Anyone with an understanding better than mine please confirm or correct my understanding. When initially proposed, it was supposed to target 6 countries & only be in place until new & stricter vetting measures were put in place; approx 90 days. So if my understanding is correct, shouldn't the admin have the new vetting measures in place at this point, we are well past 90 days, therefore a ban at this point is really not needed? I could be totally off base on my understanding.
Question on travel ban
- Thread starter MacMountie
- Start date
You are correct. Who knows if Trump understands, he obviously thinks the DOJ had the last say on his watered down version signed, it'd be funny if he weren't President, he is his own worst enemy..
Good call. This is the real story as our so called prez would say. Surely his working group that was supposed to review our vetting procedures has completed their work by now therefore the ban is no longer needed but there has been no talk of the vetting review process. Why is that? I always viewed this proposed temporary ban as something that would be extended to a longer period once put in place.
Bingo. Here we are 4 months later and his continued pursuit is just to see if he can win.
It's more than that. It also "places" the blame on the "liberal" courts if an attack happens on US soil under Trump leadership. He is strategically making moves to satisfy his base (although very little has actually been done), and creating total deniability for failures. Fake news and media credibility is basically gone for the base that elected him, any terrorism will be the fault of the US court system, failure to repeal and replace Obamacare will be on Congressional Democrats.
