Apple;1836160 wrote:You might be right!

rocketalum;1836475 wrote:How is that news? Of course it's "possible" that terrorists are hiding among the refugees. It's also possible that the Browns win the next 5 super bowls. I actually don't disagree with Trump that we need to very thoroughly vet these refugees. I'm just confused on how he thinks this isn't already sufficient and what more he plans to add? Again maybe if his EO wasn't a totally ill thought out cluster#*(& we'd have some answers on what exactly is inadequate in this process. Here's the full list of steps already in place

Registration with the United Nations.

[RIGHT]2.[/RIGHT] Interview with the United Nations.

[RIGHT]3.[/RIGHT] Refugee status granted by the United Nations.

[RIGHT]4.[/RIGHT] Referral for resettlement in the United States.

The United Nations decides if the person fits the definition of a refugee and whether to refer the person to the United States or to another country for resettlement. Only the most vulnerable are referred, accounting for less than than 1 percent of refugees worldwide. Some people spend years waiting in refugee camps.

[RIGHT]5.[/RIGHT] Interview with State Department contractors.



[RIGHT]6.[/RIGHT] First background check.

[RIGHT]7.[/RIGHT] Higher-level background check for some.

[RIGHT]8.[/RIGHT] Another background check.

The refugee’s name is run through law enforcement and intelligence databases for terrorist or criminal history. Some go through a higher-level clearance before they can continue. A third background check was introduced in 2008 for Iraqis but has since been expanded to all refugees ages 14 to 65.

[RIGHT]9.[/RIGHT] First fingerprint screening; photo taken.

[RIGHT]10.[/RIGHT] Second fingerprint screening.

[RIGHT]11.[/RIGHT] Third fingerprint screening.

The refugee’s fingerprints are screened against F.B.I. and Homeland Security databases, which contain watch list information and past immigration encounters, including if the refugee previously applied for a visa at a United States embassy. Fingerprints are also checked against those collected by the Defense Department during operations in Iraq.

[RIGHT]12.[/RIGHT] Case reviewed at United States immigration headquarters.

[RIGHT]13.[/RIGHT] Some cases referred for additional review.

Syrian applicants must undergo these two additional steps. Each is reviewed by a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services refugee specialist. Cases with “national security indicators” are given to the Homeland Security Department’s fraud detection unit.

[RIGHT]14.[/RIGHT] Extensive, in-person interview with Homeland Security officer.

Most of the interviews with Syrians have been done in Jordan and Turkey.

[RIGHT]15.[/RIGHT] Homeland Security approval is required.

[RIGHT]16.[/RIGHT] Screening for contagious diseases.

[RIGHT]17.[/RIGHT] Cultural orientation class.

[RIGHT]18.[/RIGHT] Matched with an American resettlement agency.

[RIGHT]19.[/RIGHT] Multi-agency security check before leaving for the United States.

Because of the long amount of time between the initial screening and departure, officials conduct a final check before the refugee leaves for the United States.

[RIGHT]20.[/RIGHT] Final security check at an American airport.

QuakerOats;1836934 wrote:WPost Analysis: Trump Pursuing Biggest Rollback Of Regulations Since Reagan.

The Washington Post (2/12, Eilperin) reports President Trump is undertaking “the most aggressive campaign against government regulation in a generation,” in which he is “targeting dozens of Obama-era policies.” NAM Vice President for Labor, Legal and Regulatory Policy Rosario Palmieri is quoted saying that, under the Trump administration, there’s “great optimism that all of them will be addressed.” While the administration’s effort “has alarmed labor unions, public safety advocates and environmental activists,” business groups are said to be “thrilled” at the attempt to address “long-standing complaints.” One path is the Congressional Review Act, a second is “an executive order that requires agencies to offset the cost of every significant new regulation,” and a third is the freeze on new regulations “a mainstay of new administrations.” The Post says the overall effort is the biggest since the Reagan administration and cites an OMB report finding that regulation has increased every year since 1982.


Big.

QuakerOats;1836935 wrote:Congressman Introduces Bill Gutting EPA. The Hill (2/10, Cama) reported Rep. Sam Johnson “introduced the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act on Thursday,” which would “do away with large portions of the Environmental Protection Agency” and leave the agency with a sub-$1 billion budget. The bill “would also close all of the EPA’s regional offices, halt new regulations on ground-level ozone pollution and require the agency to lease unused property.”


Really big.

QuakerOats;1837216 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/14/trump-gop-lawmakers-eye-illegal-leaks-in-wake-flynn-resignation.html


It will be good to get to the source of the illegal leaks.

ptown_trojans_1;1837224 wrote:That's your fucking contribution to this?
You are taking that line of thinking...wow.

Leaks happen, always have and always will. Good luck trying to stop them.
The leaks are the wrong angle. The more important issue and what exactly does Trump know and is there any more Russia related info that needs unearthed?

ptown_trojans_1;1837224 wrote:That's your fucking contribution to this?
You are taking that line of thinking...wow.

Leaks happen, always have and always will. Good luck trying to stop them.
The leaks are the wrong angle. The more important issue and what exactly does Trump know and is there any more Russia related info that needs unearthed?

QuakerOats;1837228 wrote:Apparently they stole the election. Is that what you want to hear, or believe?

ptown_trojans_1;1837231 wrote:It's not what I want to hear or believe.
Flynn talked to the Russians, lied about it, the White House knew for weeks, had evidence from other agencies, and did nothing. Is there anything else that Flynn knew or did with the Russians. Did they talk about the DNC hack at all, the kicking out of the Russian agents? Was there any deal on the table about relief of sanctions?
As I mentioned, this opens the whole Russia story again.

Leaks happen man. DC was built on them. Sorry if just now you are upset about them cause it is going against your man crush.

rocketalum;1837232 wrote:Republicans 2012: "Romney is right that Russia is our biggest threat. How stupid is Obama for laughing him off during the debate!"

Republicans 2017: "Nothing to see here"

rocketalum;1837232 wrote:Republicans 2012: "Romney is right that Russia is our biggest threat. How stupid is Obama for laughing him off during the debate!"

Republicans 2017: "Nothing to see here"

superman;1837236 wrote:Leaks happen?
This coming from a guy who would sucked off Obama if given the chance. The same Obama that went after whistleblowers harder than anyone ever?

QuakerOats;1837239 wrote:Maybe you did not check the links above; Republicans are the ones saying they will investigate it.

ptown_trojans_1;1837242 wrote:Wrong. They are not investigating Russia. They want to go after the source of the news story. Totally different.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday it's "highly likely" the the Senate intelligence committee will investigate former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador.

majorspark;1837248 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/republicans-want-flynn-investigations/

superman;1837237 wrote:Democrats 2012: Russia, haha why are you still living in the 80's?
Democrats 2017: OMG! Russia is the greatest enemy the world has ever known.
See how it goes both ways, dipshit?

QuakerOats;1837263 wrote:Markets shrugging it off. Since the election we are running at a 60% annualized clip on the Dow.
Too much winning; that needs to slow down.

rocketalum;1837264 wrote:While throwing the "dipshit" in there makes your argument immediately weaker, I'm willing to admit when I made a bad point. What you've pointed out though is that there are idiots on both sides of the isle. If you remove the groups from my example and yours it doesn't change the fact that there are relationships between this administration (don't forget Paul Manafort resigned due to Russian ties as well) and what we'll call a "less than friendly" foreign power. Is that not worth looking into?