Donald Trump Calls for Barring Muslims From Entering U.S

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimR-OCDS said:
Most likely, he’ll be the guest on Meet the Press and This Week With George Stephanopoulas this Sunday Morning.

Hillary just sitting back smiling, while not wasting money from her war chest.

Jim
Click to expand...
Problem with Hillary is she has to mimic the Obama administration to hold his following. She may be a bigger hawk than all of them. 😃 I don’t think either is spending much. Still though so many military and intelligence personal have spoken out against this threat of radical islam its not hard to see this administration has neglected this Isis issue.
 
marymary1975 said:
I don’t agree that we should close our borders to Muslims. Not all Muslims are crazy radicals. That is an unfair generalization. But, and this is a big but, what the USA must do is require visas to Europeans and middle eastern countries. Many of these radicals are European citizens and they can enter the US without a visa anytime they want. Also visas are not required of.some Muslim countries. We don’t have to close our doors to Muslims butddefinitely visas have to be required to weed out people.
Click to expand...
This is what Trump is proposing. Lets TEMPORARILY suspend entry UNTIL we can get a handle on this problem of radicalized muslims entering our country with the intent of waging jihad on innocent American citizens. We have the right and responsibility to protect the citizens of this country by controlling our borders.
 
Used2beSherryG said:
This is what Trump is proposing. Lets TEMPORARILY suspend entry UNTIL we can get a handle on this problem of radicalized muslims entering our country with the intent of waging jihad on innocent American citizens. We have the right and responsibility to protect the citizens of this country by controlling our borders.
Click to expand...
And how exactly are you to determine who is and who is not a Muslim? Ask them to sign a declaration on entry?

How would this ‘temporary’ suspension of all Muslims into the country be implemented if there is no may of identifying who is and who isn’t a Muslim? Muslims don’t go around with “I am a Muslim” tatooed on their foreheads, nor is a person’s religion shown on their passport (and there are Muslims of every nationality on this planet).

It’s empty rhetoric, which couldn’t be implemented even if you wanted to. It’s complete nonsense and serves no purpose other than sounding tough.
 
Brendan_64 said:
And how exactly are you to determine who is and who is not a Muslim? Ask them to sign a declaration on entry?

How would this ‘temporary’ suspension of all Muslims into the country be implemented if there is no may of identifying who is and who isn’t a Muslim? Muslims don’t go around with “I am a Muslim” tatooed on their foreheads, nor is a person’s religion shown on their passport (and there are Muslims of every nationality on this planet).

It’s empty rhetoric, which couldn’t be implemented even if you wanted to. It’s complete nonsense and serves no purpose other than sounding tough.
Click to expand...
And? The foremost job of the government is to protect its citizens.
 
UN resettlement program has been disproportionate in allowing Christians into the US.
 
I did not see where the post you are quoting says we should accept all refugees.

As Reagan said, the job of the government is to protect it’s citizens, not run their lives.

Let’s see someone assert that all refugees should be accepted and then, allow the debate again.

Of course, we know this debate will pertain perhaps to the so-called “Western Nations”, USA, UK and others…

While somehow the debate rhetoric does not discuss some other nations.

Turkey, meanwhile, should be commended for the millions of refugees they have accepted.
 
Debate here is not about posters, perhaps one should read the forum rules.

How curious that one might think a thread or discussion is about oneself.

We are to discuss the subject, not each other.
 
You can argue then that if one says “We can’t properly vet refugees”, then does that mean reject all or accept all?

At least vetting presents an option, saying refugees can not be vetted hardly presents a viable option.
To protect the U.S., vet refugees
Click to expand...
I appreciate your asking to hear from me regarding the invasion of “Syrian refugees.” As a legal immigrant from Finland and being from a family whose members have been refugees, I have a personal perspective on the issue.
Click to expand...
First of all, you should note that Obama laid out a template for handling refugees back in 2011 by signing an order to stop processing refugee requests from Iraq for six months. This resulted from an investigation by the FBI, which uncovered evidence that several dozen Iraqi terrorists had infiltrated the United States two years earlier. But now Obama claims that to deny admission to refugees even though they harbor terrorists among them doesn’t reflect true American values. How un-American was his order in 2011? Obama’s abject hypocrisy stinks.
Click to expand...
The basic principle we must follow is that we need to know who is coming here. There is no database of these Syrian refugees, if they are even from Syria to begin with. We have no information on them and therefore we cannot vet them appropriately. The FBI even admits that it can’t determine who these refugees are, what their background is, or how many terrorists are among them. Consequently, we must first secure our nation against the very real of threat of terrorists being embedded among the refugees.
Click to expand...
The investigation following the Paris murders confirmed that at least one of the attackers had entered Europe as a refugee with a Syrian passport. This in itself indicates a very real risk. Once refugees enter Europe, they can travel to the U.S. merely with a passport, without a visa. It would be lunacy on our part to grant refugees, or anyone else, entry into the U.S. if we cannot confirm their background.
Click to expand...
santamariasun.com/commentary/13968/to-protect-the-us-vet-refugees/
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Most likely, he’ll be the guest on Meet the Press and This Week With George Stephanopoulas this Sunday Morning.

Hillary just sitting back smiling, while not wasting money from her war chest.

Jim
Click to expand...
She is smiling alright - all the money she plans to take with her when she has to stay home (house arrest). She will get special treatment and not do time in the big house but the doors to the White House will be locked. (Something like locking the barn door after the horse was stolen!)
 
GaryTaylor said:
Trump is on the news around the clock, he tapped into the anti Obama growing sect apparently. He sticks to three points the PC point, immigration and radical islamic terrorism. All valid points

Frankly I would rather listen to his rhetoric than Obama and climate is terrorism and guns are the cause and the nonsensical Islamophobia MB rant. National security with radical Islamic terrorist immigration is the point which is obviously an issue.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Islam. It is not my choice to be so but when someone declares war on you, and backs it up with actual acts of war, then You have the right to defend Yourself, and one way of doing so is to keep the enemy outside the gates!
Do you then fault the French for the actions they are taking as a result of realizing they are in a war?
 
If one reads the newspapers, one will see this one group is being bombed in Syria and Iraq, they are considered radicals. That gives one an idea of whom one is at war with. Stating the obvious but nonetheless, a viable question.

So my answer would be radicalism as in the news often:

Sasse: We are at war with militant Islam
kotatv.com/news/nebraska-news/sasse-we-are-at-war-with-militant-islam/36883546

It’s a war not just on the land and the seas, but really probably even cyber wise, a war on terrorism.
 
Would that be an action you could approve? The American people have concluded that ISIS, Alcaida, Uma Huma, all of Islamic Terror Inc. are the enemy to be destroyed.
 
NO need to do so. When someone declares war on you, you*** are ***at war, even if you do nothing, except for the fact that doing nothing only leads to defeat.
 
I think Trump’s popularity has much to do with an angry base of support, who are fed up seeing people’s careers destroyed over some misspoken word as they’re labeled racists, anti-simetic, homophobic or whatever PC violation they made.

Trump says what he wants, politically correct or not and throws the finger at the PC police.

Not sure if this mentality can carry him to the WH if he wins the GOP primary, as the general election will have a broad range of voters including those who hate him.

However, another terrorist attack on a significant scale in the US, will send voters looking for some one who can carry out revenge and Trump would fit that bill, to a dangerous level however.

If not such event, Hillary will probably become our next president, because women are aching to see the first woman elected and will vote for her, even if they don’t trust her all that much. Its better than the alternative of voting for Trump or God forbid, Ted Cruz.

Jim
 
Looks like the “ban Mulsims” group is gaining ground in the survey. Unfortunate that folks would hold such an opinion.
 
And yet the absolutist nature of the poll speaks to the shallow and absolutist stance taken by Trump in that he believes we should be banning Muslims entry into the US.
 
I don’t think one can single the United States out and this sounds like an unfair question at the least. Yet, that is whom was singled out, the US as if a narrative that is being pushed.

The tone of this above statement, “Ah yes, how that worked out chaps” seems rather arrogant and possibly uncharitable really, this is human life we are dealing with. I doubt one would talk about this in this way with France without the risk of appearing arrogant. The last I saw, some other countries likewise have problems they must deal with such as Nigeria and others.

I can think of, btw, other countries one could ask the same question about but they do not in turn, seemed to be questioned in the same manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top