Lager's post pretty much sums it up.  I don't know what Trump was talking about.  Maybe he was trying to fire up his base of supporters?  Who can say?  I'm guessing we already had in place the most vigorous vetting process in the world.

Last edited by Just Fred (2/10/2017 6:55 am)

Tim15856 wrote:

tennyson wrote:

Tim OBVIOUSLY has not taken the time to even understand what the current vetting process is. No sense discussing with him until he really does some factual analysis. I am guessing THAT is not going to happen. 
 

Blah blah blah. If you took the time to watch the video you'd see that in some cases all it takes is the word of the refugee to get approved.

I'm guessing we already had in place the vigorous vetting process in the world.

Yep, just a guess and as the video shows, not altogether true.

Not altogether,,,, in some cases,,,,
I thought you said that there was no vetting process at all.
Maybe, Tim, if you didn't wildly overstate your case at the outset, we could have a discussion.

Just Fred wrote:

I read through Lager's post #9 and I'm trying to figure out what improvements you would want to make in this process.  I'm sure, like any installed program or process, there can be cases where somebody might screw up or be careless.  Human error exists no matter what process is to be followed, but I wondering what an 'extreme vetting' process is all about and how it would become fool-proof.

Of course that is true, even with "whatever" extreme vetting is (which no one yet can even describe). 
 

TheLagerLad wrote:

Again, "Extreme Vetting" is a marketing slogan. 

By definition, someone can "extremely" vetted. They can be thoroughly vetted. They can be comprehensively vetted. But the word extreme is far too open to interpretation to have any true meaning.

Per Tim's video, it is clear that perhaps there are holes in the process. But there is no evidence that a blanket travel ban closes those holes.  

True. 

And I will add that ANYONE that starts out their response by saying that it will be better than our "no vetting" really doesn't understand or want to understand the current system. 

Are their problems with almost ANY system. Sure. But the current system is pretty darn good. As evidence we have had pretty much a clean record here in the U.S. in that sense over the last 8 years. Should we keep looking for ways to improve it, obviously. 

The "extreme vetting" is just red meat and relies on peoples fears and not much more. 
 

Last edited by tennyson (2/10/2017 10:05 am)

Tim15856 wrote:

You guys love to pick out one word in an entire post and try to make that the topic. Here's some related info.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/318615-white-house-releases-list-of-terror-suspects-admitted-to-us-from

The reason for stiffening the vetting process.

US Intel: ISIS May Have Passport Printing Machine, Blank Passports

http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-intel-isis-passport-printing-machine-blank-passports/story?id=35700681
 

OK, so now you are calling for stiffening the vetting process.
A couple of days ago you said that there wasn't a vetting process at all.
What am I supposed to make of this?