Posted by Vendetta

But it's thousands of Syrians versus several Americans, if that.

What?
Are you saying, "Just let in a few thousand Syrians, the worst thing that will happen is a few Americans may be killed or raped?"

What good do we get out of letting Syrians into the US? You make it sound like they offer something to our country… It's a one-sided deal here  

Posted by Bryan*

Since Syria is practically your neighbor, they should be sent to the U.K. until our issues are resolved.

We're 20,000 within the next 5 years and we're a far smaller country than the US, although I would argue we should take in more. What issues do you have that other countries don't?

Posted by PigParty

It's already hard to vet them and the problem is when people who say we should be taking more in, they don't realize what that actually means. We would have to take them in very soon, which means we couldn't thoroughly vet tens of thousands of refugees in that short amount of time. I'm not going to comment on how much Trump cares about others because I think most of the bull**** that comes out if his mouth is for show, not because it's what he really believes (in some cases) but there's a large amount of American citizens that do care about what happens to the refugees and they want them to be safe, but they still don't want to let them into America in mass amounts of numbers. Kind of humorous that people are attacking America for being selfish for its own people for the first time in history. We've lost plenty of lives fighting other people's wars, and we are still doing that to this day. But because we aren't letting in mass amounts of refugees into America, we're the bad guy. We all have to contribute somehow, and America has contributed far more than most, if not all other countries to fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

America isn't selfish, the fact that you're actually taking any in shows that you're not. Sending them back would be selfish.

Trump makes it out like it's easy to get into the country, as I said before several government organizations partake in the vetting process that can take years to complete. Taking more in doesn't mean you have to accept them in today or tomorrow, no one is saying that. In fact most countries are saying they're going to accept a certain number within the next few years, it doesn't mean accepting them all at once.

Have you met any of the refugees? It's much easier to empathize when you've actually seen what they've gone through.

Posted by Thallen

What?
Are you saying, "Just let in a few thousand Syrians, the worst thing that will happen is a few Americans may be killed or raped?"

What good do we get out of letting Syrians into the US? You make it sound like they offer something to our country… It's a one-sided deal here

You're acting like American's are somehow superior and matter more. No one is saying you're going to get anything out of it, it's called not being selfish - after all you guys are the ones conducting drone strikes on their country.  

Posted by Vendetta

You're acting like American's are somehow superior and matter more. No one is saying you're going to get anything out of it, it's called not being selfish - after all you guys are the ones conducting drone strikes on their country.

Wat? In our country, we do matter more. We're Americans, living in America. That's whose interests our president should be serving.  

Posted by Thallen

Wat? In our country, we do matter more. We're Americans, living in America. That's whose interests our president should be serving.

And I would hope it would be in most peoples interest to stop suffering in the world around them.

I do get what your saying though. But again, it's thousands of Syrian lives vs several American ones, if that, because there hasn't been any evidence of terrorist activity from refugees in the US.  

Posted by Vendetta

And I would hope it would be in most peoples interest to stop suffering in the world around them.

I do get what your saying though. But again, it's thousands of Syrian lives vs several American ones, if that, because there hasn't been any evidence of terrorist activity from refugees in the US.

It is in most peoples interest to stop this suffering. But that takes a backseat when safety is risked for our own. Just because the rest of the world looks to America for help doesn't mean we should sacrifice the safety of American citizens in order to do so.  

Posted by Vendetta

We're 20,000 within the next 5 years and we're a far smaller country than the US, although I would argue we should take in more. What issues do you have that other countries don't
America isn't selfish, the fact that you're actually taking any in shows that you're not. Sending them back would be selfish.
Trump makes it out like it's easy to get into the country, as I said before several government organizations partake in the vetting process that can take years to complete. Taking more in doesn't mean you have to accept them in today or tomorrow, no one is saying that. In fact most countries are saying they're going to accept a certain number within the next few years, it doesn't mean accepting them all at once.
Have you met any of the refugees? It's much easier to empathize when you've actually seen what they've gone through.

I haven't met any refugees and I don't need to because I'm not a crazy who thinks they're bad people. I'm not worried about the refugees. I'm worried about the terrorists slipping in. America isn't selfish, I know. I was saying America would be acting selfish (I was actually using selfish in a good way) as in they are focusing on their own people. The problem is not many people are talking about waiting 5 years and letting them in gradually. Many of them need to enter other countries much sooner than that, and many politicians are talking about letting them in now, now 5 years from now.

Just a side note: America's vetting is so strong that immigration agents weren't even (and still may not be) allowed to look up the applicants on their social media because it would have been considered illegal discrimination. We've let in immigrants who have had facebook/twitter posts that praise ISIS because the immigration employees couldn't use it to determine whether they get let in to the country.  

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"  

I don't think personal under-the-table bribes count as enhanced diplomatic relationships, especially when those foreign countries are terrible and not something you should ever want to associate with.

She doesn't serve the best interests of the US, she serves the best interest of herself but the same can be said about Trump however it's definitely clear Hillary has her own personal agenda.

I would like to see some examples of false evidence from WikiLeaks, because it is widely known they release factual information and none of the Hillary e-mails they leaked were false and are the exact same e-mails the FBI has.

Also, you say the bigger picture is to always serve the US and their allies, so does that make his suggestion of taking in less refugees a positive one because that's exactly what he's doing, focusing on protecting the American people.

How can you trust Hillary with national security? She willingly mishandled classified information without caring, what happens when she's president and ends up passing information into the wrong hand?

She accepted bribes from countries she knew were funding ISIL ffs how is that "enhanced diplomatic relationships" or "national security" she's literally helping out the people who want to KILL us.

She sent U.S intelligence and war plans over her unsecure e-mail, I would definitely recommend her to be head of national security.  

Posted by Bryan*

Since Syria is practically your neighbor, they should be sent to the U.K. until our issues are resolved.

Lmaoooooooooo  

Posted by Vendetta

As you said most people are selfish, they don't want what's best for the world - they want what's best for them. So does Trump, it's pretty obvious he doesn't give a **** about the rest of the world.

I get that people are going to want to put their families first, everyone does and you're always going to put your own people first. But it's thousands of Syrians versus several Americans, if that.

They're already doing careful vetting though, as I said before America have one of the most intensive vetting processes.

Pretty sure Hillary doesn't give a **** either.

Also isn't just "several Americans". As you may not know, there are in fact more than just 5 ****ing people who live in this country.

Its not like we don't want to help them, its just that we have our own to look out for. Yeah I'm sure the vast majority of of Syrian refugees aren't secretly working for ISIS but without knowing who is, its waaayyyy to risky to let them all in.

On the topic of Trump, I think his ideas work well on paper but he's literally too stupid to figure out how to execute his plans well let alone make his campaign look at least somewhat good for undecided voters. I feel like half the time he sets himself up for Hillary and liberals to take a shot at him. Like goddamn he has no filter. At least think about what you're going to say before you actually do.  

Hey vendetta remember on bbc in our country when our government passed off in the house of commons to bomb syria and was all laughing about it like it was all fun and games, yeah well we(inc Usa,russia etc)fked up middle eastern countries years back a few more bombs doesn't harm eh, I mean we've already created families full of remorse(for the next gen)to bomb us back and now we moaning because the innocent ones got caught up in it and want to get away from there(but oh terrorist we made could slip in)  

Those personal under-the-table bribes are usually done in secret. In that context, secret usually means nobody knows what, or why. So the same way you see those deals as for the purpose of being personal, I see those deals as for the purpose of something else.

In order to claim a person has a personal agenda, you usually have to have at the very least a motive or reason. I can give many reasons why Trump’s ascension to President can help out many personal assets of his. While Hillary’s entire life revolved around U.S. politics and Government. What does Hillary have to gain that she couldn’t already do as the THIRD most powerful position in all of US Government. Being in charge of the U.S. Department of State makes her the sole person liable for ALL U.S. national foreign policy and relations. I don’t know what kind of “personal agenda” everyone so broadly describes her to have.

Well damn, I guess in that context, we ALL have personal agendas, don’t we? Trump, Putin, etc.
The world of diplomatic relations is hard to describe, it’s not about bunch of foreign prime ministers and leaders sitting in a room with a pencil and paper discussing world peace. It’s all about leverage, benefits, exchanging of information or security, etc.

Posted by Colin

I would like to see some examples of false evidence from WikiLeaks, because it is widely known they release factual information and none of the Hillary e-mails they leaked were false and are the exact same e-mails the FBI has.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016...001176775.html

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-put...sputnik-508635

Like I said, the common masses eat up everything Wikileaks says. On that note however, I understand it’s hypocritical to rely on the News/Media as well. How about, in defense of my argument, YOU provide ME with substantial evidence that your information is FACTUAL. I probably haven't seen whatever links YOU were looking at, so I would actually be really open to reading it with an open mind.

These Wikileaks are open to the public, but yet Trump only chooses a few smaller things from that open information to blast at. What does that tell you about the rest of the information?

See the dilemma here? Neither party can prove anything. Watch the video on the last link.

Posted by Colin

Also, you say the bigger picture is to always serve the US and their allies, so does that make his suggestion of taking in less refugees a positive one because that's exactly what he's doing, focusing on protecting the American people.

No, that is NOT the bigger picture. That is in fact, the smaller picture, protection of such a small physical space. That is a temporary solution to a bigger problem.

And seriously, Hillary passing information to the wrong hand? Her husband was Bill Clinton, she served as the Secretary of State, if damage was to be done, trust me we would or “Wikileaks” would have MORE substantial information on that. If information would be in Trump's hands, you think he'll be a protector of freedom and information?

Bribes from countries comes with conditions. The fact that she has favor with nations funding ISIL means access to information. Multiple perspectives. Her connections run deep.

What does Trump have? Oh he has Vladmir Putin. The one President that has deemed the U.S. as an enemy and have been our biggest cyber threat since the ongoing Cold War.  

Trump then and still Trump now  

He is just focusing on some of the major ones that and he doesn't have the time to actively swift through it all.

Hillary also has ties to Russia, she's just using Trump and Russia as a distraction for the whole thing, also Putin has stated several times that he would like to become allies with the U.S, he may just be saying these things, but it's atleast worth an effort to ease tensions with Russia.

WikiLeaks has never posted false information, if that was the case then why isn't Hillary denying it? Instead she owned up to it and is trying to claim Russian hackers did it to intervene with the election.

Every e-mail has a digital signature, you can download the raw source of the e-mails and check the DKIM:
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Screen-Shot-2016-10-24-at-10.49.44-AM.jpg (Unsupported image host)

If an e-mail is altered, the DKIM will return an invalid signature, which doesn't happen when you test these e-mails (altered e-mail for example)
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Screen-Shot-2016-10-24-at-10.50.31-AM.jpg (Unsupported image host)

So I'll just repost Thallen's link http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/ which contains and sources 100 pieces of FACTUAL information regarding Hillary Clinton.

Again, as a non-American citizen my approach to deciding on who is better is different because I don't actually have to put up with them, at the end of the day we just have different approaches to things like foreign relations and security, I for one would never deal with a country that violates basic human rights no matter how beneficial it is for me which is why I struggle to see why it's okay that she did that.

I can see Trump doing the same things as her though, it's a fair point I wouldn't like either of these candidates running my country.  

Posted by 5hift

Also isn't just "several Americans". As you may not know, there are in fact more than just 5 ****ing people who live in this country.

Its not like we don't want to help them, its just that we have our own to look out for. Yeah I'm sure the vast majority of of Syrian refugees aren't secretly working for ISIS but without knowing who is, its waaayyyy to risky to let them all in.

On the topic of Trump, I think his ideas work well on paper but he's literally too stupid to figure out how to execute his plans well let alone make his campaign look at least somewhat good for undecided voters. I feel like half the time he sets himself up for Hillary and liberals to take a shot at him. Like goddamn he has no filter. At least think about what you're going to say before you actually do.

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.