Trump's no monster... and he's not mad either

[gracepoole]

A Reuters poll last night revealed that 49% of Americans support Trump’s travel ban, as opposed to 41% who are against it.

And yet only 31% said the ban makes them feel safer. What does that say about the motivations for support of the ban?

 

[Reuben_J]

The entire nation suffered for the past eight years, but only half the nation knew it. Now, the entire nation has the hope of benefiting from a turnaround and the other half of the nation does not know it.

Agree or disagree, pundit P.J. O’Rourke states “At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

Marches, demonstrations, riots etc. tend to bear this out.

Because of the political correctness, we were overwhelmed by it at the expense of our faith. belief and practices. We cannot openly say and do those things without at the risk that somebody would ostracise us.

 

[gracepoole]

When Trump has killed off millions of his own citizens, like any number of dictators, then I’ll agree he’s a really bad egg.

But of course, we should be savvy enough to recognize bad eggs in the making. By now, with the experience we have with them, the signs should be pretty obvious.

 

[Reuben_J]

We live in a post-truth world now. Basically whatever the media says and whatever the popular opinion is based on the media’s stories, that is the golden standard in truth. The popular opinion, since liberals dominate all the influential areas (media, academia) is that Trump is Hitler.
I don’t see Trump as a monster, to me that is just some story cooked up by the media.

perhaps that’s the price of ‘free speech’ gone too far. Media wants to influence people with their own agendas.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

And yet only 31% said the ban makes them feel safer. What does that say about the motivations for support of the ban?

That’s thing about polls. If the polls were right, Britain should have voted to remain in the EU and Hillary Clinton should be President of the USA. Don’t believe the propaganda of pollsters.

But of course, we should be savvy enough to recognize bad eggs in the making. By now, with the experience we have with them, the signs should be pretty obvious.

Guess we dodged a bullet there, then. The signs were obvious enough for the flyover country filled with deplorables to elect Donald Trump as President. Sigh of relief.

 

[Reuben_J]

And yet only 31% said the ban makes them feel safer. What does that say about the motivations for support of the ban?

That’s a surprise that quite a lot of people actually made to feel safer about the ban when we don’t know yet or see the result yet.

What is true is that Islamic terrorism is real. They can do really nasty thing to us. And they can come into the country masquerading as refugees or immigrants. We saw that in Europe.

Well, lives are at stake. If you ask me, it is more of a preventive measure, and I don’t know how to stop terrorism but if there is an effective way to do it, I am ok with it.

 

[Faithdancer]

Those who would continue the annual slaughter of countless thousands of innocent unborn human beings…those are some pretty bad eggs.

 

[gracepoole]

That’s a surprise that quite a lot of people actually made to feel safer about the ban when we don’t know yet or see the result yet.

What is true is that Islamic terrorism is real. They can do really nasty thing to us. And they can come into the country masquerading as refugees or immigrants. We saw that in Europe.

Well, lives are at stake. If you ask me, it is more of a preventive measure, and I don’t know how to stop terrorism but if there is an effective way to do it, I am ok with it.

The vetting process used in the US has been different than that used in Europe. The odds of you being killed by a refugee terrorist are 1 in 3.6 billion.

The fact that 31% of people think the ban is going to make them safer demonstrates how little people really know about the vetting that’s taken place. The fact that 49% are in favor of the ban but only 31% think it will make them safer leads to some extremely troubling questions about those 18% who are STILL in favor of it but not because it will make them safer…

 

[Faithdancer]

I am with you one hundred percent on this! For too long we have been governed by a ‘monster’ and we could only look and pray as it come to pass. Hooray, thanks God, we have one President here who is on the side of God, not the fallen angel.

Yes indeed, sir. I can’t hear the phrase “social engineering” now without a shudder, and smelling a whiff of sulfur…

 

[Reuben_J]

The vetting process used in the US has been different than that used in Europe. The odds of you being killed by a refugee terrorist are 1 in 3.6 billion.

The fact that 31% of people think the ban is going to make them safer demonstrates how little people really know about the vetting that’s taken place.

I am not sure about the figure of 1 in 3.6 billion. Can you explain that?

As I said, ban is an action being preferred by this administration. Like I would say, what would you do to combat terrorism?

I think those who support the ban cannot be hundred percents sure that they are safe because the terrorists are elusive and much shrewder than we ever know. So you cannot actually feel hundred percent safe. The ban is not sure proof answer to it but it is what can be done now and then go back to a better improved vetting. That’s what it is.

About the vetting … isn’t that what the ban is all about? To review the vetting. Ok, granted people know very little about it, then so what?

The present vetting system is still can be improved, is it not? If we can avoid another Benardino, then why not?

The fact that 49% are in favor of the ban but only 31% think it will make them safer leads to some extremely troubling questions about those 18% who are STILL in favor of it but not because it will make them safer…

I think this is a very simplistic conclusion and I don’t believe it works that way.

Must they feel safe? If they don’t feel safe with the ban, then perhaps more have to be done about it until they feel safe.

So it could mean wanting a stricter measure and that they feel the ban is not effective.

To me it could only mean that people do not feel safe with the threat of terrorism.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes indeed, sir. I can’t hear the phrase “social engineering” now without a shudder, and smelling a whiff of sulfur…

Most of us, me included, that what matters is we cannot be in collaboration with the Devil. This must be the sole most important factor in choosing an administration. Glad to see your post.

 

[gracepoole]

I am not sure about the figure of 1 in 3.6 billion. Can you explain that?

Sure. Here you go:

You’re more likely to be killed by your own clothes than by an immigrant terrorist

Terrorism and Immigration

As I said, ban is an action being preferred by this administration.

Yes. And given the odds of refugees being a realistic terrorist threat, you have to wonder why it’s preferred by this administration.

About the vetting … isn’t that what the ban is all about? To review the vetting. Ok, granted people know very little about it, then so what?

Then maybe they should learn about it and how it has kept us safe.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sure. Here you go:

You’re more likely to be killed by your own clothes than by an immigrant terrorist

Terrorism and Immigration

Yes. And given the odds of refugees being a realistic terrorist threat, you have to wonder why it’s preferred by this administration.

Then maybe they should learn about it and how it has kept us safe.

With due respect, I think there is terrorist threat and it is more complex an issue as to the probability of being killed by it. It already happened here and elsewhere. So anything to combat this threat goes well with many people, and so that’s it.

I agree, unless you are someone from the Intelligence agency, we, as those people are, both walking in the dark about this topic.

 

[Michael68]

With due respect, I think there is terrorist threat and it is more complex an issue as to the probability of being killed by it. It already happened here and elsewhere. So anything to combat this threat goes well with many people, and so that’s it.

I agree, unless you are someone from the Intelligence agency, we, as those people are, both walking in the dark about this topic.

1 terrorist is way to many

 

[Reuben_J]

1 terrorist is way to many

That’s right and why now we have to be more cautious with immigrants. All it takes is for one terrorist to be able to go through the network of the vetting system, and hundred of people can be killed and injured and properties damaged.

*The attack on San Bernardino

edition.cnn.com/2015/12/04/opinions/bergen-san-bernardino-terror-attack-explain/index.html

The couple went to great lengths to hide their tracks; destroying the hard drive in their computer; smashing their cell phones and maintaining almost no presence on social media.

They were able to maintain perfect operational security because as a married couple they had no need to send each other emails or make phone calls to discuss their plot. They were so-called “clean skins” who were not known to law enforcement.

Farook and Malik, in short, appeared to be planning some kind of deadly campaign. Now, we know it was on behalf of ISIS.
*

 

[GEddie]

Irrespective of the numerical odds of dying a terror-related death, if people are afraid, there is a societal cost. Government has to address that cost.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Meagan34]

He is a monster. As conservative I am deeply embarrassed that this vile man bullied his way to the nomination.

I wake each day thanking God that we are one day closer to his being out of office.

Oh goodness, I wouldn’t call him a “monster”. You need brains for that. I would say ‘manchild with narcissistic personality disorder’ would be on point. The grandiose sense of self-importance, lack of empathy, arrogant and haughty behaviors and attitudes… If an ego is threatened in any way, perhaps by a tweet, people with said disorder usually respond in a vindictive, angry impulsive (and lets face, chil-toddler like) way. And unfortunately for our country, he can’t help it. People like that are extremely sensitive and insecure and he’s most likely psychologically wired to require constant affirmation through compliments and attention.

 

[ATeNumquam]

Is there anybody on CAF who is afraid that Trump’s “extreme vetting” process has actually made America more vulnerable to a terrorist threat than it was pre-Trump?
Because of retaliation?

If I was American I’d be far more afraid now than after 9/11.

I’m relieved to be on the other side of the world - but only somewhat relieved.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Is there anybody on CAF who is afraid that Trump’s “extreme vetting” process has actually made America more vulnerable to a terrorist threat than it was pre-Trump?
Because of retaliation?

If I was American I’d be far more afraid now than after 9/11.

I’m relieved to be on the other side of the world - but only somewhat relieved.

Yeah, same people that think if you put a valuable in a locked safe then it invites thieves.
Anyone who is going to blow up a school bus or shoot a priest was going to mosey on in and do so regaurdless if they were “offended” about vetting.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

Charitably discuss the news, not each other

No name calling of each other or news makers