Trump nails it.

[WNYresident]

There's a yuge difference between limiting citizens of a specific country over political reasons versus banning all members of a single religion from anywhere in the world. In fact, there were quite a few Iranians who came to the US around that time fleeing the new regime.

No there isn't. Just a different descriptor for a group that would be banned until a better handle on the situation is achieved.

[WNYresident]

More Americans have been killed by furniture than Daesh. In trying to promote an image of strength, tRump cowardly over-reacts, and just looks like a panicky tyrant, not a leader.

You have to be kidding me. WHere do you come up with this stuff. When was the last time a piece of furniture (brand) rammed itself into a sky scraper? When was the last time a brand of furniture strapped bombs to it's seat, ran into an event and blew people up? Personally I'd rather try a completely new brand of BS instead of the same BS we would get will Hillary, received with Obama and previously Bush.

[Mindcrime]

No there isn't. Just a different descriptor for a group that would be banned until a better handle on the situation is achieved.

So because of some violent lunatics in Syria, we should ban virtually everyone from Indonesia, or Niger? You don't see that as an over-reaction?

[Save Us]

Carter didn't apply Constitutional protections to foreigners. He applied the Constitution in how AMERICAN agencies interact with prospective visitors or immigrants.

I am not talking about Carter. The constitutionality of American Agencies is applicable to American citizens residing in this country, Americans abroad cannot claim any constitutional right in a foreign country. Denying entry to foreigners is not a constitutional issue, ergo we have no legal or constitutional requirement to admit any foreigner into this country, and we can choose who we can admit. As I said some countries you need money before you can be considered for citizenship, I am not talking visas. Border bob would be the person to comment.

[Save Us]

So because of some violent lunatics in Syria, we should ban virtually everyone from Indonesia, or Niger? You don't see that as an over-reaction?

Didn't we just ban assault rifles in NY because of 1 lunatic in Connecticut? Yes we should ban everyone until we can secure our own house ensuring our own citizens are not homeless, unemployed, and impoverished.

It's actually pretty simple, and shameful that we put our citizens second.

[300miles]

No there isn't. Just a different descriptor for a group that would be banned until a better handle on the situation is achieved.

Yes there is a huge difference.
Country residency is well documented. Religion is not.
And religion overlaps into allied countries.

[Mindcrime]

Didn't we just ban assault rifles in NY because of 1 lunatic in Connecticut? Yes we should ban everyone until we can secure our own house ensuring our own citizens are not homeless, unemployed, and impoverished.

It's actually pretty simple, and shameful that we put our citizens second.

If your analogy were accurate, New York should have banned everyone from Connecticut.

Also, how do you define "securing our own house?" Depending on one's perspective, it's an unreachable, untenable goal. Which means tRump's ban on other human beings would be effectively permanent, not temporary as he is now trying to claim.

[WNYresident]

Yes there is a huge difference.
Country residency is well documented. Religion is not.
And religion overlaps into allied countries.

So if he worded the ban "Middle East" listing the countries of origin you would be fine with it?

[Mindcrime]

So if he worded the ban "Middle East" listing the countries of origin you would be fine with it?

Even that wouldn't cover all Muslims. There are nations from Western Africa (Morocco) to southeast Asia (Indonesia) that are predominantly Muslim. It's over 1.6 Billion people living in over a hundred countries.

[Mindcrime]

When was the last time a piece of furniture (brand) rammed itself into a sky scraper?

That was al-Qaeda, not Daesh.

When was the last time a brand of furniture strapped bombs to it's seat, ran into an event and blew people up?

Again, Daesh hasn't done that to Americans.

My statement stands. The point is that it is over-reactionary to spend all this money, time and manpower on a threat that is relatively benign when compared to other more-lethal hazards. We've already been dropping bombs on Daesh since last summer. We've all but demonized an entire religion due to a few hostile posers. Now tRump is willing to suspend the Constitution in an attempt to provide the illusion of security. It's Bush all over again.

[4248]

Trump wants to ban an entire religion (1.5 Billion people) until "we figure out what the [heck] is going on."

And others believe we should flood America and other Counties with these people (whom ever they may be) until we finally see what the heck their up to !

Once there is enough of them here - there will be no doubt - then what ?

[HipKat]

Didn't we just ban assault rifles in NY because of 1 lunatic in Connecticut? Yes we should ban everyone until we can secure our own house ensuring our own citizens are not homeless, unemployed, and impoverished.

It's actually pretty simple, and shameful that we put our citizens second.

More people are killed by cars than guns. Lets ban cars, dammit!

[300miles]

the donald nailed it keep these people out of the country!
Most Republicans Have Negative Views Of Muslims.
Donald Trump on Monday called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”

"these people"

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-regi...-time-20151212

[buffy]

Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Sunday she wanted to "drastically decrease" the number of refugees coming to Germany, signalling a compromise to critics of her open-door policy from within her conservatives on the eve of a party congress.

"We took on board the concerns of the people, who are worried about the future, and this means we want to reduce, we want to drastically decrease the number of people coming to us," Merkel told broadcaster ARD.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/merkel-...many-1.3363453

[NBuffaloResident]

I don't follow. This is a matter of national security not to promote a religion.

So, 2 muslims commit an attack, using assault weapons legally purchased in the US. You think the solution is to ban incoming muslims, and do nothing about the legally purchased weaponry used in the attack, because of national security?

Am I following correctly?