Posted by Vendetta

Yes it's several Americans who will get affected by refugees, likely less. As I stated before over 750,000 refugees have entered the country since 9/11 and none have had any involvement in terrorism within the US.

"Oh, well I guess since our extensive screening process has aided in defense against terrorism, we can just let all of you in here now, since nothing can go wrong."  

If any of the emails that wikileaks has released were fabricated, the Clinton campaign would pounce on it immediately and tell everyone that it's fake. The fact that they say they "can't verify" certain emails only proves that they are real.  

Posted by Fulgore

"Oh, well I guess since our extensive screening process has aided in defense against terrorism, we can just let all of you in here now, since nothing can go wrong."

It's worked in the past, the news and political candidates (Trump in this case) exaggerate everything. I'm not saying things can't go wrong, there's always a chance terrorists could slip in but it's very slim and you're saving thousands of lives in the process.  

Posted by Vendetta

Yes it's several Americans who will get affected by refugees, likely less. As I stated before over 750,000 refugees have entered the country since 9/11 and none have had any involvement in terrorism within the US.

And yet, Europe lets in a couple thousand and all hell breaks loose.

Again. Its too risky.

You can't argue only "several" Americans will be affected by refugees when the whole frigging idea is to not have any Americans be affected by anything.

"Oh only a couple of us might die or get seriously injured as a result of terrorism. No biggy."

**** no.

You have any idea what that kind of thought process will get somebody like Clinton or Trump? A **** load of angry ass people thats what.

If you think a couple of citizens' lives are expendable for the sake of a bunch of non-citizens then you've got another thing coming.

America is obligated to keep their citizens safe. That's the priority of any major nation.  

Posted by 5hift

And yet, Europe lets in a couple thousand and all hell breaks loose.

Again. Its too risky.

You can't argue only "several" Americans will be affected by refugees when the whole frigging idea is to not have any Americans be affected by anything.

"Oh only a couple of us might die or get seriously injured as a result of terrorism. No biggy."

**** no.

Because half of them aren't vetted in the same way as in the US. So many of them travel across the ocean in a dinghy risking their lives just to get away from the conflict, most of Europe aren't assholes so don't just send them back.

Maybe if America didn't want to get involved or be affected they shouldn't have funded ISIS in the first place.  

Posted by Vendetta

Because half of them aren't vetted in the same way as in the US. So many of them travel across the ocean in a dinghy risking their lives just to get away from the conflict, most of Europe aren't assholes so don't just send them back.

Maybe if America didn't want to get involved or be affected they shouldn't have funded ISIS in the first place.

There is no way to tell. Thats the problem. Yeah we'd like to help somebody who is in need but it certainly isn't appealing when there's a chance you may inadvertently cause trouble by letting in the wrong people.

Europe is where most of all this terrorism **** is happening nowadays. Coincidence?

And don't bring up that funding ISIS **** here. Hillary is literally being funded by countries supporting ISIS so what do you ****ing care at this point.

"Uhhhhh America funded ISIS so we better vote in somebody who accepts donations from countries that support ISIS,"

I R O N I C

Yeah congratulations Captain Hindsight. You just fixed all of our problems.  

The problem is there isn't much to vet, a lot of refugees live in poor conditions and don't have the luxury of technology like we do, a lot of them for the most part are off the grid and there isn't really anyway to do a proper check on them.

With U.S sending in troops to fight at Mosul, Iraq. You'll effectively be partially responsible for displacing over one million people so Ven is right in the fact you should own up to your interference in the Middle-East and help them outside of just going in guns blazing in their cities.

If you want to turn a blind eye on them then just stop involving your selves in their country.

Recently in Canada we accepted over 10,000 Syrian refugees and have and plan on accepting a lot more and we have had 0 terrorism attempts here.

Even if someone came to America as a non-terrorist, all the racism and hate towards them can easily make them dislike you guys because so many Americans dislike them.

But I do hate how entitled some of them feel in Canada, we are no longer allowed to say Merry Christmas in a public manner and stores can not have Merry Christmas on display anymore because it doesn't fit THEIR culture when they are in OUR country but it's mainly because our PM is a feminist/SJW (as he's stated himself).

There was a few hundred refugees in my town because I live beside the largest military base in Canada (where we had them stay) and they were all really nice people and no terrorist attempts when they could of easily hit us in our most important base.  

You guys realise you're getting atleast some fleeing the warzone whether you like it or not right, you can't actually permanently stop them from coming in/can't send them all away.

Also bingo:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/30/...ryone-forgets/  

Posted by 5hift

There is no way to tell. Thats the problem. Yeah we'd like to help somebody who is in need but it certainly isn't appealing when there's a chance you may inadvertently cause trouble by letting in the wrong people.

There's no way to tell 100% but careful vetting they get most of them. Rather than just take it from the media or from Trump just look at the figures. 750,000 refugees have gone through the vetting process and not one of them committed an act of terrorism in the country.

I do get why people disagree with me. I get it that you want to protect your own people, it's just a matter of opinion whether you think saving all those lives is worth the risk (which seems really small to me).

Posted by Colin

But I do hate how entitled some of them feel in Canada, we are no longer allowed to say Merry Christmas in a public manner and stores can not have Merry Christmas on display anymore because it doesn't fit THEIR culture when they are in OUR country but it's mainly because our PM is a feminist/SJW (as he's stated himself).

Yeah that annoys me. I haven't witnessed that here but they should 100% respect your culture as your country is kind enough to allow them in.  

Posted by tzp

Hillary = Politically "corrupt" but enhanced diplomatic relationships with foreign countries, greater security for Americans, she serves in the best interest of the US as a whole. Served as U.S. Secretary of State.

Trump = never served ANY Government position, but already shows the same corruption in private-owned businesses. Emails, etc, all same method dealings as Hillary. He is NO different than Hillary other than never having any experience dealing with Foreign policy and relations.

If you want to serve the REAL interest of national security and the US, it's Hillary. National Security is ALL about how much friends you have.

Get your head out of your asses about Trump being not corrupted as Hillary. And you rely on Wikileaks. Great on you. Wikileaks has already provided false evidences on some accounts, so perhaps a Bible will serve better use in providing the truth. Wikileaks' popularity skyrockets because of how it pretends to serve the people with mixed anti-government is evil information and the common masses eats it up, expecting the Government to be an all-holy, clean and legal, entity that can provide freedom without hindrance to security. Ignorance.

Even more so, Trump, the most ignorant of all, having NEVER served in the U.S. Government and claiming he won't be corrupt as Hillary. LOL. Rich spoiled man thinks he can change a system that has existed and grown naturally, protecting the US and keeping near-world peace this entire time, because of its "corrupt" nature.

The **** I've seen while serving in U.S. Embassies in Africa, Japan, Morocco, Russia, Azerbaijan, China, some unethical, some not, but the bigger picture ALWAYS serves in the interest of the US, and its allies. Ultimately, world peace is impossible, but at the very least you can protect yourself and your friends. Trump does not know, how to play Poker in the big leagues.

I hope he wins though. I really really really do. So that I can laugh at what will be, and see people say "well..., guess we were wrong"

Trump's winning in the polls, but not on the media. It's said that the media is exaggerating the polls/Clinton will rig the election somehow... Let's say Trump and Clinton are equally corrupt. Trump states his direct plans for the future of America, prevent illegal immigration, pro-lifer, extreme vetting, get rid of NAFTA, etc. Clinton on the other hand says nothing about her policies.. Also, Clinton is intentionally being corrupt by not having done anything as a politician but Trump's just starting! AND Clinton accepted money from many terrible countries that support terror. Her best friend Barack Obama sent 400 billion in CASH in airplane to some country or something.. Besides all the dumb thing accused against Trump were either debunked or completely irrelevant to anything. I'm just saying, either candidate could potentially ruin the country but I think Trump's the better option.  

Posted by DoubleliftGraal

Trump's winning in the polls, but not on the media. It's said that the media is exaggerating the polls/Clinton will rig the election somehow... Let's say Trump and Clinton are equally corrupt. Trump states his direct plans for the future of America, prevent illegal immigration, pro-lifer, extreme vetting, get rid of NAFTA, etc. Clinton on the other hand says nothing about her policies.. Also, Clinton is intentionally being corrupt by not having done anything as a politician but Trump's just starting! AND Clinton accepted money from many terrible countries that support terror. Her best friend Barack Obama sent 400 billion in CASH in airplane to some country or something.. Besides all the dumb thing accused against Trump were either debunked or completely irrelevant to anything. I'm just saying, either candidate could potentially ruin the country but I think Trump's the better option.

Both of them clearly state their policies on their website:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/


Although if you want to find out what you agree with without having to sift through their dreadful websites then go here: http://www.isidewith.com/


It sounds a lot like you're just reciting information from Trump, do more research than just listening to Trump as he lies a lot (as do both candidates). He claims so many things have been debunked when there's literally evidence of him saying those things.  

I did the isidewith test a while ago. It asks vague questions with incomplete answers and therefore does a poor job in actually lining your beliefs up with the candidates'. That's my opinion anyways. I had many questions that had answers I didn't agree with much, but I agreed with about 51% of what the answer said so I had to choose it. Just saying because you shouldn't decide which candidate is best for you based on that.

Posted by Vendetta

Because half of them aren't vetted in the same way as in the US. So many of them travel across the ocean in a dinghy risking their lives just to get away from the conflict, most of Europe aren't assholes so don't just send them back.

Doesn't most of Europe have to keep the refugees that enter their country because of the EU's border regulations? I thought I heard that some time ago that they can pretty much cross into any country they want freely because of EU regulations.  

Posted by PigParty

I did the isidewith test a while ago. It asks vague questions with incomplete answers and therefore does a poor job in actually lining your beliefs up with the candidates'. That's my opinion anyways. I had many questions that had answers I didn't agree with much, but I agreed with about 51% of what the answer said so I had to choose it. Just saying because you shouldn't decide which candidate is best for you based on that.

It definitely shouldn't decide who you should vote for but it helps. How are the questions vague though?

Posted by PigParty

Doesn't most of Europe have to keep the refugees that enter their country because of the EU's border regulations? I thought I heard that some time ago that they can pretty much cross into any country they want freely because of EU regulations.

I'm not entirely sure when it comes to refugees, EU shares open interstate borders so its likely they will have the same.  

Posted by Vendetta

It definitely shouldn't decide who you should vote for but it helps. How are the questions vague though?

I did it during the primaries so I don't remember. Maybe it was just vague/incomplete answers. I just remember there were quite a few questions that had answers that forced me to say I believed in something I didn't, just to choose the answer that I believed in more than the others.

Also I wonder how the website decides what both main candidates believe in. Both candidates (especially Trump) have given opposite opinions on some subjects over the past year. 8 months ago Trump wanted mass deportation, now he says he just wants to deport criminals.  

Posted by Vendetta

Both of them clearly state their policies on their website:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/


Although if you want to find out what you agree with without having to sift through their dreadful websites then go here: http://www.isidewith.com/


It sounds a lot like you're just reciting information from Trump, do more research than just listening to Trump as he lies a lot (as do both candidates). He claims so many things have been debunked when there's literally evidence of him saying those things.

Ill rebut your comments. Clinton and Trump have policies. But Clinton is accused of having two sides of opinions, a public one(good one) and a private one(Bad one). Basically, I'm not reciting what Trump said in his speeches, but I'm agreeing with it because of all of the background info from these people. Clinton has done some dumb things in the past as a POLITICIAN. She has a chance of repeating it again. Trump has also done some bad things like saying some vulgar things about women in locker rooms. But anyways, can you tell me what Trump HAS done that was bad? I'm just curious mate.