Trump: Worst President Ever? Topic

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 9:59:00 AM (view original):
The answer is "We can do more. And better. Why shouldn't we?"
What makes you think we aren't doing enough?
What makes you think we are? Are you convinced that we're doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE when it comes to deciding which foreign citizens can/can't enter the US?
No, no. The burden is on you to show why we need to do more.
3/17/2017 10:12 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 9:59:00 AM (view original):
The answer is "We can do more. And better. Why shouldn't we?"
What makes you think we aren't doing enough?
What makes you think we are? Are you convinced that we're doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE when it comes to deciding which foreign citizens can/can't enter the US?
No, no. The burden is on you to show why we need to do more.
Ah, here you go again. You don't get to decide the direction of the discussion.

Now answer the question or admit that we're not doing everything possible to prevent the wrong non-citizens from entering the country. You know we're not. Just say it. Or say you're more concerned with the ability for non-citizens to gain entry to the US than you are for the safety of Americans.
3/17/2017 10:18 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 9:59:00 AM (view original):
The answer is "We can do more. And better. Why shouldn't we?"
What makes you think we aren't doing enough?
What makes you think we are? Are you convinced that we're doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE when it comes to deciding which foreign citizens can/can't enter the US?
No, no. The burden is on you to show why we need to do more.
Ah, here you go again. You don't get to decide the direction of the discussion.

Now answer the question or admit that we're not doing everything possible to prevent the wrong non-citizens from entering the country. You know we're not. Just say it. Or say you're more concerned with the ability for non-citizens to gain entry to the US than you are for the safety of Americans.
You're the person arguing for the change, you need to show why the change is needed.
3/17/2017 10:20 AM
No I don't. You've already said it's IMPOSSIBLE to prevent all terrorist attacks in the US by foreigners entering the US. Obviously we could do more.
3/17/2017 10:25 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 10:25:00 AM (view original):
No I don't. You've already said it's IMPOSSIBLE to prevent all terrorist attacks in the US by foreigners entering the US. Obviously we could do more.
Wait, what?

Are you the one arguing for a change to the way we vet immigrants?
3/17/2017 10:42 AM
God, you two need a separate chat room.

And a therapist.
3/17/2017 11:08 AM
I thought Mikey had BL blocked?
3/17/2017 12:12 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 10:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 10:25:00 AM (view original):
No I don't. You've already said it's IMPOSSIBLE to prevent all terrorist attacks in the US by foreigners entering the US. Obviously we could do more.
Wait, what?

Are you the one arguing for a change to the way we vet immigrants?
Do you value the rights of potential immigrants over the rights of US citizens?

Yes/No question. No need to pollute it up with your standard nonsense.
3/17/2017 12:15 PM
Of course not. I'm saying that our vetting system is already effective. No need to ban Muslims.
3/17/2017 12:33 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 9:56:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 9:51:00 AM (view original):
Evidently our sitting President wants to vet a little harder.

Otherwise, we're not having this discussion, right?
He wants to ban Muslims. Probably more to appeal to his nationalist base and less to improve safety.
TEMPORARILY!!!
3/17/2017 12:47 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 3/17/2017 9:59:00 AM (view original):
The answer is "We can do more. And better. Why shouldn't we?"
What makes you think we aren't doing enough?
What makes you think we are? Are you convinced that we're doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE when it comes to deciding which foreign citizens can/can't enter the US?
No, no. The burden is on you to show why we need to do more.
Ah, here you go again. You don't get to decide the direction of the discussion.

Now answer the question or admit that we're not doing everything possible to prevent the wrong non-citizens from entering the country. You know we're not. Just say it. Or say you're more concerned with the ability for non-citizens to gain entry to the US than you are for the safety of Americans.
You're the person arguing for the change, you need to show why the change is needed.
James Comie said they can't keep up with the current demand of vetting. Do you disagree with him?
3/17/2017 12:49 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):
Of course not. I'm saying that our vetting system is already effective. No need to ban Muslims.
TEMPORARILY!!!
3/17/2017 12:50 PM

Comey was echoing concerns he voiced to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Oct. 8.

"There is risk associated with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from a conflict zone like that," he told the Senate committee. "From the intelligence community's perspective, as I said, I think we've developed an effective way to touch all of our databases and resources to figure out what we know about individuals. … I don't think that's a cumbersome process. My concern there is that there are certain gaps."

He repeated that sentiment to the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 22.

"We have gotten much better as an intelligence community at joining our efforts and checking our databases in a way that gives us high confidence. If we have a record on somebody, it will surface. That's the good news," Comey said. "The challenge we face with Syria is that we don't have that rich set of data. So even though we've gotten better at querying what we have, we certainly will have less overall. And so as I said to a question earlier, someone only alerts as a result of our searches if we have some record on them. That's the challenge we face with Syria."

3/17/2017 12:54 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/17/2017 12:33:00 PM (view original):
Of course not. I'm saying that our vetting system is already effective. No need to ban Muslims.
We could do better even without a ban.

And, FWIW, I say the same thing about gun control. We can, and should, do better with who we allow to buy guns.
3/17/2017 12:57 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 3/16/2017 7:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 3/16/2017 7:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by crazystengel on 3/16/2017 6:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 3/16/2017 6:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by crazystengel on 3/16/2017 4:19:00 PM (view original):
I don't get why Mike pretends to be ignorant. Weird shtick he's got going on here, but there's no point in debating someone like that. At least todd's not pretending.
Hey, waitaminnit...
Consider it a compliment -- you're sincere! I respect that. As opposed to a troll taking positions he knows are BS just to get reactions.
ICYMI, I didn't vote for Trump either. But I also think that the blatant media liberal slant help get him elected. A lot of non-BL/Bracco people (whether because they're well-informed or just pig-headed) don't like it when traditionally impartial sources overtly take political positions, and skew their "news" toward attack pieces.

BL calls it "journalism"

Trump didn't win because the media slants liberal. Trump won because 1) there are plenty of morons voting and 2) a lot of people on the left stayed home.

This election wasn't some sort of statement about American values or being fed up with the establishment, it was apathy. Enough people shrugged their shoulders on election day that the guy who lost the popular vote by several million was able to squeak by on a slim margin in a few states and land in the very famous White House.
You need to take your head out of the sand.

Trump was a horrible candidate. But the primary reason why he won was because the Democratic Party ran a near equally horrible candidate against him, somebody who the public did not like and did not trust. Somebody who was perceived as being in the pockets of Wall Street, Somebody who was perceived as one who felt entitled to become Madame President because of who she was.

If you and the Democratic Party leadership continue to fail to acknowledge this, then you've learned absolutely nothing from this past election. Nothing.
3/17/2017 1:06 PM
◂ Prev 1...84|85|86|87|88...1096 Next ▸
Trump: Worst President Ever? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.