[skstrials]

Donald is the best candidate on the election right now.

I hope he keeps the Muslims out until we can figure out how to filter out terrorists.

If we are bringing in terrorists along with refugees, it is not good for the refugees that are coming and those that are already here, not to mention the actual residents in North America.

I do not understand why he is being called a racist for trying to keep "illegal" people out. What is the point of having a law if it is not enforced? I would never enter other countries illegally.

Posted via CB10

[Dave Bourque]

Donald is the best candidate on the election right now.

I hope he keeps the Muslims out until we can figure out how to filter out terrorists.

If we are bringing in terrorists along with refugees, it is not good for the refugees that are coming and those that are already here, not to mention the actual residents in North America.

I do not understand why he is being called a racist for trying to keep "illegal" people out. What is the point of having a law if it is not enforced? I would never enter other countries illegally.

Posted via CB10

Bernie Sanders is most popular on all the issues.... and policies. There's no plans or policies with Trump...

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2876

[skstrials]

Bernie Sanders is most popular on all the issues.... and policies. There's no plans or policies with Trump...

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2876

Bernie should worry about Donald once he beats Hillary first.

People do not want to hear Donald's policies because they are ugly, but it is what is needed in the world we live in.

[moosbb]

Donald is the best candidate on the election right now.

I hope he keeps the Muslims out until we can figure out how to filter out terrorists.

If we are bringing in terrorists along with refugees, it is not good for the refugees that are coming and those that are already here, not to mention the actual residents in North America.

I do not understand why he is being called a racist for trying to keep "illegal" people out. What is the point of having a law if it is not enforced? I would never enter other countries illegally.

Posted via CB10

It's obvious why you don't consider him as racist...thankfully a LePen would never win here in France!

Posted via CB10

[Dave Bourque]

Bernie should worry about Donald once he beats Hillary first.

People do not want to hear Donald's policies because they are ugly, but it is what is needed in the world we live in.

She's falling drastically in the polls right now. plus many Republicans favor Bernie over Hilary and Trump.

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2876

[crazy mazy]

The reason Trudeau visited BB headquarters was to show all those "dufus" Conservative supporters that wanted to save their seats in the Waterloo region and they all lost anyway, that Liberals also support Blackberry and that the voters made the right choice and electing him. It was also a great photo OP and showed support for Blackberry.

[canuckvoip]

Because politics and the internet don't mix well.. like... ever. Heaven forbid people ignore the stuff they disagree with.

Yeah... like religion and guns. Never a safe topic. Lol!

[Carjackd]

Didn't you get the memo that we're Americans and we can go wherever we want and do whatever we want whenever we feel like it?

Yes I have seen fox news

[Carjackd]

What makes you think they want you to want them?


Posted via CB10

That might be the smartest post you have done to date...maybe

[SK122387]

Bernie should worry about Donald once he beats Hillary first.

People do not want to hear Donald's policies because they are ugly, but it is what is needed in the world we live in.

I like Bernie but his goals, while admirable, are unrealistic and costly to the middle class (and of course the wealthy). He is pretty much a single issue candidate, and blames the millionaires and billionaires for nearly everything. Republicans would love to run against Bernie. The GOP has scared people into thinking President Obama is a socialist, so can you imagine the field day they would have with an admitted Democratic Socialist?

I liked Donald as a TV personality, but as a candidate, he has embarrassed himself and the country. He has alienated the very people one needs to win a national election. He threatens to undo much of the progress the U.S. has made with allies around the world, and could do unimaginative damage to our reputation around the world, which is still recovering.

Hillary Clinton might not be exciting or new, but she's not unrealistic or hateful. At a time when people are concerned about national security, someone who's sat in the Situation Room and had countless meetings with world leaders is my choice. Yes, income inequality is an issue, but it's not the only one. She's got the backing of nearly every Democrat in the Senate, and even some Republicans hate to admit that they like her. In the end, I believe it will be Hillary back in the White House again, hopefully taking some of Bernie's issues and combining her experience and knowledge of the world and political system to lead our country.

Posted via CB10

[skstrials]

Hahaha, Hillary is the worst in the election. I do not even like Democrats, but I would take Bernie over her anyday.



While Donald's Muslim comment could have sounded "hateful", it is the truth.

There are good muslims and bad muslims, but we have no way of telling which is which. And there have already been cases where terrorists have gotten through with the refugees.

And from the refugees point of view, if the same bad people that you are running away from follow you straight into the new country, is that really solving the issue?

Letting the bad muslims in is also risking the good muslims we have here, not to mention the rest of North American residents.

Therefore, "until we figure out what is going on", a temporary ban on muslims seems perfectly reasonable.

[cbvinh]

Hahaha, Hillary is the worst in the election. I do not even like Democrats, but I would take Bernie over her anyday.



While Donald's Muslim comment could have sounded "hateful", it is the truth.

There are good muslims and bad muslims, but we have no way of telling which is which. And there have already been cases where terrorists have gotten through with the refugees.

And from the refugees point of view, if the same bad people that you are running away from follow you straight into the new country, is that really solving the issue?

Letting the bad muslims in is also risking the good muslims we have here, not to mention the rest of North American residents.

Therefore, "until we figure out what is going on", a temporary ban on muslims seems perfectly reasonable.

Actual stats in a video friendly way...



Humans of New York interview... (skip to 1:30 if you want the gist of it)

[skstrials]

So you still have not answered how we know which ones are good and which ones are bad?

If we let in one bad muslim, that is already too much. Like I said, it is not really a solving the issue, if we are letting in the same people that the refugees are running away from.

Besides, taking people as refugees cannot be a permanent solution as there is not enough space for everyone + no guarantees of stopping more people from being made refugees. There are other ways of helping refugees. The primary focus needs to be in defeating ISIL and so called "moderate rebels", so that these refugees can live happily in their home town.

Many EU and other Western countries have had strict immigration policies until now, considering one's education background, income level, family, language, and job skills. This was done not only for the country, but also for the success and happiness of the immigrants in the country. If we are just taking in everyone without considering these factors, the new immigrants will not be able to succeed in the society, and grow hateful towards their new country. Hence, what is happening in France, where Muslims take up prisons and low paid jobs --> Hateful towards society --> Terror

[cbvinh]

So you still have not answered how we know which ones are good and which ones are bad?

If we let in one bad muslim, that is already too much. Like I said, it is not really a solving the issue, if we are letting in the same people that the refugees are running away from.

Besides, taking people as refugees cannot be a permanent solution as there is not enough space for everyone + no guarantees of stopping more people from being made refugees. There are other ways of helping refugees. The primary focus needs to be in defeating ISIL and so called "moderate rebels", so that these refugees can live happily in their home town.

Many EU and other Western countries have had strict immigration policies until now, considering one's education background, income level, family, language, and job skills. This was done not only for the country, but also for the success and happiness of the immigrants in the country. If we are just taking in everyone without considering these factors, the new immigrants will not be able to succeed in the society, and grow hateful towards their new country. Hence, what is happening in France, where Muslims take up prisons and low paid jobs --> Hateful towards society --> Terror

Answer: You screen them. If you watched the Humans of New York interview, you'd know that the U.S. plans to take in 10,000 refugees of *millions*. The U.S. can refuse anyone for any reason. At the moment, the plan is to take in refugees that have humanitarian reasons (like illness, handicap) and those with high educational degrees.

The ideal solution is to restore Syria back to a peaceful country, yes, but is the U.S. willing to commit resources to it? People here are always saying we should solve the U.S. problems first, in which case, we end up doing nothing elsewhere. Let's say we have the will to commit resources (money, troops, etc.), who do we back? There are other videos that detail that there a many factions in that war. Will we end up creating another problem? We've meddled in the Middle East quite a bit and caused many of our own problems.

For the time being, the refugees need assistance now, not in a few years after we sort everything out.

France's problems stem from their colonial past. The immigrants were from France's former colonies and accepted as "citizens", though they were actually marginalized once in France.

[skstrials]

Answer: You screen them. If you watched the Humans of New York interview, you'd know that the U.S. plans to take in 10,000 refugees of *millions*. The U.S. can refuse anyone for any reason. At the moment, the plan is to take in refugees that have humanitarian reasons (like illness, handicap) and those with high educational degrees.

The ideal solution is to restore Syria back to a peaceful country, yes, but is the U.S. willing to commit resources to it? People here are always saying we should solve the U.S. problems first, in which case, we end up doing nothing elsewhere. Let's say we have the will to commit resources (money, troops, etc.), who do we back? There are other videos that detail that there a many factions in that war. Will we end up creating another problem? We've meddled in the Middle East quite a bit and caused many of our own problems.

For the time being, the refugees need assistance now, not in a few years after we sort everything out.

France's problems stem from their colonial past. The immigrants were from France's former colonies and accepted as "citizens", though they were actually marginalized once in France.

Yes, except screening does not work. It certainly was not enough to stop the Paris attack from happening. And often times, there is just no way to verify all of them, especially in EU where it is connected by land.

There are now reports of sexual attacks to women from the refugees to which the police is not taking much action.

I would like actual Syrians commenting here as well, but it was my knowledge that Syrians were satisfied with the Assad regime. However, the US did not like that the regime is not open to US oil industry, which is why they have been funding the "moderate rebels (FSA)" to cause ****storm in the country to topple the regime, so that there is an American friendly government like in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ideal solution would be to get rid of ISIL and the rebels, and have the Kurds and the SAA discuss what to do with Syria.

[cbvinh]

Yes, except screening does not work. It certainly was not enough to stop the Paris attack from happening. And often times, there is just no way to verify all of them, especially in EU where it is connected by land.

There are now reports of unreported sexual attacks to women from the refugees to which the police is not taking much action.

I would like actual Syrians commenting here as well, but it was my knowledge that Syrians were satisfied with the Assad regime. However, the US did not like that the regime is not open to US oil industry, which is why they have been funding the "moderate rebels (FSA)" to cause ****storm in the country to topple the regime, so that there is an American friendly government like in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ideal solution would be to get rid of ISIL and the rebels, and have the Kurds and the SAA discuss what to do with Syria.

Are you saying that the same screening methods were used in Europe as in the U.S. and they've failed? Or are you saying screening doesn't work at all? Because if it doesn't work at all, how do you even select these advanced degree refugees that will be most successful in immigrating? Or are you actually saying that you don't want refugees at all and it's not actually out of fear of terrorism?

Are you referring to this story? American helped by Syrian refugees?

How Syrian refugees helped an American student during the Cologne attacks | Germany | DW.COM | 17.01.2016

It sounds like you'd like the U.S. to meddle more by putting the Kurds and SAA in charge.

[skstrials]

Are you saying that the same screening methods were used in Europe as in the U.S. and they've failed? Or are you saying screening doesn't work at all? Because if it doesn't work at all, how do you even select these advanced degree refugees that will be most successful in immigrating? Or are you actually saying that you don't want refugees at all and it's not actually out of fear of terrorism?

Are you referring to this story? American helped by Syrian refugees?

How Syrian refugees helped an American student during the Cologne attacks | Germany | DW.COM | 17.01.2016

It sounds like you'd like the U.S. to meddle more by putting the Kurds and SAA in charge.

There is nothing wrong with putting the SAA (Syrian Arab Army) in charge considering it is their own country.

Secondly, so what, if one has an advanced degree, there are criminals and terrorists with advanced degrees. At the end of the day, we have never dealt with this kind of numbers before so we need to absolutely careful.

Also, do your own research about Sweden sexual assault, Cologne mass sexual assault, refugee ban in a German swimming pool, and refugees being banned from certain bars in Austria, all from recent sexual assaults from refugees. You have Google if you really want to know.

If you did, you would also know that the Cologne police stated that they have never experienced sexual assault at this kind of magnitude.

I am glad that a refugee helped a student. And I certainly was not saying that all of the refugees are criminals. But there are many that are.


Posted via CB10

[cbvinh]

There is nothing wrong with putting the SAA (Syrian Arab Army) in charge considering it is their own country.

Secondly, so what, if one has an advanced degree, there are criminals and terrorists with advanced degrees. At the end of the day, we have never dealt with this kind of numbers before so we need to absolutely careful.

Also, do your own research about Sweden sexual assault, Cologne mass sexual assault, refugee ban in a German swimming pool, and refugees being banned from certain bars in Austria, all from recent sexual assaults from refugees. You have Google if you really want to know.

If you did, you would also know that the Cologne police stated that they have never experienced sexual assault at this kind of magnitude.

I am glad that a refugee helped a student. And I certainly was not saying that all of the refugees are criminals. But there are many that are.

There's everything wrong with *us* deciding who should be in charge.

There's been many refugee crises in the past and the world has dealt with them. It's not a new thing. The U.S. has been through waves and waves of immigration. That's how our country was built. Again, we're hoping to take in 10,000 and we have a population of 320 million. Lebanon, in contrast, has to deal with over a million refugees and they only have a population of ~4.5 million. We have ~2.2 million citizens in prison. If you're worried about dangerous people, they're already here.

I'm aware of the reports of sexual assaults and that's why I linked the article where refugees (pural) helped the American woman out.

When you say "many", what's the percentage you're talking about?

[byex]

This thread just didn't go sideways, it fell off a cliff.


Posted via CB10

[Blackberry-Prince]

I see where this is going. One can simply not discuss Politics and Religion on the Internet. There's no way out!

Posted via CB10

[SK122387]

Hahaha, Hillary is the worst in the election. I do not even like Democrats, but I would take Bernie over her anyday.




Therefore, "until we figure out what is going on", a temporary ban on muslims seems perfectly reasonable.

Guns are used to kill over 33,000 people a year in the United States.

Should we ban them too, "until we figure out what's going on?"

[skstrials]

Guns are used to kill over 33,000 people a year in the United States.

Should we ban them too, "until we figure out what's going on?"

They are already in circulation. And we are doing what we can to control it.

What is your point? We failed at gun control, so let's just give up everything?

Yes, that's logical.

I hope you watched the Hillary lies videos. Lol.
Every Hillary supporters should watch it.

Posted via CB10

[SK122387]

They are already in circulation. And we are doing what we can to control it.

What is your point? We failed at gun control, so let's just give up everything?

Yes, that's logical.

I hope you watched the Hillary lies videos. Lol.
Every Hillary supporters should watch it.

Posted via CB10

If I wanted to watch whatever that video was, I could just turn on Fox News and get the same garbage.

The point is: you think we need to stop Muslims (good or bad, ALL) from coming into your country until we figure out what is going on. Should we stop gun sales to all people (good or bad) until we figure out what is going on?

If you still don't get the point I'm making, well, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Dirtymike14]

What makes them think we want them?

It's ok, we'll just dump them in Winnipeg

Posted via CB10

[DrBoomBotz]

It's ok, we'll just dump them in Winnipeg

Posted via CB10

That's cold.