I think it would be wise for liberals to stop spending energy on this issue and rest up - Trump is announcing his Supreme Court pick tomorrow - they will need all the energy they can recoup to explode all over again.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Rightly said. You need to pick and choose your fights. The citizens of these 7 countries not getting the privilege to travel to the US, is not really an issue worth fighting for.
apparently the left hasn't learned why they lost this past election and are doubling down on the game plan
We will see. The DNC, media, and entertainment industry has been telling Americans for years that we as a nation are all 'stupid' and 'bigots'.
Then they spent a record amount of money trying to get the White House for 4 more years.
Apparently spending money calling voters stupid bigots did not work well. Will they change course? It doesn't appear so yet. If anything, they seem to be unable to learn from results. They aren't stupid, they just cannot learn it appears.
How much money is behind each campaign?
habanero69
I Dont Need Cialis. I Drive an EV.
habanero69
I Dont Need Cialis. I Drive an EV.
habanero69
I Dont Need Cialis. I Drive an EV.
Not really. But I understand why the current list has those non-listed country's (plus supposedly they were put together by Obama's previous cabinet). This list can and probably should change. I'm just saying why a few were left off (for now?).
X Fan
Active Member
I've been a NY Times subscriber for over 50 years but over the years their journalistic standards have degraded, particularly with the installation of the latest editor.
In this latest election cycle, they were advocates vs. reporters and as a byproduct their publisher wrote a post-election apology (OK somewhat) letter suggesting they will be back to "report America and the world honestly". However, I haven't seen it.
Thus, my conclusion is that "The Grey Lady" now reports slanted if not fake news to bolster their advocacy.
Oh well, they still have a great crossword and Science section.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Please try to be better than descending into name calling.
In my view, this is the last gasp of the extreme right. Our children are watching and they are turning voting age. They grew up with Bush, Obama and now Trump. Most are bright and can form their own opinions. I have hope for the world. The one thing we must do is debate the issues respectfully and rationally. I agree that Europe did not handle refugees properly. They took too many, too fast, and they did not vet or integrate them properly. These are discussions we need to have with those of reason from the other side who rightfully want to protect the borders and ensure their children are safe from terrorists when they go to the local mall, if refugees are brought into their neighbourhood. There's no use trying to reason with the name callers, or the likes of Steve Bannon, who tells the press to "shut up". Those are lost causes but there are many on the right who are rightfully concerned, and many on the left who go too far to try to placate a religion that needs to be called out on the way it treats women, gays, etc.
I'm with Sam Harris on this complex issue.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
This is a mischaracterization of the issue. The issue is that the people affected were not given due process, the order discriminates based on religion by giving preference to "minority religions" (which the administration has clarified means Christians over Muslims), and that the policy should have never applied to green card holders (something that luckily has been fixed after major outcry).
NYT. Enough said.
It's not just the NYT. I could throw a dart at a stack of newspapers and get mostly negative comments. Yeah I know, the response would be "all the media is biased." I consider the WSJ more balanced. Proof point: It is mostly against Obama's policies. Even WSJ points out the capriciousness of Trump's ban. Is there a problem? Yes. Is this the way to address it? No.
The problem with putting everyone into two buckets - "they" and "us" is that it is a gross over simplification. Most people I talked to weren't avowed Hillary fans or avowed Donald fans; instead they voted for who they despised the least.
For me at least, I'd like a new 3rd choice. I'm hoping that the groundswell sparked by this bad policy, results in the beginning of something new. I'm reading articles highlighting common ground between the Koch brothers and Senator Warren. Of course neither of them will ever be in the same party. But maybe many others more in the center of both parties can find a way to promote better choices for our national elected officials. I don't think the anger sparked by this action is going to be easily usurped by the Democratic Party, which is really my point. And hope.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
More like the Obama administration did everything in a prudent, pragmatic way.
Then Trump came along, and said "Geesh, why not just use a sledgehammer instead"
This isn't about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about one individual that doesn't seem capable of restraint or understanding the fallout from his actions. This is pure and simple a result of someone with ZERO experience.
As a result the only ones that win are the lawyers.
The American people didn't win anything.
BrokerDon
Active Member
Similar threads
