Irrelevant? I thought the whole purpose was to prevent terrorist attacks coming from the countries with the most terrorists. You consider that irrelevant? That sure isn't consistent with your earlier justification that we need to keep citizens safe. To do so, shouldn't we be focusing on those countries where the terrorists have been coming from? Your inconsistencies suggest a total logical failure on your part. Perhaps you better log back into facebook, twitter, and other important sources of alternative facts and try back next week.
Lacking reading comprehension? This law doesn't include the most problematic countries, including ones with an abundance of refugees. So in the end you have a law that a) doesn't include the most relevant countries and b) wouldn't have prevented a single terrorist attack from recent years. And you also can't explain how the new security checks would help.
Look guys, the next time texxx makes an argument that has anything to do with the actual issue here, it will be his first.
Because they're here illegally. Pwn3d. You guys are comical in your thinking - such poor logic. Trump is trying to improve the vetting process for people coming into our country from high risk areas. This is to keep us safe. Again, you liberals will put your desire to appear tolerant over our security. That's not right.
This type of post makes it clear that you've given up trying to refute me. You can't do it, because I'm right. The "liberal pile-on crew" is so eager to label Trump a xenophobe, that they'll stretch the truth to convince themselves in their head that their pre-determined narrative is correct. You've got to become better thinkers.
Again, that has nothing to do with Xenophobia, you really need to learn what the word means and look throughout history to see similar examples of it because you really are showing your ignorance of the topic. It's not just 'liberals' it was the GOP that thought the same thing until Trump won. When he won a lot of your conservative politicians flipped the script and now shrug at it. Sad.
He's defending the indefensible. Even Cheney is speaking out against some of this nonsense. My biggest problem is the other link in the OP. What godly or ungodly useful purpose can there possibly be in publishing a shaming list (agree with Cohete there, if I'm remembering who posted that) of alleged crimes perpetrated by illegal immigrants? It is completely and indisputably a petty, dictator-like tactic that can only be divisive. Serves no purpose but to shame and scapegoat some of the most vulnerable people among us, to zero benefit but expanding fear and worse. When people defend stuff like that, outside the broad norms of our political landscape, there's no need to discuss anything with them anymore. It's all clear, and all we need to know about them. Srsly.
If he is improving the vetting process for people coming into the country from high risk areas, he should target the countries with the highest risks. Unfortunately, he is ignoring countries where every terrorist attack came from since and including 9/11, and thus he isn't targeting the high risk countries and isn't keeping us safe. And that is definitely not right.
"Broad norms of our political landscape"....you haven't learned anything from the election. You're stuck in your liberal California university echo chamber. I'd encourage you to diversify the types of people you interact with - you can't live in a bubble like you do and pretend to understand what's going on.
texxx handing that booty over to the leftists to do as they please. Its people like him why the republican party will be doomed once the baby boomers die
So now you agree with improving the vetting process, but disagree on the countries (yet you provide no evidence that Saudi needs improved vetting). Riddle me this - if this were a "Muslim ban" as many on the left are calling it, where is Indonesia on the list of banned countries? I'm completing obliterating the liberals today!
The liberals are now just humiliating themselves. Dandorotik can only offer an all caps, single word, yelling response because he can't refute me. Not your best day, liberals. Take a break, gather yourselves, and try again on another topic. You lost here.
You continue to show no reading comprehension, several users here have again and again stated that a ban should include Afghanistan, Pakistan and SA, as these are the true high-risk countries. You still haven't replied to me and other people questioning why he left those countries off and also fail to explain how new security checks accomplish anything. This kinda feels like the D&D version of tinman arguing. Everyone destroying you with facts, yet you continue to write incoherent garbage while claiming victory.
If Trump instituted a curfew after 10 PM for everyone in the country to reduce crime, you could defend that by saying that he's keeping America safe.
I'll refute you. This ban is discriminatory, it does not include one of the countries from whom most of the 9/11 terrorists came from, and it does little to address the real problem. No, we didn't lose. Decent people lost. It's a ****ed up decision for many reasons, and that's all there is to it. What you say stopped having a great deal of meaning a long time ago. Very few take you seriously. You're the Donald Trump of ClutchFans.
As usual, you struggle with the difference between facts and "alternate facts". I am questioning, not agreeing, with the idea that the vetting is "improved" since it ignores countries where the terrorists came from on every terrorist attack since and including 9/11. And thus I don't think it make us safer, since it is targeting the wrong countries. Thus, I believe the policy should be stopped. btw, Trump has strengthened the argument that its a religious ban by adding that Christians and other minority religions should be given priority.
