HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Do I understand this corr...

Mon Jun 5, 2017, 01:18 PM

Do I understand this correctly?

According to Twitler, the USA needed a 3 month temporary travel ban to give his people time to put a "better" vetting system in place. This was the purpose, supposedly, of the EO in late January.

The ban was blocked by various courts.

It's now over 4 months later. A month longer tab he said he needed to put in place better vetting.

Don is again tweeting that the 3 month temporary ban is still necessary, that it needs to be called what it is (a travel ban), and also that we have extreme vetting.

Is this correct?

How, in any way, is this a good argument tho persuade the scotus to take up the case? Keep tweeting, Don.

1 replies, 3893 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 1 replies Author Time Post
Reply Do I understand this correctly? (Original post)
uppityperson Jun 2017 OP
Girard442 Jun 2017 #1

Response to uppityperson (Original post)

Mon Jun 5, 2017, 01:21 PM

1. Just ban all travel. Imports and exports too.

If a country is going to be self-destructive, why not go all the way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread