|
Re: 2016 Election
There is a difference between saying people need to be properly vetted and saying an entire religion should be banned. This is not rocket science.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by morpeth
(Post 12016363)
Even Trump's strongest supporters must shake their heads and wonder what goes on in his mind from some of his responses to questions. Some people have said that if Trump wants to win the election all he needs to do is not speak for next three months.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12016433)
There is a difference between saying people need to be properly vetted and saying an entire religion should be banned. This is not rocket science.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12016444)
Effectively it means the same thing.
Muslims are properly vetted through the immigration process every single day. Do you think all of the Muslim spouses, children, doctors and engineers are just waived through? They all went through the same background checks as any other legal immigrant --- and if they were from certain countries, they went through much more strident screening processes. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12016448)
No. It. Does. Not.
Muslims are properly vetted through the immigration process every single day. Do you think all of the Muslim spouses, children, doctors and engineers are just waived through? They all went through the same background checks as any other legal immigrant --- and if they were from certain countries, they went through much more strident screening processes. Properly vetted would not equate to what currently happens. In many ways of course such an objective is impossible. |
Re: 2016 Election
Oh dear.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12016457)
Never occurred to me for a minute that is was not just a facade as that California shooting showed.
Properly vetted would not equate to what currently happens. In many ways of course such an objective is impossible. This is a conversation worth having. Not that Trump nonsense. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by morpeth
(Post 12016080)
Actually I know many who think that if Trump could just keep control of his comments the election would his by a landslide because many people - democrats or republicans feel country is on a wrong path, and more of the same isn't the answer.
I think the debates will lose the presidency for Trump. Now considering the billions that have been spent convincing the American public of this, despite the fact that America is still amongst the most prosperous on earth (even if it's not perfect), an there's little evidence to suggest that will change anytime soon (notwithstanding an unexpected radical change of some sort) ... ... I'm more inclined to suspect that democrats or republicans |
Re: 2016 Election
If you take the California example there were a sea of red flags about her past.
Seems that much of this was known to the Pakistani Security Services, but not shared. Even in countries which might be described as friendly and might share data if available, the Belgium situation etc showed that often the left and right hands do not communicate. And all this supposes there is data out there in the first place. Often that does not seem to be the case. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12016470)
If you take the California example there were a sea of red flags about her past.
Seems that much of this was known to the Pakistani Security Services, but not shared. Even in countries which might be described as friendly and might share data if available, the Belgium situation etc showed that often the left and right hands do not communicate. And all this supposes there is data out there in the first place. Often that does not seem to be the case. I do think that the INS needs to look at the social media footprint of all potential immigrants from all countries. This is the world we live in. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12016484)
So, are you saying the strict, post 9/11, screening processes have been loosened? Or they were never tight enough? And where do you get your information regarding the specific screening processes? Regardless of your answers, this isn't the same conversation that Trump is promoting.
I do think that the INS needs to look at the social media footprint of all potential immigrants from all countries. This is the world we live in. They check databases but you have to be on one for a start and one that they then can access. Social media? Well I know people post stupid stuff on there but not sure how that helps, I have a Facebook account, and Twitter, do not say anything political on Facebook and I think tweeted a couple of time, then stopped. Lots of my friends use neither. INS have not been around for years. How many times when a incident occurs does the comment come back that they were not on the radar, subsequent intensive and detailed investigation usually comes up with something. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12016488)
Let's be realistic, screening has always been limited from Ellis Island onwards.
They check databases but you have to be on one for a start and one that they then can access. Social media? Well I know people post stupid stuff on there but not sure how that helps, I have a Facebook account, and Twitter, do not say anything political on Facebook and I think tweeted a couple of time, then stopped. Lots of my friends use neither. INS have not been around for years. How many times when a incident occurs does the comment come back that they were not on the radar, subsequent intensive and detailed investigation usually comes up with something. |
Re: 2016 Election
Hillary ahead of the curve again... Below is an extract from the article at the link, which is well worth reading by all voters who haven't yet made their minds up.
"We know that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC and we know that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we know that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin," Clinton said in an interview with "Fox News Sunday." Wait, we "know" that? Just yesterday we reported that the NSA has launched a campaign to determine if, indeed, as many have claims Russia is behind the hacking. Hillary Officially Accuses Russia Of Hacking DNC As Assange Says She Conspired To "Subvert An Election" | Zero Hedge |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12016495)
If the US system is so badly leaking, leaking like a sive, allegedly ... why has there only been one successful terrorist attack by a foreign born immigrant since 9/11?
San Bernardino...December 2013. One American...One Pakistani |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12016484)
So, are you saying the strict, post 9/11, screening processes have been loosened? Or they were never tight enough? And where do you get your information regarding the specific screening processes? Regardless of your answers, this isn't the same conversation that Trump is promoting.
I do think that the INS needs to look at the social media footprint of all potential immigrants from all countries. This is the world we live in. The San Bernadino case was someone coming in on a visa where rigorous vetting is not applied, only the usual 9/11 strict screening ? |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:36 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.