Protests

[The Dude]

On the surface the cause seems to be "I didn't get my way".

[zoogs]

I mean, it's not like it's about let's protest and change the results of the election.

 

But this country goes and elects a man like Donald Trump, there should be protests. Loud and widespread. Good on them.

 

As scared as I am of the fact that a Donald Trump election could happen, I'd be factor of ten more terrified if it happened and everyone shrugged their shoulders and quietly accepted that this was fine. It's not fine. To that end, firing up and rallying the opposition, that's both important and necessary.

[teachercd]

I mean, it's not like it's about let's protest and change the results of the election.

 

But this country goes and elects a man like Donald Trump, there should be protests. Loud and widespread. Good on them.

 

As scared as I am of the fact that a Donald Trump election could happen, I'd be factor of ten more terrified if it happened and everyone shrugged their shoulders and quietly accepted that this was fine. It's not fine. To that end, firing up and rallying the opposition, that's both important and necessary.

Could not agree more!

Take action with your rights and if things go well be sure to praise!

[BigRedBuster]

I think also in large part the protests are a result of the fact that just about everyone thought Hillary was going to win. I even heard an interview this morning from someone who was behind the scenes in the Trump camp as the night was going on and they said there was a lot of shock there too.

 

So....you have those emotions of thinking you have it wont to....Oh sh#t...we didn't win.

 

A reaction like this from some is expected when the race was as heated as it was.

 

Are the rational??? I don't know. There are much more violent ways they could show their displeasure in the election. They don't seem to be doing those things.

 

Like I said, after a while, they will stop and go back to their lives like everyone else. They are exercising their right to protest. So be it.

 

There is nothing they are doing that affects any of our lives one bit in a negative way.

[FrankWheeler]

 

I'm all for these protests. Good for them!

from a standpoint of the right to do so? or do you really believe they have a cause?

 

edit "cause" maybe the wrong word here. of course they have a cause (in their mind). i cant think of a proper word.

 

Are they being rational?

 

 

Whoa, lets not start being rational now! That would be a huge step backwards for this country.

[teachercd]

I think also in large part the protests are a result of the fact that just about everyone thought Hillary was going to win. I even heard an interview this morning from someone who was behind the scenes in the Trump camp as the night was going on and they said there was a lot of shock there too.

So....you have those emotions of thinking you have it wont to....Oh sh#t...we didn't win.

 

A reaction like this from some is expected when the race was as heated as it was.

 

Are the rational??? I don't know. There are much more violent ways they could show their displeasure in the election. They don't seem to be doing those things.

 

Like I said, after a while, they will stop and go back to their lives like everyone else. They are exercising their right to protest. So be it.

Perfectly written!

[AFhusker]

AFhusker, it would be a lot easier to engage in conversation if you could actually form sentences using real grammar. Unfortunately I'm not sure what you're even trying to say in most of your sentences.

 

 

Speaking of dense, it strikes me as quite dense to paint situations with an all-or-nothing brush, but to do it inconsistently. Yes, it would sure be nice to make sure that zero terrorists get admitted. But this is real life, and that will never happen, because life comes with assumed risk that we don't think about much and are totally okay with. You know what kills more Americans each year than terrorists? Pretty much everything. Car accidents, smoking, sports, heart attacks, doctor misdiagnoses, rock climbing accidents, choking in your sleep, overdosing, cancer, herpes, drowning, so on and so forth.

 

Would it not also be nice to want to make sure that zero of those things happen? But we would have to give up being able to traverse different areas, eating bad foods, doing fun recreational activities, etc. and that's no way to live. Similarly, turning into an isolationist state that does not allow people in is no way for America to exist.

 

Fact is, you are arguing in conjecture assumptions and negatives, whereas I'm actually showing you data, and you're refusing to acknowledge it.

 

Isn't this cute, an liberal who is being condescending. That has never happened before. You may want to read my post before this one which has all the proof that is needed by the people who do the vetting that they can't ensure that they are not terrorists for the reasons that I stated.

 

Once again you are trying (and failing miserably) to look smart by using more false equivalencies. Of course it would be great to be at zero terrorists admitted to the country and because it is hard to do doesn't mean that you should half ass it and just say "oh well" when they "only" killed 1-2 dozen people when one is too many. Especially after what I pointed out that ISIS is actively trying to get here through the refugee process.

 

Then you want to talk about me "using a broad brush" then call the policy "isolationist" when nobody has said that they can't come here, they just need to wait a little longer to really be vetted, not rushed through a half assed process (like Obama has half assed everything he "accomplished" as POTUS) just to get them over here.

 

Once again, it is this kind of thinking by liberals that lead to getting their asses handed to them on Tuesday.

[Apathy]

On the surface the cause seems to be "I didn't get my way".

Pretty much which is sad. People think that they're entitled to anything and everything and once they don't get their way, well, we're seeing first hand on what they go do best, start protesting.

 

They're part of the problem, not the solution

[FrankWheeler]

 

On the surface the cause seems to be "I didn't get my way".

Pretty much which is sad. People think that they're entitled to anything and everything and once they don't get their way, well, we're seeing first hand on what they go do best, start protesting.

 

They're part of the problem, not the solution

 

 

This is silly - protests are always about people not getting their way.

[AFhusker]

 

On the surface the cause seems to be "I didn't get my way".

Pretty much which is sad. People think that they're entitled to anything and everything and once they don't get their way, well, we're seeing first hand on what they go do best, start protesting.

 

They're part of the problem, not the solution

 

Bingo!

[BigRedBuster]

 

On the surface the cause seems to be "I didn't get my way".

Pretty much which is sad. People think that they're entitled to anything and everything and once they don't get their way, well, we're seeing first hand on what they go do best, start protesting.

 

They're part of the problem, not the solution

 

How exactly are they a problem?

[zoogs]

Are there no events worth protesting?

[4skers89]

I hope when the Canada immigration website is fixed it will give them something to do and they'll get off the street.

[Count 'Bility]

I mean, it's not like it's about let's protest and change the results of the election.

 

But this country goes and elects a man like Donald Trump, there should be protests. Loud and widespread. Good on them.

 

As scared as I am of the fact that a Donald Trump election could happen, I'd be factor of ten more terrified if it happened and everyone shrugged their shoulders and quietly accepted that this was fine. It's not fine. To that end, firing up and rallying the opposition, that's both important and necessary.

Its is fine. Everything will be fine.

[Landlord]

You have to hate it when facts don't back up your agenda, but here's the proof that you are full of ####. FBI Director Admits US Can’t Vet All Syrian Refugees For Terror Ties

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/21/fbi-director-admits-us-cant-vet-all-syrian-refugees-for-terror-ties-video/

 

FBI director James Comey said during a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on Wednesday that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration says will be allowed to come to the U.S.

 

 

I don't have an agenda, and explain to me how I'm full of sh#t when I have admitted that the process is not fool-proof or perfect, and Comey has said the exact same thing. He's saying that people in Syria who have never caused ripples in the pond, done something to be thought of as suspicious, are not going to have any info to query in our databases. This makes perfect sense, and again, show me where the terrorists have gotten through? They haven't.

 

Did you actually look at the screening process? Take 30 seconds and look through it:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now think about all of those steps, and then think about how easy it is to get a tourist VISA, or if you're a citizen of France, Belgium, Germany or 35 other countries, you don't even need a VISA - you just need a passport and a ticket. Even if you're right about the security gaps in the refugee program, why haven't you ever said anything about the VISA waiver program? It's still way easier for terrorists to use to get in here, it would take a day instead of two years, and almost 20 million people use it per year (compared to 800,000 refugees in 15 years) yet where's the outrage? Oh, because it's not a conservative talking point hot-button media-sensationalized issue?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who sits on the intelligence committee, said it "would be much harder" for a terrorist to get into the country through the refugee program than with a passport from one of the 38 countries in the visa waiver program.

"(The refugee process) would take 18 months to two years. Under the visa waiver program, it could take 24 hours," King told CNN in a phone interview. "The target of our work should be strengthening the visa waiver program."

 

"We do need to pay attention to whether the terrorists could infiltrate the refugee flow. I don't think it's something we should ignore, but the amount of vetting that goes on there already is very thorough," King added.

 

 

 

Flake, the bill's Republican sponsor, told reporters Thursday the refugee program could be strengthened to include better tracking of refugees once they arrive in the country, but said touted the rigorous process as something that shouldn't be a source of concern.

 

 

"On the front end, it is a very thorough vetting that they get. So of all the things that we ought to be concerned about, that is not at the top of the list," he said.

 

 

 

“Why would an ISIS terrorist sit and wait to be a refugee for three years to get into the US, when they could get a radicalized European citizen and fly here on a visa waiver and then live here under the radar?” says Anne Speckhard, director of International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism. Or maybe the terrorist isn’t a European citizen. “They can fly to Mexico and get across the border and it’s a much faster way than the refugee route,” says Speckhard.

 

 

 

 

Kathleen Newland, a senior fellow and co-founder of the Migration Policy Institute, said that most Syrian refugees wouldn’t be suspected of ties with the Islamic State, because they are Shiite Muslims who have been victimized by the Islamic State’s Sunni Muslim terrorists occupying a large swath of their country.

 

 

“I understand the concerns that people in this country have in the wake of the terrorist attacks,” she said in a phone interview, “but I think that focusing on the refugee resettlement program is a misdirected response.”

 

“I am aghast. I think it’s a really stupid reaction,” she said. “They clearly don’t understand either American governmental policy or the refugee resettlement policy.”