Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, the source is in fact one of the least credible.
Then WaPo cited an unnamed source that supposedly is leaking confidential information.
Discredited media source, strike one
Unnamed source, strike two
Believing that someone is leaking information of the inner circles of the White House, sorry, but strike three, you're out.
No. Washington does not work that way. The press does not work that way, often relying on unnamed sources either for specific information that is printed or deep background where the details are not. For decades, nothing new here. WaPo is not discredited. Hey, Trump reportedly reads three newspapers each day - one of which is WaPo.
That's not to say that every source is credible (here, the newspaper should judge before printing then the reader will take their cue from whether they consider the newspaper reputable). Fair enough. Here, I wasn't closely following the discussion of the order vetting but did notice that WaPo supported the Administration in a detail contested by the NYT.
This is going to be a long 4 years. Frankly, I hope it quiets down. But the WaPo will continue to be an investigative newspaper of some repute (to many). It would be a plus to try to control the instinctive "fake news" response. There is a difference between bias (yes, WaPo IS biased) and fake.
But since we're talking of leaking - yes, it's interesting. Here, it's absolutely to the advantage of an Cabinet-related source in a power struggle to leak about anything that discredits Bannon. Who's leaking and why becomes almost more important than the actual information leaked.
The WaPo reporting on the Australian phone call proved to be quite credible. Two theories about THAT leak: (1) its from the phone transcripts perhaps by a disaffected staffer or (2) higher up, in an attempt to get Trump's attention and/or to control policy. Regardless, leaking is time-honored communication pattern in DC.
There is nothing illegal and unConstittuional about the "ban." If it was illegal and unConstitutional for Trump, then it was also for Obama. Where was this judge then, when Obama did the exact same thing?
You're not paying attention.
No other President besides Trump has ever done an Executive Order to ban on religious grounds.
Obama did not do a religious ban. First...he made an exception for EVERYONE who had already been vetted as a refugee (w/o regard to religion); he didn't retroactively include them. Second...he did NOT include people with green cards and visas (those people have citizenship rights). Third...he instituted a temporary ban of one NATION, Iraq, entirely (with the above exceptions) for a short period of time, based on a specific intel report.
Trump signed an EO banning everyone from travel to and from 7 Muslim-dominated countries (not based on specific intel), and made exceptions for those who were not Muslim, so they could still apply to enter the U.S. So it is a Muslim ban. That is unconstitutional. America doesn't discriminate based on religion.
I know that Trump and his supporters want us to discriminate against Muslims, since some of them are terrorists. But under our laws, currently, we cannot. The laws have to be changed, if Trump wants that. The Constitution may have to be amended, as well.
(Also, Trump's ban involves green card and visa holders in some way; they've been detained in airports across the country. Spicer said not many, and it's a mere inconvenience. But I wonder if Spicer would think that if Trump sent him on a project out of the country,and the govt detained him in a room in the airport for hours or days.)
The Washington Post is probably the second most respected U.S. media publication. They have an avalanche of Pulitzer Prizes and global respect. Only the NY Times has more worldwide gravitas.
If you don't trust the Washington Post, then you're flat-out, utterly, brainwashed by fakenews. There is nothing anyone can say to change your mind, because you're so far down the rabbit hole of alt-reality and wouldn't believe something if you saw it with your own two eyes. You would follow Trump to nuclear annihilation, and still be spouting off "But what about Hillary sending an email" and "but what about those *******s in California". Truly Deplorable.
The fake news, and unethical behavior of WaPo is well documented, whatever their reputation was in the past is irrelevant.
That still doesn't change the fact that their whole story relies on an unnamed source, doing something that is highly unlikely to happen, leaking details from inside the White House.
If you want to believe such reporting, go ahead, it's you that these discredited media outlets are targeting, not people that base their opinions on fact, reason, and logic.
The Washington Post is probably the second most respected U.S. media publication. They have an avalanche of Pulitzer Prizes and global respect. Only the NY Times has more worldwide gravitas.
If you don't trust the Washington Post, then you're flat-out, utterly, brainwashed by fakenews. There is nothing anyone can say to change your mind, because you're so far down the rabbit hole of alt-reality and wouldn't believe something if you saw it with your own two eyes. You would follow Trump to nuclear annihilation, and still be spouting off "But what about Hillary sending an email" and "but what about those *******s in California". Truly Deplorable.
Just stop! Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post in 2013 and anybody with a half a brain knows he is a staunch liberal. That right there should raise skepticism. He is one of the leading people that had his lapdog AG cry foul to a Federal court about cutting off his import of foreign workers.
Airlines' again boarding US-Visa Holders from 7 'Banned' Nations-Trump Fuming
Btw, Etihad has the best first class service imo. Highly recommend.
Anyhow, this is how it should be. You dont treat persons with legal status like criminals. Shame on our president and thank goodness his EO was slapped down like it should have.
He is NOT an absolute monarch. Congress, wake tf up.
Quote:
Etihad Airways, the United Arab Emirates’ national carrier, said in a statement: “Following advice received today from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection unit at Abu Dhabi Airport, the airline will again be accepting nationals from the seven countries named last week.” Other Arab carriers, including Qatar Airways, issued similar statements.
We are long over-due to get the immigration screening process improved - it should have happened decades ago!
..and you think it hasn't?? So what about all the claims from President Trump that he's just doing what Obama did? Huh? What does he mean by that if the Obama administration never strengthened our vetting process? What Obama did in 2011 wasn't the same, but every time I mention Trump's ban is wrong, someone brings up Obama's temporary 6 month ban in 2011. Trump supporters cannot have it both ways. Even Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer referred to Obama.
Please tell me which people from the 7 countries listed have committed terrorist acts on the United States? More than 60,000 visas were taken away from people who were already carefully vetted, some for more than 2 years, many who lived and worked in the United States for a long time. Some of the people who were affected had already applied for U.S. citizenship.
One immigration policy that I've disagreed with for many years, even before 9/11, is the naturalization of spouses without the same, strong vetting process that applies to all foreigners. Still, most of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, a country not listed on Trump's travel ban. The wife of the San Bernardino shooter was from Pakistan, also not on the list. Yet we are punishing Iraqis who have worked side by side with U.S. troops just because they were born in a Muslim majority country. Think about it!
Just stop! Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post in 2013 and anybody with a half a brain knows he is a staunch liberal.
That has nothing to do with anything. The WSJ is owned by a staunch right-wing conservative, and they have been equally as anti-Trump. The NY Times is owned by a middle-of-road family, and they have been equally as anti-Trump. Any news source with a shred of integrity is anti-Trump, because Trump is singularly and uniquely awful.
And Jeff Bezos is NOT a "staunch liberal". You got that from one of those crazy alt-right sites. He is very much a capitalist supply-side supporter. Amazon is run like a harsh boot camp.
Face it: Trump is horrible. This has nothing to do with Liberal or Conservative. The Washington Post is one of the most rock-solid English-language information sources on the planet, and if you ignore news from the Post, you're just ignoring reality.
..and you think it hasn't?? So what about all the claims from President Trump that he's just doing what Obama did? Huh? What does he mean by that if the Obama administration never strengthened our vetting process? What Obama did in 2011 wasn't the same, but every time I mention Trump's ban is wrong, someone brings up Obama's temporary 6 month ban in 2011. Trump supporters cannot have it both ways. Even Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer referred to Obama.
Please tell me which people from the 7 countries listed have committed terrorist acts on the United States? More than 60,000 visas were taken away from people who were already carefully vetted, some for more than 2 years, many who lived and worked in the United States for a long time. Some of the people who were affected had already applied for U.S. citizenship.
One immigration policy that I've disagreed with for many years, even before 9/11, is the naturalization of spouses without the same, strong vetting process that applies to all foreigners. Still, most of the terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, a country not listed on Trump's travel ban. The wife of the San Bernardino shooter was from Pakistan, also not on the list. Yet we are punishing Iraqis who have worked side by side with U.S. troops just because they were born in a Muslim majority country. Think about it!
Read between the lines. Do you not know that some countries like Saudi Arabia have US customs and preclearance facilities in Saudi Airports?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Airlines' again boarding US-Visa Holders from 7 'Banned' Nations-Trump Fuming
