Why not put the United states first.

When it comes to letting "refugees" in the country, why not put the safety of the American public first like Trump is trying to do? Do all the fools and that includes Fed judges that wont follow the law realize they are putting fellow Americans at risk? The fact is here is they may even be signing their own death warrant, or the lives of their family and friends. It just depends on where a muslim radicalized into action by some ISIS terrorist.

It simply appears that they are doing this just to be against or put down anything that Trump wants to do.

Can anyone the forum give me a common sense logical reason not to go along with President Tump when he is trying to protect us all?

 

We are already well protected all trumps rhetoric is doing is slopping the Hogs

 

That has to be the most misinformed comment I've ever read on this forum. With Bush's stupid wars and Obama's decimation of the military if a determined enemy attacked us tomorrow we would lose.We no longer have the industrial base to create the materiel necessary to fight a protracted war. Even if we had the facilities we'd still fall short because we no longer have skilled labor. Vocational education in our public schools used to create qualified draftsmen, machinists, fabricators and welders. This is no longer the case because there's no market for it all of that stuff was outsourced long ago. So what shall we do buy weapons from China? Our nuclear weapons are ancient and have fallen victim to politics. Last but not least our armed forces are under equipped and thinly spread. Think about this we're still heavily engaged in the Middle East and are doing so with mostly National Guard units and reservists all of whom have been on a half dozen or more deployments.These courageous young people are all that stands between us and those that wish to do us harm. In the 1940s America was a united country and by today's standards mostly conservative. When war broke out young men and women rushed to do their part. Today we are so divided (the price of diversity by the way) that even if conscripted we'd still fall short of qualified individuals necessary to prosecute a war because half of our nation doesn't have a clue about what patriotism really means. So you can blow rainbows out of your arse all you want but that is the reality of the situation. Hope you sleep well tonight.

 

I just don't have the energy to go into it there's so much wrong so much in correct and so much inaccurate about your post I'll just quit by saying diversity fought the Civil War the Irish came and went right into the Union Army. Reducing the size of the military during peacetime is what America always has done you need to Bone up on what it means to be an American

 

We would lose? To who?

We spend three times what the rest of the world spends on military.

 

So you're saying we're going to be protected by people who have no love for America and are coming here only because they're being turned away everywhere else. hmmm brilliant!!!!

 

To me people that would let possible radical muslim terrorist into the country are the type of person that would sail on the Titanic just as long as they had first class tickets.

 

Whatever we're spending is not enough. China or Russia if so inclined would be the victors.

 

Hence the reason you can sit there with your high fancy tablet or iPad and free to say whatever you like on a public forum.

 

We spend money so it's the best? Do we spend wisely is the question.

 

russia and china are both cutting their military spending.

 

True, but the Irish came in with Irish Flags.....flying right under the Stars and Stripes. I think the point made on diversity today and what it means to be an American has changed. Many coming here wouldn't walk through a hailstorm such as the Irish Brigade did at Sharpsburg, Katzgar. I do agree that the American military has always reduced during peace time....and it's hurt us each and every time. The points being made though are valid by God and Country. Reserve units needed, naval resources stretched as sailors must endure longer deployments. The military is stretched, and common defense above all is the primary purpose of our federal government.

 

You didn't hit them nearly hard enough on this: If spending money makes it the best, why isn't this same argument given for health care? . In truth, the US military may very well be well-armed, but the Spirit of the Nation is crippled. What good is military power if the soldiers themselves don't believe in the cause they're fighting for? Or if the civilians don't believe in the same cause?

Misuse and abuse of US military power has weakened the United States and strengthened our adversaries.

 

it has been more important to reduce the military in peace time out of concerns about a large standing army affecting our freedoms. The current size of the military is more than adequate for todays threats.

 

Sorry, and well said

 

Tough question. Let's take the Navy alone. We have an aging fleet. We currently run 10 aircraft carriers. A new Ford class Carrier being built...and they're like....13+ billion per. USS Ford, USS John F. Kennedy, and of course the USS Enterprise will include strike fighters and onboard 21st century weaponry. Our Ohio Class subs are aging and need replacement, where would you put money?

Repeated each and every time during times of 'peace'. Those many times you mentioned where we reduced our military capacities, that ended up costing us dearly...do you not take those into account?

 

What?! One of your buddies started a thread about how horrible the terrorism will be in NYC if trump cuts their terrorism budget. Is one of you lying?

 

Russia's had been increasing until 2016, China's has continued to increase. Can you provide links here as to your claims?

 

I'm not convinced that they cost us dearly but I do very much value my freedoms

 

Okay now you're not making sense

 

The culture prevalent among the trendy elite is so self-hating that the idea of America First comes off as blasphemous to their worldview.

I simply don't understand the moral maze these people navigate when not wanting to put their country and countrymen first on issues like this. We see hollywood celebrities screaming #refugeeswelcome, about how we need to financially support them. Well, on their way to the red carpet, how many homeless Americans did they ignore in the gutters as their limos drove by? Starbucks wants to hire refugees? Well how about the absurd unemployment rate among young Americans, especially Black Americans that those jobs could benefit?

The preference to focus on the foreigner is all about virtue signalling. It's trendy to say #refugeeswelcome, you will be seen, you will be put in the spotlight. Assisting the unemployed, sick, and homeless that are already in America just won't get you the same praise in the media to feed your narcissism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

We spend 3x what China spends (600 billion against 200 billion) and no other country spends over 100 billion per year

Saudi Arabia spends more than Russia does.

 

You offer no substantive rebuttal at all!

In fact, the US admits fewer refugees than any other Western country. It takes over two years for a Syrian refugee wanting to come to the United States to gain clearence to even come to this country. This was the case before Trump.

Of course, if Trump really wanted to know "what the hell is going on", all he had to do was ask.

But that was not his intention. His intention was to fearmonger and play to anti Islamic bigotry, which is widespread amongst his flat earth base.

Your post is a great example. Much of it is made up drivel, and none of it addresses the person you responded to at all.

Your assertion that most people in the 1940's were conservative by modern standards is demonstrably false. All one has to do is look at the 1948 US Presidential election, when the voters elected NOT to undo the New Deal and go back to the days of robber baron capitalism, as modern conservatives have been trying to do for a generation.

 

Your post is a straw man argument.

You invent a label, "trendy elite", and assign values to them. All of them are made up by you so you can debate your own construct.

As for Hollywood elite, I seem to recall Clint Eastwood and his chair.

 

I don't believe in robber baron capitalism, I do believe the New Deal largely didn't accomplish its goal and neither have any of the other government programs. I actually think making a more serious investment to eradicating poverty rather than treating its symptoms will be better for the US and all 325 million Americans.