A Trump surrogate just said WHAT?!?!?

[Auld Phart]

The problem is you have no evidence that "10% of the gumballs are poisoned". You just claim that they are. So, yeah. I'll take a great big handful, thank you. Hand them out to my kids, and family. Then we'll all laugh at you without any gumballs because of your fear, and paranoia. Mmmmm...those gumballs were good!

The problem is you have no evidence that "10% of the gumballs are poisoned".

and you have no proof 10% aren't.

But, it doesn't have to be 10%, it could be 5%, or maybe just 1%.

So go ahead and grab handfuls , pass them out to family members.

Cant' be any worse than the poison you're already subjecting them to

Really? When did you stop beating your wife? You see, by your logic, prove that you have ever beaten your wife, you now have to prove that you never have. Now, let's be clear. You don't have to prove you have never been arrested for it. You have to prove that you have never done it - including all of those times you beat your wife, and were just never caught.

Good luck with that. By all means, do tell us how you are going to prove the negative assertion that you have never beaten your wife.

 

[Czernobog]

The problem is you have no evidence that "10% of the gumballs are poisoned". You just claim that they are. So, yeah. I'll take a great big handful, thank you. Hand them out to my kids, and family. Then we'll all laugh at you without any gumballs because of your fear, and paranoia. Mmmmm...those gumballs were good!

The problem is you have no evidence that "10% of the gumballs are poisoned".

and you have no proof 10% aren't.

But, it doesn't have to be 10%, it could be 5%, or maybe just 1%.

So go ahead and grab handfuls , pass them out to family members.

Cant' be any worse than the poison you're already subjecting them to

Really? When did you stop beating your wife? You see, by your logic, prove that you have ever beaten your wife, you now have to prove that you never have. Now, let's be clear. You don't have to prove you have never been arrested for it. You have to prove that you have never done it - including all of those times you beat your wife, and were just never caught.

Good luck with that. By all means, do tell us how you are going to prove the negative assertion that you have never beaten your wife.

You're right. You're irrational, illogical argument is lame.

Lemme know when you have a better argument than "Prove a negative".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Auld Phart]

The problem is you have no evidence that "10% of the gumballs are poisoned". You just claim that they are. So, yeah. I'll take a great big handful, thank you. Hand them out to my kids, and family. Then we'll all laugh at you without any gumballs because of your fear, and paranoia. Mmmmm...those gumballs were good!

The problem is you have no evidence that "10% of the gumballs are poisoned".

and you have no proof 10% aren't.

But, it doesn't have to be 10%, it could be 5%, or maybe just 1%.

So go ahead and grab handfuls , pass them out to family members.

Cant' be any worse than the poison you're already subjecting them to

Really? When did you stop beating your wife? You see, by your logic, prove that you have ever beaten your wife, you now have to prove that you never have. Now, let's be clear. You don't have to prove you have never been arrested for it. You have to prove that you have never done it - including all of those times you beat your wife, and were just never caught.

Good luck with that. By all means, do tell us how you are going to prove the negative assertion that you have never beaten your wife.

You're right. You're irrational, illogical argument is lame.

Lemme know when you have a better argument than "Prove a negative".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're right. You're irrational, illogical argument is lame.

Your version of Peewee Herman?

"I'm rubber and you're glue, it bounces off me, and sticks to you"

If you can't open you mind, at least open your eyes.

Germany, France, England might be good spots to look

 

[boilermaker55]

You can't because you are a liar and make shit up just like "the c*ntface donald" fool!

I have no problem with what she said. People who side with rapist immigrants are traitors.

Who is siding with rapist immigrants? and how are they doing it?

Apparently the OP.

Explain yourself

I'll get right on that

 

[Czernobog]

The problem is you have no evidence that "10% of the gumballs are poisoned". You just claim that they are. So, yeah. I'll take a great big handful, thank you. Hand them out to my kids, and family. Then we'll all laugh at you without any gumballs because of your fear, and paranoia. Mmmmm...those gumballs were good!

The problem is you have no evidence that "10% of the gumballs are poisoned".

and you have no proof 10% aren't.

But, it doesn't have to be 10%, it could be 5%, or maybe just 1%.

So go ahead and grab handfuls , pass them out to family members.

Cant' be any worse than the poison you're already subjecting them to

Really? When did you stop beating your wife? You see, by your logic, prove that you have ever beaten your wife, you now have to prove that you never have. Now, let's be clear. You don't have to prove you have never been arrested for it. You have to prove that you have never done it - including all of those times you beat your wife, and were just never caught.

Good luck with that. By all means, do tell us how you are going to prove the negative assertion that you have never beaten your wife.

You're right. You're irrational, illogical argument is lame.

Lemme know when you have a better argument than "Prove a negative".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're right. You're irrational, illogical argument is lame.

Your version of Peewee Herman?

"I'm rubber and you're glue, it bounces off me, and sticks to you"

If you can't open you mind, at least open your eyes.

Germany, France, England might be good spots to look

You mean the nations with entirely different vetting processes, and entirely different policies on how they treat the refugees? Apples, and oranges.

 

[Slade3200]

The problem is you have no evidence that "10% of the gumballs are poisoned". You just claim that they are. So, yeah. I'll take a great big handful, thank you. Hand them out to my kids, and family. Then we'll all laugh at you without any gumballs because of your fear, and paranoia. Mmmmm...those gumballs were good!

The problem is you have no evidence that "10% of the gumballs are poisoned".

and you have no proof 10% aren't.

But, it doesn't have to be 10%, it could be 5%, or maybe just 1%.

So go ahead and grab handfuls , pass them out to family members.

Cant' be any worse than the poison you're already subjecting them to

"you have no proof 10% aren't"??? What kind of statement is that? You are the one that is using the number 10%, yet you have NOTHING to back that up!!! It is your responsibility to justify that claim if you make it...

What if the odds are the same as people who are severely allergic to peanuts or seafood... Are you never going to eat either of those just incase you might be allergic? Should we stop serving those foods in the US because some people die from eating them?

 

[BluesLegend]

You can't because you are a liar and make shit up just like "the c*ntface donald" fool!

I have no problem with what she said. People who side with rapist immigrants are traitors.

Who is siding with rapist immigrants? and how are they doing it?

Apparently the OP.

Explain yourself

I'll get right on that

Was your anger management class canceled this week?

 

[12icer]

So it is okay with you if say 4 of the refugees you let in are terrorist that have not been completely investigated, and they decide to destroy the school your children go to with a delivery van they have used working for the company that delivers food to the school by loading it with 5 tons of ammonium nitrate that was bought over 6 months period by them and processed with chemicals bought the same way, two electrical caps stolen by someone they know from a Quarry miles away, and a couple of throwaway phone also purchased by an acquaintance and activated the day of the BOMBING. I hope it is those of you who wish to let them in ONLY that suffer for the few that commit these acts. Unfortunately many people other that clinton voters will suffer if (when) she is elected. I just hope those who are her biggest advocates suffer as painful a death as they will be condemning so many others to. Tough if you don't like It, I ain't skeerd of ANYONE or ANYTHING, death is only relative to your ideology, and I welcome the reaper for the fight.

 

[coldjoint]

Trump: We should be vetting them and we dont
Reality calls: Uhh we do vet them
Trump: Well, we should be vetting hard....Extreme Vetting!

The UN chooses who we vet. And the process is inadequate because of the general lack of information on those vetted. At best it is hit or miss. Not good enough for me, and a lot other people who figure why take the chance.

Saudi Arabia takes 0 refugees. They have a tent city that could accommodate a very large number of refugees with all the comforts of home.

 

[Czernobog]

So it is okay with you if say...

I stopped reading, right there, because that word I emphasised is the only word that matters. That word demonstrates that you are guessing, speculating, allowing your fear to inform your opinion.

We can "say" that 4 refugees end up being terrorists. Or we can "say" that 5,000 of the refugees end up being terrorists, because, you know, we're terrified at the possibility that there might be a terrorist among the refugees. Or, we can "say" that not one single refugee in the United States, to date, has committed a terrorist act, and that not one single refugee submitted to current vetting process has turned up any connections to terrorist organizations, because those are actual real, factual statements.

 

[coldjoint]

So it is okay with you if say...

I stopped reading, right there, because that word I emphasised is the only word that matters. That word demonstrates that you are guessing, speculating, allowing your fear to inform your opinion.

We can "say" that 4 refugees end up being terrorists. Or we can "say" that 5,000 of the refugees end up being terrorists, because, you know, we're terrified at the possibility that there might be a terrorist among the refugees. Or, we can "say" that not one single refugee in the United States, to date, has committed a terrorist act, and that not one single refugee submitted to current vetting process has turned up any connections to terrorist organizations, because those are actual real, factual statements.

Ever hear of sleeper cells? You are naive. Too naive to admit this is an enemy.

 

[12icer]

Ah yes CZ as everything you have posted in reference to this subject. You define MY point exactly for me. Words end and begin with what is actually said NO more NO less. Liberals take every word from someone they dislike, and try to find some type of tangent line to make the meaning diametrically opposite of what was said. IE Trump says I want to stop Islamic refugees from entering the country until we can find out for sure who they are. Liberals say Trump is a racist and Islamaphobe because he hate Muslims, and wants to stop all of them from coming to OUR country. Just as in that leap into assumption You have more distance to leap to your linear progression to assumption than I do with the assumption I used. After all I could just ask if it is okay with all the posting liberals if the described men came into the country as YOU have no way of knowing who or what they are. As for the rest of the post, You don't know If they have yet because you never hear the truth, And direct involvement is left to those who are outside the core of terrorist planning, and you have no idea if any of these people are involved or if they knew anything about any attack or plan. I don't know they are, you don't know they aren't. Do you know all of their names, and where they are? Do you think any dimshit on capitol hill does? So there you have plenty of rant material HAHAHA, who sKeered ,HAHAAH.

 

[boilermaker55]

See, when you get a dose of "the donalds" way you thin-skinned crybabies cannot take it , you are all typical teabaggers,......fake men.
Losers!

You can't because you are a liar and make shit up just like "the c*ntface donald" fool!

Who is siding with rapist immigrants? and how are they doing it?

Apparently the OP.

Explain yourself

I'll get right on that

Was your anger management class canceled this week?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Trump: We should be vetting them and we dont
Reality calls: Uhh we do vet them
Trump: Well, we should be vetting hard....Extreme Vetting!

The UN chooses who we vet. And the process is inadequate because of the general lack of information on those vetted. At best it is hit or miss. Not good enough for me, and a lot other people who figure why take the chance.

You're just labeling thing inadequate because you dont have details of what is missing in the vetting. You just think that claiming its a failure is enough to cover your lack of detailed info.

 

[coldjoint]

Trump: We should be vetting them and we dont
Reality calls: Uhh we do vet them
Trump: Well, we should be vetting hard....Extreme Vetting!

The UN chooses who we vet. And the process is inadequate because of the general lack of information on those vetted. At best it is hit or miss. Not good enough for me, and a lot other people who figure why take the chance.

You're just labeling thing inadequate because you dont have details of what is missing in the vetting. You just think that claiming its a failure is enough to cover your lack of detailed info.

If it is missing how the Hell are there details? The fact that the UN picks them and we have to take from whom they pick. And if you do not think the OIC makes sure there sre terrorists in them you are dreaming.

 

[OKTexas]

So, Betsy McCaughey, the Republican Lieutenant Governor under George Petacki, in case anyone wants to pretend that she is a "Nobody", went on CNN this week, defending Trump's "Extreme Vetting" rhetoric. Considering her comments, one has to wonder, does the Trump campaign prepare their surrogates at all?!?! Let's start with her very first comment:

Let me tell you what the danger is. Number one, rape. When you look at what’s happening across Europe, women and young girls are being gang raped by Syrian and Muslim refugees who claimed it was because these women were scantily dressed.​

Shall we cite all of the times when Right Wing spokespersons - beginning with Rush Limbaugh - have repeatedly "warned" women to be careful what they wear, how they act, how much they drink, what parties they go to, so they don't "make themselves targets" for rapists? Now, suddenly because it's Muslim men, the Right recognises that what a woman wears should make no difference, and never makes it okay to be raped?!?!

As a side note, she cited "European papers" as her source - that's it. Not any particular papers. Just the generic "European papers" - and claimed that it was "well documented". The reality is that according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention victim survey shows that the number of sex crimes is virtually unchanged since 2005. So, you know...there's that. Also there's this: Over a hundred women did report sexual assaults in the German city of Cologne on New Year’s Eve, which was widely blamed on an influx of refugees. But one high-profile gang rape cased blamed on Muslim men earlier this year turned out to be a fabrication.

But it gets better!!!! This genius went on to say:

Take a look at what we did during World War II, for example. We need to have the same kind of meticulous vetting that we did during previous wars because we are at war.​

I can't wait to see some Trump supporter come in and try to insist that McCaughey wasn't saying exactly what she was saying. That's right. She endorsed a return to the Japanese Interment Camps that made us sooo popular, and that historians all agree was such a brilliant idea, and to use them for Muslims refugees! Because, you know, that will so encourage them to assimilate into American Society.

You can find the story here, at The Raw Story. And I included a video of the interview, so you can watch these words come out of the woman's mouth for yourself. Does the Trump campaign even pretend to vet, or prepare these surrogates before they trot them out in front of the cameras?!?!?! I mean, Trump does get that, because he is allowing her to speak on his behalf, he will be associated with the things she says, right?

That's right. She endorsed a return to the Japanese Interment Camps that made us sooo popular, and that historians all agree was such a brilliant idea, and to use them for Muslims refugees! Because, you know, that will so encourage them to assimilate into American Society.

You lying son of a bitch, this is what she said on the subject of interment camps which was brought up by the regressive bitch. How you managed to claim an endorsement from her statement on the subject is beyond belief. From your link:

“I’m not talking about putting people who reside in the United States in internment camps!” McCaughey exclaimed. “People who reside in the United States are protected by the Constitution and those Japanese-Americans should have been.”

“But people who live in the rest of the world are not protected by the United States Constitution. They do not have a constitutional right to become Americans!”

If you fucking regressives didn't have your lies you would have nothing at all

 

[OKTexas]

I have no problem with what she said. People who side with rapist immigrants are traitors.

Who is siding with rapist immigrants? and how are they doing it?

Apparently the OP.

Explain yourself

I'll get right on that

Translation: Just like Trump, I just make shit up as I go.

You sure do!

 

[OKTexas]

Take a look at what we did during World War II, for example. We need to have the same kind of meticulous vetting that we did during previous wars because we are at war.
I can't wait to see some Trump supporter come in and try to insist that McCaughey wasn't saying exactly what she was saying. That's right. She endorsed a return to the Japanese Interment Camps that made us sooo popular, and that historians all agree was such a brilliant idea, and to use them for Muslims refugees! Because, you know, that will so encourage them to assimilate into American Society.

Undecided voter here, but she definitely didn't say what you claim she said. You should check your ears now and then for wax build up... it can create a loss of hearing.

Japanese internment camps (upheld by SCOTUS, btw) had nothing to do with vetting immigrants coming into the country. She should have used the more recent example of Jimmy Carter denying immigration to over 50,000 Iranians and sending 17k who were already here, back home. This was done on nothing more than the fact they were from Iran.

So, to what was she referring? top what "immigration" policy did she refer from WW II? The only thing we did in WW II, other than War Refugee Board, which made it easier for Jewish refugees to immigrate here, was the interment camps. So, to what policy could she have been referring?

She was referring to every hostility we've ever been in and how we handle immigration during those times regarding people from enemy states. No, we did not just open our doors to every German or Japanese who wanted to come here.

How the fuck do you take the flying leap from vetting immigrants to interning citizens? She didn't talk about citizens... they were never mentioned. She was talking about immigrants coming into our country... they're not citizens and they don't have constitutional rights to be here.

You made the leap because you'r a little hack liberal shitstain who wants to gin up rhetoric and throw stupid people into a panic. I hope if Trump wins he will reenact the Alien and Sedition Acts so we can exile shitheads like you to Azerbaijan or somewhere.

Actually citizens were mentioned, in a complete opposite context to what the OP said.

 

[OKTexas]

Trump: We should be vetting them and we dont
Reality calls: Uhh we do vet them
Trump: Well, we should be vetting hard....Extreme Vetting!

What vetting? Are you good or bad?.OK come right in?

Actually, that's demonstrably not true. This is the current vetting process:

1. Register with the UN
2. Interview with the UN
3. Get Refugee Status from the UN
4. Get referral to the United States
5. Interview with the State Department
6. First Background Check
7. High level background check, if there are any red flags
8. A second (or possibly third) background check
9. Fingerprint screening #1
10. Fingerprint screening #2 (just in case the first one wasn't enough)
11. And, just because we like to be thorough, fingerprint screening #3
12. Review by US Immigration
13. A second review, if there are any inconsistencies, or concerns
14. In-person Homeland security review
15. A secondary approval of the aforementioned in-person review
16. Contagious disease screening
17. Cultural Orientation
18. Resettlement Agency Match
19. Multi-agency security check
20. Final security check at airport

And if any one of these checks is failed, the candidate is refused. But, you know, don't let a little thing like facts get in the way...

I have complete faith in the UN as well as the State Department. LOL.

So...you don't trust the State Department, the UN, or, apparently, Homeland Security. So, just who do you think should be doing the vetting?

All have said that the data bases all have huge holes in them and they can't vet those where data is not available.

 

[OKTexas]

Take a look at what we did during World War II, for example. We need to have the same kind of meticulous vetting that we did during previous wars because we are at war.
I can't wait to see some Trump supporter come in and try to insist that McCaughey wasn't saying exactly what she was saying. That's right. She endorsed a return to the Japanese Interment Camps that made us sooo popular, and that historians all agree was such a brilliant idea, and to use them for Muslims refugees! Because, you know, that will so encourage them to assimilate into American Society.

Undecided voter here, but she definitely didn't say what you claim she said. You should check your ears now and then for wax build up... it can create a loss of hearing.

Japanese internment camps (upheld by SCOTUS, btw) had nothing to do with vetting immigrants coming into the country. She should have used the more recent example of Jimmy Carter denying immigration to over 50,000 Iranians and sending 17k who were already here, back home. This was done on nothing more than the fact they were from Iran.

So, to what was she referring? top what "immigration" policy did she refer from WW II? The only thing we did in WW II, other than War Refugee Board, which made it easier for Jewish refugees to immigrate here, was the interment camps. So, to what policy could she have been referring?

She was referring to every hostility we've ever been in and how we handle immigration during those times regarding people from enemy states. No, we did not just open our doors to every German or Japanese who wanted to come here.

How the fuck do you take the flying leap from vetting immigrants to interning citizens? She didn't talk about citizens... they were never mentioned. She was talking about immigrants coming into our country... they're not citizens and they don't have constitutional rights to be here.

You made the leap because you'r a little hack liberal shitstain who wants to gin up rhetoric and throw stupid people into a panic. I hope if Trump wins he will reenact the Alien and Sedition Acts so we can exile shitheads like you to Azerbaijan or somewhere.

Because we don't just "open our doors", now. In fact there was nothing that we did between 1939 and 1944 that wee don't do now, including immigration quotas, except the interment camps.

You keep insisting that she wasn't referring to the interment camps, and calling me names, but you have yet to tell us to what she was referring? Could that be because you cannot point to anything we did during World War II that we don't do now, other than the interment camps?

Did you bother to actually read your own link, you lied your ass off about what she said.