[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?


  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
People who enter a country illegally are criminals, why would any leader not want to deport them?
Because they might have a legitimate claim to asylum. Look at the Yazidi people living in northern Iraq - routinely and systematically persecuted by ISIL in unspeakably brutal ways. If they arrive in a country via illegal means, can you reasonably deport them knowing what will happen to them?

The issue isn't so much illegal arrivals as it is the unspoken implication that seeking asylum is illegal.
 
Seeking asylum is not illegal, there is no need for anyone to seek asylum from Mexico to the U.S. though so, we are speaking of criminal activities only.

The United States holds many many of these people in prison camps and deports them on a regular basis, under the liberal leader of Obama's watch.

The U.S. government has the largest immigration detention system in the world, and that is nothing to be proud of. The underlying problem with immigration detention is that most detainees are only guilty of being in the U.S. without authorization, which is a civil offense, not a crime.

The liberal stance even, from here. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/reyes-immigration-detention/

It is a crime to illegally enter a country period.
 
Oh I know, a crime is only a crime when it is defined as one, I get that part. It is still a crime and is punishable only by deportation, what a stiff penalty for committing a crime.

Why not enter legally btw, the U.S. is a very friendly country when it comes to immigration.
 
Last edited:
No, but on the other hand, this was made in favour of someone who did try to assassinate a presidential candidate. Regardless of what side of the aisle you happen to be on (I would do the same thing if someone tried to assassinate Mrs. Clinton and someone made a similar post), this is inexcusable and should be called out at every turn.
Might it have been that he was referencing this quotation and concluding that there's no such thing as a "good guy with a gun" in this context?

If some of those wonderful people had guns strapped right to their waist, or right to their ankle, and this son of a bitch comes out and starts shooting, and one of the people in that room happened to have it, and goes 'boom', you know what that would have been a beautiful, beautiful sight.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-shot-son-bitch-it-would-have-been-beautiful-
 
Because they might have a legitimate claim to asylum. Look at the Yazidi people living in northern Iraq - routinely and systematically persecuted by ISIL in unspeakably brutal ways. If they arrive in a country via illegal means, can you reasonably deport them knowing what will happen to them?

The issue isn't so much illegal arrivals as it is the unspoken implication that seeking asylum is illegal.
Actually the issue is illegal arrivals, whether they might also have claim to asylum is a minor offshoot of the main issue if it even applies at all.
 
Whilst illegal arrivals must be stopped, deporting 11 million isn't practical, possible or even viable.
 
And those who tried to blame Obama are also wrong, he ordered to military to deploy. It was someone in the military who didn't get the message.
No, where Obama is wrong is he skipped his intelligence briefing the following day, something that he is known for. If he hadn't, he would have known that the YouTube video that he blamed the attack on wasn't the motive of the attack, and would have asked questions.
 
And those who tried to blame Obama are also wrong, he ordered to military to deploy. It was someone in the military who didn't get the message.

Can we just agree they lied to America about the reason it happened because they wanted to look good at election time? Not illegal, just incredibly dishonest.

And rather than see that as the conclusion here, the Hillary supporters are trying to spin this to "Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong."

I'm curious what her supporters will say about her passing classified emails over her private email server.

Move along, nothing to see here...
 
Why are we still talking about Benghazi? I mean the more the GOP keep bringing it up the more it only benefits Killary. Like I said, if the GOP really want to go after Killary then why no hit her on the war she started thus enabling ISIS?

On another note its quite amazing how liberals/progressives are starting to fall in line and accept Killary's hawkish view.
 
The two previous Sect. of States both did the same thing Hillary did with their private email servers as well. Can't blame one without also blaming the others.
 
Citation?
I don't care about whether the website is liberal or conservative, they're the only ones that have updated the stories recently.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/condoleezza-rice-emails-state-department-115941

John Kerry uses a government provided email account and is the first to do so. Source for that is in the Rice link.


Small correction on my part then. Rice had accessibility to a private setup but it's reported that she barely used email while in office, so it's just Clinton and Powell of the 4 in the electronic era. Clinton takes center of attention due to how much she used it. Powell deleted his emails and is working to try to get them back if possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back