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.

It's crystal clear what goes on in his mind. He tells us in real time.

Effectively it means the same thing.

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.

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.

Oh dear.

How was it a farce? What more should the INS have done? Which particular screening process did they fail to apply?

This is a conversation worth having. Not that Trump nonsense.

If you listen to the republican rhetoric, it is absolutely without any question that the country is in very deep trouble. And if you listen to Trump, it's imminently going down in flames, and only he can save it.

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 feel have been led to believe the country is on a wrong path, and are being led to fear it so much that they'll completely ignore the fact that they are about to elect a narcissistic charlatan xenophobe to lead it.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Boston bombings...April 2013.

San Bernardino...December 2013. One American...One Pakistani

I thought the 'cannot fully vet' comment from the FBI was with regards to the Syrian refugees

The San Bernadino case was someone coming in on a visa where rigorous vetting is not applied, only the usual 9/11 strict screening

?