11–20 of 29 posts
Except all of the actual journalism being done on the Trump administration suggests incompetence, not malice, to be at the heart of its struggles.
Except all of the actual journalism being done on the Trump administration suggests incompetence, not malice, to be at the heart of its struggles.
> Except all of the actual journalism being done on > the Trump administration suggests incompetence, not malice I don't believe the journalists are incompetent. I believe there is actual malice there. No amount of incompetance can explain how they always say "muslim ban" and "7 muslim countries" instead of ever referring to the 'Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015' [1], where…
By "immigration ban", did you mean "90 immigration halt based on countries flagged as dangerous by the previous administration, that has been able to encourage Saudi Arabia to sign up for a Mid-East safe zone for refugees to help keep them closer to their homes and families[0] as well as encourage Pakistan to arrest a known terrorist who killed 100 Indians and has been free for 8 years[1]"? What Trump did was disrupt…
Banning existing visa holders isn't "playing hardball," it's just downright evil. A case might be made for shutting down new refugees from those countries, or even new non-refugee visas. But there's no sane case to be made for keeping out people with green cards.
She had a visa, but perhaps she should have been further vetted, yes?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Except all of the actual journalism being done on > the Trump administration suggests incompetence, not malice I don't believe the journalists are incompetent. I believe there is actual malice there. No amount of incompetance can explain how they always say "muslim ban" and "7 muslim countries" instead of ever referring to the 'Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015' [1], where…
I think using the President's own words to describe his order is entirely reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning existing visa holders isn't "playing hardball," it's just downright evil. A case might be made for shutting down new refugees from those countries, or even new non-refugee visas. But there's no sane case to be made for keeping out people with green cards.
How about this? 'U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Online Zealotry' [1] She had a visa, but perhaps she should have been further vetted, yes? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks...
Edit: that dodges the main point. A better response would be, the other attacker was a US citizen, does that then make a good argument for banning US citizens from entry?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think using the President's own words to describe his order is entirely reasonable.
He said that in his signing statement, or in some other speech referring to the executive order? Where's your link?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning existing visa holders isn't "playing hardball," it's just downright evil. A case might be made for shutting down new refugees from those countries, or even new non-refugee visas. But there's no sane case to be made for keeping out people with green cards.
How about this? 'U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Online Zealotry' [1] She had a visa, but perhaps she should have been further vetted, yes? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about this? 'U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Online Zealotry' [1] She had a visa, but perhaps she should have been further vetted, yes? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks...
Too bad she wouldn't have been affected by this ban in the first place. Edit: that dodges the main point. A better response would be, the other attacker was a US citizen, does that then make a good argument for banning US citizens from entry?
This woman was from Pakistan which suffers terrible internal terrorism problems. While the government of Pakistan is great, there is obviously a terrorism problem in that country. It seems like perhaps that would be grounds to make Pakistan another possible 'country of concern'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He said that in his signing statement, or in some other speech referring to the executive order? Where's your link?
It was not a public statement, but was used behind the scenes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr...
Are you aware that Jeff Bezos controls the Washington Post, and is rapidly anti-Trump? It is clear to many that the Washington Post has a leaning in all of it's political journalism that borders on MSNBC levels of bias.
Got anything else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too bad she wouldn't have been affected by this ban in the first place. Edit: that dodges the main point. A better response would be, the other attacker was a US citizen, does that then make a good argument for banning US citizens from entry?
Agreed. Obviously it needs to be expanded. As is often mentioned, Saudi Arabia should be included because of 9/11. This woman was from Pakistan which suffers terrible internal terrorism problems. While the government of Pakistan is great, there is obviously a terrorism problem in that country. It seems like perhaps that would be grounds to make Pakistan another possible 'country of concern'.