Why allow refugees? I like the idea of closing the borders more and blocking group of individuals with a higher propensity to be terrorists. Until that religion takes care of its terrorist teachings then we shouldn't allow its believers into the nation. There are many other nations in the world, Europe seems more than capable of hosting these people, so they don't necessarily need us Americans to house these people. I think its a fair thing if we as a country are the ones to be the attackers of these terrorist nations, while the other countries with vastly inferior military's do the work of helping people fleeing these nations give them a place to stay and what not.
I think the government ought to do that and more to find ways to snuff out people who were influenced by terrorist teachings in America. Maybe initiate a national registry for people in that religion, have watches at their gatherings for these religions, and monitor their online conversations, like the recent person in that religion who is training our future leaders of America with these bad thoughts and ideals
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/20/fbi-investigating-kent-state-professor-for-ties-to-isis.html (watch the video) Is this the America you want? More surveillance, more
tools for intelligence agencies is needed.
In my readers, there was enough to justify the attacks on other countries. If there is any inkling that they could have a weapon of mass destruction or is engaging in any acts to do inhumane dehumanizing things to their own people, then that country deserves attack. Its the right thing to do. You know?
Then we should be deporting white people from this country and banning them from coming here because they have a higher propensity to be terrorists. if I recall, aren't Christians attacking Planned Parenthood centers, homosexuals, and at one point looked down on black people because of the Bible? Again, if you are truly worried about terrorism, why not start with the attacks orchestrated by our very own "patriots?" White supremacists shot at TWO gurudwaras in two different states and killed multiple people, another group threw a pig's head in a mosque, and a terrorist tried to incite a racial war by shooting black people inside a church, not to mention a white man executing three Muslim students who did nothing wrong but help others. Refugees and foreigners are not the problem here, our own citizens are. They have committed more terrorist attacks on our soil than refugees and foreigners combined.
They actually kinda do, it seems. And no, it's not fair for us to attack any nation or label them as terrorists. We can be considered terrorists too given how we've attack countries and exploited them for our gains, leaving them in worse shape than we found them. I think that was one of the reasons why England was so hated, and one reason why the US was created.
That's such a stupid and hypocritical suggestion. I've already said why, many times. Blaming Islam is also pretty dumb, given ISIS doesn't seem to practice anything Islam as it's a religion of peace. Otherwise KKK and Westboro should be considered Christian groups, and all of the Christians should be monitored just in case they turn out to be bunch of racist, homophobic trashes that kill anything different from them. Hell, all white people and people who own a gun or possibly own a (legally or illegally) gun should be monitored just in case they try to commit acts of terrorism or something. Why focus on the group that has done less damage to the US when we can focus on the groups that have and continue to do far more damage to this country?
Not really, no. It's not a right thing for us to interfere, especially when we helped the country gain the power to do horrible things, just as how we helped ISIS and Al-Quaeda's rise to power because we interfered. This just makes the country or countries want to go after us even more.
Because there is less out there on Republican candidates cannibalizing each other. Cruz cannabolized himself with not looking into the legality of him runing for president. Otherwise theres not been any case. Though Rubio seems
under attack from other Republicans, he is more focused on Hillary anyway.
No there's not. Plenty of reports talk about the candidates cannibalizing each other. Have you not heard of Trump vs. Bush? Cruz vs. Rubio? Or again, is this just typical republican selectivity, where they only accept things that they like or agree with?
Cruz is a horrible person anyway. Interesting how republicans have Cruz, who was a Canadian citizen, but bitched and insisted on Obama showing his birth certificate to prove he was born in the US. Race privilege, I guess.
Yes Mr Sanders is lax on security
"He believes in a strong defense system for our country and a robust National Guard and Reserve that can meet our domestic and foreign challenges.Bernie believes that military intervention should be a last resort, not a first resort, and that a bloated defense budget represents an improper prioritization of defense issues at a time when the country is plagued by pressing domestic challenges."
Terrible budget proposals, focus on the WRONG group of proud men and women in our military. What about the Navy, Army, Air Force, and the Marines?!
" Bernie voted against the first Gulf War and vocally opposed and voted against the 2003 invasion of Iraq."
Just plain terrible. We'd be bombed to kingdom come if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Multiple American landmarks would be destroyed, the country would be in chaos.
"Bernie has not ruled out U.S. military action against ISIS or the so-called “Islamic State,” but only in a role supporting — not replacing — regional armies and militias already combating ISIS."
Bad strategy bad bad bad. Working with regional armies and militias is never successful. Our proud servicemen and women would be killed in action. And his lax drone strategy wouldnt do anyone any favors either.
(All quotes from "feelthebern.org" (Guess hes trying to appeal to young folks with that icky name)
He's not lax on security. He's just not dumb enough to put everything into defense and waste so much money that doesn't really help or benefit anyone. Lowering the budget spent on defense and warfare is a great move, especially when the money is used to help the Americans. Don't you want to have an easier life?
Proof that we'd have been bombed if we didn't invade Iraq. This feels like lies to cause fear in people and gain their support.
You're not worried about the servicemen and women being killed in action. I highly doubt you even care.
A smart president would increase the military to thwart threads abroad for his first term then on his second term, with a powerful military built up, focus on enhancing the way of life of people in the country. Let's not forget that Americans are already part of the most blessed people in the world. Even the poor here are richer than the poor elsewhere. (And everyone wins in Rubio's tax plan so even in the years of enhancing the military, our country would be on the rise from Obama's rock bottom).
Mirrors. didnt I say this also. We're on the same wavelength.
No, a smart president would decrease the military and not interfere in other countries' personal matters. Wasting money on military is a horrible idea and only serves to hurt the US. I also doubt anyone but rich people would win in Rubio's tax plans, given he's a republican and republicans only care about rich people.
Interestingly, I don't think anyone would agree that Obama's US was or is at rock bottom, but that they would agree if Trump or Cruz won, the country would really hit rock bottom.
It's a shame Trump is a racist, sexist asshole. I'd have otherwise probably voted for him more for his dislike for political correctness than anything else.
