How YOU should act now.

[Uncensored2008]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

2. Keep in mind that not everybody who voted opposite of you is a rude insulting partisan wingnut. The majority are good hard working people that want the best for themselves, their family, their community, and their country... and more people thought Hillary was the better choice.

So how should you act?

Act in a manner that you'd like your opponent to act if the results of the election were reversed. It's very simple.

The Golden Rule never fails.

It's not we who are rioting.

I'm just saying.

 

[Iceweasel]

I agree with the OP on how Trump supporters should act to the Trump win I also wonder how the board Hillary supporters would have responded if she had won. I suspect most but not all would be doing a fair amount of gloating and knife twisting right now in any event the election is over and there is nothing left to do except wait and see what kind of President Trump will be.

I have no doubt that there would be some gloating asshole Dems doing what some Reps are doing right now on this board. I would be relaying the same message to them.

Well, seeing as how almost of Dems are in a constant state of gloating, even now, I'd call that a good bet. But I think you've mistaken many right wing posts for gloating. Saying why you supported Trump and glad he won, the country won, etc. isn't gloating. I saw much more gloating from the left claiming victory, over and over, every day.

Im not referring to those types of posts. I'm talking to the individuals who have posted some very intentional and low class comments about the election. There is no need for that shit. There is also no need for much of the protest we are seeing from the left. The ugliest campaign I've ever witnessed is finished. I'd love to see us try and restore any kind of integrity, honor, and class that we can. It starts with how we talk to each other.

Well, I'm old enough to remember the Reagan years, then W. Bush. No way in hell is the left going to pipe down, it WILL escalate. Believe me.

 

[Slade3200]

1. Keep in mind that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. This means more than half of the voting public is disappointed and nervous about the results of this election. The victors are in the minority.

2. Keep in mind that not everybody who voted opposite of you is a rude insulting partisan wingnut. The majority are good hard working people that want the best for themselves, their family, their community, and their country... and more people thought Hillary was the better choice.

So how should you act?

Act in a manner that you'd like your opponent to act if the results of the election were reversed. It's very simple.

The Golden Rule never fails.

It's not we who are rioting.

I'm just saying.

I have another thread about that... Its a different discussion and their actions are not anything that I condone... But this thread is about how we conduct ourselves and is aimed mostly at the Trump supporters.

 

[Rustic]

UPDATED: Obama 2012 Would've Beaten Trump 2016

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Did I ask for you to respect Liberals? NO. I said to act respectfully. Act in a way that you'd like your opponents to act if they were in your position. If you think that because SOME liberals were assholes it excuses you for being an asshole... Then all that does is make you an ASSHOLE.

Sorry Smugfuck. I've debated libs for thirty years, they demand respect and give none.
I don't roll that way.

I find that falls with that younger generation "entitlement" attitude, where they don't have a tolerance for a different point of view but demand that you respect theirs. I for one don't see a need to shove a defeat in their face, and I'm hoping that Washington can now debate policy without there being a capitalizing voice trying to sling mud and race baiting. Conservatives can set the tone but that doesn't mean liberals in Congress will follow.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

UPDATED: Obama 2012 Would've Beaten Trump 2016

Because of the large African American turn out that Hillary couldn't obtain. Gee I wonder why?

 

[Iceweasel]

Did I ask for you to respect Liberals? NO. I said to act respectfully. Act in a way that you'd like your opponents to act if they were in your position. If you think that because SOME liberals were assholes it excuses you for being an asshole... Then all that does is make you an ASSHOLE.

Sorry Smugfuck. I've debated libs for thirty years, they demand respect and give none.
I don't roll that way.

I find that falls with that younger generation "entitlement" attitude, where they don't have a tolerance for a different point of view but demand that you respect theirs. I for one don't see a need to shove a defeat in their face, and I'm hoping that Washington can now debate policy without there being a capitalizing voice trying to sling mud and race baiting. Conservatives can set the tone but that doesn't mean liberals in Congress will follow.

Liberals of all ages act that way. I'd like the right to get along with the left, unfortunately that means joining the left.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Did I ask for you to respect Liberals? NO. I said to act respectfully. Act in a way that you'd like your opponents to act if they were in your position. If you think that because SOME liberals were assholes it excuses you for being an asshole... Then all that does is make you an ASSHOLE.

Sorry Smugfuck. I've debated libs for thirty years, they demand respect and give none.
I don't roll that way.

I find that falls with that younger generation "entitlement" attitude, where they don't have a tolerance for a different point of view but demand that you respect theirs. I for one don't see a need to shove a defeat in their face, and I'm hoping that Washington can now debate policy without there being a capitalizing voice trying to sling mud and race baiting. Conservatives can set the tone but that doesn't mean liberals in Congress will follow.

Liberals of all ages act that way. I'd like the right to get along with the left, unfortunately that means joining the left.

It does not require joining the left, rather exposing their position of race baiting. You have to confront and unarm their racist tone on issues like refugees by stating the welcome of Muslim immigrants except where those regions have proven themselves a threat and hostile towards our nation. That by using a message that reiterates the intolerance of such racist accusations, that the left is asking our nation to be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks without much concern for the security of those lives of Americans in this country. Allow that concern to resonate straight from the presidential podium to the American people. We believe in airport security, but do we honestly believe in border security, as our enemies will most certainly exploit every weakness we allow them to take full advantage of... 9-11 was a proven event of that weakness we allowed.

 

[Slade3200]

Did I ask for you to respect Liberals? NO. I said to act respectfully. Act in a way that you'd like your opponents to act if they were in your position. If you think that because SOME liberals were assholes it excuses you for being an asshole... Then all that does is make you an ASSHOLE.

Sorry Smugfuck. I've debated libs for thirty years, they demand respect and give none.
I don't roll that way.

I find that falls with that younger generation "entitlement" attitude, where they don't have a tolerance for a different point of view but demand that you respect theirs. I for one don't see a need to shove a defeat in their face, and I'm hoping that Washington can now debate policy without there being a capitalizing voice trying to sling mud and race baiting. Conservatives can set the tone but that doesn't mean liberals in Congress will follow.

Liberals of all ages act that way. I'd like the right to get along with the left, unfortunately that means joining the left.

It does not require joining the left, rather exposing their position of race baiting. You have to confront and unarm their racist tone on issues like refugees by stating the welcome of Muslim immigrants except where those regions have proven themselves a threat and hostile towards our nation. That by using a message that reiterates the intolerance of such racist accusations, that the left is asking our nation to be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks without much concern for the security of those lives of Americans in this country. Allow that concern to resonate straight from the presidential podium to the American people. We believe in airport security, but do we honestly believe in border security, as our enemies will most certainly exploit every weakness we allow them to take full advantage of... 9-11 was a proven event of that weakness we allowed.

You are close but still missing the point. The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

 

[Iceweasel]

The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

A child doesn't want to get burned when they play with the stove, but they do. Your post is full of good intentions, condescension, naivete and mischaracterizations. No, the right doesn't need to modify their tone for the snowflakes, the snowflakes need to grow up. And thank God they've been tossed to the curb before they get us all killed.

 

[Slade3200]

The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

A child doesn't want to get burned when they play with the stove, but they do. Your post is full of good intentions, condescension, naivete and mischaracterizations. No, the right doesn't need to modify their tone for the snowflakes, the snowflakes need to grow up. And thank God they've been tossed to the curb before they get us all killed.

No body "needs" to do anything. You can be a stubborn uncomoromising hardass if you want, and liberals can be insulting race baiting crybabies and we can continue down this road of bitching, moaning, in fighting, and gridlock. My suggestion to inject empathy, understanding, and compassion for each others positions is a way to unify both sides, work together, and be more productive.

We are only able to co trip our own words and actions. I'll support my way and you have every right to support your way. I just hope more people agree with what I'm talking about.

 

[Iceweasel]

The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

A child doesn't want to get burned when they play with the stove, but they do. Your post is full of good intentions, condescension, naivete and mischaracterizations. No, the right doesn't need to modify their tone for the snowflakes, the snowflakes need to grow up. And thank God they've been tossed to the curb before they get us all killed.

No body "needs" to do anything. You can be a stubborn uncomoromising hardass if you want, and liberals can be insulting race baiting crybabies and we can continue down this road of bitching, moaning, in fighting, and gridlock. My suggestion to inject empathy, understanding, and compassion for each others positions is a way to unify both sides, work together, and be more productive.

We are only able to co trip our own words and actions. I'll support my way and you have every right to support your way. I just hope more people agree with what I'm talking about.

Growing up isn't being a hardass. It's the natural order of life. That has been artificially derailed by nanny state types that create the dependents. What happens when a child never gets told no? They grow up immature and stunted. That's what we have now in growing number.

There is absolutely nothing in-compassionate about saying we need good borders and strong enforcement of immigration laws. The right isn't hardass for wanting a safer more productive country for its' citizens. Your perspective is skewed. It's the left that hurls the insults by calling it racism. Then there's homophobia, sexism, xenophobia, etc. Go talk to them, America is sick of it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are close but still missing the point. The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

The left wants power, unbridled, raw power.

The left will do ANYTHING to gain and keep power. If terrorists attacking American school children will cause Americans to accept the rule of the left to "protect" them, then the left will happily bring terrorists in. If foriegn influence disrupts the power base of traditional Americans who resist the centralization of power into a collectivist system under the authoritarian rule of the left, then the left will gladley import terrorists to accomplish that goal.

The left lusts after power. Every move by the left is calculated to undermine Constitutional government and concentrate power in the hands of leftist rulers in a central authority.

As we have seen in this election, there is NOTHING the left hates more than "the people."

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Did I ask for you to respect Liberals? NO. I said to act respectfully. Act in a way that you'd like your opponents to act if they were in your position. If you think that because SOME liberals were assholes it excuses you for being an asshole... Then all that does is make you an ASSHOLE.

Sorry Smugfuck. I've debated libs for thirty years, they demand respect and give none.
I don't roll that way.

I find that falls with that younger generation "entitlement" attitude, where they don't have a tolerance for a different point of view but demand that you respect theirs. I for one don't see a need to shove a defeat in their face, and I'm hoping that Washington can now debate policy without there being a capitalizing voice trying to sling mud and race baiting. Conservatives can set the tone but that doesn't mean liberals in Congress will follow.

Liberals of all ages act that way. I'd like the right to get along with the left, unfortunately that means joining the left.

It does not require joining the left, rather exposing their position of race baiting. You have to confront and unarm their racist tone on issues like refugees by stating the welcome of Muslim immigrants except where those regions have proven themselves a threat and hostile towards our nation. That by using a message that reiterates the intolerance of such racist accusations, that the left is asking our nation to be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks without much concern for the security of those lives of Americans in this country. Allow that concern to resonate straight from the presidential podium to the American people. We believe in airport security, but do we honestly believe in border security, as our enemies will most certainly exploit every weakness we allow them to take full advantage of... 9-11 was a proven event of that weakness we allowed.

You are close but still missing the point. The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

There is no guarantee that vetting can be 100% effective. How EXACTLY do you know as well as recognize the mindset of an individual who believes in THEIR faith to a degree they will do anything to inflict harm into the heart of a nation because of a devoted honor to that religion or pure righteous to their cause. Japanese Kamikazes could not be swayed or reasoned with from their suicide path, to dive their plane into the heart of an enemy warship. This is an extreme value of devotion that goes well beyond the value of their own life.

You may believe this is a lack of compassion, I submit there is a true lack in understanding of the kind of ideological extremism in faith we are facing . Could any of those terrorists who piloted those planes into the world trade tower be reasoned with? Are these extremists somehow believed to be unintelligent, that a series of interrogated questions by a customs agent is believed to be the best tool in uncovering their true intentions where our airport security couldn't (except to see what means of explosive chemicals, sharp instruments, or a series of names on a no fly "watchlist" might find?). Location has everything to do with where these refugees are coming from, when terrorists groups are thriving and growing in numbers. Is there any example in our own history where we have allowed Japanese civilians to freely travel into the United States from their home in the rising sun during World War II? Did I say we need to ban ALL muslims from entering the United States? No. However, we must be honest with ourselves as well as be real about the kind of world and enemy we are facing. They have no uniforms, they are not acknowledged to have association with any one specific nation. This is an extreme ideology that sees death with the taking of their OWN life as an honor to their faith. Ignorance of the truth in the kind of enemy we are facing, will be our nation's downfall.

 

[Slade3200]

The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

A child doesn't want to get burned when they play with the stove, but they do. Your post is full of good intentions, condescension, naivete and mischaracterizations. No, the right doesn't need to modify their tone for the snowflakes, the snowflakes need to grow up. And thank God they've been tossed to the curb before they get us all killed.

No body "needs" to do anything. You can be a stubborn uncomoromising hardass if you want, and liberals can be insulting race baiting crybabies and we can continue down this road of bitching, moaning, in fighting, and gridlock. My suggestion to inject empathy, understanding, and compassion for each others positions is a way to unify both sides, work together, and be more productive.

We are only able to co trip our own words and actions. I'll support my way and you have every right to support your way. I just hope more people agree with what I'm talking about.

Growing up isn't being a hardass. It's the natural order of life. That has been artificially derailed by nanny state types that create the dependents. What happens when a child never gets told no? They grow up immature and stunted. That's what we have now in growing number.

There is absolutely nothing in-compassionate about saying we need good borders and strong enforcement of immigration laws. The right isn't hardass for wanting a safer more productive country for its' citizens. Your perspective is skewed. It's the left that hurls the insults by calling it racism. Then there's homophobia, sexism, xenophobia, etc. Go talk to them, America is sick of it.

I do talk to the left when they overuse or carelessly use racist attacks. Do you talk to your side when they do make racist or sexist comments, or are you saying that they never do?

Re read my last post because it doesn't understand like you understood. I didn't say that promoting border security was not compassionate. I was making a point that if you want to be productive with this issue, don't just speak about beefing up the border because of all the problems the criminal illegals are causing, that type of talk becomes inflammatory. Speak about wanting to beef up security to reduce human and drug trafficking but in the next breath speak of wanting to help refugees and immangrants who are genuinely in need of help and a better life.

The, "they weren't born here so they aren't our problem" attitude is not going to resonate, so y'all can show some tact in how you communicate. Same goes for the left, they need to acknowledge security issues, the injustice that illegal immigration brings to the legal immigrants waiting in line, and also the economic effects.

 

[Slade3200]

You are close but still missing the point. The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

The left wants power, unbridled, raw power.

The left will do ANYTHING to gain and keep power. If terrorists attacking American school children will cause Americans to accept the rule of the left to "protect" them, then the left will happily bring terrorists in. If foriegn influence disrupts the power base of traditional Americans who resist the centralization of power into a collectivist system under the authoritarian rule of the left, then the left will gladley import terrorists to accomplish that goal.

The left lusts after power. Every move by the left is calculated to undermine Constitutional government and concentrate power in the hands of leftist rulers in a central authority.

As we have seen in this election, there is NOTHING the left hates more than "the people."

When are go going to get off your soapbox preaching to us about "what the left wants"? you clearly don't understand what they want or what they are trying g to communicate so you end up just making yourself look ignorant and stupid

 

[Uncensored2008]

When are go going to get off your soapbox preaching to us about "what the left wants"? you clearly don't understand what they want or what they are trying g to communicate so you end up just making yourself look ignorant and stupid

I understand exactly what the left wants, power.

Everything the left does is dedicated to concentrating power into the hands of a ruling elite in a central, authoritarian system.

You were rebuked by those who cling to "god, guns, and the Constitution." The plans for a Soviet style system were thwarted - other than in California, which is about on the level of North Korea in the case of personal liberty.

 

[Slade3200]

Sorry Smugfuck. I've debated libs for thirty years, they demand respect and give none.
I don't roll that way.

I find that falls with that younger generation "entitlement" attitude, where they don't have a tolerance for a different point of view but demand that you respect theirs. I for one don't see a need to shove a defeat in their face, and I'm hoping that Washington can now debate policy without there being a capitalizing voice trying to sling mud and race baiting. Conservatives can set the tone but that doesn't mean liberals in Congress will follow.

Liberals of all ages act that way. I'd like the right to get along with the left, unfortunately that means joining the left.

It does not require joining the left, rather exposing their position of race baiting. You have to confront and unarm their racist tone on issues like refugees by stating the welcome of Muslim immigrants except where those regions have proven themselves a threat and hostile towards our nation. That by using a message that reiterates the intolerance of such racist accusations, that the left is asking our nation to be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks without much concern for the security of those lives of Americans in this country. Allow that concern to resonate straight from the presidential podium to the American people. We believe in airport security, but do we honestly believe in border security, as our enemies will most certainly exploit every weakness we allow them to take full advantage of... 9-11 was a proven event of that weakness we allowed.

You are close but still missing the point. The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

There is no guarantee that vetting can be 100% effective. How EXACTLY do you know as well as recognize the mindset of an individual who believes in THEIR faith to a degree they will do anything to inflict harm into the heart of a nation because of a devoted honor to that religion or pure righteous to their cause. Japanese Kamikazes could not be swayed or reasoned with from their suicide path, to dive their plane into the heart of an enemy warship. This is an extreme value of devotion that goes well beyond the value of their own life.

You may believe this is a lack of compassion, I submit there is a true lack in understanding of the kind of ideological extremism in faith we are facing . Could any of those terrorists who piloted those planes into the world trade tower be reasoned with? Are these extremists somehow believed to be unintelligent, that a series of interrogated questions by a customs agent is believed to be the best tool in uncovering their true intentions where our airport security couldn't (except to see what means of explosive chemicals, sharp instruments, or a series of names on a no fly "watchlist" might find?). Location has everything to do with where these refugees are coming from, when terrorists groups are thriving and growing in numbers. Is there any example in our own history where we have allowed Japanese civilians to freely travel into the United States from their home in the rising sun during World War II? Did I say we need to ban ALL muslims from entering the United States? No. However, we must be honest with ourselves as well as be real about the kind of world and enemy we are facing. They have no uniforms, they are not acknowledged to have association with any one specific nation. This is an extreme ideology that sees death with the taking of their OWN life as an honor to their faith. Ignorance of the truth in the kind of enemy we are facing, will be our nation's downfall.

Nothing is ever 100%. Are you saying unless we can create a 100% full proof system then we should not allow people into our country? What about travelers? Where is the line?

We have a very extensive vetting process set up, if you, or security analysts see holes or areas for improvement then let's talk about them and make it better. But when you have a mother and her children whose father was killed by Isis, that fled in fear of there lives, and this can be proven and traced, then perhaps we have the opportunity to help people like this... perhaps the people who we can't run a thorough and detailed background check on, or people with red flags, don't become refugees... does that sound reasonable?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I find that falls with that younger generation "entitlement" attitude, where they don't have a tolerance for a different point of view but demand that you respect theirs. I for one don't see a need to shove a defeat in their face, and I'm hoping that Washington can now debate policy without there being a capitalizing voice trying to sling mud and race baiting. Conservatives can set the tone but that doesn't mean liberals in Congress will follow.

Liberals of all ages act that way. I'd like the right to get along with the left, unfortunately that means joining the left.

It does not require joining the left, rather exposing their position of race baiting. You have to confront and unarm their racist tone on issues like refugees by stating the welcome of Muslim immigrants except where those regions have proven themselves a threat and hostile towards our nation. That by using a message that reiterates the intolerance of such racist accusations, that the left is asking our nation to be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks without much concern for the security of those lives of Americans in this country. Allow that concern to resonate straight from the presidential podium to the American people. We believe in airport security, but do we honestly believe in border security, as our enemies will most certainly exploit every weakness we allow them to take full advantage of... 9-11 was a proven event of that weakness we allowed.

You are close but still missing the point. The left does not want to jeapordize our national security and bring terrorist into this country. It is silly to suggest so. They want to help people who are suffering and in need. If you show compassion for just that simple fact, then it Becomes a matter of having an effective vetting process. The sex, religion, or location of where the refugees come from shouldn't matter if they pass vetting. People from Syria or high risk regions may have to do more extensive vetting, and if somebody can't pass then they don't come in... what's the problem with that?

The same goes for immigration. You can promote border security, but contrast that with compassion for those who are trying to provide a better life for their family and speak to making a better legal system for these immigrants to come over and work.

I don't think the majority of the right is racist. I think some definitely are, but I'm not going to define everybody based on the words of a few. For the good hearted conservatives that want border security and a safer nation, all that needs to happen is a slight change in tone with a hint of recognition and compassion for our fellow man. It doesn't need to be an arguement or debate, it can be a discussion if both sides are intelligent and mature enough to have one.

There is no guarantee that vetting can be 100% effective. How EXACTLY do you know as well as recognize the mindset of an individual who believes in THEIR faith to a degree they will do anything to inflict harm into the heart of a nation because of a devoted honor to that religion or pure righteous to their cause. Japanese Kamikazes could not be swayed or reasoned with from their suicide path, to dive their plane into the heart of an enemy warship. This is an extreme value of devotion that goes well beyond the value of their own life.

You may believe this is a lack of compassion, I submit there is a true lack in understanding of the kind of ideological extremism in faith we are facing . Could any of those terrorists who piloted those planes into the world trade tower be reasoned with? Are these extremists somehow believed to be unintelligent, that a series of interrogated questions by a customs agent is believed to be the best tool in uncovering their true intentions where our airport security couldn't (except to see what means of explosive chemicals, sharp instruments, or a series of names on a no fly "watchlist" might find?). Location has everything to do with where these refugees are coming from, when terrorists groups are thriving and growing in numbers. Is there any example in our own history where we have allowed Japanese civilians to freely travel into the United States from their home in the rising sun during World War II? Did I say we need to ban ALL muslims from entering the United States? No. However, we must be honest with ourselves as well as be real about the kind of world and enemy we are facing. They have no uniforms, they are not acknowledged to have association with any one specific nation. This is an extreme ideology that sees death with the taking of their OWN life as an honor to their faith. Ignorance of the truth in the kind of enemy we are facing, will be our nation's downfall.

Nothing is ever 100%. Are you saying unless we can create a 100% full proof system then we should not allow people into our country? What about travelers? Where is the line?

We have a very extensive vetting process set up, if you, or security analysts see holes or areas for improvement then let's talk about them and make it better. But when you have a mother and her children whose father was killed by Isis, that fled in fear of there lives, and this can be proven and traced, then perhaps we have the opportunity to help people like this... perhaps the people who we can't run a thorough and detailed background check on, or people with red flags, don't become refugees... does that sound reasonable?

We can allow immigrants and muslims from parts [Regions] of the world where terrorism is NOT a stronghold, encouraged, or thrives. We have to understand, the extremists who bombed the World Trade Center in '94, was involved in the San Bernardino shootings, or took control of our airliners on 9-11 don't care how compassionate we are or how welcoming we are to helping muslims. Their only concern is how they can infiltrate into the United States to kill American infidels (they don't even recognize us as citizens or innocent civilians) to further their beliefs in their extremist faith. There is no compromising with them, no noble peace prize, no amount of humanity that will alter their view of what they believe. Take the time and look at the killing that goes on of those who don't share their faith. Unless you believe as they do, they will continue to pursue their radical cause and use any "opportunity", open border, (no matter how small) to achieve it If you think I'm hard to convince, imagine those terrorist extremist that desire to inflict harm to civilians [stop and let that thought sink in] .... not military .... our elderly, women, and children ... within our own borders.

 

[Slade3200]

When are go going to get off your soapbox preaching to us about "what the left wants"? you clearly don't understand what they want or what they are trying g to communicate so you end up just making yourself look ignorant and stupid

I understand exactly what the left wants, power.

Everything the left does is dedicated to concentrating power into the hands of a ruling elite in a central, authoritarian system.

You were rebuked by those who cling to "god, guns, and the Constitution." The plans for a Soviet style system were thwarted - other than in California, which is about on the level of North Korea in the case of personal liberty.

You understand jack shit and nothing more... your constant mischaracterizations of what you think you understand proves it