JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

sullyx wrote:
Quote:

07310 wrote:
I'm surprised the Orange Anus hasn't said the debate was rigged.

Lester Holt did his best to throw it to Hillary by not pushing her on the email scandal, not even mentioning the issues around the foundation or Benghazi among other issues.

Very true. He was very biased but was smart about it and expressed it subtly, through giving Hillary endless softball questions, staying away from her many many problems, and giving Trump a barrage of negative questions.

Still, I would have liked to have seen Trump attack her more. Let her get away with too much. He did ok but I'd like to see a stronger performance the next time around.

Or maybe next time he could explain how he will bring back all the jobs back from Mexico and China as it is one of his main campaign promise but does not seem to have a plan for it... or was not able to articulate it yesterday despite been asked... or maybe it is another secret plan...

His plan if you paid attention is to rewrite our trade agreements. To start taxing companies who build products or employ staff overseas that wish to sell back to the US. We are still the biggest global consumer we can call the shots. His biggest mistake was not pressing on why the emails were deleted. Lester let it slide but sure pushed Trump on the birther movement.

I paid attention and that was his answer to not have more leave the country, not to bring them back as that would apply to companies that decide to delocalize production and consequently close plants/offices in the US.
He made the distinction himself. He did not offer a plan to bring back the manufacturing jobs that are not located in the US anymore. I invite you to re-watch that part of the debate.

And I won't go into discussing the efficacy of such a policy as it would most probably negatively impact the competitiveness of American companies but this is another topic...

Did you pay attention to Hillary's answer when asked what she would do to create jobs?

Absolutely nothing. Her only response was to claim the government will create more jobs by subsidizing renewable energy such as solar. Which, as Trump pointed out, is a horrible idea because Obama already tried it and the result was the government was on the hook for more than $500 million with nothing to show for it.

At least trying to stem job loss and rewrite trade agreements to bring jobs back (which I agree he didn't get into for some reason but always says at his rallies), along with lowering the corporate tax rate for job creation is some kind of plan, as opposed to a proven failure.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

sullyx wrote:
Quote:

07310 wrote:
I'm surprised the Orange Anus hasn't said the debate was rigged.

Lester Holt did his best to throw it to Hillary by not pushing her on the email scandal, not even mentioning the issues around the foundation or Benghazi among other issues.

Very true. He was very biased but was smart about it and expressed it subtly, through giving Hillary endless softball questions, staying away from her many many problems, and giving Trump a barrage of negative questions.

Still, I would have liked to have seen Trump attack her more. Let her get away with too much. He did ok but I'd like to see a stronger performance the next time around.

Or maybe next time he could explain how he will bring back all the jobs back from Mexico and China as it is one of his main campaign promise but does not seem to have a plan for it... or was not able to articulate it yesterday despite been asked... or maybe it is another secret plan...

His plan if you paid attention is to rewrite our trade agreements. To start taxing companies who build products or employ staff overseas that wish to sell back to the US. We are still the biggest global consumer we can call the shots. His biggest mistake was not pressing on why the emails were deleted. Lester let it slide but sure pushed Trump on the birther movement.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

sullyx wrote:
Quote:

07310 wrote:
I'm surprised the Orange Anus hasn't said the debate was rigged.

Lester Holt did his best to throw it to Hillary by not pushing her on the email scandal, not even mentioning the issues around the foundation or Benghazi among other issues.

Very true. He was very biased but was smart about it and expressed it subtly, through giving Hillary endless softball questions, staying away from her many many problems, and giving Trump a barrage of negative questions.

Still, I would have liked to have seen Trump attack her more. Let her get away with too much. He did ok but I'd like to see a stronger performance the next time around.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:

The 3rd debate in 2012 was on October 22nd, a Monday.
For some reasons, nobody made it an issue then. Why is it one this year?

Really? NOBODY made it an issue then? Got anything to back that up or is it just a baseless anecdote?

Quote:

If MNF matters more for some people that the debate, lets them watch football. The others can watch the debate, or a movie if that is what they'd like to do...

Think pragmatically instead of in ideals. You want it to be one way, but it's the other way.

More people will watch if it doesn't go against MNF. Therefore, just have it on a Tuesday, yeah? This is the easy stuff.

I googled it an could not find one instance mentioning it happening at the same time as MNF and it being an issue but please let me know what you have found that i did not...

Again, 2012, 2016 or any other year, it is nonsensical to have the Debates face off against MNF when it could just as easily be scheduled on a Tuesday. This isn't difficult.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:

The 3rd debate in 2012 was on October 22nd, a Monday.
For some reasons, nobody made it an issue then. Why is it one this year?

Really? NOBODY made it an issue then? Got anything to back that up or is it just a baseless anecdote?

Quote:

If MNF matters more for some people that the debate, lets them watch football. The others can watch the debate, or a movie if that is what they'd like to do...

Think pragmatically instead of in ideals. You want it to be one way, but it's the other way.

More people will watch if it doesn't go against MNF. Therefore, just have it on a Tuesday, yeah? This is the easy stuff.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

third_street_hats wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

heights wrote:
Any bars or restaurants gonna show this debate on their big screen TV ?

LOL... the smart ones will have the NFL game on. Who would serve alcohol to any crowd with that mudfest on their tv.

For real, why are they going up against Monday Night Football?

The dates for these debates were set before the NFL setup this year's schedule and before Clinton and Trump became the nominees.

Huh? When is there *not* a Monday Night Football telecast in a late September Monday??

Or maybe its irrelevant since a week 3 game(or any game, for that matter) is probably not as important as a presidential debate. Up to you, though.

Monday Night Football always gets huge ratings. So you're incorrect in saying that it's irrelevant.

There's no good reason to schedule this on Monday as opposed to a Tuesday. Someone f*cked up.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Because you can't call another candidate a misogynist when you enable your husband to humiliate women and you, personally, slut shame the women who made the mistake of letting your husband boink them? Kinda removes you from standing on the high ground, no?

some people are a basket case...trump is far worse of a womanizer than bill Clinton....and still, bill Clinton is not running for potus...Hillary Clinton is

Doesn't trump have someone fired for sexual harassment running his campaign?

Given that Clinton was disbarred due to his sexual shenanigans and had to pay almost a million dollars to settle a sexual harassment case, and is forever stained as the POTUS who defiled the Oval Office, saying Trump is worse is silly and incorrect.

1. GWB was the worst candidate possible
2. John McCain was the worst candidate possible.
3. "Universal healthcare" Mitt Romney as the worst candidate possible.

Now the Dems have their worst candidate possible and it's their own fault.

They have cried wolf too many times!

Trump is the worst GOP candidate...ever, and for anyone that doesn't see that, no point arguing. There have been far worse Democratic candidates than Clinton.

Name me one Democratic candidate over the last 30 yrs that was more corrupt the Hillary?

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Donald J. Trump has unleashed a blizzard of falsehoods, exaggerations and outright lies in the general election. Here's our analysis of 31 untruths from Sept. 15-21.

?The New York Times closely tracked Mr. Trump?s public statements from Sept. 15-21, and assembled a list of his 31 biggest whoppers, many of them uttered repeatedly.?

Hmmmm...BTW??this just released...

New York Times editorial board endorses Clinton for president

By Sophie Tatum and Eugene Scott, CNN
Updated 3:14 PM ET, Sat September 24, 2016

Washington (CNN)The New York Times' editorial board on Saturday endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president calling comparing her to rival Donald Trump "an empty exercise."

"In any normal election year, we'd compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year," the paper wrote. "A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate -- our choice, Hillary Clinton -- has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/24/politic ... on-endorsement/index.html

neverleft wrote:

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Possibly our new first lady in the white house - The world will be laughing their asses off on how stupid people must be in the US to have elected Trump !

But they won?t be laughing at us if Hillary gets elected right? Her husband the ex-President and possibly future first man was getting BJ?s from interns in the Oval Office. The same Oval Office that President Hillary may be sitting in come January. LOL

(juicy stuff no pun intended)

An affair of state

At the heart of Kenneth Starr's explicit but coldly clinical report is a furtive sex drama

The sexual encounters between the President and Monica Lewinsky are rendered in explicit though chilly language. While graphic descriptions may be necessary for Kenneth Starr to prove that Clinton had sex with the former intern under any definition (and thus committed perjury), the referral's bald, footnoted narrative reveals even more complex human intimacies. Initiated the week a budget impasse shut down the government, the furtive, sterile affair has brought Washington to a standstill once again. Excerpts from the report:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1998/09/14/affair.state.html

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The New York Times reported today that Hillary and pro-Clinton supporters have spent $145 million dollars on tv and radio ads, vs $4 million by Trump and his supporters.

Her return on the dollar is making Jeb's wasted $100 million dollar campaign look great!

(btw, do we have an over/under whether Hillary has to postpone the debate next week?)

Could you link to the NY times article? I have seen $96M to $17M, not the numbers you mentioned.
Anyway, that makes you wonder how is Trump spending his campaign money. I know he is spending a lot of his donors money to pay himself for his plane, his hotels and his offices but he couldn't spend it all on it. Could he?

Regarding Hillary Clinton appearance at the debate, I don't know what the over/under is but I am willing to bet she will be there. Ready to take the bet? how much?

?And then when you factor in outside groups, it's $156.6 million for Team Clinton, and $33.6 million for Team Trump.?

(I posted this somewhere without a link to it. It is amazing she is spending all of that money and is behind or tied in most polls. It was supposed to be an easy win for Clinton)

POLITICS SEP 20 2016, 8:21 AM ET
First Read: Clinton Outspending Trump 5-1 on the Air
by CHUCK TODD, MARK MURRAY and CARRIE DANN

Clinton is outspending Trump over the airwaves by a 5-to-1 margin

Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to dominate Donald Trump and pro-Trump outside groups in the 2016 advertising race. According to ad-spending data from NBC partner Advertising Analytics, Clinton's campaign has spent $96.4 million in ads in the general election, versus $17.3 million for Trump's campaign. That's more than a 5-to-1 advantage for Clinton. And then when you factor in outside groups, it's $156.6 million for Team Clinton, and $33.6 million for Team Trump. That's almost a 5-to-1 advantage.

Here are the numbers through this week:

Clinton camp: $96.4 million
Pro-Clinton outside groups: $60.2 million
Total Team Clinton: $156.6 million

Trump camp: $17.3 million
Pro-Trump outside groups: $16.3 million
Total Team Trump: $33.6 million


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first ... ing-trump-5-1-air-n651106

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The New York Times reported today that Hillary and pro-Clinton supporters have spent $145 million dollars on tv and radio ads, vs $4 million by Trump and his supporters.

Her return on the dollar is making Jeb's wasted $100 million dollar campaign look great!

(btw, do we have an over/under whether Hillary has to postpone the debate next week?)

Could you link to the NY times article? I have seen $96M to $17M, not the numbers you mentioned.
Anyway, that makes you wonder how is Trump spending his campaign money. I know he is spending a lot of his donors money to pay himself for his plane, his hotels and his offices but he couldn't spend it all on it. Could he?

Regarding Hillary Clinton appearance at the debate, I don't know what the over/under is but I am willing to bet she will be there. Ready to take the bet? how much?

?And then when you factor in outside groups, it's $156.6 million for Team Clinton, and $33.6 million for Team Trump.?

(I posted this somewhere without a link to it. It is amazing she is spending all of that money and is behind or tied in most polls. It was supposed to be an easy win for Clinton)

POLITICS SEP 20 2016, 8:21 AM ET
First Read: Clinton Outspending Trump 5-1 on the Air
by CHUCK TODD, MARK MURRAY and CARRIE DANN

Clinton is outspending Trump over the airwaves by a 5-to-1 margin

Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to dominate Donald Trump and pro-Trump outside groups in the 2016 advertising race. According to ad-spending data from NBC partner Advertising Analytics, Clinton's campaign has spent $96.4 million in ads in the general election, versus $17.3 million for Trump's campaign. That's more than a 5-to-1 advantage for Clinton. And then when you factor in outside groups, it's $156.6 million for Team Clinton, and $33.6 million for Team Trump. That's almost a 5-to-1 advantage.

Here are the numbers through this week:

Clinton camp: $96.4 million
Pro-Clinton outside groups: $60.2 million
Total Team Clinton: $156.6 million

Trump camp: $17.3 million
Pro-Trump outside groups: $16.3 million
Total Team Trump: $33.6 million


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first ... ing-trump-5-1-air-n651106

Monroe wrote:
The New York Times reported today that Hillary and pro-Clinton supporters have spent $145 million dollars on tv and radio ads, vs $4 million by Trump and his supporters.

Her return on the dollar is making Jeb's wasted $100 million dollar campaign look great!

(btw, do we have an over/under whether Hillary has to postpone the debate next week?)

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Even if some people in her camp did come up with the lie, she did not run with it, Trump did. Why is this so difficult to understand? Clinton did not hammer Obama with the birther lie, she did not maintain the lie for years to gain support like Trump did. This is all out there.

Do you want me to post videos of Trump keeping up with the birther crap even after Obama produced his birth certificate? Do you want me to show you how sad and pathetic that is? This is undeniable but no, some Hillary supporter started it first and that makes it all her fault. Even you have to think that is low grade BS.

I don't think either candidate is worthy of the Presidency but even you must admit that Trump is on a whole other level of slime.

Absolutely not. Trump is no angel but Hillary absolutely should be in jail now and certainly has no business running for the Presidency.

Among many other things, the facts are that she claimed she was "dead broke" when she left the White House (but stole more than $200,000 in White House china) yet has "earned" more than $200 million dollars since then (along with her husband). And that's just in reported income.

Grade A corruption, much of it occurring in the public sector, and undoubtedly the most corrupt candidate ever.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Yeah so what, so even if a low level idiot thought about it first, your candidate ran with it for all these years, establishing his political brand from a lie that he claims he didn't even come up with. He ran with it, probably not even believing in it, and got all the support of people who STILL think Obama is not an American.

Now ask yourself, you really want to vote for that dude? And what about my other question? He blames Clinton for pay-for-play when he freely admits to doing it for years? Are you seriously thinking of putting that guy in the White House?

Wait, so several Hillary supporters blatantly just lied about the origins of the birther meme and now you are trying to move on by saying "so what?"

Hillary was very happy to gain the "racist" vote - her many supporters who started and circulated the birther meme against Obama in the primaries - and you try to attack Trump for allegedly doing the same? Really?

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
You mean the screw-up of lying about Obama not being born in the United States? That's like 7 years too late dude.

But seriously, you think Trump, who brags about bribing politicians will somehow end the corrupt practices the freely admits to doing?

You realize that Hillary's camp invented the birther thing, right? It was formulated during her primary against Obama in 2008.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote: guy
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Read between the lines you know what she meant.

You find what you want between the lines, I read what she said. If she had meant "Americans" she would have said it. Anything else is putting words in her mouth. Besides, calling people un-American is not a D thing, it's an R thing. It's a dog whistle for bigotry and always has been.

Ok believe what u want.

You're doing the same

I am not in denial. She is dispicable.

Part of being in denial is thinking you're not in denial.

Now you are a psychiatrist? Name some of her accomplishments then. What makes her a good choice for President?

Just stop...with your idiot drivel. You may not appreciate Clinton's accomplishments but others do.

.

You should name some because more then half of the people polled do not support her.

Would you mind listing some of Trump accomplishments?

First off I am not a huge Trump fan! I simply point out Hillary is probably worse. Second the list below is hardly a list of accomplishments. It's mostly opinion.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote: guy
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Read between the lines you know what she meant.

You find what you want between the lines, I read what she said. If she had meant "Americans" she would have said it. Anything else is putting words in her mouth. Besides, calling people un-American is not a D thing, it's an R thing. It's a dog whistle for bigotry and always has been.

Ok believe what u want.

You're doing the same

I am not in denial. She is dispicable.

Part of being in denial is thinking you're not in denial.

Now you are a psychiatrist? Name some of her accomplishments then. What makes her a good choice for President?

Just stop...with your idiot drivel. You may not appreciate Clinton's accomplishments but others do.

.

You should name some because more then half of the people polled do not support her.

elsquid wrote:
OK, any further comments about which European places are, or are not, completely car-free are dilatory strawmanning.

VERY few places in the world, mostly very small ones, are completely car-free. That's beside the point.

The point is that many cities and towns, large and small, treat cars as a tertiary mode, with bikes, walking, light rail, and other mass transit dominating. Amsterdam is the best big city, but others are also great. Driving laws and enforcement are tough. Separated bike paths abound on bigger arterial roads, while smaller residential streets are relentlessly traffic-calmed, with speed tables and bumpouts at every crosswalk, textured surfaces, deliberately narrow lanes, etc. So you can own a car, and you can drive, but you will drive slower and, within a neighborhood, probably make a couple more turns.

A typical two-way arterial boulevard in Amsterdam has one narrow lane in each direction for cars, a tram track in each direction with boarding islands, two wide cycle tracks a few feet away from the car lanes, and two sidewalks outside that. Many of those streets, 40 years ago, were four- or six-lane monstrosities catering solely to the car. They changed. We must too.

Fomite wrote:
You car people realize that in Europe there are entire cities that are car free? And they don't even have jet, fresh direct, blue apron, etc.
We should improve public transportation as well. Eventually people who don't absolutely need a car will find it's not worth it.

Yvonne wrote:
Hillary got called out for calling Trump's supporters as "basket of deplorables." But the media missed the rest, she said, "...some of the folks are irredeemable but thankfully they are not America." Let me get this straight, if someone does not vote for her they are considered irredeemable and not Americans? The press gave her a pass on this.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I am a baby boomer, as a very young child, I had European immigrants in my classes. Their mothers and father survived World War 2. I remember them well due to their strong accents. Later in high school a large number of Cubans left Cuban and some were also in my classes. The one thing the European and Cuban immigrants have in common, they did not place bombs in this country and terrorize citizens in their new country. This country is not against immigrants, we are against people who want to kill us. You cannot tell the difference between a Syrian and a member of ISIS. Some of ISIS also immigrated to Europe with disastrous results. I cannot believe the leftist talk here.

And not one of these people have expressed any concern about the civil right to life of the victims of these radical Muslim inspired atrocities, anywhere in the world. Who speaks for the dead and the maimed survivors, their families and friends who have suffered a tragic loss. Their loved ones innocently living their lives, enjoying a night out dancing in Orlando or a rock concert in Paris.

I really would love to see these some of these defenders of unvetted mass immigration explain their foolish and dangerous justifications to the terror attack survivors in rehab learning how to walk again or recovering from brain concussions.

The suffering of you and your family is a sacrifice Americans must make to ensure the proper assimilation of people from a culture whose values are diametrically opposite of our own American value system. You will learn to love Sharia Law.

I don't think anybody on this board is defending mass immigration without vetting? Actually, there is a already a lot vetting in the current immigration process. Could it be better? I guess but I don't know enough to judge.

I am an immigrant and I went though the process. After more than 16 years legally in the country, I am actually still going through it...

You followed the rules. Following the rules is the harder path. That is why many do not. The argument here is there are many who believe all that made it here are entitled to stay.

What make you think that refugees are not following the rules?

Whomever follows the legal process IS entitled to stay.

So that settles the Syrian refugees conversation then. As long as they follow the process, they should be welcomed.

. For me yes. However where do they go in the meantime until the process is complete.

Yvonne wrote:
No you do not ban all immigration but you ban immigration from countries that want to harm you. President Carter banned immigration from Iran in the hostage crisis. Common sense, you do not allow people in who plans on killing you.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I am a baby boomer, as a very young child, I had European immigrants in my classes. Their mothers and father survived World War 2. I remember them well due to their strong accents. Later in high school a large number of Cubans left Cuban and some were also in my classes. The one thing the European and Cuban immigrants have in common, they did not place bombs in this country and terrorize citizens in their new country. This country is not against immigrants, we are against people who want to kill us. You cannot tell the difference between a Syrian and a member of ISIS. Some of ISIS also immigrated to Europe with disastrous results. I cannot believe the leftist talk here.

And not one of these people have expressed any concern about the civil right to life of the victims of these radical Muslim inspired atrocities, anywhere in the world. Who speaks for the dead and the maimed survivors, their families and friends who have suffered a tragic loss. Their loved ones innocently living their lives, enjoying a night out dancing in Orlando or a rock concert in Paris.

I really would love to see these some of these defenders of unvetted mass immigration explain their foolish and dangerous justifications to the terror attack survivors in rehab learning how to walk again or recovering from brain concussions.

The suffering of you and your family is a sacrifice Americans must make to ensure the proper assimilation of people from a culture whose values are diametrically opposite of our own American value system. You will learn to love Sharia Law.

I don't think anybody on this board is defending mass immigration without vetting? Actually, there is a already a lot vetting in the current immigration process. Could it be better? I guess but I don't know enough to judge.

I am an immigrant and I went though the process. After more than 16 years legally in the country, I am actually still going through it...

You followed the rules. Following the rules is the harder path. That is why many do not. The argument here is there are many who believe all that made it here are entitled to stay.

What make you think that refugees are not following the rules?

Whomever follows the legal process IS entitled to stay.

So that settles the Syrian refugees conversation then. As long as they follow the process, they should be welcomed.

Haha, absolutely not. Not until there is a 100% way of vetting them, which we currently don't have. Until then President Trump can set the level he is comfortable with, which may be none for the time being.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:

So how is Trump going to implement the "extreme vetting" he proposed?

It will start by re-establishing and enforcing the immigration laws already and in place. The US embassies and consulates are responsible for issuing visas/validating foreign passports. Some the Obama Administration has forgotten or ignored laws already on the books. It is up to the people that want to come here to meet our entry requirements.

Just like getting a license in New Jersey, the applicants need to produce what the state requires. The US does not owe any non-citizen a single thing. They should be able to prove they will not be a burden to the states they are visiting and if they have a relative that is a US citizen, born or naturalized, the process might be expedited. Once paperwork is submitted... security checks like Interpol might be used.

Of course the applicant would pay those processing fees. Maybe we even impose a service fee that would go to the expense of beefing up the US southern border? Now you might call this extreme.... to me it is business as usual.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

neverleft wrote:
JJ comment Quote:

A little fun fact that I just saw on MSNBC.

The Clinton campaign is out spending the Trump campaign 5 to 1 on TV ads.

Around 160 million to 32 million dollars.

MSNBC is even surprised that Trump is either beating or tied with Clinton nationally and in battleground states after all the money she spent.

You know she is having all these fundraisers because win or lose, she gets to keep the cash after the election. It will be a nice kiss when she retires to Chappaqua on November 5th.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I am a baby boomer, as a very young child, I had European immigrants in my classes. Their mothers and father survived World War 2. I remember them well due to their strong accents. Later in high school a large number of Cubans left Cuban and some were also in my classes. The one thing the European and Cuban immigrants have in common, they did not place bombs in this country and terrorize citizens in their new country. This country is not against immigrants, we are against people who want to kill us. You cannot tell the difference between a Syrian and a member of ISIS. Some of ISIS also immigrated to Europe with disastrous results. I cannot believe the leftist talk here.

And not one of these people have expressed any concern about the civil right to life of the victims of these radical Muslim inspired atrocities, anywhere in the world. Who speaks for the dead and the maimed survivors, their families and friends who have suffered a tragic loss. Their loved ones innocently living their lives, enjoying a night out dancing in Orlando or a rock concert in Paris.

I really would love to see these some of these defenders of unvetted mass immigration explain their foolish and dangerous justifications to the terror attack survivors in rehab learning how to walk again or recovering from brain concussions.

The suffering of you and your family is a sacrifice Americans must make to ensure the proper assimilation of people from a culture whose values are diametrically opposite of our own American value system. You will learn to love Sharia Law.

I don't think anybody on this board is defending mass immigration without vetting? Actually, there is a already a lot vetting in the current immigration process. Could it be better? I guess but I don't know enough to judge.

I am an immigrant and I went though the process. After more than 16 years legally in the country, I am actually still going through it...

You followed the rules. Following the rules is the harder path. That is why many do not. The argument here is there are many who believe all that made it here are entitled to stay.

What make you think that refugees are not following the rules?

Whomever follows the legal process IS entitled to stay.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I am a baby boomer, as a very young child, I had European immigrants in my classes. Their mothers and father survived World War 2. I remember them well due to their strong accents. Later in high school a large number of Cubans left Cuban and some were also in my classes. The one thing the European and Cuban immigrants have in common, they did not place bombs in this country and terrorize citizens in their new country. This country is not against immigrants, we are against people who want to kill us. You cannot tell the difference between a Syrian and a member of ISIS. Some of ISIS also immigrated to Europe with disastrous results. I cannot believe the leftist talk here.

And not one of these people have expressed any concern about the civil right to life of the victims of these radical Muslim inspired atrocities, anywhere in the world. Who speaks for the dead and the maimed survivors, their families and friends who have suffered a tragic loss. Their loved ones innocently living their lives, enjoying a night out dancing in Orlando or a rock concert in Paris.

I really would love to see these some of these defenders of unvetted mass immigration explain their foolish and dangerous justifications to the terror attack survivors in rehab learning how to walk again or recovering from brain concussions.

The suffering of you and your family is a sacrifice Americans must make to ensure the proper assimilation of people from a culture whose values are diametrically opposite of our own American value system. You will learn to love Sharia Law.

I don't think anybody on this board is defending mass immigration without vetting? Actually, there is a already a lot vetting in the current immigration process. Could it be better? I guess but I don't know enough to judge.

I am an immigrant and I went though the process. After more than 16 years legally in the country, I am actually still going through it...

You followed the rules. Following the rules is the harder path. That is why many do not. The argument here is there are many who believe all that made it here are entitled to stay.

TheBigGuy wrote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I am a baby boomer, as a very young child, I had European immigrants in my classes. Their mothers and father survived World War 2. I remember them well due to their strong accents. Later in high school a large number of Cubans left Cuban and some were also in my classes. The one thing the European and Cuban immigrants have in common, they did not place bombs in this country and terrorize citizens in their new country. This country is not against immigrants, we are against people who want to kill us. You cannot tell the difference between a Syrian and a member of ISIS. Some of ISIS also immigrated to Europe with disastrous results. I cannot believe the leftist talk here.

And not one of these people have expressed any concern about the civil right to life of the victims of these radical Muslim inspired atrocities, anywhere in the world. Who speaks for the dead and the maimed survivors, their families and friends who have suffered a tragic loss. Their loved ones innocently living their lives, enjoying a night out dancing in Orlando or a rock concert in Paris.

I really would love to see these some of these defenders of unvetted mass immigration explain their foolish and dangerous justifications to the terror attack survivors in rehab learning how to walk again or recovering from brain concussions.

The suffering of you and your family is a sacrifice Americans must make to ensure the proper assimilation of people from a culture whose values are diametrically opposite of our own American value system. You will learn to love Sharia Law.