Forums / Fun! / Memeory Lane

Trump makes emergency speech, calls for total shutdown of Muslims entering the US until Congress sorts through the security issues surrounding vetting immigrants from Middle Eastern countries.

His calls come as members of both parties voice opposition to the current administration's handling of national security.

Democrat Rep. Stephen Lynch this morning blew this whistle and revealed an internal investigation found 72 (seventy-two) active employees at the Department of Homeland Security were also on terrorist watch lists. He also reignited discussion over an investigation at 8 major airports which found the TSA failed to stop 95% of undercover investigators who were attempting to bring restricted items onto planes.

{ “I have very low confidence based on empirical data that we’ve got on the Department of Homeland Security. I think we desperately need another set of eyeballs looking at the vetting process,” he said. “That’s vetting that’s being done at major airports where we have a stationary person coming through a facility, and we’re failing 95 percent of the time.”

“I have even lower confidence that they can conduct the vetting process in places like Jordan, or Belize or on the Syrian border, or in Cairo, or Beirut in any better fashion, especially given the huge volume of applicants we’ve had seeking refugee status,” Lynch said. }

Again, Lynch is a Democrat. He was one of the Democrats who voted with Republicans on tightening the vetting process for Middle Eastern refugees.

Trump's speech also comes mere hours after the FBI revealed both San Bernardino killers were radicalized and 'had been for some time', which has caused even more concern that neither were on the FBI's radar despite increasingly alarming warning signs in their behavior.

The FBI also announced Farook's father has been placed on the terror watch list. He gave an interview earlier.

{ "He said he shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was obsessed with Israel," the father told a reporter in an interview outside the home of this other son, Syed Raheel Farook, in Corona, Calif.

The father said he counseled his son to be patient because, he said, in time political changes in the Middle East will accomplish his desires.

"I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist," the elder Farook told the newspaper. "Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there."

But Syed Rizwan Farook was not dissuaded, the father said.

"Rizwan was the mama's boy, and she is very religious like him," he said. "Once we had a dispute about the historical figure of Jesus, my son yelled that I was an unbeliever and decided that marriage with my wife had to end." }

He says that's how his family was ripped apart and why he is no longer with them.

& finally, many are paralleling Trump's speech to FDR's actions 74 years ago today, in which he upheld the Hoover administration's restrictive ban on immigration of persons “likely to become a public charge” when confronted with taking on a large population of German-Jewish refugees.

They're also drawing parallels to Winston Churchill's infamous PM speech.

{ You will ask what’s our policy. Our policy is to wage war. War at all costs. War with all the strengths and mights that God can give us. You will ask what thy aim is. I will answer in one word. Victory; victory at all costs; victory despite all terror; victory no matter how long or hard the road is for without victory there can be no survival. We have resolved to destroy Hitler and every vestage of the Nazi regime. We will not parlay, we will not negotiate with Hitler and the grizzly gang that works his wicked will. We shall fight him by sea; we shall fight him by land; we shall fight him in the air until, with God’s help, we have rid the world of his shadow. }

You double-posted, it seems. And, you beat me to the Trump news. I guess I'll fill in more blanks about the reaction to Trump's statements. Basically a lot of copy-pasting coming up.
From the NYTimes

Donald J. Trump called on Monday for the United States to bar all Muslims from entering the country until the nation’s leaders can “figure out what is going on” after the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., an extraordinary escalation of rhetoric aimed at voters’ fears about members of the Islamic faith.

A prohibition of Muslims – an unprecedented proposal by a leading American presidential candidate, and an idea more typically associated with hate groups – reflects a progression of mistrust that is rooted in ideology as much as politics.
…
Saying that “hatred” among many Muslims for Americans is “beyond comprehension,” Mr. Trump said in a statement that the United States needed to confront “where this hatred comes from and why.”

“Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” Mr. Trump said.
…
“Rooting our nation’s immigration policy in religious bigotry and discrimination will not make America great again,” said Rabbi Jack Moline, executive director of Interfaith Alliance, putting a twist on Mr. Trump’s campaign slogan.
…
Putting the policy into practice would require an unlikely act of Congress, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of law at Cornell and a prominent authority on immigration.

Should Congress enact such a law, he predicted, the Supreme Court would invalidate it as an overly restrictive immigration policy under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

“It would certainly be challenged as unconstitutional,” he said. “And I predict the Supreme Court would strike it down.”

Sorry the quote is so long, but I found it all relevant. From CNN

Trump's comments are likely to roil the Republican presidential race, forcing many of his opponents for the nomination to engage in a debate over whether there should be a religious test to enter America.

But his proposal was met with enthusiasm by many of his supporters, who showed their approval via social media as well as at his rally on Monday night.

"I think that we should definitely disallow any Muslims from coming in. Any of them. The reason is simple: we can't identify what their attitude is," said 75-year-old Charlie Marzka of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
…
Trump's campaign added in the release that such a ban should remain in effect "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

The release pointed to an online poll from the controversial Center for Security Policy, which claimed that a quarter of Muslims living in the U.S. believe violence against Americans is justified as part of a global jihadist campaign. Critics have questioned the reliability of the organization's information. It also pointed to a Pew Research poll, which the campaign declined to identify, which the campaign claimed points to "great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population."

And the part we've all been waiting for…

It didn't take long for the rest of the Republican presidential primary field to repudiate Trump's call.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie slammed Trump's proposal in a radio interview.

"This is the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don't know what they are talking about. We do not need to resort to that type of activity nor should we," Christie said on the Michael Medved radio show. "What we need to do is to increase our intelligence activities. We need to cooperate with peaceful Muslim Americans who want to give us intelligence against those who are radicalized."

And South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham called on every presidential candidate to "do the right thing & condemn @Realdonaldtrump's statement."
…
Another GOP presidential contender, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, said, "‎That is not my policy."

"I have introduced legislation in the Senate that would put in place a three year moratorium on refugees coming from countries where ISIS or al Qaeda control a substantial amount of territory. And the reason is that is where the threat is coming from," Cruz said as he was leaving a South Carolina field office.

In a statement, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said, "This is just more of the outrageous divisiveness that characterizes his every breath and another reason why he is entirely unsuited to lead the United States."

And former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush tweeted that Trump is "unhinged."

"Donald Trump is unhinged. His "policy" proposals are not serious," he said.

Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson also said is opposed to placing a religious test on U.S. visitors.

"Everyone visiting our country should register and be monitored during their stay as is done in many countries. I do not and would not advocate being selective on one's religion," he said in a statement.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's campaign did not explicitly refute Trump's proposal.

"Sen. Rand Paul has led on the issue of border security, proposing real solutions. That's why earlier this month he introduced legislation to block visitors and immigrants from nations with known radical elements while a new system is developed to screen properly," said Sergio Gor, Paul's communications director, in a statement.

Former tech CEO Carly Fiorina said Trump's "overreaction" is as bad as Obama's "under reaction."

"President Obama isn't prepared to do anything, which is clearly foolish, but Donald Trump always plays on everyone's worst instincts and fears. And saying we're not going to let a single Muslim into this country is a dangerous overreaction," she said during a gaggle with reporters in Waterloo, Iowa.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said he disagrees with Trump.

"(Trump's) habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together. The next president better be somebody who can unite our country to face the great challenges of the 21st Century," he said in a statement.

Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore tweeted, "Trump's fascist talk drives all minorities from GOP."

Basically the entire GOP has turned on Trump with that comment. Even he's too racist for them. It's beautiful.

wow I must have triple posted because I deleted what I thought was the double post. I swiped back a page instead of using the edit button, it must have considered all my edits a new post.

It's no more racist or crazy than anything else he's said, particularly because:

{ Trump’s campaign added in the release that such a ban should remain in effect “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” }

Like everyone has been pointing out, it wouldn't be the first time refugees were blocked on the basis of religion, and this is a far more aggressive demographic. With security lapse after security lapse coming to light, why exactly should any of us feel inclined to throw the doors open?

We were promised the vetting process for people from the Middle East was foolproof and days later the deadliest terror attack since 9/11 is committed by a couple who abused the fiance visa program (which Obama greatly expanded ease of access to a couple years ago, MSM aint offering up that fact though).

It's obviously not secure and it's obviously to the advantage of terrorists. I'm jw, what's the body count cutoff before you guys will start taking Islamic fundamentalism seriously? 120+ in Paris didn't cut it, 14 in California doesn't seem to have made much of an effect, I guess we'll have to wait and see what Christmas brings? We give pass after pass to an administration that has utterly failed to protect us, and then tried to blatantly lie about it. Loretta Lynch is STILL saying "the administration" doesn't want to identify a specific ideology that could have been an influence. Isn't it nice how confident all the high-profile Democrats with armed Secret Service protection feel? There's no threat in the USA~ ISIS is contained~ JV squad~

It also says a lot that gun stocks/sales are at an all time high in US history. Nobody in this country trusts that this administration can protect them. They claim they don't want "normal" US Muslims getting caught up in this, but they're the ones putting up this "ohhh everything is wonderful, carry on with your lives, there's nothing to worry about here~" front that makes people distrust them (the government and the Muslims) even more when the security lapses come into light.

I'm confident that my own rationality will prevent me from falling into paranoia and suspect my neighbors might be terrorists, but I can't say I'm that confident about the rest of the country's. There's great potential for the lack of authority to come back to haunt this administration even more than it already has. & what does he do, he gets on TV and refuses to acknowledge the problem, redirects the whole country to gun control. Not only are we not going to protect you from terrorists, but we're sure as hell not gonna let you protect yourselves. The White House needs A-list celebrity class PR damage control ASAP.

I get warnings for posting too much in a thread yet you can post all this stuff in a single thread daily. :u

This is over the top though. It's just outright religious discrimination, with no concern for the fact that the vast majority of Muslim's don't want to commit religious jihad.

We aren't talking refugees, we're talking anyone. I believe I cut it out, because my post was long enough, but Trump wants to keep out any and all Muslims from entering the country, for any reason – tourism, work, refugees, doesn't matter. No Muslims.

I do take this seriously. We need to get boots back on the ground, is my perspective. But I can't support discrimination this wide.

(Edit here. Wyn posted while I was typing that up.)
Well, we are sticking to the topic, others are watching this, it's more than one person, and we occasionally get dialogue on it. I'm guessing just the fact that it's us two makes it immensely more allowable than just one person posting.

Yeah? These people are not our citizens. They're not protected under our Constitution. We know nothing about them or where they come from. All we know is that they come from a place where radicalism is common and fundamentalism is even more common, and that a large terrorist organization openly admits/brags about abusing our visa systems, and that all of the terrorist attacks this year have come from people who have done just that.

Jihadi bride Barbie here didn't come over as a refugee, she came over on a fiance visa. We find out after the 14 dead bodies that she's connected to a notorious radical mosque and had recently made a drastic change from a medical student who had no interest in religion to an ultra-conservative full burqa-wearing fundamentalist. If they were able to find out about all of this now, why the fuck were they not able to find out about it when she went through the visa process?

That kind of fuck up isn't something you shrug off or accept as an error. Until we have a system that does not make these kinds of easily avoidable mistakes, shut it down. I'm all for it. If this administration had taken the threat seriously four years ago, we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all.

I'm also saying this as someone who flies in and out of Chicago four times a year, which has long been a target on ISIS' list. All I need is to be on the plane embedded in the Sears Tower this Christmas. I'm trying to get my parents to let me drive home instead.

First of all, I don't think in terms of "they've covered under the constitution" or not, I think in terms of morals. And this seems pretty immoral to me.

Once again, we aren't talking about people directly from Syria or Iraq or Libya, we're talking about any Muslims, anywhere. If there's a Muslim in the UK or Canada or Mexico who is known to be a nice, awesome person, a liberal activist, etc etc etc, by virtue of being a Muslim they'd be blocked from entering. It's just too expansive and overreaching.

Like the French and Belgian national Muslims who decided to take out 120+ people in Paris who would have legally been able to hop on a plane no questions asked and come to America for "a vacation"? ISIS is too expansive and overreaching. My personal safety is where I really stop giving a fuck about appearing PC.

We're going back and forth at this point. This is where I say once again that it's too overreaching and even if we determined someone was clearly fine (such as a Muslim in Canada who pushes the religion to the furthest liberal point possible), and once again you'd respond with examples of people you think should be blocked out. It's going nowhere, and I'm guessing it's going to continue going nowhere, so I'm just gonna stop now.

Honestly, the best argument to not bringing in refugees I found comes from the Onion and personally, seeing the amount of support Trump got from some people after this, I wish their articles were more far fetched.

lisalombs wrote:

These people are not our citizens

When asked by The Hill if that included Muslim Americans who may currently be abroad, his spokeswoman said: "Mr Trump says everyone." Cuisous if he would but a stop to the people who are, you know, literally serving in the United States military and doing a whole hell of a lot more to do anything than he is. ISIS is trying to promote the idea that that there is a war on Islam and they need to choose which side to join. Trump saying this is sure making it hard for some people to believe ISIS is wrong. Anyone else find it interesting all the times the Right has called Obama (and the left in general) and fascist and yet something like this happens? At least many of the right are convinced he is in the wrong on this.

Edit: Also, lisa, reword your arguments as a reason have gun control. Think of your rebuttal to gun control argument, and reword that rebuttal with Muslims and think about it. This will save a few unnecessary argument posts in the thread I think.

Funny you bring up that Onion article, because

Dr. Ben Carson argued that because a majority of the American public is against bringing in additional refugees from Syria, actually bringing the refugees would increase the likelihood that they would become “radicalized.”
“You bring a lot of people here from another culture and what they will tend to do is congregate together, that’s a natural thing, which makes them much easier targets for radicalization,” Carson said on Breitbart News Radio. “Particularly if you bring them into an environment where a lot people of are resentful of the fact that they are here. That’s just going to create incidents that will increase further the likelihood of radicalization.”
“So again, why would anyone even be thinking about doing something like that?” asked Carson.

(Wish I could have found a better source than Buzzfeed but I don't care enough on this particular point to find a better source)

Those are the people who are first in line to commit terror when they come back! What the hell? That's exactly what the Paris attackers did, they were Muslim French/Belgium nationals who freely went back and forth from Europe to the Middle East conspiring with terrorists and setting up sleeper cells. Of all the people who should at the very least be intensely monitored upon returning it's the children of first world immigrants who are legally citizens yet spend months in Saudi Arabia.

{ Think of your rebuttal to gun control argument, and reword that rebuttal with Muslims and think about it. }

No, you're gonna have to post go ahead and post those arguments, nothing is standing out to me.

Are you guys having issues because you think this would be long term?
It would take Congress less than a week to implement the security measures they need to.
They already have them in place, they're literally just not using them.
That's why all this information pours out AFTER the fact, which is what I (and we all should) most have a problem with.

{ The image, apparently taken as the couple moved through customs in Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on July 27, 2014, is the most recent photograph of the two to be made public. }

I'm sure traveling is very safe for the politicians and their private jets.
They're taking risks with our lives so they can look righteous and "moral".
& they say shit like don't be scared of widows and orphans~ what a joke.

So yeah, It's not like there is a central tenet of their religion that requires them not to be in the United States for some time. Of course, you could also be working at the United States military bases in say, Germany, Italy, or Japan. they could also be barred from entering the country under “Mr Trump says everyone.”

lisalombs wrote

who should at the very least be intensely monitored upon returning

By all means, I don't really have many objections to monitoring people who could be a person on interest (honestly, I'm for a more transparent society). But there's a bit of a difference between making sure they aren't communicating with people who are known to be radicalized and a "No Muslims Allowed" policy.

lisalombs wrote

These people are not our citizens

---

Those [U.S. Citizens abroad] are the people who are first in line to commit terror when they come back!What the hell?

So basically: "The protections of the constitution is only for Unites States citizens. Unless I don't like them, because seriously fuck those guys. Only people like me should be protected." Again, see my earlier bit about how some people get away with calling Obama a Fascist and then say something like this.

lisalombs wrote

No, you’re gonna have to post go ahead and post those arguments, nothing is standing out to me.

Okay then:
Strawman argument wrote

"We know nothing about them [gunowners] or where they come from. All we know is that they buy things bought commonly by radicals, and openly admit to /brag about buying large quantities of them, and that all of the shootings this year have come from people who had a gun."

---

"Many people who are not mentally well are able to get guns and go on shooting sprees. That kind of fuck up isn’t something you shrug off or accept as an error. Until we have a system that does not make these kinds of easily avoidable mistakes, shut it down."

---

"They’re taking risks with our lives so they can look righteous and "constitutional"
& they say shit like don’t be scared of gun owners~ what a joke."

---

"My personal safety is where I really stop giving a fuck about the second amendment"

I'm personally for things like more background checks and mandatory gun training, but even I can't take arguments like this seriously.

lisalombs wrote

I’m sure traveling is very safe for the politicians and their private jets.
They’re taking risks with our lives so they can look righteous and “moral”.

To be honest, I can make the same argument for more screenings and longer wait times at the airports when there is statistically no one on any one flight who has any real intention of doing something dangerous on a plane. (of course worst case scenario isn't the same… It should be noting I'm not arguing for more lax standards on things like this.) Still, if we are going to continue the gun analogy, why is it a legal body can allow for concealed carry, but makes it illegal for someone to do so in the place said legal body works?

I really dislike Trump and that idea pretty blatantly violates the law (and maybe even the direct wording of the constitution, depending on how you interpret "public trust."), but my God is he great liberal shadenfreude material. I don't think I've seen Huffpost this mad in a while--they even called him a fascist right in the headline and Huffington herself has decided he's finally serious business and will apparently add a list of his policy proposals to the bottom of every article about him from now on, in order to dissuade Huffpost's notoriously conservative readers from voting for him.

It's all pointless rhetoric anyway. Congress dictates immigration law and they'd never go for it. And if Trump tried an executive order, he'd find it before SCOTUS in a heartbeat, and I doubt even Alito would approve of it.

ProfessorRivers said:

Why’s that in quotes? That is a thing that exists…

He flips between it and regular libertarianism.

@xTSGx
The NYTimes has been pissed off at him since he seemed to have made fun of one of their reporters for his disability. It's fun to watch.

Also, okay, that makes sense. At times the actually can seem similar. They're only a step from each other.

What an amazing day, seriously. I couldn't care less whether liberals take him seriously or not; he's currently dominating the most powerful political body in the US and nothing that either side has done to stop him has had any effect. Bush just spent a tidy $30 million on advertising only to drop five points in the polls to a measly 3% while Trump has shot up again to his all-time high of 36%. Rand is flailing about in the low single digits (~2% in the latest poll) despite America's supposedly growing libertarian faction and the fact that he was the rising Republican star just a year ago. Rubio, despite every political forecaster on this side of the solar system calling the nomination for him, is getting stomped by Ted Cruz nationwide and particularly in Iowa.

I am on the edge of my seat right now waiting for the next GOP poll. If Trump maintains his position – or hell, even grows – despite every media outlet except Breitbart piling on him for this proposed Muslim ban, then there will be nothing that could convince me or any rational person that Trump has any chance in hell of losing his lead or the nomination.

God bless America.

So Trump is going for a "Ban all Muslims" approch and it has done nothing to affect his standing in the GOP, i'm actually curious to what will happen if he is chosen

Trump winning the nomination is the best outcome for Democrats.

{ So yeah, It’s not like there is a central tenet of their religion that requires them not to be in the United States for some time. }

Saudi Arabia's government endorses Wahhabism, aka the most extremist of all the Islamic schools. They are absolutely the most notorious abusers of human rights which continues to this day. That's supposedly where this pair of terrorists met each other. It's unfortunate that a religion has been allowed to become so intertwined with politics, but this is a consequence.

Not all Germans were Nazis and not all Japanese were behind Pearl Harbor, but the government took action to protect its people back then. Germany and Japan are now both thriving countries and our allies. By doing nothing in response to attack after attack and letting fear/paranoia spread in addition to the repeated reassurances by our government that nothing is wrong, they're only appeasing the terrorists. It's Hitler all over again, how big does their caliphate need to get, how many atrocities do they get to commit before we genuinely start to care?

{ “The protections of the constitution is only for Unites States citizens. Unless I don’t like them, }

I said they specifically should be intensely monitored upon their return, don't exclude parts of my post to fit your argument. All of the notable terrorist attacks in first world countries have come from radicalized children of immigrants who came over in the 80s, it's not some unfounded claim based on nothing.

{ “We know nothing about them [gunowners] or where they come from. }

Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks and therein lies the difference. The gunshow loophole is so insignificant it's practically a myth. If you sell guns made after 1899, you are required to have a dealer license.

If you try to buy a gun privately online in another state, it doesn't matter who you are, you have to ship it to a federally licensed dealer for pickup and a background check must be run. The only truly private gun sales that happen are by people who make deals on social media sites, and do you think they'll care if some politician signs a piece of paper that says they shouldn't do that anymore? How would you even enforce that? Democrats are all about passing law after law but god forbid anyone actually try to enforce them.

& if you're not mentally well you're not able to get a gun, even if you're a private seller it's a felony if you knowingly sell to someone who would be considered mentally ill enough to be banned from legally buying a gun. Unsurprisingly, mentally ill people do not care that they're not supposed to have guns, and Democrats made it illegal to commit people against their will, so unless a mentally ill person admits they're crazy, they don't appear in databases that restrict them from legally buying weapons. So do we expand background checks further into people's lives? Do they start doing in-person interviews? Or maybe we reevaluate that whole involuntary committal thing, but no, no, this country doesn't solve issues, we hide symptoms.

{ when there is statistically no one on any one flight who has any real intention of doing something dangerous on a plane. }

There is statistical evidence that people who travel repeatedly, for extended periods to the Middle East come back radicalized. You're trying to compare things that are in very different leagues while blatantly ignoring evidence that sets a precedent for how we have to handle the problem of fundamental Islamic terrorism.

Reuters 5-Day Rolling:

Reuters 5-Day Rolling including those not registered as Republican:

Drudge is exclusively reporting media sources say CNN will host an additional Republican debate on January 5th. There's just text on the website atm, which means he's writing something about what he's heard.

Not all Germans were Nazis and not all Japanese were behind Pearl Harbor, but the government took action to protect its people back then.

Including the decision to place lots of Japanese people in internment camps, just to be sure.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions…

Which no one is suggesting, a rather important fact.
Not even Trump has suggested rounding people up by faith/ethnicity indefinitely.

Can we at least admit/agree there's a broad difference between jailing people already in the country on nothing other than their religion and temporarily stopping their re/entry into the country for the sole purpose of updating our screening process in the wake of an active threat.

There is a difference, yes.

The two are still too close for me to be comfortable with it.

Small update to the whole Muslims and Borders and Trump thing
From ABC (emphasis mine):

Trump’s plan would block all Muslims from entering the United States, with an exception for U.S. citizens who are Muslim, who would come and go as they wish.

This might be the only time I'll post on this thread, but I thought this is worth sharing here
Trump, do you even know how the Internet works?!

No, he doesn't, and it wouldn't matter if he did. He's going to do well in the polls regardless.

Speaking of the polls, Trump seems to have kind of stagnated nationally. According to RealClearPolitics, there have been 4 national republican candidate polls since the 2nd of Dec., and on the 2nd, 7th, and 8th of Dec. polls Trump registered 27%. (He got 36% on the 3rd, but I'm going to assume there was something off with that one because a 9 point difference that went up that fast and then fell again seems shifty.)

Related, Cruz and Rubio are measuring ~15% and Carson ~13%, nationally.

In Iowa, it's a bit unclear as the two newest polls were pretty similar in methodology and number of people questioned yet had very different results. Combining them, we get that Trump is averaging 26% and Cruz 22%.

In NH Trumps got 32% and Rubio 14%. It's a similar story in NC where Trump's got 33%, Cruz 16%, and Rubio and Carson are tied with 14%.

If you are reading this and wondering why the hell it matters what people in those states think, let me explain. The first few states to have primaries often set the stage for the rest of the country. I remember hearing that no Republican candidate has ever gotten the bid without NC or Iowa. If a candidate wins both, based on precedent, they'll get the bid (although, this season has been entirely unprecedented). New Hampshire is also a swing state, which means it's electoral votes could likely go to either party in the general election. Thus, those three states will play unproportionally large parts of the election.

Hahaha!

MSNBC held a poll asking whether Trump had gone too far with his comments. It started off as 67% 'yes' before /pol/ got wind of it and decided to raid the vote. It closed at 24% 'yes'. Anons were encouraging each other to vote as female and a minority in order to make it look like Democrats support Trump.

Poll Link
/pol/ Thread Link

Trump's supporters and affiliates are celebrating on Twitter. How awesome is this?

Are you sure they're not celebrating because polls not rigged by 4ch say pretty much the same thing anyway?

{ Almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump's call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while more than a third say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Those are some of the findings from a Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies PulsePoll.

“We believe these numbers are made up of some people who are truly expressing religious bigotry and others who are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything they think might make us safer,” Doug Usher, who runs polling for Washington-based Purple Strategies, said in his analysis of the findings. }

bruh if you don't match the liberal MSM view you're obviously a terrified religious bigot. Please disregard how our top tier vetting process failed to catch very obvious Islamic radicalization until AFTER the body count hit at least 10, it's Trump who's the problem here.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" for the modern era.

Rand Paul, who proposed a very similar visa ban on Middle Eastern migrants/refugees which was struck down in Congress last week, goes apeshit on the White House after the WH Press Secretary said Trump "disqualified himself" with his comments.

{ Paul, whose own amendment to halt visa issuance to individuals seeking to come to the U.S. from 32 Muslim-majority countries failed 10-89 to pass the Senate last Thursday, decided to respond to Earnest's claim on Twitter with a tirade demonstrating why, he believes, President Obama is "unqualified" for the Oval Office.

Today I would like to put a mirror in front of the Obama White House and show them the top ten things that make HIM unqualified:-- Dr. Rand Paul (@RandPaul) December 9, 2015

Here are the 10 reasons the Kentucky senator and White House hopeful cited:

• "Tried to take over 1/6 of the economy in Obamacare, wrecked the system and hurt patients and taxpayers."

• "Thinks an executive order is legislation and how you make law."

• "Fought an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Libya, turned it into Jihadist wonderland."

• "Fighting an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Syria, [and] trying to put ISIS in Damascus."

• "Signed into law the indefinite detention of American citizens." (Paul is referring to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed by Obama in 2011, which earned heavy criticism from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union).

• "His copy of the bill of rights obviously goes from 1 to 3, skipping the 2nd amendment."

• "[A federal appeals] Court ruled his NSA spying on every American was illegal."

• "He has added more debt than anyone in history."

• "Appointed an attorney general who thinks speech against Muslims is a bigger threat than terrorism."

• "[Environmental Protection Agency] rules by executive FIAT trying to kill an entire American industry and way of life (coal)." }

That's a really mixed bag for me. I agree with most of the things he said there (I think the ecosystem is very important and needs to be protected – I'm sorta eco-libertarian – so that's the biggest one really), but the fact that Paul wanted to block all visas from that area sets me off. He's still my favorite, he's just… less favored by me now. Ah well.

How are we supposed to fix the genuine and serious security concerns that stem from the visa process if we do not temporarily halt said process?

Nobody has answered my question yet, please, I want to know either how many dead bodies or how many confirmed terrorist attacks you all need to be confronted with before you'll actually want something to be done?

If we had a working vetting process, 14 people would still be alive today. There is absolutely no way to deny it. If the investigators who discovered the link to ISIS and their radicalization within 48 hours of the murder spree had gone through the exact same intelligence gathering process one year ago, 14 people would be spending Christmas with their families instead of rotting in the ground.

& you all think our response should be……. nothing.
The next blood will be just as much on your hands.

How are we supposed to fix the genuine and serious security concerns that stem from the visa process if we do not temporarily halt said process?

I didn't realize any attempt at reform was inorexicably tied to this halt you're so fixated with.

The next blood will be just as much on your hands.

Guilt by association eh?

How many electronics have you bought? How many third world miners have you indirectly killed today?

Jarbsy, I expect you of all people to recognize the gun control argument, and we've been hearing it 24/7 for the past week, too. UC biology prof. tells class NRA to blame for San Bernardino shooting The NRA standing in the way of gun control is no more the blame than liberals standing in the way of improving security.

Explain how we reform the vetting process while continuing to let people in by the old standards that we're trying to correct…? What other option is there than a temporary halt so we can redevelop the program and retrain the people who actually do the vetting? The TSA aint exactly FBI agents, which is 95% of the problem itself.

Did you all forget this happened less than six months ago: TSA Chief Out After Agents Fail 95 Percent of Airport Breach Tests

Jarbsy, I expect you of all people to recognize the gun control argument,

The same one I haven't been espousing?

What other option is there than a temporary halt so we can redevelop the program and retrain the people who actually do the vetting?

I don't know, just reforming it?

…..what like snap their fingers and magically everybody who works in all the airports across the country will know what to do?

The reason it wont take long is because our government already has the capability to find this information, but the people who are doing the vetting can't access it. They need to either set up a new information sharing database specifically for our airports which the college dropout TSA agents can access without risking anyone's personal data, or they need to replace all those TSA agents with higher level officials to handle the process (which I would obviously prefer).

We can't do that while simultaneously accepting people through the old system, beyond being stupid it would probably be a technical nightmare. It would be controversy all over again if people started complaining that the TSA was holding them indefinitely because the system goes down unexpectedly while they're changing it/the new one has bugs and errors like every new program does.

And it is impossible to make this new database while also letting people through for the time being?

The fuck would we do that for, once we've decided we'll actually acknowledge that the system is inadequate? What a cattle call that would be, hey terrorists, get the last of your fighters through, it's gonna be a lot harder in a couple weeks!

Congressional whistle blower exposes Democrat Senator's newly proposed legislation to extend Constitutional rights to migrants from other countries "as a response to Trump's statements" which will be voted on tomorrow.

{ Congress is set to vote on Thursday on what some have called an “unprecedented” right that would allow immigrants easier access to relocate to the United States, according to new legislation offered by a Democratic senator.

The legislation, which is being offered by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) as an amendment to a larger bill governing nuclear safety, would prohibit the U.S. government from barring any individual from entering the country based on their religion.

Congressional critics of the legislation warn that the amendment would facilitate an unprecedented right to immigration that has never existed under U.S. law.

“This is not simply a slippery slope. This is ripping open Pandora’s box. If you can establish that we have no right to consider religious beliefs, then you could help establish we have no right to consider a candidate’s age, skill, income, or country of origin.”

If passed, the new rule would burden the U.S. immigration system and prevent authorities from normal background checks meant to ensure individuals are not tied to terrorists or other type of criminal enterprises, the source said.

‘The Constitution, by definition, is a document that protects the rights of the American people – to extend it to the citizens of foreign countries living in those foreign countries is to turn the Constitution from a document that protects Americans into one that renders them utterly defenseless,” the source said. “Congress can decide who to admit, and who not to admit, and on what grounds – our founding documents confer on no alien the right of entry to the United States and to travel down this road is to challenge the very idea that immigration is supposed to serve the American interest and no other.”

While some politicians, including President Barack Obama, have maintained that a “religious test” for immigrants is unconstitutional, this has not legally been the case in American history.

Under U.S. law, the president already has the authority to halt all immigration to the United States for national security reasons.

The Obama administration is slated to grant at least 660,000 green cards to immigrants from Muslim majority nations in the next five years, according to statistics issued by the Department of Homeland Security. }

Not refugees.
Green cards.
Immigrants.
More than half a million.

I'm sure this will go swimmingly.

The fuck would we do that for, once we’ve decided we’ll actually acknowledge that the system is inadequate? What a cattle call that would be, hey terrorists, get the last of your fighters through, it’s gonna be a lot harder in a couple weeks!

They've had. what, the last fourteen years to do it unmolested? I'm not gonna lose sleep over it.

Not until it's someone you know, sure, why should you lose sleep, why should you care about anything outside of your own little comfort zone? What's that phrase every single person interviewed after these incidents say? "You read about it but you never think it will happen to you".

The situation has changed dramatically in the last two years, the rate of immigrants taking advantage of the situation Angela Merkel caused is unprecedented, as has the rate of terrorists publicly acknowledging they can also use that situation to their advantage. The terrorists are adjusting their strategy and responding to changed tactics, our government is too busy reassuring us everything is super duper fine and if we think otherwise we're racists.

Feel free to complain about Merkel, but frankly I don't see what that has to do with this conversation or this thread.

{ “The protections of the constitution is only for Unites States citizens. Unless I don’t like them, }
I said they specifically should be intensely monitored upon their return, don’t exclude parts of my post to fit

So, yeah, don't tell me I excluded parts of your post when I literally quoted the part of the post you claimed I was excluding for sake of argument. You said (emphasis added by me) "Of all the people who should at the very least be intensely monitored upon returning" After already saying in another post "Until we have a system that does not make these kinds of easily avoidable mistakes, shut it down. I’m all for it."

Perhaps I was presumptuous in thinking that when you said "shut it down. I’m all for it." you didn't actually mean to say "shut it down. I’m all for it." Maybe you didn't mean to lump in Muslim America citizens in with Syrian refugees (but with statements like "Those[US Muslims] are the people who are first in line to commit terror when they come back!" you didn't exactly make the distinction clear. Don't get mad at me because of how your posts came across.

I was gong to address more stuff but part of me feels that it would be getting too far off topic and wouldn't really get anywhere, but I think you are a right that a few of the strawman arguments are trying to compare things that are a bit too different.

Either way, as most who have payed attention already know, despite what I quoted earlier from one of Trump's Spokewomen, Trump clarified that the "ban all Muslims from entering the US" would not apply to United States citizens, and that it would be temporary. Still, this has left some interesting results

No offense Jarbox, but I think you're gonna need some of this right now.

You had your chance in the spotlight, and you didn't manage to produce when it shined on you. You posted little one sentence sentiments which amounted to "just do it", while ignoring the realities of the situation. Now you're trying to pull the "this isn't on topic" card, despite the fact you've done more to derail the thread with your gun argument then Lisa's controversial opinions.

Take a break for now. A breather. Let a few others talk for a bit, okay?

I'd propose that we need to separate the TSA issue from the immigration screening reform issues. Creating the new software needed to quickly and effectively identify if a person can or cannot be permitted to travel into the country is vital. The reforms should begin immediately, the people who failed should be fired or severely reprimanded, and a new team should be put in charge of coming up with the system. It's going to take time though, a lot more then a week, because while it's easy to compile information on one couple, it's not so easy to do this extensive background check on every person and put it into an accessible record all at once. Especially when you consider the amount of people they'd need to look into would be in the tens of millions, since it has to be done to more then just Muslims.

It should be worked on now, in secret. The old system can be used with a bit of tightening to patch whatever holes can be patched. When the new system is ready, you implement it via a hardware update to the aging computer system of many of the airports which see this sort of traffic, ensuring that it gets into place as discretely as possible. This way, you don't essentially stop the immigration process for the months to years it's going to take to compile this data, thus giving the terrorist time to change their strategy for entering the country in order to fool whatever new systems get into place. Let them think the old ones still in place, let them think the US is spending all this money on fancy new tablets and computers, and let them do the same practices they did to sneak into our country, and get caught red handed.

You'll net a lot more potential threats if they don't have time to adapt, and become confident in their abilities. Because trust me, they have the funds and the connections to bypass any security system given the right time. They can start to ditch the radicalized look at the gates, the religious garb and facial hair, and get it back once they've cleared the waiting period. Religious extremists are willing to do whatever it takes to win, even violate tenants of their religion.

So from my point of view, better to catch them with a sudden update with no time to prepare, then to let them have time to prepare and hope the new system catches on to the change of plans.

The TSA should just be disbanded. They're useless, just a bunch of either really naive or really abusive people who hassle old people and children at the gate, like a legalized shake down. The numbers are there to prove it to, 95% failure rates. Yet that doesn't stop them from pulling people to the side to hassle them about their laptop tablets. The entire thing is a joke anyway, a suicide bomber could just walk into the screening area, where they pile 50 to 100 people all waiting in line to get checked through the stupid x-ray machines probably increasing everyones chances of getting cancer with each use, and blow themselves up. Death toll in the tens, injuries near the hundreds, no security to get into the airport before you hit the checkpoint.

But hey, at least you get to walk around without shoes for a belt for a little bit. Don't you feel safer already?

Install the new hardware which can better handle the security measures, and get rid of the TSA all together. Just have a smaller security staff who are actually trained to deal with threats, or better yet, just have it all be normal airport staff until you get a flag issue. Then actual security can step in to handle the situation accordingly. Instead of this pseudo-security-secratary system we have now.

{ You said (emphasis added by me) “Of all the people who should at the very least be intensely monitored upon returning” }

American citizens who travel to the Middle East repeatedly for weeks at a time should be, at the very least, intensely monitored upon returning because their actions fit the precedent previously set by thousands of radicalized Americans and Europeans now fighting alongside ISIS in Syria.

{ After already saying in another post “Until we have a system that does not make these kinds of easily avoidable mistakes, shut it down. I’m all for it.” }

Until we have a visa system that does not make these kinds of easily avoidable mistakes, shut it down. I'm all for it.

Now here's a fact that might just blow your mind:

American citizens don't travel on visas.
You took what I said about one issue and tried to apply it to a completely separate issue just to fit your argument.

{ Maybe you didn’t mean to lump in Muslim America citizens in with Syrian refugees }

I don't even recall bringing up refugees during this conversation at all, who also don't come in through visas, except to mention that Jihadi Bride Barbie wasn't one. :|

Maybe you'll like this comparison more…

The Supreme Court is set to rule on affirmative action, and appear to be moving toward stopping it. This means college campuses will be open for application from anyone who wants to attend them, without judging them based on their race or religion. Isn't that the kind of non-racism that liberals are all about? Surely if race/religion is a poor reason to scrutinize someone entering the country, race/religion is a poor reason to scrutinize someone entering college?

Flashback: Hillary Clinton's campaign surrogate calls for the internment of suspected radicalized Muslims.

{ Appearing on MSNBC in July, Clark said that radicalized people need to be separated from society. “If these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they’re disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. That’s their right and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we’re going to have to increasingly get tough on this,” he said.

“Any implication that I support racial profiling or interning people based on their ethnicity or heritage is dead wrong. I’m for separating people who have made dangerous decisions from the rest of society,” he said. “I’m frustrated with the argument that sedition is free speech because there is a role for government to step in to prevent a dissenter from becoming an active shooter, or worse.” }

"It's only racist if Trump says it."
That should be his campaign slogan.

You know, if someone traveled to north korea frequently, for a period of weeks at a time, and began to alter their behavior and personal appearance to fit closer to the culture and dress of north koreans, I'd think something was up and we need to investigate. If a person kept going to Sinaloa Mexico and coming back dressed like a rich cowboy and a new wife who happened to be very anti-government, maybe I'd consider looking a bit into that and if there's some cartel funny business going on. If someone went to the Appalachia's or Alaska over and over again, coming back with a bushier beard and talking more and more about the evil government and tyrannical left whose gotta be fought back with force, you know maybe just maybe they're not going up there for the fishing?

All I'm saying is that these trips these folks were taking were to more places then just Saudi Arabia, and that they didn't all go during the Hajj. They went months before it was even supposed to take place, and stayed there for a hell of a lot longer then a normal pilgrimage is supposed to last. It's like going to a church on Thursday, not leaving until Saturday, and nobodies suppose to question that as being perhaps a bit odd?

the more I think about Trumps tweets, his interview with CNN and Lisas fucking Tome of a post, the more it makes sense to me (the muslim ban thing)

The time to reform security seems very short and most people are just having pink babies over his statements because he wasnt PC

However this might play into ISIS hands as it could be seen as a war against Islam. But if people are aware, and understand the reasons for the lockdown then this might be less likely. Transparency and all.

Maybe…ugh it hurts to say this….buuut maybe Trump might be a good candidate? or not. Fuck if I know

The most frustrating thing about this whole discussion is how PC is acting as a barrier to meaningful change. Id prefer criticism along the lines of "this won't work because (reasons)" rather than "This sounds cruel don't do it" I really feel sorry for the refugees but America cant take in just any Jared, Bilal and Yemide unless they know who they are.

Everyone is getting so goddamn defensive and is running home to circlejerk about how evil Trump is. The world aint in black and white people, its a lot of gray.

Reading all this, it's sort of convinced me of Trump's ideas. However, there are two major holes I see in it. Patch those up, sure, I could give Trump's idea the benefit of a doubt and not see it as a freaking terrible decision made by a giant moron.

Problem #1: Taqiyyah.
From Britannica

Taqiyyah, in Islam, the practice of concealing one’s belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury. Derived from the Arabic word waqa (“to shield oneself”), taqiyyah defies easy translation. English renderings such as “precautionary dissimulation” or “prudent fear” partly convey the term’s meaning of self-protection in the face of danger to oneself or, by extension and depending upon the circumstances, to one’s fellow Muslims. Thus, taqiyyah may be used for either the protection of an individual or the protection of a community.

Which doesn't sound like a huge problem, I mean, just being blocked out of a country isn't necessarily "threat of death or injury". My concern is, though, that

Neither the Qurʾān nor the Hadith decrees points of doctrine or prescribes guidelines for behaviour when using taqiyyah. The circumstances in which it may be used and the extent to which it is obligatory have been widely disputed by Islamic scholars.

What if Daesh decides that it's legitimate in this case, since they're trying to establish a caliphate and force the end of the world? Sure, it's not guaranteed, but it's a concern of mine.

Problem #2: It doesn't cover U.S. citizens who are Muslim.
As mentioned already, it doesn't cover them. Under this plan, wouldn't people like the couple in San Bernardino still be allowed to get through all the same? Trump's plan seems woefully incomplete.

As harsh as it sounds, your first issue could be resolved by simply blanket banning countries in the middle east that have a sufficent ISIS stronghold, regardless of race and religion

Point 2 could be resolved by objectivly look at it in a case by case scenario, for example, the San Bernando shooters should have been monitered, as there is no way an sane person would not question why someone went to syria for 3 months, and suddenly come back with a wife and a jihadi ideology, but for someone to go to Dubai for business reasons should have no problems

{ What if Daesh decides that it’s legitimate in this case }

They already admittedly do, that's why we need a better vetting system to see through the lies. FBI is able to coordinate with intelligence officials in other countries (like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who both contribute post-attack to the facts that confirmed they both were radicalized) but they're pretty much the only ones. There's no use giving this job to agencies that can't communicate internationally.

His ban wont do anything to citizens tho, that's right, and that's why I say they need to be at the very least monitored intensely upon their return. Traveling back and forth between the Middle East and Western countries is usually a late step for a radicalized Western citizen, it's not the first step someone takes towards terrorism, that's why it's immediately suspicious.

Flashback: Jimmy Carter bans immigrants from Iran, deports students

{ It must be made clear that the failure to release the hostages will involve increasingly heavy costs to Iran and to its interests. I have today ordered the following steps.

First, the United States of America is breaking diplomatic relations with the Government of Iran. The Secretary of State has informed the Government of Iran that its Embassy and consulates in the United States are to be closed immediately. All Iranian diplomatic and consular officials have been declared persona non grata and must leave this country by midnight tomorrow.

Second, the Secretary of the Treasury will put into effect official sanctions prohibiting exports from the United States to Iran, in accordance with the sanctions approved by 10 members of the United Nations Security Council on January 13 in the resolution which was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Although shipment of food and medicine were not included in the U.N. Security Council vote, it is expected that exports even of these items to Iran will be minimal or nonexistent.

Third, the Secretary of Treasury will make a formal inventory of the assets of the Iranian Government, which were frozen by my previous order, and also will make a census or an inventory of the outstanding claims of American citizens and corporations against the Government of Iran. This accounting of claims will aid in designing a program against Iran for the hostages, for the hostage families, and other U.S. claimants. We are now preparing legislation, which will be introduced in the Congress, to facilitate processing and paying of these claims.

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly. }

How to handle national security issues stemming from one country or region: shut it down.

We don't have a strong leader that's willing to negotiate on an international platform and take action like this to solve situations, we have a leader who rolls over to the liberal PC crowd and bows down to the very same Iran that Jimmy Carter firmly rebuked.

Local Texas Imam says he was fired for supporting Trump's proposal.

{ Dr. Al Sayyed told KFDM News he was forced to resign as religious director of the Islamic Society of the Triplex after making comments Monday in which he agrees with Donald Trump's statements that the U.S. should temporarily stop accepting any new Muslim immigrants into the country.

"But the way it happens when you see this mass shooting and you see some people coming with such a very peaceful background and all of the sudden the intelligences themselves, the agencies are not able to figure out what's happening, why all of a sudden this guy or this girl or that lady open fire and kill 15 people, because American Muslims are not doing their job in the country. So we need to stop, we need to stop taking new ones until we fix the existing situation," Dr. Alsayyed said.

"I came to know this morning from some close contacts and friends over 102 Imams, religious people in Houston, were fired and forced to be basically leave their jobs, leave their mosques only because they did not get along with the political agenda for their board members," he said.

KFDM News spoke with a board member of the Islamic Society of the Triplex. He said the board is deliberating and will issue an official statement by Saturday in response to the comments from Dr. Alsayyed, but the Islamic Society of the Triplex does take issue with the statements made by the former Imam. }

Looks like it is now Trump vs Cruz.
Which one would you choose if you had to pick one of them?