Medal of Honor Recipient (Dakota Meyer) Just Blew Trump’s Campaign Wide Open

[Right_in_Virginia]

There are many, many things which should be done short of keeping every Muslim out.  Keep out all Muslims from defined countries.  Tighten up the visa process.  Track those who are here and violating visas and get them out. 

This is the goal of Trump's plan.  The difference between your option and Trump's proposal is just one:   Trump wants to stop allowing Muslims into the US unless and until we have the processes you define as critical fully developed and in place.

[musiclady]

You do not have to ban all Muslims and insult allies and endanger our troops to ban refugees from coming into the states that originate from Syria and other terrorist hotspots. The problem was that Trump painted the entire Muslim population with a broad brush and made himself look like a religious bigot. As mentioned, a total ban or only allowing a few highly scrutinized and vetted people from certain regions and hotspots can be put in place without making it worldwide "let's ban all Muslims." Will threats still remain? Absolutely. I believe that is a price we will always pay to have a free society.

Trump's proclamations seem to just pander to the fears of the public to rally them to actions they would previously never have found acceptable. Mob rule mentality, which I see in Trump's proposal, is not what our country has ever been about and can be just as big a threat as a terrorist attack.

Exactly right.  The proclamation was intended to throw red meat to the masses while not being either practically applicable or Constitutional. And in addition, he plays into the leftist stereotype that Republicans are religious bigots and racists.

That is part of the reason I think he may well be in this race to make conservatism look bad and help Hillary.

[libertybele]

You do not have to ban all Muslims and insult allies and endanger our troops to ban refugees from coming into the states that originate from Syria and other terrorist hotspots. The problem was that Trump painted the entire Muslim population with a broad brush and made himself look like a religious bigot. As mentioned, a total ban or only allowing a few highly scrutinized and vetted people from certain regions and hotspots can be put in place without making it worldwide "let's ban all Muslims." Will threats still remain? Absolutely. I believe that is a price we will always pay to have a free society.

Trump's proclamations seem to just pander to the fears of the public to rally them to actions they would previously never have found acceptable. Mob rule mentality, which I see in Trump's proposal, is not what our country has ever been about and can be just as big a threat as a terrorist attack.

Trump pandering to the fears of the public?  I don't know about you, but any group of people who proclaim that they want to kill U.S. citizens should be taken seriously.  Allowing those same people into this country by the thousands is pure lunacy.

Rand Paul is  correct when he stated; "Nobody has a right to come to America, so this isn’t something that we can say ‘oh their rights are being violated.’ It’s a privilege to come to America and we need to thoroughly screen those who are coming."  The FBI has stated that there is no way to properly vet these people.  We have every right to say who can and cannot enter the U.S. and we have every right to CLOSE our borders.  If that means NOT allowing a group of people who have threatened us (regardless of religious affiliation) the so be it. Trump is NOT rejecting a religion he is advocating protecting this country from a proclaimed enemy.  National security should be a top priority for the president. 

This won't be the first time that immigration of a particular group into this country would be stopped and rightfully so.  To allow a known enemy into this country puts every American in danger; including the president.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I'm enjoying this discussion.  Thank you cuky, liberty, DC, and musiclady.

[libertybele]

The group called "Muslims" are not proclaiming they want to kill US Citizens. There are splinter groups from most all major denominations with extremist views whether it be ISUS, the KKK, Skin Heads. etc.
Rand Paul's statement is correct, but has no relevancy to this discussion. The FBI was talking about vetting refugees from Middle East conflicts not all Muslims in general. I believe our National security would be weakened following Trump's proposal as our number of allies in the world would be greatly diminsihed. I can't find a single leader in the free world backing Trump's proposal.

Muslims are NOT entitled to come here period (so his statement is very relative to this conversation).  Letting in one terrorist into this country is one terrorist too many.  To deliberately let in a group of people who have threatened to kill us IS lunacy.  Syrian refugees that were allowed into Europe consisted of very few Christians and very few women and children and terrorists attacked in Paris.  Terrorists attacked in San Bernadino.

Our allies have been greatly diminished by the Hussein administration and the world sees us as weak. Our national security would be much more threatened by letting in thousands of people from an area where groups of people have threatened to kill us in trying to appease our allies than not letting these people in.

As for the other leaders agreeing with Trump; I could care less.  It is time to stop doing in the name of political correctness and do what is BEST FOR COUNTRY!

[truth_seeker]

I'm enjoying this discussion.  Thank you cuky, liberty, DC, and musiclady.

So is Dakota Meyer discredited, since he had sex with Gov. Palin's unwed daughter, as Liberty implied?

[DCPatriot]

I'm not sure if you're referring to people like me, DC, but disagreement with banning all Muslims is not in the least a lack of concern about national security.

And I find the accusation that, since I don't think every Muslim should be kept out of the country I am willing to let thousands of Americans die, as vile as any accusation I have ever read on any forum.

How in the hell did I miss this one?

MusicLady...all I can say is that every time one of uses the word "hater", doesn't automatically follow that it's about 'you'.

In fact, as I stated...you hold your line in any argument and do it with dignity.  Like any MusicLady would.   

[Carling]

I'm enjoying this discussion.  Thank you cuky, liberty, DC, and musiclady.

Yes, thank you all for parroting the DNC's talking points about how "we're better than this."  Are any of you going to volunteer to accept refugees into you homes?

[Carling]

Exactly right.  The proclamation was intended to throw red meat to the masses while not being either practically applicable or Constitutional.

What is unconstitutional about suspending the immigration of Syrian Muslims?  This was brought up by you and sinkspur a month ago, I refuted it, and both of you fled from that thread.  Binary thinking is what Democrats and the GOPe do.

[DCPatriot]

So is Dakota Meyer discredited, since he had sex with Gov. Palin's unwed daughter, as Liberty implied?

Funny when one's hero status makes him a political maven of sorts.

Excuse me...please accept this as rhetorical, but using the same 'tactics'...

What does it say about Bristol Palin, a second time not using protection?  And by extension, what does it say about Sarah Palin as a fit mother?

You see where this can go.....

[libertybele]

What makes no sense is attributing a lack of concern for national security to a disagreement with Donald Trump,

You make it sound as if Donald's policy is the only possible position for someone who cares deeply about national security, and that is just plain ugly, libertybele.

??? That is not what I meant at all...good grief.  I am merely stating that I agree with Trump and feel that it is necessary to eliminate migration of Muslims into this country at this time and secure our borders in order to obtain national security.  I never once stated that someone who didn't have the same views didn't care about our national security.  I see letting a known enemy into this country as in invitation to more attacks like the one in San Bernadino, Paris or worse.  You certainly wouldn't invite someone who stated they wanted to kill you into your home.  Why invite trouble?

I think it is important to again look at the statement that Trump issued; "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said." 

[musiclady]

How in the hell did I miss this one?

MusicLady...all I can say is that every time one of uses the word "hater", doesn't automatically follow that it's about 'you'.
In fact, as I stated...you hold your line in any argument and do it with dignity.  Like any MusicLady would.   

Which is why I qualified what I said by saying I wasn't sure if you were talking about me.  I'm fine with knowing you weren't.

But when others repeatedly say that disagreeing with Trump about banning all Muslims is tantamount to not caring about national security, I find it extremely problematic.

[musiclady]

What is unconstitutional about suspending the immigration of Syrian Muslims?  This was brought up by you and sinkspur a month ago, I refuted it, and both of you fled from that thread.  Binary thinking is what Democrats and the GOPe do.

I never fled from any thread, but if it makes you feel better thinking I did, more power to you, Carling....   

As for your example of suspending the immigration of Syrian Muslims, I am in total agreement with it.  I have stated several times that narrowing the ban to enemy countries is what I believe SHOULD be done.

Now............ do you have any legitimate questions, or do you just want to compare me to a Democrat?

[libertybele]

I oppose accepting refugees from Syria and other terrorist hot spots at this point. So, I guess that means my answer would be no I am not accepting refugees from there into my home.
I think you might want to reread the thread if you think our points are parroting the DNC. It is not even close.

With that being said...how are we going to know if a 'Muslim" is from Syria or another hot spot??  They could say they are from some place else.  We have know way of knowing who these people really are or where they are actually coming from.  The point is we don't know. The mass Muslim migration under the guise of Syrian refugees into Europe and consequently an attack on Paris is a prime example.

[musiclady]

??? That is not what I meant at all...good grief.  I am merely stating that I agree with Trump and feel that it is necessary to eliminate migration of Muslims into this country at this time and secure our borders in order to obtain national security.  I never once stated that someone who didn't have the same views didn't care about our national security.  I see letting a known enemy into this country as in invitation to more attacks like the one in San Bernadino, Paris or worse.  You certainly wouldn't invite someone who stated they wanted to kill you into your home.  Why invite trouble?

I think it is important to again look at the statement that Trump issued; "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said."

This is what you said, liberty.......

It seems that people hate Trump more than they want national security.  Absolutely makes no sense to me.

Perhaps you didn't intend it, but in this statement there is a clear implication that disagreeing with Trump equals hating him and not wanting national security.

Perhaps it's just a weakness in your ability to communicate, but the accusation is clear.

Agree with banning all Muslims, or you don't care about national security.

(It was someone else on another thread that included not caring about having thousands of Americans die).

[musiclady]

With that being said...how are we going to know if a 'Muslim" is from Syria or another hot spot??  They could say they are from some place else.  We have know way of knowing who these people really are or where they are actually coming from.  The point is we don't know. The mass Muslim migration under the guise of Syrian refugees into Europe and consequently an attack on Paris is a prime example.

One can want a halt to the entrance of Syrian refugees into America or Europe, and still not agree with the impossible, highly questionable proposition that we should not let any Muslims in at all.

People on your side of the argument continue to conflate multiple issues to make your point.

But it doesn't actually make your point.........

[libertybele]

One can want a halt to the entrance of Syrian refugees into America or Europe, and still not agree with the impossible, highly questionable proposition that we should not let any Muslims in at all.

People on your side of the argument continue to conflate multiple issues to make your point.

But it doesn't actually make your point.........

The single point I am making in response to another poster, is that halting the entrance of Syrian refugees into this country isn't going to solve the problem.  Banning all 'Muslims' into this country until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on will.  No solution is going to be fail proof, but as I stated before, why invite trouble in?

[famousdayandyear]

People on your side of the argument continue to conflate multiple issues to make your point.

What "conflation"?  Specifics, please.

[musiclady]

What "conflation"?  Specifics, please.

Simple - that disagreeing with Trump's proposition of banning all Muslims means not wanting to secure the borders, stop Syrian refugees, or protect Americans from terror.

It happens all the time.  Agree with Trump or you don't care......

[musiclady]

The single point I am making in response to another poster, is that halting the entrance of Syrian refugees into this country isn't going to solve the problem.  Banning all 'Muslims' into this country until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on will.  No solution is going to be fail proof, but as I stated before, why invite trouble in?

Once again.......... why, to you, is there such a narrow comparison?  Why am I "inviting trouble in" if I don't think all Muslims can Constitutionally be banned from entering the US?

I know you want it to happen, but why is disagreeing with you tantamount to inviting terror in?

It's not a rational argument.

[truth_seeker]

The single point I am making in response to another poster, is that halting the entrance of Syrian refugees into this country isn't going to solve the problem.  Banning all 'Muslims' into this country until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on will.  No solution is going to be fail proof, but as I stated before, why invite trouble in?

If we can't tell who the terrorists are, what makes you think we can tell who the muslims are?

[famousdayandyear]

Simple - that disagreeing with Trump's proposition of banning all Muslims means not wanting to secure the borders, stop Syrian refugees, or protect Americans from terror.

It happens all the time.  Agree with Trump or you don't care......

These are rational arguments.  Hardly conflation of the realities we face.

[libertybele]

Once again.......... why, to you, is there such a narrow comparison?  Why am I "inviting trouble in" if I don't think all Muslims can Constitutionally be banned from entering the US?

I know you want it to happen, but why is disagreeing with you tantamount to inviting terror in?

It's not a rational argument.

I want what to happen????  Muslims have no rights under the Constitution as they are NOT U.S. Citizens.  Secondly, we are under NO obligation to have to allow any group of people into this country.  Coming into this country is a privilege NOT a right.  I see allowing Muslims to migrate into this country as inviting trouble...I didn't say that you saw it that way. 

It is a fact, that there are Muslim terrorists who mean us harm.  It is a fact that they aren't just located in Syria.  So, how are we going to determine which Muslims aren't terrorists especially when the FBI has stated that they haven no way to vet them? 

[GourmetDan]

What does it say about Bristol Palin, a second time not using protection?  And by extension, what does it say about Sarah Palin as a fit mother?

Why is it Bristol Palin's fault when convenient and Sarah Palin's fault when convenient?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Why am I "inviting trouble in" if I don't think all Muslims can Constitutionally be banned from entering the US?

Where is it written that the US Constitution guarantees any foreign national the right to enter US borders?   That's just nonsense.