Trump: "You can't come here."

mrjawapa · 2016-02-09 03:00:36

Trump held a rally, conference, thing, where he was answering questions.

One man said there is Syrian families in neighbor. The man asks if Trump could look the Syrian kids in the face, and tell them they can't go to school here. Trump asks how long they have been here, and the man says some of them aren't even here yet. Trump replies, "I could look in their face and say 'You can't come here'."

He then goes on to talk about the inability to identify where refugees come from.

This is where he's answered the, "THESE PEOPLE R COMIN FROM WARZONES! U CAN"T LEAF THEM THERE!"

Trump says we should set up safe zones for the refugees to migrate to. These safe zones are nothing far-fetched. In fact, there are military safe zones.

Here's the video: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop … -come-here
(5 minutes long)

Thoughts?

OrangeCrix

Different55 · 2016-02-09 03:42:37

Sounds like a great place to concentrate refugees in if you get my meaning. ;)))))

Anch, JadElClemens, Terrasher, Pingohits, Onjit, Xfrogman43, Breadfinn, Pyromaniac, Zoey2070, NegaStrife, Zumza, CommanderKitten, sammikat, Tako, Schlog, !nb4, Prodigy, Falk, sthegreat, ewoke, Lightning Splash

Pingohits · 2016-02-09 03:52:50

need a little more detail on these so-called "safe zones"

do you mean temporary camps for syrian refugees to go to while the crisis is being solved?

JadElClemens

hummerz5 · 2016-02-09 03:56:43

Different55 wrote:

Sounds like a great place to concentrate refugees in if you get my meaning. ))))

oh yes, orange juice.

no but really, we've done the whole internment camp thing before
but if Trump was running the show, we'd be seeing a less-than-short term, right?

but wouldn't the whole internment thing be a Congress deal? so is this really something to go up and about with presidents? oh well that's a derail anyway.

Onjit · 2016-02-09 04:04:15

inb4 military controlled slums for refugees with no hope of actually entering the country

Koya, Pyromaniac

hummerz5 · 2016-02-09 04:07:07

^is it better than sending them back?

Xfrogman43 · 2016-02-09 04:46:53

^The better choice is to #notvotefortrump

sthegreat, Pyromaniac

Zumza · 2016-02-09 12:00:01

Today 600.000 refugees entered Europe. This is a serious problem.
They come with viruses like diphtheria which wasn't active in Europe for ages.
We literally make vaccines to protect from emigrants here.

They don't understand our culture. They demand mosques but when they see a church they split.
Everybody is against Merkel now. Russia is bombing. Even the pope said WWW3 have begun.

America doesn't need a jester.

Michele · 2016-02-09 12:32:21

I'm now scared of virus.

2016-02-09 12:55:24

"Military safe zones", you say? Sounds like an euphemism

Onjit

some woman · 2016-02-09 13:30:03

Michele wrote:

I'm now scared of virus.

donald trump is not a virus
not yet

mrjawapa · 2016-02-09 13:34:54

0176 wrote:

"Military safe zones", you say? Sounds like an euphemism

I thought of that when I typed it up.

It's an area deemed safe for military to stay in, and not have to worry about attacks from outside sources.

The concentration camps was a good point. But, I don't see that occurring.

artani · 2016-02-21 20:27:25

youre still not banned in the ee forum after you got banned on ee for sending free gems to everyone?

drstereos, Breadfinn

TaskManager · 2016-02-21 20:47:10

"safe zones" sounds like these things nazis sent jews to before outright killing them

mrjawapa · 2016-02-21 21:59:12

maxi123 wrote:

"safe zones" sounds like these things nazis sent jews to before outright killing them

These safe zones are areas in their countries that have been cleared of belligerent forces.

Tako · 2016-02-22 02:08:46

To me, it doesn't matter what Trump wants to do specifically. The mere fact that he wants to take an entire group of people and do anything with them is ample reasoning for concern. We don't live in the 14th century, so why are we acting like it's the Black Death? People are literally mentioning viruses as a reason to not accept refugees in this thread, as if we have no technology to detect and administer cures for -- or, at the very least, contain - diseases.

I thought America was the nation which policed the world. We involved ourselves with affairs around the globe, from the Meso-and South American imperialist conquests of the early 20th century to the present. Now, when the crime comes to us, we are suddenly disinterested in resolving it? Nonsense. How can a politician say that they want to defeat ISIS and liberate the people of Syria in one breath, and then in the next breath say they think the Syrian people are dangerous and deserve to stay in the Middle East? It's just two-faced. Well, in other news, the sun is hot and water is wet.

I believe that our number one priority should be to help each other. If it is not militarily possible to do that, then we need to accept the consequences and do it anyway. Because when it is all said in done, I will not be proud of the nation who was picky-choosy when it came to helping her allies. We mourn for Paris on month and in the next month we ignore the Syrians. What a joke.

And, no, putting them in "military safe zones" is not an acceptable alternative. Because then you have to ask yourself why they even exist, and the answer is only marginally better than ignoring them completely. What it boils down to is demoralization and marginalization of an entire ethnic group, and that is quite frankly a crime against humanity.

TaskManager, rgl32, sthegreat

mrjawapa · 2016-02-22 05:24:12

Tako wrote:

Now, when the crime comes to us, we are suddenly disinterested in resolving it? Nonsense.

Please explain the disinterest.
The issues are coming from hostile countries and organization. The U.S. is still out to eliminate the hostile armies, primarily ISIS. I don't understand where you are getting the disinterest from.

Tako wrote:

If it is not militarily possible to do that, then we need to accept the consequences and do it anyway.

Land of the free. I'm all for people coming and going as they please. However, I would prefer not be infected with diseases, have more money taken out of my paycheck every week to support them, or have my city bombed by what was believed to be a refugee, but turned out to be an ISIS member.

They are in war zones, I get that. I would want to get out too, and would hope someone would help. In order to avoid more problems within our country, we set up areas in their country/area which is safe to live. Sound like a concentration camp? I don't think so. It's not targeting anyone. It's just an escape from the hell-like war zone. I find it really hard to believe that something like the holocaust could happen today.

Tako wrote:

and then in the next breath say they think the Syrian people are dangerous and deserve to stay in the Middle East? It's just two-faced.

Because you're not looking at why they are staying there. When you have safe zones set up, they are no longer in danger of being bombed. Of course you could start talking about long rage missiles and nukes. But if someone it launching nukes, no where on this planet is safe, not even the U.S.

Tako wrote:

And, no, putting them in "military safe zones" is not an acceptable alternative. Because then you have to ask yourself why they even exist, and the answer is only marginally better than ignoring them completely. What it boils down to is demoralization and marginalization of an entire ethnic group, and that is quite frankly a crime against humanity.

But it's not a racist thing. It's a safe haven for war-zone people. There's no targeted ethnic group. And how it a crime against humanity to offer help to someone? A crime against humanity would be releasing a deadly virus across Africa, or killing millions of Jews, or killing 3000 people in a terrorist attack... not offering help, but at the same time trying not to capsize your own ship.

N1KF

nlmdejonge · 2016-02-22 08:08:32

While I do have strong opinions on this, I choose not to voice them here.

I do, however, want to point to the Srebrenica massacre Wikipedia article.
In 1993, an area was declared a "safe area" by the United Nations; it was under UN protection, to be protected using "all necessary means".
In 1995, 300+ Dutchbat soldiers failed to prevent that town's capture and subsequent massacre (8000+ deaths).
One of the problems was that the UN resolutions were unclear about the procedure by which these safe areas were to be protected in war zones.
Just saying, if there are any "safe areas" elsewhere, let's make sure no more massacres happen.

N1KF, gkaby

Tako · 2016-02-22 17:51:16

JaWapa wrote:

Tako wrote:
If it is not militarily possible to do that, then we need to accept the consequences and do it anyway.
Land of the free. I'm all for people coming and going as they please. However, I would prefer not be infected with diseases, have more money taken out of my paycheck every week to support them, or have my city bombed by what was believed to be a refugee, but turned out to be an ISIS member.

All of these fears are made-up. We have the technology to deal with disease. We are under no obligation to spoon-feed them. And regarding your third point, what is one act of terrorism in comparison to commercialized warfare? How can you even make the comparison? Oh, I know, it's because you think you're better than them. And I don't blame you. That's what everyone thinks. In every affair, political or not. It's disheartening how we are so willing to deal with issues from afar as it is convenient for us, but the moment it demands sacrifice on our part it's an issue of "self-preservation" and completely off the table. And what makes it more pathetic is the fact this is the worst possible scenario, not even a guaranteed outcome.

And by the way, these jihadists find a way to accomplish their task. We now know that they don't even need to be Muslim. You also help this point yourself:

But if someone it launching nukes, no where on this planet is safe, not even the U.S.

So your fear is self-centered and your solution is ineffective. Congratulations, high score.

Tako wrote:

And, no, putting them in "military safe zones" is not an acceptable alternative. Because then you have to ask yourself why they even exist, and the answer is only marginally better than ignoring them completely. What it boils down to is demoralization and marginalization of an entire ethnic group, and that is quite frankly a crime against humanity.

But it's not a racist thing. It's a safe haven for war-zone people. There's no targeted ethnic group. And how it a crime against humanity to offer help to someone? A crime against humanity would be releasing a deadly virus across Africa, or killing millions of Jews, or killing 3000 people in a terrorist attack... not offering help, but at the same time trying not to capsize your own ship.

First of all, you're now straying from what Trump has said. He specifically mentioned Muslims entering the country. And that is the very definition of racism: stereotyping an entire race as inferior.

But even if you broaden his language to include all immigrants from the Middle-East (which would eventually include Europe and other countries as immigrants try to work around the blockade), you've then shifted from a racial target to a more inclusive, geographically-based target.

But maybe I haven't been clear, this is psychological. I'm talking about how Americans think about these groups. I think you will agree that Muslims are already in a bad spot as far as prejudices go. To treat them as anything but full-fledged Americans would be a provocation of more oppression. While it may be perfectly logical to send them to specific areas like Native American reservations (which has been successful in preserving their culture but disastrous at protecting their rights, but I digress) is not only over-complicating the issue (should they self-sustain? do they have the same government as we do? are they citizens?) but also prone to encourage racist thoughts in the general public.

Schlog, sthegreat, Pyromaniac

gkaby · 2016-02-22 18:20:21

Even if you find it difficult to believe that something like the holocaust could happen again, I think we should always be cautious
The Rwandan genocide occurred in 1994 which was like 50 years after the holocaust, and there have only been 20 years since then

Though they are not necessarily causes or proof that a genocide will occur, things like rhetoric of "make America great again" and identification of groups of people often precede genocides. They are warning signs that we should be cautious of

sthegreat, Pyromaniac

mrjawapa · 2016-02-22 22:30:20

nlmdejonge wrote:

One of the problems was that the UN resolutions were unclear about the procedure by which these safe areas were to be protected in war zones.
Just saying, if there are any "safe areas" elsewhere, let's make sure no more massacres happen.

This is why we study history. Make sure the past doesn't repeat itself.

Tako wrote:

All of these fears are made-up. We have the technology to deal with disease. We are under no obligation to spoon-feed them.

"When cheap labor dominates the market, overall wages naturally go down. When wages go down, American workers are harmed. And when American workers are harmed, the poor are always the first hit. In a free market, helping illegal families invariably harms legal families. Illegal aliens pay little or no taxes, and they send millions of dollars out of the U.S. to their home country. Illegals are also more likely to use taxpayer-funded social services than citizens. They are entitled to free health care, education and food stamps. Nearly $5 billion per year is spent on illegal aliens." - Walter Coffey

""The sheer number of people who live, work, and travel between the United States and Mexico has led to a sharing of culture and commerce, as well as the easy transportation of infectious diseases," CDC writes on its website. "The large movement of people across the United States and Mexico border has led to an increase in health issues, particularly infectious diseases such as tuberculosis.""
"In July 2014, when a surge of undocumented minors from Central America was heading toward the U.S.-Mexico border, a union that represents border patrol officers announced that an agent had been diagnosed with scabies while processing such migrants. Scabies is an itchy skin condition caused by a mite that is highly contagious, though also easily treated, according to the Mayo Clinic. It’s analogous to head lice."

I don't know about you, but I don't want lice, scabies, or TB. Regardless of whether it's treatable. Cancer is treatable, doesn't mean I'm not worried if I get it. Sure we have vaccines that we are supposed to get to prevent the contraction of these diseases. You still have people who have weak immune systems, and people who can't get their vaccines due to allergies.

Tako wrote:

what is one act of terrorism in comparison to commercialized warfare?

The holocaust.
And it's not about commercial warfare. The U.S. is at risk of attack from ISIS. ISIS has said time and time again, they want to kill all Americans. Allowing refugees to come in gives terrorists a free pass into the country. All they have to do is say they are a refugee, and come marching in with all the other immigrants, unchecked.

Tako wrote:

Oh, I know, it's because you think you're better than them.

It's not whether or not I think I'm better. I'm in far better standing, as I'm not in a war zone. It's about helping them, but hurting ourselves.

Tako wrote:

So your fear is self-centered and your solution is ineffective. Congratulations, high score.

The idea there was that it doesn't matter where they go, there is no truly out of harm area. It was more of a technicality thing.

Tako wrote:

First of all, you're now straying from what Trump has said. He specifically mentioned Muslims entering the country. And that is the very definition of racism: stereotyping an entire race as inferior.

He never degraded them, or tagged them as a lesser. It's not stereotyping to a large heard of people are carrying diseases, and will hurt the economy. He said "muslims" because they are are the ones in the war zones. Is it racist to say that Africans were carrying diseases? People have this thing in them, where when they hear the word "Muslim" or "Black" they deem w/e the statement was to be racist.

Tako wrote:

While it may be perfectly logical to send them to specific areas like Native American reservations (which has been successful in preserving their culture but disastrous at protecting their rights, but I digress)

Different situations here.
The Native Americans were forced off of their land. The refugees are not being forced to do anything.
I can see the "well terrorists can move into the safe zones too." And then I go back to my statement, nowhere is 100% safe, but these safe zones keep the U.S. from taking a hit.

gkaby wrote:

I think we should always be cautious

Sure. I find it hard to see it happening again because we have such advanced technology, news travels insanely fast, the UN has been created. And even though you see racism quite a bit towards Muslims and African Americans, people still look at the Holocaust and realize it was very **** up. It's happened before, people know what they look like, what goes on, etc. I suppose anything is possible, but I see it highly unlikely.

gkaby · 2016-02-22 22:44:14

i mean i cant say how ppl will react this time but with the rwandan genocide people pretty much knew there was a genocide happening but didnt have to do anything about it because all the countries had to do was say it isnt genocide and they didnt have to do anything, i dont know if they even would have to do anything if they did say a genocide was occurring. the us said that there were "acts of genocide" which apparently doesnt mean a genocide is occurring.

anyway, my point here is that even if we know what genocides look like, and that there is a genocide occurring, that doesnt mean anyone is going to do anything
ppl did send troops or aid or whatever to rwanda, but it was literally to just sit around and do nothing while people were killed / the un was basically useless

i guess it might be different if a genocide occurs in the us, but i have doubts that if stuff starts happening that we will be able to stop it very quickly, if at all

i dont know enough to say how important the warning signs are, but idk if anyone knows exactly how it would progress from warning signs to genocide (maybe someone does and idk or cant remember) but assuming we want to stop it before it can happen, it is important to be very cautious of the warning signs. despite this on a number of occasions i have seen people deny that it would be a possibility. again, we dont know if it will happen, but if anything i dont think we should brush off the possibility as highly unlikely, i think we should be aware that it might happen.

note: sorry for repeating of stuff/messiness of post

Tako · 2016-02-23 00:33:34

I don't particularly have the patience to split hairs on this topic, JaWapa, and I think I've made my point sufficiently clear. I don't think there is any sense in proving to you that X is right or Y is wrong. The forum as a whole has been trying to do that ever since you decided to go public with your controversial foreign policy beliefs, and clearly it has amounted to nothing. You, as well as many others, have elected to prioritize safety over liberty, and reduce your opponents' stances as well as the situation to romantic and over-simplified caricatures.

And I also found this enlightening video on Facebook, might want to give it a watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlbQrsG7K58

Schlog, !nb4, sthegreat, Pyromaniac

mrjawapa · 2016-02-23 01:55:46

Tako wrote:

stances as well as the situation to romantic and over-simplified caricatures.

The video you shared romanticizes immigration.

Tako wrote:

your controversial foreign policy beliefs

Controversial can mean anything, anymore. These days people get butt-hurt if anything out of the ordinary is mentioned. Even at that, it's a matter of opinion whether my beliefs are bad or not.

Tako wrote:

You, as well as many others, have elected to prioritize safety over liberty

I suppose so. Sometimes you need to do that. Despite what you may think, this isn't a fictional novel where the people give up one right, and then someone takes over in total dictatorship.

Tako wrote:

I've made my point sufficiently clear

You've made your stance on this matter clear. The only point you've brought up is how this is racist, and will lead to a holocaust-like situation.

I fail to see why this is such a horrible thing. The refugees can leave the war zones, and the U.S. doesn't have to face the fears that you called "made-up." No one is being forced into the safe zones. The U.S. isn't taking any land from them. No one is being rounded up like prisoners.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/ … -refugees/

N1KF

Koya · 2016-02-23 16:08:01

Onjit wrote:

inb4 military controlled slums for refugees with no hope of actually entering the country

How's it working out for Australia?

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#1 2016-02-09 03:00:36

Trump: "You can't come here."

#2 2016-02-09 03:42:37

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#3 2016-02-09 03:52:50

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#4 2016-02-09 03:56:43

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#5 2016-02-09 04:04:15

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#6 2016-02-09 04:07:07

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#7 2016-02-09 04:46:53

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#8 2016-02-09 12:00:01

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#9 2016-02-09 12:32:21

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#10 2016-02-09 12:55:24

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#11 2016-02-09 13:30:03

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#12 2016-02-09 13:34:54

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#13 2016-02-21 20:27:25

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#14 2016-02-21 20:47:10

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#15 2016-02-21 21:59:12

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#16 2016-02-22 02:08:46, last edited by Tako (2016-02-22 02:09:59)

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#17 2016-02-22 05:24:12

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#18 2016-02-22 08:08:32

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#19 2016-02-22 17:51:16

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#20 2016-02-22 18:20:21, last edited by gkaby (2016-02-22 18:21:54)

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#21 2016-02-22 22:30:20

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#22 2016-02-22 22:44:14, last edited by gkaby (2016-02-22 22:47:52)

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#23 2016-02-23 00:33:34, last edited by Tako (2016-02-23 00:35:11)

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#24 2016-02-23 01:55:46

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

#25 2016-02-23 16:08:01, last edited by Koya (2016-02-23 16:08:14)

Re: Trump: "You can't come here."

Board footer