Fuck CNBC though. I joked early about their live tweet ticker being like a SpikeTV show. What do they do? They use the debate as a ratings launch into their new Bar Rescue inspired show, The Profit.
Awful all around.
Awful all around.
Rubio is also trying to finish on a positive note, saying everyone on the stage is better than the Democrats. He also promises that entitlement changes would not be for current senior citizens. "I'm against anything that would be bad for my mother," he says.
That sounds charming in his head, doesn't it.
By S@l Go To PostLike O'Malley's closing statement reflected in an infernal mirror innit.Rubio is also trying to finish on a positive note, saying everyone on the stage is better than the Democrats.
Worst part, possibly, was Trump talking about how he likes uncertainty about whether or not he's carrying a gun.
Man can rant all he wants about "sickos" but that's profoundly fucked up.
Man can rant all he wants about "sickos" but that's profoundly fucked up.
By DY_nasty Go To Postwhat happened with jeb?
Your question is way too general. In the womb ? As a youngster ? This week in politics ?
By DY_nasty Go To Postwhat happened with jeb?
The moderators were the worst of the debates to this point. If you watched the entire debate, around the mid-way point it became clear what the moderator's agenda was.
They mostly ignored Trump. Jeb! got into a tiff with Rubio about him not showing up for work, then after that Jeb pretty much was ignored by everyone for a LONG stretch of time. Only thing he got was some question about fantasy football, and he fumbled that by proclaiming something about having Tannehill as his QB and going 7-0 this season.
Cruz and Rubio both got really good time and questions tossed their way.
http://gawker.com/ben-carson-denies-involvement-with-nutritional-suppleme-1739310975
What the fuck?
What the fuck?
By Sanjuro Go To PostThe moderators were the worst of the debates to this point. If you watched the entire debate, around the mid-way point it became clear what the moderator's agenda was.Which was?
By KingGondo Go To PostWhich was?
They gave the floor to guys who are still hanging in there. I don't think Rubio or Cruz will be there in the end, but are still alternatives to the top two.
Australian political candidates trying to match the American crazy
Dr Sexton - a consultant anaesthetist to Westmead Hospital - is on a ticket for election as a federal council delegate and for a position on the party's influential constitutional standing committee.
He is part of the official "Mainstream Conservative" ticket for the NSW Liberal state council elections, which is aligned with the party's right faction.
By Fenderputty Go To PostThat dudes got Carson beat
Malcolm in the Middle has Carson beat.
HAHA someone smoke pot ...
Sanders rally where he calls for end of the federal classification of the wonderful plant.
I learned a jewish joke recently. I like it too much not to share.
God appears before the eyes of 3 politicians, Barack Obama, Kim Jong Un, and Benjamin Netanyahu. He announces to them that the world will end tomorrow, and orders them to tell their people.
Obama goes on national television and says: "My fellow Americans, I have good news and bad news. God has spoken to me. The good news is our faith in the almighty has been vindicated. The bad news is the world will end tomorrow."
Kim Jong-Un addresses the Korean people: "Dear comrades, I have bad news and worse news. The bad news is that our atheist philosophy of materialism has been undone. The worse news is the world will end tomorrow."
Netanyahu calls the Israeli media and tells them: "I have good news and better news. The good news is God has spoken to me. The better news is there's never going to be a Palestinian state."
God appears before the eyes of 3 politicians, Barack Obama, Kim Jong Un, and Benjamin Netanyahu. He announces to them that the world will end tomorrow, and orders them to tell their people.
Obama goes on national television and says: "My fellow Americans, I have good news and bad news. God has spoken to me. The good news is our faith in the almighty has been vindicated. The bad news is the world will end tomorrow."
Kim Jong-Un addresses the Korean people: "Dear comrades, I have bad news and worse news. The bad news is that our atheist philosophy of materialism has been undone. The worse news is the world will end tomorrow."
Netanyahu calls the Israeli media and tells them: "I have good news and better news. The good news is God has spoken to me. The better news is there's never going to be a Palestinian state."
Apparently it's a joke that made the rounds amongst American Jewish leftists in the 1980s, only with names I replaced (Reagan, Gorbatchev, Begin).
Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship
Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
The academy has occupied a central place in Carson’s tale for years. According to a story told in Carson’s book, “Gifted Hands,” the then-17 year old was introduced in 1969 to Gen. William Westmoreland, who had just ended his command of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and the two dined together. That meeting, according to Carson’s telling, was followed by a “full scholarship” to the military academy.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ben-carson-west-point-215598#ixzz3qjXxvcsd
Story Continued Below
West Point, however, has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission.
I'm curious if this affects his primary polling. I feel like his base is following him due to his religious beliefs and nothing more. If he were to make it past the primary I think this would kill his general chances though.,
By reilo Go To Posthttps://vine.co/v/eLjlLmtxmqU
You're late! lol
By Fenderputty Go To Post
HAHA someone smoke pot …
Sanders rally where he calls for end of the federal classification of the wonderful plant.
I'm becoming more convinced that Trump will be the nominee and that it will be a glorious general election.
By Forever Go To PostI'm becoming more convinced that Trump will be the nominee and that it will be a glorious general election.
Fukkery will be in top form should he win.
And yall heard about B41 dissing B43's crew?
By Forever Go To PostI'm becoming more convinced that Trump will be the nominee and that it will be a glorious general election.
He's my pick to come out. Pretty blown away at how poorly Jeb! is doing. Then again all the establishment is doing pretty bad.
Trump just seems like a caricature of the Right now. like pledging to shut down mosques and just generally being trump.
is it bad that both hillary and trump are getting the side eye from me?
hillary's foreign policy record is scary as shit given the current climate
hillary's foreign policy record is scary as shit given the current climate
By Dark PhaZe Go To Postis it bad that both hillary andtrumpare getting the side eye from me?
hillary's foreign policy record is scary as shit given the current climate
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/large-scale-deportations-of-armenians-begin-in-turkey
The genocide of our people started out as a mass deportation. There are literally few things more evil in human history than mass, forceful deportations done by the military/police.
Regardless of ANY OTHER policy position one can possibly take, there is nothing at all in the same scope of potential evil as a Trump presidency.
I hope Ted Cruz is right about the Christian afterlife. Then he can be tortured for all eternity. Cruz wishing that we inflicted more violence on the civilians in Syria is one of the most evil things said in a horrible year for U.S. politics.
The shameless xenophobic hatred got turned up even higher, didn't it. This no-limit loathing of people in need sure is something.
By DY_nasty Go To PostI try to be upset about certain states declining to receive refugees, but I really can't be.
Well, they can't decline because that's not a power of the individual states, lol.
We let the Jews die and we've let so many others die, so it's not like our hate is surprising even ignoring the stupidity of passing a law that is not legal and can't be enforced to stop refugees following an attack when either all of the shooters or all but one of the shooters was European.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostWell, they can't decline because that's not a power of the individual states, lol.you cant compare this to the holocaust at all. and it was questionable before the attacks too - the nature of threats these days is vastly different than in the past. if you want me to explain it further, sure, but i really don't think i have to. the holocaust has nothing to do with it other than rhetoric
We let the Jews die and we've let so many others die, so it's not like our hate is surprising even ignoring the stupidity of passing a law that is not legal and can't be enforced to stop refugees following an attack when either all of the shooters or all but one of the shooters was European.
and 'letting people die' is just.... dude, 'we' 'let' 'people die' all the time. I don't even like getting into that because once you start naming off mass killings that we didn't give a fuck on, looked the other way over, or played favorites about, shit gets way messier than either side of the argument ever intended.
And the constant waffling over how the US is being world police one minute and then not doing enough the next (or doing the job wrong) is irritating as well. People don't realize that the massive changing tones-of-grey area has pros and cons. The cons suck. They absolutely do. But the pros aren't even appreciated or recognized. Or when they are, they're completely removed from being a part of the same thing that people hate and protest over. Everyone hates TSA until they find a shoebomb. Everyone hates doorkicking until we get one right. Drone strikes are awesome when they're killing absolute clear 100% without a doubt bad guys that happen to die with their drivers license, bomb parts, and funds in their hands. Its not perfect, it never will be. At the same time, there's a reason why so many countries ask the US to train them up on shit. If it wasn't a certain degree of effective, it wouldn't happen.
As for the refugees or anything of that nature, vetting is shit. It is absolutely shit. And no, I'm not referring to the "prove your christianity" kind of vetting either. The security risk is real. It has been for a while, and not in a fearmongering type of way either.
But either way, state reps openly voicing their objections doesn't bother me. It can't. Are their disgusting people that say the same thing for various reasons? Sure. Its really just another form of objection since its powerless essentially.
I'm not comparing the Syrian War to the Holocaust, I'm saying people hate religious minorities and refugees and using that as (the most extreme obviously) an example of the long history of hate.
... And it's kind of bizarre to talk constantly about security risks in a country with 30k gun deaths per year, lol. We can't decide whether we want to be a safe space that cares about safety over everything else or if we're willing to accept >300 mass shootings a year because individual rights trump safety.
Basically, we're willing to let a lot of good people die and let a lot of rights be taken away to prevent risks that are small compared to every day things in the United States and that ranges from dumb to opportunistic. Stopping refugees is only slightly less stupid than stopping Ebola doctors and somehow is less compassionate.
... And it's kind of bizarre to talk constantly about security risks in a country with 30k gun deaths per year, lol. We can't decide whether we want to be a safe space that cares about safety over everything else or if we're willing to accept >300 mass shootings a year because individual rights trump safety.
Basically, we're willing to let a lot of good people die and let a lot of rights be taken away to prevent risks that are small compared to every day things in the United States and that ranges from dumb to opportunistic. Stopping refugees is only slightly less stupid than stopping Ebola doctors and somehow is less compassionate.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostI'm not comparing the Syrian War to the Holocaust, I'm saying people hate religious minorities and refugees and using that as (the most extreme obviously) an example of the long history of hate.bolded-Those are different kinds of risks, obviously. A different argument and a separate issue. And be 100 about it, the US is perfectly okay with US citizens killing other US citizens with guns purchased legally or illegally. But no one else is allowed to think about it. That's what living in the US is.
… And it's kind of bizarre to talk constantly about security risks in a country with 30k gun deaths per year, lol. We can't decide whether we want to be a safe space that cares about safety over everything else or if we're willing to accept >300 mass shootings a year because individual rights trump safety.
And regarding the Syrians... I really don't think so. I think that its pretty obvious to everyone that they're just in a bad spot and THEN it becomes how to best to rationalize your personal 'no'. Iraqi refugees faced a very different road for example, so I'm not willing to blanket all refugees like that. General public knows the difference behind mass relocations generally, there is always kick-back but its typically for a different reason. IMO.
By DY_nasty Go To Postbolded-Those are different kinds of risks, obviously. A different argument and a separate issue. And be 100 about it, the US is perfectly okay with US citizens killing other US citizens with guns purchased legally or illegally. But no one else is allowed to think about it. That's what living in the US is.
And regarding the Syrians… I really don't think so. I think that its pretty obvious to everyone that they're just in a bad spot and THEN it becomes how to best to rationalize your personal 'no'. Iraqi refugees faced a very different road for example, so I'm not willing to blanket all refugees like that. General public knows the difference behind mass relocations generally, there is always kick-back but its typically for a different reason. IMO.
This isn't a tactical issue. It's one about principles. It always has been, always will be. There are no differences. Ever. There are no justifications. Ever. There are no rationalizations. Ever.
We decided as a humanity a long time ago that discriminating based on race/gender/religion/nationality was wrong, every single time. That doesn't mean we adhere to it every time, God knows we don't. But saying "we fell short of our ideals here, so this one is justified" is buillshit. It's always wrong. We'll fall short again. Especially when we're scared, as we are now. Especially when politicians/armed forces feel pressure to keep us safe. But it's still wrong.
If we let in 300,000 Syrian Refugees this year, does that present obstacles? Sure. Does that bring national security risks? Yea, probably. But so does letting in an Italian guy, whose grandson 70 years from now shoots up an Elementary school. So does letting in an Asian woman who ends up trafficking sex slaves down the road. This shit is endless. The potential threats are endless.
Our entire history is the history of letting refugees from war torn countries come here, even countries we were fighting or threatened by. Einstein from Berlin in 1933 comes to mind. A shit ton of Armenians in the super early 90's after the fall of the Soviet Union, of which my family was included. Maybe some spies came in the mass migration, maybe some angry pro-communist militants came. Who gives a shit? That's the price of having honorable ideals, you brave it.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To PostThis isn't a tactical issue. It's one about principles. It always has been, always will be. There are no differences. Ever. There are no justifications. Ever. There are no rationalizations. Ever.wow okay
We decided as a humanity a long time ago that discriminating based on race/gender/religion/nationality was wrong, every single time. That doesn't mean we adhere to it every time, God knows we don't. But saying "we fell short of our ideals here, so this one is justified" is buillshit. It's always wrong. We'll fall short again. Especially when we're scared, as we are now. Especially when politicians/armed forces feel pressure to keep us safe. But it's still wrong.
If we let in 300,000 Syrian Refugees this year, does that present obstacles? Sure. Does that bring national security risks? Yea, probably. But so does letting in an Italian guy, whose grandson 70 years from now shoots up an Elementary school. So does letting in an Asian woman who ends up trafficking sex slaves down the road. This shit is endless.
Our entire history is the history of letting refugees from war torn countries come here, even countries we were fighting or threatened by.
sooooo there are no justifications until one paragraph later when you're like "does that present risk? yea, propbably" cmon. yes. its absolutely a tactical issue.
and trying to blend that risk in with the gun control argument is just flatout lazy and both of you guys know it. those are two separate issues entirely.
there's always been risk associated with bringing in any large population quickly, the nature of foreign threats has evolved dramatically in the last 5 years. The last 10? 20? Its not even comparable to anything previous. As such, governments are finally ready to admit "Hey, we might need to get our shit together before we do this". And its been a topic, though on the backburner a bit because its not immediately easy to swallow for many, but even England was admitting to being terrible at tracking their own people. Not Thailand, not Ukraine, not Kenya - England. And they're one of best in the world.
The risk has been there and its been growing. Now people want to move on it. Its jacked up but like... I really can't be upset about it. Why should anyone be? Especially when the underlying basis for it is threat and not religious persecution (some will say it is, duh, but the left and right say equally dumb shit so its a wash). If there were a clearly identifiable 'bad guy' in Syria then there would certainly be a different reaction to the entire thing. But there isn't. There's a mess. And one of the most effective ways to deal damage to any established government in the world right now is through attacks with persons that aren't uniformed. Security has to catch up.
By DY_nasty Go To Postwow okay
sooooo there are no justifications until one paragraph later when you're like "does that present risk? yea, propbably" cmon. yes. its absolutely a tactical issue.
and trying to blend that risk in with the gun control argument is just flatout lazy and both of you guys know it. those are two separate issues entirely.
there's always been risk associated with bringing in any large population quickly, the nature of foreign threats has evolved dramatically in the last 5 years. The last 10? 20? Its not even comparable to anything previous. As such, governments are finally ready to admit "Hey, we might need to get our shit together before we do this". And its been a topic, though on the backburner a bit because its not immediately easy to swallow for many, but even England was admitting to being terrible at tracking their own people. Not Thailand, not Ukraine, not Kenya - England. And they're one of best in the world.
The risk has been there and its been growing. Now people want to move on it. Its jacked up but like… I really can't be upset about it. Why should anyone be? Especially when the underlying basis for it is threat and not religious persecution (some will say it is, duh, but the left and right say equally dumb shit so its a wash). If there were a clearly identifiable 'bad guy' in Syria then there would certainly be a different reaction to the entire thing. But there isn't. There's a mess. And one of the most effective ways to deal damage to any established government in the world right now is through attacks with persons that aren't uniformed. Security has to catch up.
You confused me agreeing that there will be risks to me suggesting that it somehow makes discrimination justified. My entire argument was that the risks are always prevalent (no matter the changing nature you seem to be arguing) and that there are zero justifications even in the face of obvious risks. Your confusing a reason, a rationalization, and an explanation - with a justification.
I'm not living in a fantasy land. I understand full well that bringing in 800,000 or how many ever Syrian refugees presents risks. I understand that completely vetting them is impossible. I understand that bad apples will fall through. In the face of all of that, IT'S STILL NOT JUSTIFIED to turn away refugees on the basis of their nationality, their race, their religion, or our fear. It's NEVER justified. It has never been justified to discriminate based on these things and it will never be justified. Will it happen? Yea probably, we're all scared right now. And when people get scared, they lower their moral bars down a handful of notches and begin rationalizing away why discriminating is totally acceptable, this time. And everyone thinks that it's somehow any different than all the other times in human history. But it's always the same shit, different flavor. There's always an explanation and an apparent justification for racism provided, and it's always bullshit.
Had anyone said "We should temporarily close our borders to everyone, of every race, religion, nationality until we can build up our systems to better screen people who come in" - Cool. I wouldn't agree with that approach, but I'm not a national security expert, maybe it really is a necessity. but then you're making this about safety and our broken immigration system - not about race. When you're willing to let in Christians but not Muslims, when you're willing to let in the French refugees but not the Syrian ones. Then you're wrong. Period. You're embracing the same line of thinking that led to Japanese Internment Camps.
For the record, the gun control argument isn't lazy. It's about perspective. Someone who is willing to let 30,000 people die year in and year out to ensure Americans have access to a gun, but not willing to risk a couple thousand, or heck, 30,000 lives to ensure that hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrian Refugees have political asylum and an opportunity to live? That person has a broken moral compass. Shattered, really.
You know that quote about sticking to your principles when times get tough? This is one of those examples.
Principles are nice and all but I really think that people have this assumption that safety and security just magically happen and there aren't guys pulling 24 hour shifts to make it happen.
Keep up the good work guys
So we're doing good. Now. BEFORE we throw another helping on the plate. If people want to pump breaks a bit, I can't say that its difficult to understand. I don't blame them either. Vetting isn't impossible, but its pretty much worthless if you apply what we've been doing to something like this. Bad apples are everywhere too. You can't eliminate them. Not saying otherwise - but half the battle is understanding the capabilities and there's been a gross underestimation according to many. If not direct, then absolutely indirect. Its not about race, religion, ethnicity. Its about what we're prepared for. If a guy says he only wants "real christians in america" then he's a dick. Duh. If a guy says he wants "to be sure that the state the elected him is safe with some other trash because its election season" then is he wrong?
Fuck I hope not
Instead of adopting old practices that are basically open the gates with open arms, there should probably be a long - a very long - discussion about the best way to go about the entire process. Its not a simple one and guys from the concerned citizen to elected officials have wanted to go about it like it is.
This isn't the 50s. People are crazy unappreciative of the guys busting their asses over here...
edit: it is a different argument. you can try to tangent off that 'perspective' angle, but its still a different argument lol
you can't just say over and over and make it true
if you were to argue domestic terrorism or something... like MAYBE. but that's actually seen a lot of progress imo
So we're doing good. Now. BEFORE we throw another helping on the plate. If people want to pump breaks a bit, I can't say that its difficult to understand. I don't blame them either. Vetting isn't impossible, but its pretty much worthless if you apply what we've been doing to something like this. Bad apples are everywhere too. You can't eliminate them. Not saying otherwise - but half the battle is understanding the capabilities and there's been a gross underestimation according to many. If not direct, then absolutely indirect. Its not about race, religion, ethnicity. Its about what we're prepared for. If a guy says he only wants "real christians in america" then he's a dick. Duh. If a guy says he wants "to be sure that the state the elected him is safe with some other trash because its election season" then is he wrong?
Fuck I hope not
Instead of adopting old practices that are basically open the gates with open arms, there should probably be a long - a very long - discussion about the best way to go about the entire process. Its not a simple one and guys from the concerned citizen to elected officials have wanted to go about it like it is.
This isn't the 50s. People are crazy unappreciative of the guys busting their asses over here...
edit: it is a different argument. you can try to tangent off that 'perspective' angle, but its still a different argument lol
you can't just say over and over and make it true
if you were to argue domestic terrorism or something... like MAYBE. but that's actually seen a lot of progress imo
You're talking about the competency of our immigration and national security system, and it being broken or incapable of handling a flux of immigrants. I'm talking about discrimination. Anyone who wants to tackle issues, present ideas, and say we're not going to let ANYONE come in. I'd be cautiously skeptical. If President Obama tomorrow said he's not going to let anyone in the country till we get the tactical side of this shit figured out, I'd be skeptical but I'd get it.
If anyone says we won't let SYRIANS, MUSLIMS, MEN, whatever the fuck, then they're wrong. There's a difference between changing a policy, and discriminating. We're going to close down this restaurant is different from "we're not going to serve to gay people".
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash/index.html
This shit is evil. Period. This is classic xenophobia, brought on by fear. If tomorrow we got into some armed conflict with Buddhists, this same shit would spread about Buddhism. This is how this shit works, like clockwork. These aren't principles that you can go "principles are nice and all" - we're not talking about leaving the last slice of Pizza for someone else to eat. This is probably the single most important geopolitical lesson we should have learned from the 20th century. Why the UN and human rights commissions and all that shit was created. It legit represents the evolution of civilized people.
I get it, resorting to this shit in times of fear. That's why I keep saying it will probably happen - this xenophobia turning into some sort of official policy on some scale. But it's bullshit and it's wrong and it always will be and always has been. And when we're no longer scared of Syria and historians write this chapter, it will be called exactly what it is.
If anyone says we won't let SYRIANS, MUSLIMS, MEN, whatever the fuck, then they're wrong. There's a difference between changing a policy, and discriminating. We're going to close down this restaurant is different from "we're not going to serve to gay people".
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash/index.html
This shit is evil. Period. This is classic xenophobia, brought on by fear. If tomorrow we got into some armed conflict with Buddhists, this same shit would spread about Buddhism. This is how this shit works, like clockwork. These aren't principles that you can go "principles are nice and all" - we're not talking about leaving the last slice of Pizza for someone else to eat. This is probably the single most important geopolitical lesson we should have learned from the 20th century. Why the UN and human rights commissions and all that shit was created. It legit represents the evolution of civilized people.
I get it, resorting to this shit in times of fear. That's why I keep saying it will probably happen - this xenophobia turning into some sort of official policy on some scale. But it's bullshit and it's wrong and it always will be and always has been. And when we're no longer scared of Syria and historians write this chapter, it will be called exactly what it is.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To PostYou're talking about the competency of our immigration system, and it being broken. I'm talking about discrimination. Anyone who wants to tackle issues, present ideas, and say we're not going to let ANYONE come in. I'd be cautiously skeptical. If President Obama tomorrow said he's not going to let anyone in the country till we get the tactical side of this shit figured out, I'd be skeptical but I'd get it.if we're not talking about the same thing then wtf?
If anyone says we won't let SYRIANS, MUSLIMS, MEN, whatever the fuck, then they're wrong. There's a difference between changing a policy, and discriminating. We're going to close down this restaurant is different from "we're not going to serve to gay people".
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash/index.html
This shit is evil. Period. These aren't principles that you can go "principles are nice and all" - we're not talking about leaving the last slice of Pizza for someone else to eat. This is akin to not having learned a gotdamn thing from the 20th century.
Only 1,500 Syrian refugees have been accepted into the United States since 2011, but the Obama administration announced in September that 10,000 Syrians will be allowed entry next year.
10,000 dude. We let in 1,000,000 immigrants every year on permanent work visas. We can't handle 10,000 Syrians? The response to this by mostly conservative governors is nothing other than fear induced racist/islamaphobic bullshit. Saying "I get it". Naw, I don't. Don't coddle your constituents baser natures on something like this.
By 3SidedPolygons Go To Post10,000 dude. We let in 1,000,000 immigrants every year on permanent work visas. We can't handle 10,000 Syrians? The response to this by mostly conservative governors is nothing other than fear induced racist/islamaphobic bullshit. Saying "I get it". Naw, I don't. Don't coddle your constituents baser natures on something like this.Who else is gonna say it? lol
Like a left governor is gonna put that out there at a time like this. Hell, those people think that Hillary is A-okay when it comes to security and foreign policy. Just as ridiculous as I stated above.
And going from 1000 to 10000 is kinda a big deal - lets not pretend that everyone enters the country the same way and under the same circumstances. That makes no sense. Small or large, significant or insignificant, its a real one. If people want to say that they feel its a security risk, they're not wrong imo. If they get racist well... they're probably racist and/or pandering to their racist base. http://gov.texas.gov/files/press-office/SyrianRefugees_BarackObama11162015.pdf isn't racist though. That is risk.
You've already said you understand its a security thing. Don't switch up now because you need to champion something that like... I'm not even remotely trying to hit at.
Again, principles is cool but guys have to make that shit happen and me being one of those guys - let me say it ain't fucking easy lol