Extreme vetting

Why doesn't anyone in the opposition or the media (not the same thing cheese ) ever point out that the vetting we've had in place since 9/11 has pretty much been 100% effective?


Why do we need more?





drummerboy said:
Why doesn't anyone in the opposition or the media (not the same thing cheese ) ever point out that the vetting we've had in place since 9/11 has pretty much been 100% effective?



Why do we need more?

"100% illusion of efficacy". There, fixed it for ya.


Why do you think the vetting has not been highly effective?

prisoners_dilemma said:



drummerboy said:
Why doesn't anyone in the opposition or the media (not the same thing cheese ) ever point out that the vetting we've had in place since 9/11 has pretty much been 100% effective?



Why do we need more?

"100% illusion of efficacy". There, fixed it for ya.



Vetting. Its a word that stands alone, no need for the description "extreme". Its a stupid marketing tool designed to instill fear in the sheep that believe we are in danger from immigrants.




What Trump seems to be talking about is targeted vetting based on country of origin. Keeping individuals from war zones out of the country until proper ID can be established. It's not a perfect idea, the rollout was extremely disjointed, and certainly innocents have gotten caught up in it. You have to admit, in a day and age when documents can be forged, not just physically, but electronically, it does make some small bit of sense.

tjohn said:

Why do you think the vetting has not been highly effective?
prisoners_dilemma said:



drummerboy said:
Why doesn't anyone in the opposition or the media (not the same thing cheese ) ever point out that the vetting we've had in place since 9/11 has pretty much been 100% effective?



Why do we need more?

"100% illusion of efficacy". There, fixed it for ya.



I guess that is why this is already being done - because it makes sense.

prisoners_dilemma said:

What Trump seems to be talking about is targeted vetting based on country of origin. Keeping individuals from war zones out of the country until proper ID can be established. It's not a perfect idea, the rollout was extremely disjointed, and certainly innocents have gotten caught up in it. You have to admit, in a day and age when documents can be forged, not just physically, but electronically, it does make some small bit of sense.

tjohn said:

Why do you think the vetting has not been highly effective?
prisoners_dilemma said:



drummerboy said:
Why doesn't anyone in the opposition or the media (not the same thing cheese ) ever point out that the vetting we've had in place since 9/11 has pretty much been 100% effective?



Why do we need more?

"100% illusion of efficacy". There, fixed it for ya.



Yes, it was just a continuation of an Obama policy, but since Trump is doing it, it must be evil and he must be skewered.

tjohn said:

I guess that is why this is already being done - because it makes sense.
prisoners_dilemma said:

What Trump seems to be talking about is targeted vetting based on country of origin. Keeping individuals from war zones out of the country until proper ID can be established. It's not a perfect idea, the rollout was extremely disjointed, and certainly innocents have gotten caught up in it. You have to admit, in a day and age when documents can be forged, not just physically, but electronically, it does make some small bit of sense.

tjohn said:

Why do you think the vetting has not been highly effective?
prisoners_dilemma said:



drummerboy said:
Why doesn't anyone in the opposition or the media (not the same thing cheese ) ever point out that the vetting we've had in place since 9/11 has pretty much been 100% effective?



Why do we need more?

"100% illusion of efficacy". There, fixed it for ya.



Unlike Trump, Obama and, later, HRC, didn't campaign on a "Muslim" ban. That's the part that is nasty and xenophobic. Nobody was really questioning the vetting process.


Whoever advised him on that idea, if anyone, should be fired. Not too bright positioning it that way. Not what he said, but how he said it.

tjohn said:

Unlike Trump, Obama and, later, HRC, didn't campaign on a "Muslim" ban. That's the part that is nasty and xenophobic. Nobody was really questioning the vetting process.



Right, so it's great if that is the intent, you just need to pretend otherwise?

prisoners_dilemma said:

Whoever advised him on that idea, if anyone, should be fired. Not too bright positioning it that way. Not what he said, but how he said it.

tjohn said:

Unlike Trump, Obama and, later, HRC, didn't campaign on a "Muslim" ban. That's the part that is nasty and xenophobic. Nobody was really questioning the vetting process.



it's because we don't have extreme vetting of presidential advisors. or presidential candidates, for that matter.

prisoners_dilemma said:

Whoever advised him on that idea, if anyone, should be fired. Not too bright positioning it that way. Not what he said, but how he said it.

tjohn said:

Unlike Trump, Obama and, later, HRC, didn't campaign on a "Muslim" ban. That's the part that is nasty and xenophobic. Nobody was really questioning the vetting process.



Since the Courts blocked the Executive Order how many terrorists have slipped into the country?

If the Trumpites really believe that that EO was necessary to protect the country why did they not issue a revised one immediately?


you're a perfect Trump supporter.

Everything you say is wrong.

Thanks for proving my point.

Trump's ban has pretty much zero to do with what Obama did, except that the same countries are involved.

That's it. Procedures and intent are utterly unrelated.


prisoners_dilemma said:

Yes, it was just a continuation of an Obama policy, but since Trump is doing it, it must be evil and he must be skewered.

tjohn said:

I guess that is why this is already being done - because it makes sense.
prisoners_dilemma said:

What Trump seems to be talking about is targeted vetting based on country of origin. Keeping individuals from war zones out of the country until proper ID can be established. It's not a perfect idea, the rollout was extremely disjointed, and certainly innocents have gotten caught up in it. You have to admit, in a day and age when documents can be forged, not just physically, but electronically, it does make some small bit of sense.

tjohn said:

Why do you think the vetting has not been highly effective?
prisoners_dilemma said:



drummerboy said:
Why doesn't anyone in the opposition or the media (not the same thing cheese ) ever point out that the vetting we've had in place since 9/11 has pretty much been 100% effective?



Why do we need more?

"100% illusion of efficacy". There, fixed it for ya.



my point here is that why didn't Hillary or Obama point out the rather obvious fact that the vetting that was in place was very stringent and worked perfectly, as no foreign nationals came to the US to commit a terrorist attack in all that time.

They let Trump take over the whole "vetting" narrative.

sometimes the Dems seem so clueless....

tjohn said:

Unlike Trump, Obama and, later, HRC, didn't campaign on a "Muslim" ban. That's the part that is nasty and xenophobic. Nobody was really questioning the vetting process.



yeah, so tell us which attacks were committed here by people sneaking into the country.

prisoners_dilemma said:



drummerboy said:
Why doesn't anyone in the opposition or the media (not the same thing cheese ) ever point out that the vetting we've had in place since 9/11 has pretty much been 100% effective?



Why do we need more?

"100% illusion of efficacy". There, fixed it for ya.




In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.