Couple questions I had not meant to bother anyone...
The likelihood that something will happen in the US is pretty great I'd suppose at this point? The method seems pretty easy, if even just 20 of the thousands of refugees coming here have bad intentions, it seems like homemade explosives are easy enough to make this point (not to mention, guns are easy enough to get)...the likelihood has to be some sort of crude suicide bomb, yes? This seems to not be a matter of if, but of when and where...or am I way off base? Pick up standard materials used to create a chemical reaction, walk into a crowded place during a crowded event and set it off. What am I missing there?
Obama will block any bill passed by the House that would make refugee admittance stricter. This seems off to me...don't we want a stricter vetting process? I'm not against refugees and (laugh now) but I didn't read the entire article but what's the downside to the bill if it's truly just to vet refugees we take in more closely? I'm not thinking "close the borders". I'm not thinking: "don't take refugees." I am of the mindset, let's be a bit more careful and I can't see where I'm going wrong there.
ETA: on the 2nd point...we can't do NOTHING. We have to do SOMETHING. Wouldn't the most humane SOMETHING being a middle ground as proposed by the house by vetting a lot more intensively? This seems crazy to me that we can't at least meet in that middle.
Open to changing both mindsets...and more just for discussion as someone who can't seem to come to a conclusion.