HUGE margin of victory. It wasn't. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic because a democracy would suck for everyone. The fact that a very slim margin of victory for Hillary occurred is insignificant.

 

[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.

You act as if it was a HUGE margin of victory. It wasn't. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic because a democracy would suck for everyone. The fact that a very slim margin of victory for Hillary occurred is insignificant.

I'm not challenging the validity of the election or the process that our republic uses. However it is a very significant fact that more people who live in this country thought that Hillary was the better choice for president.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

You act as if it was a HUGE margin of victory. It wasn't. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic because a democracy would suck for everyone. The fact that a very slim margin of victory for Hillary occurred is insignificant.

I'm not challenging the validity of the election or the process that our republic uses. However it is a very significant fact that more people who live in this country thought that Hillary was the better choice for president.

That hasn't been determined yet. Military votes are not all in and they vote heavily Republican. But most on the left are in big cities and their votes are a foregone conclusion.

Also, if the media had been remotely honest it would have been a landslide for Trump.

 

[Some Guy]

I was going to start a thread along these lines. I'll just piggyback on it here.

A big reason why the democrats lost this election, ignoring Hillary's deep flaws, was the dis-trust of the mainsteam media and other media sources that encourage people to demonize their political opponents. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you're a homophobe. If you think we need stronger immigration laws or even just enforce the immigration laws we have, you're a xenophobe. If you disagree with the president on an issue, you're a racist. So sit your ass down, fall in line and let the people smarter than you tell you what's good for you. Now you see this with so many people up in arms protesting the election. They're bought in. They know what's good everyone in America. Your vote for Trump confirms that you're a racist, bigot, xenophobe and homophobe and therefore you're a terrible person for it.

If you're on the other side, don't stoop to that level. Don't get frenzied by the far right media sources that do exactly what i said above just in reverse. Be the adults in the room. You've complained about Obama not reaching across the aisle from a position of power so why not want Trump to do that in reverse? You've complained about republicans getting unfairly labeled so why do that in reverse? You've wanted power and now you've got it so be responsible with it.

Just like most Trump voters aren't xenophobic racist bigot homophobes, most democratic voters aren't cry baby communist government leeches. Issues of reproductive rights, LGBT rights, criminal justice reform and equal rights are very real and very important to some people so they've got reasons to be worried. You don't like when you're labelled and dismissed so don't do it in reverse.

Or to put it more simply, it's not ok to act like a 5 year old who, when trying to rationalize why they did something wrong, say "well he did it first."

 

[hazlnut]

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.

You act as if it was a HUGE margin of victory. It wasn't. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic because a democracy would suck for everyone. The fact that a very slim margin of victory for Hillary occurred is insignificant.

I'm not challenging the validity of the election or the process that our republic uses. However it is a very significant fact that more people who live in this country thought that Hillary was the better choice for president.

I think people are reading too much into the popular vote count and relatively very small number.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It does not require joining the left, rather exposing their position of race baiting. You have to confront and unarm their racist tone on issues like refugees by stating the welcome of Muslim immigrants except where those regions have proven themselves a threat and hostile towards our nation. That by using a message that reiterates the intolerance of such racist accusations, that the left is asking our nation to be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks without much concern for the security of those lives of Americans in this country. Allow that concern to resonate straight from the presidential podium to the American people. We believe in airport security, but do we honestly believe in border security, as our enemies will most certainly exploit every weakness we allow them to take full advantage of... 9-11 was a proven event of that weakness we allowed.

You are close but still missing the point. The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

There is no guarantee that vetting can be 100% effective. How EXACTLY do you know as well as recognize the mindset of an individual who believes in THEIR faith to a degree they will do anything to inflict harm into the heart of a nation because of a devoted honor to that religion or pure righteous to their cause. Japanese Kamikazes could not be swayed or reasoned with from their suicide path, to dive their plane into the heart of an enemy warship. This is an extreme value of devotion that goes well beyond the value of their own life.

You may believe this is a lack of compassion, I submit there is a true lack in understanding of the kind of ideological extremism in faith we are facing . Could any of those terrorists who piloted those planes into the world trade tower be reasoned with? Are these extremists somehow believed to be unintelligent, that a series of interrogated questions by a customs agent is believed to be the best tool in uncovering their true intentions where our airport security couldn't (except to see what means of explosive chemicals, sharp instruments, or a series of names on a no fly "watchlist" might find?). Location has everything to do with where these refugees are coming from, when terrorists groups are thriving and growing in numbers. Is there any example in our own history where we have allowed Japanese civilians to freely travel into the United States from their home in the rising sun during World War II? Did I say we need to ban ALL muslims from entering the United States? No. However, we must be honest with ourselves as well as be real about the kind of world and enemy we are facing. They have no uniforms, they are not acknowledged to have association with any one specific nation. This is an extreme ideology that sees death with the taking of their OWN life as an honor to their faith. Ignorance of the truth in the kind of enemy we are facing, will be our nation's downfall.

Nothing is ever 100%. Are you saying unless we can create a 100% full proof system then we should not allow people into our country? What about travelers? Where is the line?

We have a very extensive vetting process set up, if you, or security analysts see holes or areas for improvement then let's talk about them and make it better. But when you have a mother and her children whose father was killed by Isis, that fled in fear of there lives, and this can be proven and traced, then perhaps we have the opportunity to help people like this... perhaps the people who we can't run a thorough and detailed background check on, or people with red flags, don't become refugees... does that sound reasonable?

We can allow immigrants and muslims from parts [Regions] of the world where terrorism is NOT a stronghold, encouraged, or thrives. We have to understand, the extremists who bombed the World Trade Center in '94, was involved in the San Bernardino shootings, or took control of our airliners on 9-11 don't care how compassionate we are or how welcoming we are to helping muslims. Their only concern is how they can infiltrate into the United States to kill American infidels (they don't even recognize us as citizens or innocent civilians) to further their beliefs in their extremist faith. There is no compromising with them, no noble peace prize, no amount of humanity that will alter their view of what they believe. Take the time and look at the killing that goes on of those who don't share their faith. Unless you believe as they do, they will continue to pursue their radical cause and use any "opportunity", open border, (no matter how small) to achieve it If you think I'm hard to convince, imagine those terrorist extremist that desire to inflict harm to civilians [stop and let that thought sink in] .... not military .... our elderly, women, and children ... within our own borders.

im not suggesting we try and reason, negotiate or sympathize with them. Im simply stating the simple fact that there is a distinction between these terrorist thugs and the Muslim community. Your statement while not completely untrue, blur the lines between good honest Muslims and the terrorist

When we are talking about regions where terrorists have a stronghold, where they have control over certain terroitories within a specified region, where these refugees will be coming FROM ... there is no clear distinction between those that this current administration will be looking TO as being allowed to enter the United States, having terroist intentions or not.

How EXACTLY do you plan on vetting to be sure of the intentions of those seeking to enter our country? What argument do you purpose that you can be certain of their mindset, or what their radical beliefs (if any) what they might be? The lines are very blurred, as how do you intend to separate and classify a BELIEF an individual may in fact carry? Muslim Radicals are not unintelligent, if they can extensively plan and carry out a terrorist plot involving the synchronized capture of multiple commercial airliners past the knowledge of security that involves multiple airports. You can't be given any certainty, any more than you can confidently predict snake eyes at a craps table. You also have to remember that any action to take a serious look into an individual's intent, and those specific "measures" you decide to use in your efforts, will be deemed as racist or bigoted. What does that tell you? This leaves the answer of looking at those Muslims, where they are from those regions that are twisted between (1) those who are terrorists, (2) those who are their extremist sympathizer puppets, and (3) those who are innocent Muslims and making the difficult decision not to get involved. Instead, looking to allow Muslims from those regions where terrorism and terrorist training camps don't thrive and have control.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

You act as if it was a HUGE margin of victory. It wasn't. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic because a democracy would suck for everyone. The fact that a very slim margin of victory for Hillary occurred is insignificant.

I'm not challenging the validity of the election or the process that our republic uses. However it is a very significant fact that more people who live in this country thought that Hillary was the better choice for president.

Those final votes are still awaiting results for New Hampshire, Michigan, and Arizona. Regarding Hillary, the popular vote she carried is of slim margin while the total count has yet to be determined..

 

[PredFan]

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.

You act as if it was a HUGE margin of victory. It wasn't. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic because a democracy would suck for everyone. The fact that a very slim margin of victory for Hillary occurred is insignificant.

I'm not challenging the validity of the election or the process that our republic uses. However it is a very significant fact that more people who live in this country thought that Hillary was the better choice for president.

Likely untrue, and even if true, it is an extremely thin margin. Insignificant.

 

[Slade3200]

I was going to start a thread along these lines. I'll just piggyback on it here.

A big reason why the democrats lost this election, ignoring Hillary's deep flaws, was the dis-trust of the mainsteam media and other media sources that encourage people to demonize their political opponents. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you're a homophobe. If you think we need stronger immigration laws or even just enforce the immigration laws we have, you're a xenophobe. If you disagree with the president on an issue, you're a racist. So sit your ass down, fall in line and let the people smarter than you tell you what's good for you. Now you see this with so many people up in arms protesting the election. They're bought in. They know what's good everyone in America. Your vote for Trump confirms that you're a racist, bigot, xenophobe and homophobe and therefore you're a terrible person for it.

If you're on the other side, don't stoop to that level. Don't get frenzied by the far right media sources that do exactly what i said above just in reverse. Be the adults in the room. You've complained about Obama not reaching across the aisle from a position of power so why not want Trump to do that in reverse? You've complained about republicans getting unfairly labeled so why do that in reverse? You've wanted power and now you've got it so be responsible with it.

Just like most Trump voters aren't xenophobic racist bigot homophobes, most democratic voters aren't cry baby communist government leeches. Issues of reproductive rights, LGBT rights, criminal justice reform and equal rights are very real and very important to some people so they've got reasons to be worried. You don't like when you're labelled and dismissed so don't do it in reverse.

Or to put it more simply, it's not ok to act like a 5 year old who, when trying to rationalize why they did something wrong, say "well he did it first."

Well said, I completely agree

 

[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.

You act as if it was a HUGE margin of victory. It wasn't. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic because a democracy would suck for everyone. The fact that a very slim margin of victory for Hillary occurred is insignificant.

I'm not challenging the validity of the election or the process that our republic uses. However it is a very significant fact that more people who live in this country thought that Hillary was the better choice for president.

Likely untrue, and even if true, it is an extremely thin margin. Insignificant.

It's not about the margin, it's about the volume. Whether it is slightly more or slightly less it still represents roughly the same amount of people that support Hillary than support Trump. He won by the rules, that should be respected, but it should not be dismissed that more people opposed him than supported him

 

[Slade3200]

You are close but still missing the point. The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

There is no guarantee that vetting can be 100% effective. How EXACTLY do you know as well as recognize the mindset of an individual who believes in THEIR faith to a degree they will do anything to inflict harm into the heart of a nation because of a devoted honor to that religion or pure righteous to their cause. Japanese Kamikazes could not be swayed or reasoned with from their suicide path, to dive their plane into the heart of an enemy warship. This is an extreme value of devotion that goes well beyond the value of their own life.

You may believe this is a lack of compassion, I submit there is a true lack in understanding of the kind of ideological extremism in faith we are facing . Could any of those terrorists who piloted those planes into the world trade tower be reasoned with? Are these extremists somehow believed to be unintelligent, that a series of interrogated questions by a customs agent is believed to be the best tool in uncovering their true intentions where our airport security couldn't (except to see what means of explosive chemicals, sharp instruments, or a series of names on a no fly "watchlist" might find?). Location has everything to do with where these refugees are coming from, when terrorists groups are thriving and growing in numbers. Is there any example in our own history where we have allowed Japanese civilians to freely travel into the United States from their home in the rising sun during World War II? Did I say we need to ban ALL muslims from entering the United States? No. However, we must be honest with ourselves as well as be real about the kind of world and enemy we are facing. They have no uniforms, they are not acknowledged to have association with any one specific nation. This is an extreme ideology that sees death with the taking of their OWN life as an honor to their faith. Ignorance of the truth in the kind of enemy we are facing, will be our nation's downfall.

Nothing is ever 100%. Are you saying unless we can create a 100% full proof system then we should not allow people into our country? What about travelers? Where is the line?

We have a very extensive vetting process set up, if you, or security analysts see holes or areas for improvement then let's talk about them and make it better. But when you have a mother and her children whose father was killed by Isis, that fled in fear of there lives, and this can be proven and traced, then perhaps we have the opportunity to help people like this... perhaps the people who we can't run a thorough and detailed background check on, or people with red flags, don't become refugees... does that sound reasonable?

We can allow immigrants and muslims from parts [Regions] of the world where terrorism is NOT a stronghold, encouraged, or thrives. We have to understand, the extremists who bombed the World Trade Center in '94, was involved in the San Bernardino shootings, or took control of our airliners on 9-11 don't care how compassionate we are or how welcoming we are to helping muslims. Their only concern is how they can infiltrate into the United States to kill American infidels (they don't even recognize us as citizens or innocent civilians) to further their beliefs in their extremist faith. There is no compromising with them, no noble peace prize, no amount of humanity that will alter their view of what they believe. Take the time and look at the killing that goes on of those who don't share their faith. Unless you believe as they do, they will continue to pursue their radical cause and use any "opportunity", open border, (no matter how small) to achieve it If you think I'm hard to convince, imagine those terrorist extremist that desire to inflict harm to civilians [stop and let that thought sink in] .... not military .... our elderly, women, and children ... within our own borders.

im not suggesting we try and reason, negotiate or sympathize with them. Im simply stating the simple fact that there is a distinction between these terrorist thugs and the Muslim community. Your statement while not completely untrue, blur the lines between good honest Muslims and the terrorist

When we are talking about regions where terrorists have a stronghold, where they have control over certain terroitories within a specified region, where these refugees will be coming FROM ... there is no clear distinction between those that this current administration will be looking TO as being allowed to enter the United States, having terroist intentions or not.

How EXACTLY do you plan on vetting to be sure of the intentions of those seeking to enter our country? What argument do you purpose that you can be certain of their mindset, or what their radical beliefs (if any) what they might be? The lines are very blurred, as how do you intend to separate and classify a BELIEF an individual may in fact carry? Muslim Radicals are not unintelligent, if they can extensively plan and carry out a terrorist plot involving the synchronized capture of multiple commercial airliners past the knowledge of security that involves multiple airports. You can't be given any certainty, any more than you can confidently predict snake eyes at a craps table. You also have to remember that any action to take a serious look into an individual's intent, and those specific "measures" you decide to use in your efforts, will be deemed as racist or bigoted. What does that tell you? This leaves the answer of looking at those Muslims, where they are from those regions that are twisted between (1) those who are terrorists, (2) those who are their extremist sympathizer puppets, and (3) those who are innocent Muslims and making the difficult decision not to get involved. Instead, looking to allow Muslims from those regions where terrorism and terrorist training camps don't thrive and have control.

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

 

[Tilly]

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.

You being a snowflake, should realize that more states voted for Donald J Trump. It looks if she does win the popular vote most of those votes come from California, California should not and will not determine The leader of this country.

Maybe a usmb safe area would make them feel better, like they have at collages now ?

I tried having a Safe Thread this morning and I put a warning and the Trumpsters STILL came in, got butthurt and whined for four pages. USMB posters don't respect anything.

At least we aren't rioting, burning flags and cars, beating up innocent people, assaulting the police, demanding the election result be overturned and calling for Trumps assassination, huh?

 

[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.

You being a snowflake, should realize that more states voted for Donald J Trump. It looks if she does win the popular vote most of those votes come from California, California should not and will not determine The leader of this country.

Maybe a usmb safe area would make them feel better, like they have at collages now ?

I tried having a Safe Thread this morning and I put a warning and the Trumpsters STILL came in, got butthurt and whined for four pages. USMB posters don't respect anything.

At least we aren't rioting, burning flags and cars, beating up innocent people, assaulting the police, demanding the election result be overturned and calling for Trumps assassination, huh?

Nor am I or anybody else that I know. The ones that are should be ashamed of themselves or thrown in jail

 

[Divine Wind]

It's not about the margin, it's about the volume. Whether it is slightly more or slightly less it still represents roughly the same amount of people that support Hillary than support Trump. He won by the rules, that should be respected, but it should not be dismissed that more people opposed him than supported him

What were the demographics of those that supported Hillary and those that supported Trump? Do you think it's important to remember that Trump inspired more of his demographics to come out and vote while many in those of Hillary's demographic stayed home? Why do you think this was?

 

[hunarcy]

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.

You act as if it was a HUGE margin of victory. It wasn't. We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic because a democracy would suck for everyone. The fact that a very slim margin of victory for Hillary occurred is insignificant.

I'm not challenging the validity of the election or the process that our republic uses. However it is a very significant fact that more people who live in this country thought that Hillary was the better choice for president.

Likely untrue, and even if true, it is an extremely thin margin. Insignificant.

It's not about the margin, it's about the volume. Whether it is slightly more or slightly less it still represents roughly the same amount of people that support Hillary than support Trump. He won by the rules, that should be respected, but it should not be dismissed that more people opposed him than supported him

Perhaps we should stop and look at what's happening and realize that we might be being manipulated.

Billionaire Globalist Soros Exposed as Hidden Hand Behind Trump Protests -- Provoking US 'Color Revolution'

I'm a Bernie guy, NOT a Soros guy.

 

[Slade3200]

It's not about the margin, it's about the volume. Whether it is slightly more or slightly less it still represents roughly the same amount of people that support Hillary than support Trump. He won by the rules, that should be respected, but it should not be dismissed that more people opposed him than supported him

What were the demographics of those that supported Hillary and those that supported Trump? Do you think it's important to remember that Trump inspired more of his demographics to come out and vote while many in those of Hillary's demographic stayed home? Why do you think this was?

Do you have a break down of those stats?

 

[Divine Wind]

It's not about the margin, it's about the volume. Whether it is slightly more or slightly less it still represents roughly the same amount of people that support Hillary than support Trump. He won by the rules, that should be respected, but it should not be dismissed that more people opposed him than supported him

What were the demographics of those that supported Hillary and those that supported Trump? Do you think it's important to remember that Trump inspired more of his demographics to come out and vote while many in those of Hillary's demographic stayed home? Why do you think this was?

Do you have a break down of those stats?

I've seen a preliminary: How anti-establishment outsider Donald Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States
.....Trump managed to run up a huge margin in counties that have voted Republican in every election since 2000. He was winning those counties by 66%-30%, a margin of 36 percentage points. In 2012, Mitt Romney had carried them by 29 points.

But Clinton didn't make similar gains in traditionally Democratic counties. She was winning in those by 66%-31%, the same margin that Obama had carried them four years ago........

......In exit polls by Edison Research, more than three in five voters said things in this country had gotten "seriously off on the wrong track." Among those voters, 69% supported Trump, 25% Clinton. Nearly a quarter of voters described themselves as “angry” about the way federal government is functioning. They were at the core of Trump’s support.

Only a bit more than a third predicted life for the next generation would be better than today, the fundamental tenet of the American dream.

Optimism and enthusiasm was in short supply.

The most common reaction among Trump supporters to the idea of Clinton's election was "scared;" that was also the most common reaction among Clinton supporters to the prospect of Trump's election. Fewer than half of voters said they strongly favored their own candidate; four years ago, two-thirds had. Only one voter in 50 viewed both candidates as trustworthy; nearly one in three voters said neither was.

That wasn't exactly a prescription for a political honeymoon.

Historians and political scientists struggled to cite a precedent for a contest so defined by division and attack. The dominant message from each candidate was that the other couldn't be trusted with the keys to the White House.......

• Blue-collar whites turned red

There was a time when white men without a college education — men who worked with their hands, including those in unions — were a backbone of the Democratic coalition FDR forged.

But this year, they gave Trump his most avid support, embracing his message that unwise trade deals and competition for jobs from illegal immigrants had cost them their place in the middle class. They backed him by more than 3-1, 72%-23%.. While Clinton was endorsed by the leadership of most labor unions, voters from union households backed her only narrowly.

In an analysis of counties where the most people work in manufacturing, Trump was leading by an overwhelming 70%-26%. He was winning by another huge margin, 60%-37%, in the 121 reporting counties with the highest rates of unemployment.

With that, he cracked the so-called "blue wall" of reliably Democratic states across the industrial Midwest.......

• gender divide

Maybe this shouldn't be a surprise: The campaign featuring the first female nominee — and one running against a male opponent accused of sexual harassment — was heading toward a record gender gap.

Men backed Trump by 12 points; women backed Clinton by 12 points. The exit polls indicated that the difference in support for a candidate between male and female voters would match or surpass the record 11 percentage points in the 1996 campaign.

Also unsurprisingly, women were more upset by allegations that Trump had groped and demeaned women in the past than men were. Close to six in 10 women said his treatment of women bothered them "a lot;" just over four in 10 men felt that way.

A majority of college-educated women voted for the Democratic candidate for the first time since at least 1952, when exit polls allowed demographics characteristics to be analyzed.

However, the key divisions Tuesday weren't only about gender. They also were about education. White women who weren't college graduates? They backed Trump by double digits.......

......
Clinton didn't do quite as well as Obama did among African Americans, one part of his winning coalition. And she lagged him among Millennials. Voters under 30 backed her 55%-37%, a formidable margin but not the 66%-32% that Obama scored over John McCain in 2008.

Clinton's embrace of Obama also put her at odds with a broad sentiment for change.

Democratic consultant Tad Devine, top strategist for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries, called it a "tremendous headwind" against her, especially given her close association not just with one president but with two. In effect, he said, she was running for "a fifth Clinton-Obama term."

Only about one in three said the next president should continue Obama's policies. Close to half wanted more conservative course, one in five a more liberal one. Nearly four in 10 said the ability to "bring about needed change" was the quality that mattered to them most, outpacing experience, judgment or caring "about people like me."

Trump's support was strongest among those most unhappy about the country's direction and, perhaps, about its increasing diversity. He was winning the nation's whitest counties by more than 3-1, 74%-22%. Clinton fared significantly worse in those counties than any Democratic candidate since Al Gore in 2000.

 

[Godboy]

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.

Keep in mind that a million illegals voting for you doesn't count. Subtract those votes and it's clear that she got crushed.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

There is no guarantee that vetting can be 100% effective. How EXACTLY do you know as well as recognize the mindset of an individual who believes in THEIR faith to a degree they will do anything to inflict harm into the heart of a nation because of a devoted honor to that religion or pure righteous to their cause. Japanese Kamikazes could not be swayed or reasoned with from their suicide path, to dive their plane into the heart of an enemy warship. This is an extreme value of devotion that goes well beyond the value of their own life.

You may believe this is a lack of compassion, I submit there is a true lack in understanding of the kind of ideological extremism in faith we are facing . Could any of those terrorists who piloted those planes into the world trade tower be reasoned with? Are these extremists somehow believed to be unintelligent, that a series of interrogated questions by a customs agent is believed to be the best tool in uncovering their true intentions where our airport security couldn't (except to see what means of explosive chemicals, sharp instruments, or a series of names on a no fly "watchlist" might find?). Location has everything to do with where these refugees are coming from, when terrorists groups are thriving and growing in numbers. Is there any example in our own history where we have allowed Japanese civilians to freely travel into the United States from their home in the rising sun during World War II? Did I say we need to ban ALL muslims from entering the United States? No. However, we must be honest with ourselves as well as be real about the kind of world and enemy we are facing. They have no uniforms, they are not acknowledged to have association with any one specific nation. This is an extreme ideology that sees death with the taking of their OWN life as an honor to their faith. Ignorance of the truth in the kind of enemy we are facing, will be our nation's downfall.

Nothing is ever 100%. Are you saying unless we can create a 100% full proof system then we should not allow people into our country? What about travelers? Where is the line?

We have a very extensive vetting process set up, if you, or security analysts see holes or areas for improvement then let's talk about them and make it better. But when you have a mother and her children whose father was killed by Isis, that fled in fear of there lives, and this can be proven and traced, then perhaps we have the opportunity to help people like this... perhaps the people who we can't run a thorough and detailed background check on, or people with red flags, don't become refugees... does that sound reasonable?

We can allow immigrants and muslims from parts [Regions] of the world where terrorism is NOT a stronghold, encouraged, or thrives. We have to understand, the extremists who bombed the World Trade Center in '94, was involved in the San Bernardino shootings, or took control of our airliners on 9-11 don't care how compassionate we are or how welcoming we are to helping muslims. Their only concern is how they can infiltrate into the United States to kill American infidels (they don't even recognize us as citizens or innocent civilians) to further their beliefs in their extremist faith. There is no compromising with them, no noble peace prize, no amount of humanity that will alter their view of what they believe. Take the time and look at the killing that goes on of those who don't share their faith. Unless you believe as they do, they will continue to pursue their radical cause and use any "opportunity", open border, (no matter how small) to achieve it If you think I'm hard to convince, imagine those terrorist extremist that desire to inflict harm to civilians [stop and let that thought sink in] .... not military .... our elderly, women, and children ... within our own borders.

im not suggesting we try and reason, negotiate or sympathize with them. Im simply stating the simple fact that there is a distinction between these terrorist thugs and the Muslim community. Your statement while not completely untrue, blur the lines between good honest Muslims and the terrorist

When we are talking about regions where terrorists have a stronghold, where they have control over certain terroitories within a specified region, where these refugees will be coming FROM ... there is no clear distinction between those that this current administration will be looking TO as being allowed to enter the United States, having terroist intentions or not.

How EXACTLY do you plan on vetting to be sure of the intentions of those seeking to enter our country? What argument do you purpose that you can be certain of their mindset, or what their radical beliefs (if any) what they might be? The lines are very blurred, as how do you intend to separate and classify a BELIEF an individual may in fact carry? Muslim Radicals are not unintelligent, if they can extensively plan and carry out a terrorist plot involving the synchronized capture of multiple commercial airliners past the knowledge of security that involves multiple airports. You can't be given any certainty, any more than you can confidently predict snake eyes at a craps table. You also have to remember that any action to take a serious look into an individual's intent, and those specific "measures" you decide to use in your efforts, will be deemed as racist or bigoted. What does that tell you? This leaves the answer of looking at those Muslims, where they are from those regions that are twisted between (1) those who are terrorists, (2) those who are their extremist sympathizer puppets, and (3) those who are innocent Muslims and making the difficult decision not to get involved. Instead, looking to allow Muslims from those regions where terrorism and terrorist training camps don't thrive and have control.

Background check, references, psychological analysis and a professional evaluation of their situation. Are you familiar with the current vetting process? If so, what specifically do you think needs improvement

I've already gone into great detail, you can not say with strong certainty who you are going to end up with entering our borders through one individual, from a group of terrorists, Muslim extremist sympathizes who are a puppet tool for these terrorists, and a Muslim who does not share in that kind of ideology. If you believe that there is no threat you are welcome to that view, being prior military I know better than to put our nation through that kind of risk. I will also not be the one to put salt in the wound of those who has been proven wrong. Our nation thought it was impregnable to the terrorist actions we saw taking place in Europe, being surrounded by a boundary of water lost in our own "bubble" world with the best technology advancements of any nation, then came 9-11 and everything changed over night. I'm simply choosing not to be ignorant of the ideological threat we are facing and what they are capable of. I base my views on the reality of the world we currently live in, not through "emotions" because we need to show compassion.