The FOUR Times Indicted Crook Thread

[UncleKG]

Ask Merkel how well it's working out for her. Sweeden is about to throw them out. Stop lying.

Sweden’s state-funded broadcaster has revealed that of 163,000 migrants who came to Sweden, less than 500 have found jobs.

Sweden saw a record 163,000 applications for asylum last year as a result of the migrant crisis and many Swedes were assured that the new arrivals would contribute to the economy; but new research from Sweden’s state-owned SVT reveals that fewer than 500 migrants have found work.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06 ... bs-sweden/

Refugees: Welcome to Sweden, You'll Get a Job in a Decade

He could be one of the lucky ones as soon as he gets his residence permit, in a year or so. But if the past is anything to go by, about half of the refugees arriving today in the Nordic nation will still be unemployed by 2025.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... n-a-decade

Merkel's open-door policy hits German economy as 99% of migrants STILL don't have a job


THE German chancellor's controversial open-door migrant policy has been dealt another catastrophic blow after it emerged only 1 in every 10,000 migrants who arrived since last year has a job

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/710 ... oor-policy

Refugees won’t plug German labor gap

Few refugees from Syria and other war zones have vocational training or a degree.


“Let’s not delude ourselves,” said Ludger Wößmann, director of Munich-based Ifo Center for the Economics of Education. “From everything we know so far, it seems that the majority of refugees would first need extensive training and even then it’s far from certain that it would work out.”

http://www.politico.eu/article/refugees ... kills-gap/

The argument Drump's ban makes is they shouldn't be let in because of terrorism, not job prospects. You're comparing countries of 8 million and 80 million to a country of 320 (approx.) million. Stands to reason there will be more job prospects here. Even if not, you're comparing countries with far more lenient policies on allowing them in than the vetting process the US has, which takes 18 months to two years and involves fewer numbers.

[Boomchild]

A 1 in 3.42 BILLION chance of being killed on US soil by a refugee. We don't have a refugee issue that needs "fixing." Political theater.

Our intelligence agencies including the FBI has stated that we do not have the background data to properly vet the refugees. ISIS has stated that they will use this weakness to infiltrate the U.S.. That is the problem. That is why President Trump implemented the ban UNTIL he is satisfied that we have a vetting process to eliminate this problem.

[Boomchild]

The argument Drump's ban makes is they shouldn't be let in because of terrorism, not job prospects. You're comparing countries of 8 million and 80 million to a country of 320 (approx.) million. Stands to reason there will be more job prospects here. Even if not, you're comparing countries with far more lenient policies on allowing them in than the vetting process the US has, which takes 18 months to two years and involves fewer numbers.

I was pointing out the problems THEY are having. Besides that I doubt that our government has been looking at the refugees being able to find employment as a basis for granting entry into the U.S.. Furthermore it is less expensive to have safe zones set up and\or to resettle them in their region of the world then it is to up root them and place them into a country where they will have many more challenges then they have now.
It's clear that a large segment of Americans can't find work and adding more unemployed people to the mix doesn't make any sense at all.

[Boomchild]

[UncleKG]

A 1 in 3.42 BILLION chance of being killed on US soil by a refugee. We don't have a refugee issue that needs "fixing." Political theater.

Our intelligence agencies including the FBI has stated that we do not have the background data to properly vet the refugees. ISIS has stated that they will use this weakness to infiltrate the U.S.. That is the problem. That is why President Trump implemented the ban UNTIL he is satisfied that we have a vetting process to eliminate this problem.

Did they say that, or did they say it has its challenges? And what is a temporary ban going to do to rectify that? http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/aug/12/carlos-beruff/fbi-admitted-it-cannot-properly-vet-middle-eastern/

[UncleKG]

The argument Drump's ban makes is they shouldn't be let in because of terrorism, not job prospects. You're comparing countries of 8 million and 80 million to a country of 320 (approx.) million. Stands to reason there will be more job prospects here. Even if not, you're comparing countries with far more lenient policies on allowing them in than the vetting process the US has, which takes 18 months to two years and involves fewer numbers.

I was pointing out the problems THEY are having. Besides that I doubt that our government has been looking at the refugees being able to find employment as a basis for granting entry into the U.S.. Furthermore it is less expensive to have safe zones set up and\or to resettle them in their region of the world then it is to up root them and place them into a country where they will have many more challenges then they have now.
It's clear that a large segment of Americans can't find work and adding more unemployed people to the mix doesn't make any sense at all.

Then say that and stop hiding behind "terrorism" that obviously isn't an issue.

[Boomchild]

Did they say that, or did they say it has its challenges? And what is a temporary ban going to do to rectify that? http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/aug/12/carlos-beruff/fbi-admitted-it-cannot-properly-vet-middle-eastern/

President Trump said the temporary ban was to give time for a vetting process to be implemented that satisfies him and his administration. During his campaign he brought up the statements made by Comey and others about not having the background data on these refugees. How about waiting till the vetting process Trump is looking for is purposed to question it. The way it's set up currently you can take all the time you want, ask them all the questions you want but if you don't have the information to check against what they are saying it doesn't do you much good. A long and complicated process doesn't equal it being effective. My position is, if you don't have background data on a person it should automatically disqualify them from obtaining refugee status.

[Boomchild]

Then say that and stop hiding behind "terrorism" that obviously isn't an issue.

No because they both are part of the problem with the refugee situation.

[UncleKG]

Then say that and stop hiding behind "terrorism" that obviously isn't an issue.

No because they both are part of the problem with the refugee situation.

If you had a 1 in 3 BILLION chance annually of getting hit by a car walking across the street, would you suggest you have an auto/pedestrian accident "problem?" GTFO of here.

[UncleKG]

My position is, if you don't have background data on a person it should automatically disqualify them from obtaining refugee status.

There you go! No ban needed, temporary or otherwise. No background data, no refugee status. Big difference from what Drump is doing so far.

[UncleKG]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/31/public-lands-sell-congress-bureau-management-chaffetz

Republicans move to sell off 3.3m acres of national land, sparking rallies

"Due to a controversial change this month to the House of Representatives’ rules, the sale does not have to make money for the federal government. A representative for the interior department, Mike Pool, who weighed in on a version of the bill in 2011, said selling those 3.3m acres “would be unlikely to generate revenue”.

A Republican conservation group in Utah likened it at the time to “selling the house to pay the light bill”."

[Boomchild]

Then say that and stop hiding behind "terrorism" that obviously isn't an issue.

No because they both are part of the problem with the refugee situation.

If you had a 1 in 3 BILLION chance annually of getting hit by a car walking across the street, would you suggest you have an auto/pedestrian accident "problem?" GTFO of here.

We KNOW the government doesn't have the background data to properly vet these refugees. Do you want a vetting system that has that big of a hole in it? We know it would be better for the refugees to come up with a solution that they could return to their country and\or resettle in areas that have a culture and language they are accustomed to. Do you want to just prove your country is humane rather than wanting to look to what is ultimately better for the refugees?

[Boomchild]

My position is, if you don't have background data on a person it should automatically disqualify them from obtaining refugee status.

There you go! No ban needed, temporary or otherwise. No background data, no refugee status. Big difference from what Drump is doing so far.

It's a temporary ban UNTIL the whole vetting process can be examined and retooled. So to halt a flawed system until we are assured we a covering ALL the bases is a logical step. Those opposing the ban would also have a problem with not allowing entry to those without background data to vet them. Which from what our intelligence sources says is the MAJORITY of them. You think the Dems and liberals are going to accept that? Not a chance.

[verslibre]

^The LAPD already said forget it. The Chief said they can't be cops and immigration detail at the same time. Other cities have chimed in.

Maybe L.A. should let ICE do it's job then. Instead the morons in Cali want to be THE STATE to let illegals in. Good. Keep them. Keep them without Federal Funds. I love this pissing match between Jerry Brown and Donald Trump. California going to a gun fight with a water gun.

You couldn't be more a redneck if you were born a lobster.

[UncleKG]

Something for the liberal masses. some reality. By the way, you can't see a new moon. Yes, she's that stupid. Pay attention Uncle KGB.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/ ... 0983441001

Pay attention, Cherry Bomb. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2731788/iran-indonesia-foreign-minister-trump-muslim-ban-fuel-terrorism/

[UncleKG]

Say, how many attacks like Paris, Orlando, San Bernadino, Nice, Germany etc.. would you say are allowable and are really a law enforcement matter?

Last time I checked, Paris, Nice and Germany aren't in the U.S., so those aren't even in the discussion.

Both the Orlando and San Bernadino shooters were American born.

[UncleKG]

Just trying to fight liberal stupidity. Illegals are not the problem of local police, other then they get caught and turned over to the Fed's. Just trying to educate.

You might want to tell Drump that. He sure seems to think it's the local police's problem. Speaking of trying to educate... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wants-enlist-local-police-immigration-crackdown-144204364.html

[UncleKG]

We KNOW the government doesn't have the background data to properly vet these refugees. Do you want a vetting system that has that big of a hole in it? We know it would be better for the refugees to come up with a solution that they could return to their country and\or resettle in areas that have a culture and language they are accustomed to. Do you want to just prove your country is humane rather than wanting to look to what is ultimately better for the refugees?

You don't KNOW. You've read allegations, and you've read counter arguments.

How will those "safe zones" work, exactly. Apparently the ones in Libya were a disaster. Oh, and then there's this possibility. http://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-safe-zones-syria-refugees-world-war-2017-1

[UncleKG]

My position is, if you don't have background data on a person it should automatically disqualify them from obtaining refugee status.

There you go! No ban needed, temporary or otherwise. No background data, no refugee status. Big difference from what Drump is doing so far.

It's a temporary ban UNTIL the whole vetting process can be examined and retooled. So to halt a flawed system until we are assured we a covering ALL the bases is a logical step. Those opposing the ban would also have a problem with not allowing entry to those without background data to vet them. Which from what our intelligence sources says is the MAJORITY of them. You think the Dems and liberals are going to accept that? Not a chance.

Source?

[UncleKG]

Say, how many attacks like Paris, Orlando, San Bernadino, Nice, Germany etc.. would you say are allowable and are really a law enforcement matter?

Last time I checked, Paris, Nice and Germany aren't in the U.S., so those aren't even in the discussion.

Both the Orlando and San Bernadino shooters were American born.

But those Countries did exactly what you want, and their parents were. Over your head as usually.

Not even close. So, you're saying the parents went through the immigration process legally some 20-30 years ago, just as millions of others have? Their U.S. born children, who are as much U.S. citizens as you or I, then became radicalized. So, pray tell, what would you have done differently that would have prevented those kids from becoming terrorists? Because whatever you suggest you do for them, you also need to do to the Timothy McVeigh's and that kid in Charleston.

[UncleKG]

Uncle KGB is all for letting this walk right in.

http://www.cscmediagroupus.com/2017/01/31/isiskids/

You're truly hilarious. You win the prize for consistently posting the dumbest shit I see on the internet.

"They don’t want any vetting, they don’t want us to be sure that they are not terrorists, they just want to open the floodgates and let them all in."

"The Left and ISIS are working together. This is a war. The Leftist Americans don’t understand that they are helping their cause."

Rrrriiiigggghhhhtttt. Please refer to the link I just posted that shows Drump's ban is the best recruiting tool ISIS could ask for. Making Muslims believe all Americans hate Islam is central to their cause. Drump's pouring jet fuel on that particular fire.

[Boomchild]

Source?

The executive order has a set time frame. Hence the term temporary ban. As far as not having background data on the majority of the Syrian refugees that comes from our intelligence including Comey from the FBI. It's because we are not operating in Syria and the other countries included in the ban do not have stable functioning governments to work with on getting information on these refugees. It's been explained that there is such little to no information on them to even confirm that all of them are from Syria or somewhere else in the region. In my opinion, the options of trying to keep them in the region would be a better solution, has not been fully explored. People are just hell bent on extracting these people from their homeland. Obviously, we differ on this subject and no amount of rehashing this it over and over is going to change opinions.

[verslibre]

Just trying to fight liberal stupidity. Illegals are not the problem of local police, other then they get caught and turned over to the Fed's. Just trying to educate.

Jim Jones said the same thing once.

[Monker]

Source?

The executive order has a set time frame. Hence the term temporary ban. As far as not having background data on the majority of the Syrian refugees that comes from our intelligence including Comey from the FBI. It's because we are not operating in Syria and the other countries included in the ban do not have stable functioning governments to work with on getting information on these refugees. It's been explained that their is such little to no information on them to even confirm that all of are from Syria or somewhere else in the region. In my opinion, the options of trying to keep them in the region which would be a better option has not been explored. People are just just hell bent on extracting these people from their homeland. Obviously we deffer on this subject and no amount of rehashing this subject over and over is going to change opinions.

Please explain the current refugee 'vetting' process and specifically what portions you (or Tiny Hands Trump) has an issue with. Since we all know that there is a two year process, what Comey says is irrelevant because they will have AT LEAST two years of information of any immigrant. What SPECIFICALLY is the complaint> What should be added or changed?

I absolutely do not believe that anybody here even knows any SPECIFICS of what Trump the Tyrant is complaining about. In fact, I absolutely do not believe Tyranosaurus Trump knows any specifics of the current vetting process for immigrants...except what is in his imagination.

In fact, his imagination is what seems to spawn most of his policies.

[JBlake]

Just trying to fight liberal stupidity. Illegals are not the problem of local police, other then they get caught and turned over to the Fed's. Just trying to educate.

Jim Jones said the same thing once.

Are you referring to the same Jim Jones who poisoned a bunch of people and then offed himself with a handgun? If so, that's the same Jim Jones who received tons of support from high ranking Democrats in San Fran.

[JBlake]

“Matt Fuller;@MEPFuller · 23m23 minutes ago
Matt Fuller HuffPost

That’s neat.
Very convenient that the President has a helicopter to just leave the press behind.”

President Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka departed the White House on Marine One on an unannounced trip Wednesday. The destination was ‘off-the-record’ until they arrived.

The President later touched down at Dover Air Force Base to honor the return of fallen US Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens, who was killed in a Yemen raid.

Don't ya just love the press?

Too bad the media now knows where he went. A little longer and I would have loved to read about all the spin the demo lib media put on it, only to be proven incorrect yet again.

[Boomchild]

In an effort to heal the "political divide" in America, Dennis Miller has come up with "Miller's Domestic Border Plan". Someone needs to appoint this guy to a position at the DHS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCnxnD129bI

[Boomchild]

NPR yet.

A study published by NPR reveals that over 25 million Hillary Clinton votes were completely fraudulent, meaning that the Democratic candidate actually lost the popular vote by a huge margin.

A study by the Pew Center claiming that over 800,000 non-citizens voted for Hillary Clinton failed to take into account dead and fraudulent voters which totalled over 25 million “registered voters”.

According to reports, illegal aliens combined with dead voters and “multiple state” voters explains why Hillary appeared to have won the popular vote over Trump during this years presidential race.

Infowars.com reports:

“A report by the Pew Center on the States finds that more than 1.8 million dead people are currently registered to vote, and 24 million registrations are either invalid or inaccurate,” NPR reported in 2012, which is ironic given how NPR is heavily controlled by Democrats.

And many of the dead, registered voters somehow keep voting Democrat from beyond the grave, most recently in Philadelphia, Penn. and Colorado.

It’s also worth noting that the U.S. population has increased since 2012, meaning that there’s likely more dead and invalid voters than before.

“…The Pew study found that almost 3 million people are registered to vote in more than one state,” NPR added.

That’s because when a new resident registers to vote in a state, officials usually never bother to tell his former state about the change in voter residency.

Under the “catch and release” immigration program by the Obama administration, illegal aliens were routinely given bus tickets to travel to other states by immigration officials, so it was theoretically possible for non-citizens to register to vote in a border country illegally, then register to vote in another state after their taxpayer-funded bus dropped them off.

Clinton won most of the 163 most populous counties in the US that account for half of the total votes in the election, including dense urban areas in New York and California, yet she only won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, which reveals the lack of enthusiasm voters had for her in comparison to Trump – and that Democrats would have depended more on illegal votes.

A portion of the 24 million invalid voter registrations combined with a portion of the 1.8 million dead voters and the over 800,000 known illegal voters could explain the difference of 2.8 million votes, and it’s worth noting that the 800,000 figure could be a low, conservative estimate.

That said, a popular vote victory is meaningless; if the president was elected by popular vote, then both Trump and Clinton would have campaigned in entirely different states because only densely population regions of the U.S. would decide who would become president.

Without the electoral college, the United States of America would be reduced to the United States of New York and California, with 48 other vassal states.

Yet notice how Clinton campaigned in other, less populated states. They knew the popular vote was meaningless ahead of the election.

However, the popular vote is useful as a barometer for voter fraud since the most populous countries are also the most susceptible to election tampering by illegal, invalid and dead voters.

Did NPR quote InfoWars???

[Boomchild]

20 questions for the Muslim community.

https://www.facebook.com/PaulJosephWats ... 585241690/

[UncleKG]

NPR yet.

A study published by NPR reveals that over 25 million Hillary Clinton votes were completely fraudulent, meaning that the Democratic candidate actually lost the popular vote by a huge margin.

I'm just going to start cutting and pasting this on every one of your posts, because it always applies.

"You're truly hilarious. You win the prize for consistently posting the dumbest shit I see on the internet."

It's so incredibly easy to disprove 99.9% of your bullshit. http://www.snopes.com/25-million-fraud-votes-for-clinton/

If you can use Google to find all these bullshit fake news sites, you should be able to find the original study. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2012/02/14/inaccurate-costly-and-inefficient-evidence-that-americas-voter-registration-system-needs-an-upgrade

But let's not let the FACTS get in the way of your narrative, right?