Trumps travel ban. Times up

[Rustic]

The Left does not want to vet. Vetting means background checks, surveillance, it all takes time. Further, how accurate is vetting a person from Yemen vs someone from New Jersey? Here's a solution, if someone wants in to the US from one of the 7 banned countries and valid data is lacking, they need to understand the situation and that their circumstance of entry to the US from a hostile territory is not the same as one from a friendly or at least territory where valid data is available to mitigate the probability that they are a threat. Come up with a process where the emigrating person has some onus or skin in the game to get themselves vetted. But then, that still won't be good enough for the Left

Again you dodge the question and jump to the partisan attacks. I guess we all know the answer, that there is no plan for the extreme vetting, all he's got so far is ban Muslims starting with the ones in the 7 countries from the EO

Partisan aside, 7 countries represent a terrorist threat to Western Countries. Are you building the case for these people to come unvetted or building a case for extreme vetting or are you simply playing politics because your hatred for Trump's victory exceeds your care for Western Civilization safety? My bet is that former.

If you're asking what I support it is absolutely better vetting for any country or area that needs improvement.

What does "Better Vetting" mean to you. Please describe in details.

I can't, from my research we have close to a 2 year vetting process that looks pretty damn thorough. I heard reports during the campaign saying that some areas are hard to vett, then I heard a bunch of rhetoric from Trump about how bad our vetting is... so now that he is im charge I'd just like to see his plan to fix the bad vetting system. If banning Muslims or banning everybody from 6 counties is all he can come up with them that's pretty weak

You can't find out shit about somebody in just two years, the vetting should be at least a dozen years. You spineless ******* cowards… LOL

 

[AntonToo]

Care to stop bullshitting? Terrorist can't be vetted. Block them all.

Care to stop hitting the bong?

Courts are VERY clear on this - Muslim ban is blatantly unconstitutional. You lose, time to get with reality.

 

[Slade3200]

Again you dodge the question and jump to the partisan attacks. I guess we all know the answer, that there is no plan for the extreme vetting, all he's got so far is ban Muslims starting with the ones in the 7 countries from the EO

Partisan aside, 7 countries represent a terrorist threat to Western Countries. Are you building the case for these people to come unvetted or building a case for extreme vetting or are you simply playing politics because your hatred for Trump's victory exceeds your care for Western Civilization safety? My bet is that former.

If you're asking what I support it is absolutely better vetting for any country or area that needs improvement.

What does "Better Vetting" mean to you. Please describe in details.

I can't, from my research we have close to a 2 year vetting process that looks pretty damn thorough. I heard reports during the campaign saying that some areas are hard to vett, then I heard a bunch of rhetoric from Trump about how bad our vetting is... so now that he is im charge I'd just like to see his plan to fix the bad vetting system. If banning Muslims or banning everybody from 6 counties is all he can come up with them that's pretty weak

You can't find out shit about somebody in just two years, the vetting should be at least a dozen years. You spineless ******* cowards… LOL

Sounds like you really know what your talking about. Thanks for enlightening us.

 

[AntonToo]

Partisan aside, 7 countries represent a terrorist threat to Western Countries. Are you building the case for these people to come unvetted or building a case for extreme vetting or are you simply playing politics because your hatred for Trump's victory exceeds your care for Western Civilization safety? My bet is that former.

If you're asking what I support it is absolutely better vetting for any country or area that needs improvement.

What does "Better Vetting" mean to you. Please describe in details.

I can't, from my research we have close to a 2 year vetting process that looks pretty damn thorough. I heard reports during the campaign saying that some areas are hard to vett, then I heard a bunch of rhetoric from Trump about how bad our vetting is... so now that he is im charge I'd just like to see his plan to fix the bad vetting system. If banning Muslims or banning everybody from 6 counties is all he can come up with them that's pretty weak

You can't find out shit about somebody in just two years, the vetting should be at least a dozen years. You spineless ******* cowards… LOL

Sounds like you really know what your talking about. Thanks for enlightening us.

These people are ******* insane.

 

[Rustic]

If you're asking what I support it is absolutely better vetting for any country or area that needs improvement.

What does "Better Vetting" mean to you. Please describe in details.

I can't, from my research we have close to a 2 year vetting process that looks pretty damn thorough. I heard reports during the campaign saying that some areas are hard to vett, then I heard a bunch of rhetoric from Trump about how bad our vetting is... so now that he is im charge I'd just like to see his plan to fix the bad vetting system. If banning Muslims or banning everybody from 6 counties is all he can come up with them that's pretty weak

You can't find out shit about somebody in just two years, the vetting should be at least a dozen years. You spineless ******* cowards… LOL

Sounds like you really know what your talking about. Thanks for enlightening us.

These people are ******* insane.

We have no vetting going on right now, if you think that a two year vetting is sufficient... you must have worms in your brains...
No less than 12 years should be the vetting period.

 

[AntonToo]

We have no vetting going on right now, if you think that a two year vetting is sufficient.

This is just one of those things you are just going to have to settle in your head BEFORE you post. Sane people are very good at that.

 

[Rustic]

We have no vetting going on right now, if you think that a two year vetting is sufficient.

This is just one of those things you are just going to have to settle in your head BEFORE you post. Sane people are very good at that.

Two years might as will be no vetting, there should be no less than 12 years.

 

[Slade3200]

What does "Better Vetting" mean to you. Please describe in details.

I can't, from my research we have close to a 2 year vetting process that looks pretty damn thorough. I heard reports during the campaign saying that some areas are hard to vett, then I heard a bunch of rhetoric from Trump about how bad our vetting is... so now that he is im charge I'd just like to see his plan to fix the bad vetting system. If banning Muslims or banning everybody from 6 counties is all he can come up with them that's pretty weak

You can't find out shit about somebody in just two years, the vetting should be at least a dozen years. You spineless ******* cowards… LOL

Sounds like you really know what your talking about. Thanks for enlightening us.

These people are ******* insane.

We have no vetting going on right now, if you think that a two year vetting is sufficient... you must have worms in your brains...
No less than 12 years should be the vetting period.

Ok, thanks for sharing... I got your brilliant idea noted right below swallowing broken glass.

 

[Rustic]

I can't, from my research we have close to a 2 year vetting process that looks pretty damn thorough. I heard reports during the campaign saying that some areas are hard to vett, then I heard a bunch of rhetoric from Trump about how bad our vetting is... so now that he is im charge I'd just like to see his plan to fix the bad vetting system. If banning Muslims or banning everybody from 6 counties is all he can come up with them that's pretty weak

You can't find out shit about somebody in just two years, the vetting should be at least a dozen years. You spineless ******* cowards… LOL

Sounds like you really know what your talking about. Thanks for enlightening us.

These people are ******* insane.

We have no vetting going on right now, if you think that a two year vetting is sufficient... you must have worms in your brains...
No less than 12 years should be the vetting period.

Ok, thanks for sharing... I got your brilliant idea noted right below swallowing broken glass.

England is reaping what they sow, because their lack of vetting...

 

[Darkwind]

The liberal scum keep blocking it.

Do you really not understand the question or are you punting around it because you can't answer. I'm asking about the vetting. 90 days is up

No, they are not. The courts have blocked the travel restriction which included the vetting. If Trump had tried to implement the new vetting while under court injunction, there would have been a real legal issue, instead of these phony obstruction issues.

So, the travel restriction 90 days along with the heightened vetting program will begin the day after the SCOTUS hands the appellate court their asses.

What is your source for this information about the heightened vetting program? I'd like to see it in more detail.

Read the EO.

I did read it. Section 2 covers the vetting measures but basically just says that DNI, SHS and the SOS shall evaluate the vetting in those 7 countries and submit a report. There are no specifics about improving any vetting measures. I see no reason why they can't be evaluating the situation right now if they don't already have action items to take.... that's exactly what they should be doing now, they don't need an executive order to evaluate vetting processes and make them better... that's their job

The problem is that the court system stopped all of it. There was no nuanced ruling in which it said, go ahead and develop your enhanced vetting system. It was a blanket ban on the President's program.

I'm not saying that they haven't worked on, or continue to work on a better system. But think about it. If the courts are going to lie and say that the President does not have the authority to limit the travel to this country, regardless of rhetoric, then why would you spend the resources and money to develop a system that the courts are just going to deny. On top of that, if the system was discovered by these 'anonymous' people, can you imagine the field day that press would have with the wasted government (taxpayer) largesse?

I'm sorry, but your question doesn't really pass the rationale test. If the courts say, Don't do this, then as a responsible administration, you don't. If you do, then you get crucified by the media. There is no real win situation to this until the SCOTUS makes a final determination.

Until then, the 90 days don't begin to tick away until the SCOTUS makes a determination.

 

[Slade3200]

Do you really not understand the question or are you punting around it because you can't answer. I'm asking about the vetting. 90 days is up

No, they are not. The courts have blocked the travel restriction which included the vetting. If Trump had tried to implement the new vetting while under court injunction, there would have been a real legal issue, instead of these phony obstruction issues.

So, the travel restriction 90 days along with the heightened vetting program will begin the day after the SCOTUS hands the appellate court their asses.

What is your source for this information about the heightened vetting program? I'd like to see it in more detail.

Read the EO.

I did read it. Section 2 covers the vetting measures but basically just says that DNI, SHS and the SOS shall evaluate the vetting in those 7 countries and submit a report. There are no specifics about improving any vetting measures. I see no reason why they can't be evaluating the situation right now if they don't already have action items to take.... that's exactly what they should be doing now, they don't need an executive order to evaluate vetting processes and make them better... that's their job

The problem is that the court system stopped all of it. There was no nuanced ruling in which it said, go ahead and develop your enhanced vetting system. It was a blanket ban on the President's program.

I'm not saying that they haven't worked on, or continue to work on a better system. But think about it. If the courts are going to lie and say that the President does not have the authority to limit the travel to this country, regardless of rhetoric, then why would you spend the resources and money to develop a system that the courts are just going to deny. On top of that, if the system was discovered by these 'anonymous' people, can you imagine the field day that press would have with the wasted government (taxpayer) largesse?

I'm sorry, but your question doesn't really pass the rationale test. If the courts say, Don't do this, then as a responsible administration, you don't. If you do, then you get crucified by the media. There is no real win situation to this until the SCOTUS makes a final determination.

Until then, the 90 days don't begin to tick away until the SCOTUS makes a determination.

No way man, your logic does not fly... The EO does not specify any vetting procedures so you can't say that blocking the EO on grounds of the travel ban in any way limits the DNI of SOS from improving our vetting systems. It surely wouldn't prevent them from running an analysis on the current vetting and creating a report to propose improvements to it. Again i will say it... It is their job to vett immigrants and refugees, that is what they have always been responsible for. All of their responsibilities don't go on pause because an EO that tried to ban travelers from entering the USA got introduced and blocked by the courts.

 

[Darkwind]

No, they are not. The courts have blocked the travel restriction which included the vetting. If Trump had tried to implement the new vetting while under court injunction, there would have been a real legal issue, instead of these phony obstruction issues.

So, the travel restriction 90 days along with the heightened vetting program will begin the day after the SCOTUS hands the appellate court their asses.

What is your source for this information about the heightened vetting program? I'd like to see it in more detail.

Read the EO.

I did read it. Section 2 covers the vetting measures but basically just says that DNI, SHS and the SOS shall evaluate the vetting in those 7 countries and submit a report. There are no specifics about improving any vetting measures. I see no reason why they can't be evaluating the situation right now if they don't already have action items to take.... that's exactly what they should be doing now, they don't need an executive order to evaluate vetting processes and make them better... that's their job

The problem is that the court system stopped all of it. There was no nuanced ruling in which it said, go ahead and develop your enhanced vetting system. It was a blanket ban on the President's program.

I'm not saying that they haven't worked on, or continue to work on a better system. But think about it. If the courts are going to lie and say that the President does not have the authority to limit the travel to this country, regardless of rhetoric, then why would you spend the resources and money to develop a system that the courts are just going to deny. On top of that, if the system was discovered by these 'anonymous' people, can you imagine the field day that press would have with the wasted government (taxpayer) largesse?

I'm sorry, but your question doesn't really pass the rationale test. If the courts say, Don't do this, then as a responsible administration, you don't. If you do, then you get crucified by the media. There is no real win situation to this until the SCOTUS makes a final determination.

Until then, the 90 days don't begin to tick away until the SCOTUS makes a determination.

No way man, your logic does not fly... The EO does not specify any vetting procedures so you can't say that blocking the EO on grounds of the travel ban in any way limits the DNI of SOS from improving our vetting systems. It surely wouldn't prevent them from running an analysis on the current vetting and creating a report to propose improvements to it. Again i will say it... It is their job to vett immigrants and refugees, that is what they have always been responsible for. All of their responsibilities don't go on pause because an EO that tried to ban travelers from entering the USA got introduced and blocked by the courts.

Whatever you say. I disagree completely. Given the hatred and hate-filled enviroment of the media, your question is self-answering.

Regardless, you asked the question and I gave you My opinion. You don't have to agree with it, but then, I reject your stance that the 90 days is already over.

/discussion

 

[Slade3200]

What is your source for this information about the heightened vetting program? I'd like to see it in more detail.

Read the EO.

I did read it. Section 2 covers the vetting measures but basically just says that DNI, SHS and the SOS shall evaluate the vetting in those 7 countries and submit a report. There are no specifics about improving any vetting measures. I see no reason why they can't be evaluating the situation right now if they don't already have action items to take.... that's exactly what they should be doing now, they don't need an executive order to evaluate vetting processes and make them better... that's their job

The problem is that the court system stopped all of it. There was no nuanced ruling in which it said, go ahead and develop your enhanced vetting system. It was a blanket ban on the President's program.

I'm not saying that they haven't worked on, or continue to work on a better system. But think about it. If the courts are going to lie and say that the President does not have the authority to limit the travel to this country, regardless of rhetoric, then why would you spend the resources and money to develop a system that the courts are just going to deny. On top of that, if the system was discovered by these 'anonymous' people, can you imagine the field day that press would have with the wasted government (taxpayer) largesse?

I'm sorry, but your question doesn't really pass the rationale test. If the courts say, Don't do this, then as a responsible administration, you don't. If you do, then you get crucified by the media. There is no real win situation to this until the SCOTUS makes a final determination.

Until then, the 90 days don't begin to tick away until the SCOTUS makes a determination.

No way man, your logic does not fly... The EO does not specify any vetting procedures so you can't say that blocking the EO on grounds of the travel ban in any way limits the DNI of SOS from improving our vetting systems. It surely wouldn't prevent them from running an analysis on the current vetting and creating a report to propose improvements to it. Again i will say it... It is their job to vett immigrants and refugees, that is what they have always been responsible for. All of their responsibilities don't go on pause because an EO that tried to ban travelers from entering the USA got introduced and blocked by the courts.

Whatever you say. I disagree completely. Given the hatred and hate-filled enviroment of the media, your question is self-answering.

Regardless, you asked the question and I gave you My opinion. You don't have to agree with it, but then, I reject your stance that the 90 days is already over.

/discussion

<loser>thanks for playing</loser>

Couldn't resist.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Liberals can guilt, shame, and wag fingers all they want at Trump and anyone who wants to take additional steps to mitigate risk of unnecessary Islamo terrorist attacks but the reality is that most Americans, including many Liberals themselves, know that the increase in terrorist attacks in the UK is in correlation with the UK's lax immigration an little or no vetting and filter. The UK recognizes that it must now clamp down. No one wants another Manchester, London Bridge, or random beheading in the streets of London.

 

[JoeMoma]

Trumps Travel ban has been explained as a 90 day moratorium on travel from a handful of countries so that extreme vetting measures can be established.

Although the travel restrictions have been blocked by the courts there have been no restrictions to prevent him from improving our vetting measures. Had the ban not been blocked, the 90 day period would have long expired. So what does he have to show for it from a vetting standpoint?

Is he really trying to improve vetting or is he just trying to block people from traveling here and gain a political victory to a hateful base?

Please help me understand Trumps goals in relation to the 90 day timeframe and extreme vetting initiatives.

This is speculation on my part. If the so called extreme vetting happens to have the effect of making it more difficult for Muslims to travel to the USA, then the extreme vetting will end up being blocked in court the same way (for the same reasons) the travel ban was blocked. The liberal judges will say that Trump is using the extreme vetting is a religious test used to ban Muslims.

 

[Nia88]

Trumps Travel ban has been explained as a 90 day moratorium on travel from a handful of countries so that extreme vetting measures can be established.

Although the travel restrictions have been blocked by the courts there have been no restrictions to prevent him from improving our vetting measures. Had the ban not been blocked, the 90 day period would have long expired. So what does he have to show for it from a vetting standpoint?

Is he really trying to improve vetting or is he just trying to block people from traveling here and gain a political victory to a hateful base?

Please help me understand Trumps goals in relation to the 90 day timeframe and extreme vetting initiatives.

He's trying to keep muslim butchers out of the country. Why do you want them here?

If he's really trying to fix the alleged Muslim problem, then why did he just go to Saudi Arabia and silk the biggest sponsors of Terroism billions of dollars worth of weapons to them?

Trump is hardly concerned about fighting Terroism. The man is just preaching to his base.

This travel/Muslim ban is throwing a bone his Kool-Aid drinkers.

 

[danielpalos]

Trumps Travel ban has been explained as a 90 day moratorium on travel from a handful of countries so that extreme vetting measures can be established.

Although the travel restrictions have been blocked by the courts there have been no restrictions to prevent him from improving our vetting measures. Had the ban not been blocked, the 90 day period would have long expired. So what does he have to show for it from a vetting standpoint?

Is he really trying to improve vetting or is he just trying to block people from traveling here and gain a political victory to a hateful base?

Please help me understand Trumps goals in relation to the 90 day timeframe and extreme vetting initiatives.

He's trying to keep muslim butchers out of the country. Why do you want them here?

I dont want Muslim butchers here. I'd like to see what this "extreme vetting" plan is, don't you? Where is it?

The liberal scum keep blocking it.

just lousy legal management.

 

[danielpalos]

Trumps Travel ban has been explained as a 90 day moratorium on travel from a handful of countries so that extreme vetting measures can be established.

Although the travel restrictions have been blocked by the courts there have been no restrictions to prevent him from improving our vetting measures. Had the ban not been blocked, the 90 day period would have long expired. So what does he have to show for it from a vetting standpoint?

Is he really trying to improve vetting or is he just trying to block people from traveling here and gain a political victory to a hateful base?

Please help me understand Trumps goals in relation to the 90 day timeframe and extreme vetting initiatives.

Are you suggesting that he has been sitting on his hands all this time ?

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm just seeing all this fighting about a 90 pause in travel and over 130 days has gone by. So let's say the EO was passed in January and travel was paused. 90 days has come and gone. What now?

nothing but more excuses from the right wing?

 

[danielpalos]

Trumps Travel ban has been explained as a 90 day moratorium on travel from a handful of countries so that extreme vetting measures can be established.

Although the travel restrictions have been blocked by the courts there have been no restrictions to prevent him from improving our vetting measures. Had the ban not been blocked, the 90 day period would have long expired. So what does he have to show for it from a vetting standpoint?

Is he really trying to improve vetting or is he just trying to block people from traveling here and gain a political victory to a hateful base?

Please help me understand Trumps goals in relation to the 90 day timeframe and extreme vetting initiatives.

The UK is a target right now because it is too soft on lslamic terrorism. There is probably a correlation between origins and travels of the terrorists and US Travel banned countries. You people insist on making this a 100 percent Muslim ban which is false. The truth is, the travel bannec countries are fertile hot beds for Islamo extremist terror and present a threat to the West. Stop perpetuating the lie that this is an outright ban on Muslims.

Better yet, ask the Democrats to run on removing Obama's travel ban that Trump approved and is continuing. See how far that gets you.

Based on national origin? How effective is that. In any case, we have a Commerce Clause that covers tourism.

 

[danielpalos]

Trumps Travel ban has been explained as a 90 day moratorium on travel from a handful of countries so that extreme vetting measures can be established.

Although the travel restrictions have been blocked by the courts there have been no restrictions to prevent him from improving our vetting measures. Had the ban not been blocked, the 90 day period would have long expired. So what does he have to show for it from a vetting standpoint?

Is he really trying to improve vetting or is he just trying to block people from traveling here and gain a political victory to a hateful base?

Please help me understand Trumps goals in relation to the 90 day timeframe and extreme vetting initiatives.

He's trying to keep muslim butchers out of the country. Why do you want them here?

I dont want Muslim butchers here. I'd like to see what this "extreme vetting" plan is, don't you? Where is it?

The liberal scum keep blocking it.

Do you really not understand the question or are you punting around it because you can't answer. I'm asking about the vetting. 90 days is up

Red Herrings are what the right wing is best at; and, they claim learning how to fish is more important than learning capital management under Any form of Capitalism.