I believe that its wrong to put myself into safety and leaving others to die. I guess that makes me a liberal hippie. News spreads lies and isis uses propaganda to say that they have terrorists within the ranks of syrian refugees.... They most likely dont, and if we have heavy screenings and a friendly place to take in refugees then the good refugees will obviously want to come to yhe sanctuary, and then if "refugees" are obviously avoiding the screenings and trying to enter america from elsewhere we can maybe conclude that theyre trouble. Its simple logic but republicans just tend to be xenophobes
Itll be a landslide for the democrats if trump is the final candadite, guaranteed win. The only stats that trump would win would be the super conservative southern redneck states.
Heavy screenings? The FBI has already admitted there's no real way to screen these refugees. There's nobody to call in syria to get ask if somebody is a terrorist or not.
The only reason why Trump is funding his own campaign is because he's extremely wealthy - and because he was born wealthy. I think that if you're going to be looking at cleaning up politics and getting the corporations out of there, Bernie Sanders is the best bet. That's his campaign and his first priority - cleaning up politics so that corporations aren't being over represented in government. Sanders wants the political campaign system to be funded by the government instead of private corporations. This way, the people will be represented, and no unfair advantages will be given to those people whose policies favour the rich.
Just as a question, why would a terrorist hide among refugees for the several years and intense scrutiny, by both authorities and fellow refugees, to enter the U.S., when ISIL has the resources to get them in on regular tourist visas, with a much shorter, and less scrutinized, waiting time? Neither way do they get to bring in weapons (although here in the U.S., it's easy enough to get as many high powered guns as they may want - thanks, NRA), and going the traditional route is faster and less suspect, especially as they "warned" us beforehand. If they were going to actually use the refugees as an entry into the country, it seems they wouldn't advertise that fact. It seems the real purpose behind the propaganda that they are sneaking into countries with refugees, is to cause fear to the easily panicked, who will react with further Islamiphobia, which is their best recruitment tool. It's so much easier to sell their idea of a religious war and add to their propaganda that all western countries are hateful to muslims, when they have actual actions and footage to back it up. Fortunately for ISIL, Trump is happy to help them with their agenda.
The answer to your question is simple. Why would they cover as refugees? It's another route. Sure there's other ways to get in, but if America Is going to open its doors, why not take advantage. Only fools wouldn't. Btw, I did not say I was specifically against refugees, just pointed out that in reality, it is impossible to truly screen these people.
It was a bit of a rhetorical question considering it makes absolutely no sense to do that (including the part that refugees are subject to more and longer scrutiny than people on tourist visas, or those on reciprocal guest programs).
Make no sense to do that? So you believe that you know what isis is going to do and not do. The fact that ignorant people like yourself think that isis will not send people through the refugee system gives them more cause to do so. The fact that the FBI openly admitted they do not have the information needed to properly screen these people gives them reason to do it. If everyone thought like you, the refugee system would be a prime isis funnel. The people wouldn't be looking that way, and the fbi didn't know who you were? But yeah, dumb idea...
What part of the refugees go through a more rigorous screening than legally admitted tourist visa or other entries, does not make sense to you? It takes far longer, and they are far more likely to be exposed and caught (even if at first, just from the other refugees who they have had to live with for several years) than coming in any other way. But if you want to continue to argue that, despite the reality of the situation, then there really isn't any helping you.
Obama put us in no such situation. What were we gaining by having so many troops in Afghanistan? Nothing... Obama has actually done a very good job handling all the crazy things that have going on recently.
First, I want to state that I do not support Trump or his policies. Next, I want to speak about the importance of factual reporting. For example, if I say "I hate black people who have such amazing skin tones like Halle Berry or Tamar Braxton or my girl, Bey. So jealous." That comment isn't racist. I'm actually complimenting a feature I find attractive in black persons. However, if cheese made a thread that started out "Belle says she hates black people", then I would sound like a real piece of work, wouldn't I? So- it's important to post the WHOLE comment made by Trump here. Now, I probably don't disagree with most anything you call Trump. And I don't agree with the stance he is taking on his actual press release. BUT.... It's not like he's planning to ban all Muslims on his first day in office. He said he wanted to put the acceptance of refugees on hold until we get our stuff figured it out. It doesn't sound nearly as unreasonable when it's put like that. I still don't agree with it. But um- I feel that the OP has misinterpretted the press release by Trump, making it sound worse than it really is. I'm not going to go into all of the reasons I disagree with the statement. I just want to clarify what the official statement was.
Nobody said he was calling for a permanent ban on Muslims entering the country. Edit: I think to say that I quoted him out of context is a stretch. Especially when compared to the example you gave. In your example, the complete meaning is changed. Trump really does want to block a certain group of people based on religion. That's a discriminatory comment against a protected class, no matter how you slice it. Edit 2: Trump said Muslims, not refugees. That's a BIG, and important, distinction. Had he said refugees, then I'd agree with you, but not matter how you interpret it, it's a discriminatory comment against a protected class of people.