President Trump- The Implications

[Hoss]

My big concern right now is his want to repeal the Johnson Amendment.  I'm all for that, as long as churches start paying taxes.  I can think of one 'church' right now that would fight that tooth and nail.

[heironymouspasparagus]

My big concern right now is his want to repeal the Johnson Amendment.  I'm all for that, as long as churches start paying taxes.  I can think of one 'church' right now that would fight that tooth and nail.

So...you don't go to church do you?  I am still looking so attend different places from time to time.  Have been to several last year where there was open endorsement going on regularly.  Needless to say, none of the above!

[TulsaMoon]

In what way did what Trump do make us safer than what Obama was doing?

Didn't say what he was doing made us safer, couldn't say that since we don't know if that is true or not. What I have said is I supported President Obama and I support Trump in this area. The difference that I see is proactive vs reactive.

President Obama put into place the restrictions due to the two individuals that slipped through the cracks, ended up in Kentucky and was later to be found to have placed roadside bombs in Iraq targeting US troops. His was a reaction to a vetting process that failed.

Trump is proactive with a 120 day timeline to fix the broken vetting process. Just how that will be fixed is beyond me since I see no fixes for anything in the near future.

Also, let me make this clear. I am not a die hard Trump supporter. I said it here in the past and I will say it again. He is, in my opinion, Sheep in wolves clothing. My entire point was pertaining to the ban, what the differences were and why when President Obama did it that no one was outraged like they are today when Trump signed bans. Yes yes, I know, stupid ol me, I no not math, I didn't gradumatate third grade....

So explain to me just how President Obama determined what people belonged to what group and from where? How do you do that? Really, this is not a sarcastic question. Do you just take the words of the people attempting to enter the US? Do you take the fake papers that he himself talked about and inadvertently allow two guys proved to be bombers later into the country? How do you properly vet certain groups or individuals?

President Obama did the right thing by taking a step back and attempting to fix this. Trump is doing the right thing by taking 120 days to come up with a vetting solution.

[swake]

Didn't say what he was doing made us safer, couldn't say that since we don't know if that is true or not. What I have said is I supported President Obama and I support Trump in this area. The difference that I see is proactive vs reactive.

President Obama put into place the restrictions due to the two individuals that slipped through the cracks, ended up in Kentucky and was later to be found to have placed roadside bombs in Iraq targeting US troops. His was a reaction to a vetting process that failed.

Trump is proactive with a 120 day timeline to fix the broken vetting process. Just how that will be fixed is beyond me since I see no fixes for anything in the near future.

Also, let me make this clear. I am not a die hard Trump supporter. I said it here in the past and I will say it again. He is, in my opinion, Sheep in wolves clothing. My entire point was pertaining to the ban, what the differences were and why when President Obama did it that no one was outraged like they are today when Trump signed bans. Yes yes, I know, stupid ol me, I no not math, I didn't gradumatate third grade....

So explain to me just how President Obama determined what people belonged to what group and from where? How do you do that? Really, this is not a sarcastic question. Do you just take the words of the people attempting to enter the US? Do you take the fake papers that he himself talked about and inadvertently allow two guys proved to be bombers later into the country? How do you properly vet certain groups or individuals?

President Obama did the right thing by taking a step back and attempting to fix this. Trump is doing the right thing by taking 120 days to come up with a vetting solution.

How is the current vetting process broken?

[TulsaMoon]

How is the current vetting process broken?

Some officials, including FBI Director James Comey, worry there are what Comey has called "gaps" in the vetting process. Experts say U.S. intelligence in Syria isn't very good, because the U.S. lacks much of a presence on the ground. So there's no way to compile a thorough watch list of possible terrorists from Syria against which refugees can be checked.

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

Federal agents are reinvestigating the backgrounds of dozens of Syrian refugees already in the United States after discovering a lapse in vetting that allowed some who had potentially negative information in their files to enter the country, two U.S. law enforcement officials said.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html

How it is broke I do not know, but as you can see by NPR and by LA Times, serious issues are there. Do you not see an issue?

[swake]

Some officials, including FBI Director James Comey, worry there are what Comey has called "gaps" in the vetting process. Experts say U.S. intelligence in Syria isn't very good, because the U.S. lacks much of a presence on the ground. So there's no way to compile a thorough watch list of possible terrorists from Syria against which refugees can be checked.

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456395388/paris-attacks-ignite-debate-over-u-s-refugee-policy

Federal agents are reinvestigating the backgrounds of dozens of Syrian refugees already in the United States after discovering a lapse in vetting that allowed some who had potentially negative information in their files to enter the country, two U.S. law enforcement officials said.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-syria-refugees-vetting-gap-20170125-story.html

How it is broke I do not know, but as you can see by NPR and by LA Times, serious issues are there. Do you not see an issue?

So how many Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks by refugees or immigrants from those seven nations since Obama redid the vetting process in 2011?

Zero.

[Conan71]

So how many Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks by refugees or immigrants from those seven nations since Obama redid the vetting process in 2011?

Zero.

So far.

[Red Arrow]

So far.

That we know about.

[swake]

Good lord, you are far more likely to be killed by a lightning strike or a shark attack than a terrorist, and that's including the right wing wackos. You take a far greater risk getting into a car and driving than your risk of harm in a terrorist attack, many, many times a greater risk.

[rebound]

Good lord, you are far more likely to be killed by a lightning strike or a shark attack than a terrorist, and that's including the right wing wackos. You take a far greater risk getting into a car and driving than your risk of harm in a terrorist attack, many, many times a greater risk.

I don't disagree, but that is an illogical argument to an illogical (but legitimate) fear.    People are always more comfortable with risk when they get the choice of whether to take the risk.   (Don't like sharks, stay out of the water. Fear a car wreck? Don't ride in a car, etc...)   Terrorism, or at least the emotional consideration of terrorism, has nothing to do with an action on the person's part.  There is no assumed risk.  Of course it is illogical, but so are a lot fears. It does not dismiss their legitimacy regarding how the public feels.

But again, I agree with your general position.

[Conan71]

As long as people keep pretending assuring us the random attacks around Europe, San Bernardino, Orlando, Boston, Ft. Hood, the Twin Towers, Pentagon, etc. were not inspired all or in part by radical Islam or radical Islamic thought then most certainly this is a big to-do about nothing.

For some reason, those seven countries ended up on Obama's list and Trump's list as being problematic.  I don't have the sort of security clearance to make an educated decision as to whether or not better vetting is needed of immigrants from these countries. 

I just figured everyone who is losing their sh!t over this is because it's a foregone conclusion Trump is a racist, misogynist, bigot, xeno/homophobe and national security would be of minimal interest to him unless it coincides with his personal business interests.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I still don't know what extreme vetting changes.  They don't have a clue what they are doing other than they are going to change things.  Maybe its better.. Maybe its worse. They could have rolled this out with minimal news coverage but they wanted to get global attention by the mass chaos. 

[AquaMan]

I don't disagree, but that is an illogical argument to an illogical (but legitimate) fear.    People are always more comfortable with risk when they get the choice of whether to take the risk.   (Don't like sharks, stay out of the water. Fear a car wreck? Don't ride in a car, etc...)   Terrorism, or at least the emotional consideration of terrorism, has nothing to do with an action on the person's part.  There is no assumed risk.  Of course it is illogical, but so are a lot fears. It does not dismiss their legitimacy regarding how the public feels.

But again, I agree with your general position.

Life is deadly. Whether its a lightning bolt or a recluse spider or a plane dropping out of the sky and falling on you, the percentages are always going to be used in an argument like that. It is legitimate. You really don't have the choice to not take those risks. Terrorism is just a part of life that also has nothing to do with action on the person's part. One must assume all of life is a deadly risk. Once you realize that there is no safety, then you can start to assign the relative risk. Terrorism of all kinds has less effect on ones safety than weather related risks and you cannot responsibly spend more money and effort to defend against terrorism than against a hurricane. But, I also agree that the how the public "feels" is also a consideration politically.

[erfalf]

But the perception is (correct or not) by and large something CAN be done about it. Whereas a lightning strike, not so much. Airplanes, we take measures to reduce that. The perception is shared by many that something MORE could be done to alleviate this risk.

Sometimes politics has to deal with perception more than reality.

[patric]

They could have rolled this out with minimal news coverage but they wanted to get global attention by the mass chaos. 

Or ratings.  Sometimes it seems he is still looking at the presidency as if it were a reality TV show.