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.
Obama instituted the extreme vetting, and apparently Schumer is happy with the results. So the more extreme EO from Trump--an EO basically disregarding the legitimacy of the extreme vetting that Obama emplaced--bothered Schumer. I don't see any inconsistencies with that. By opposing Trump's EO, Schumer is basically saying that he's content with how the vetting process developed over the past two years.
But one can argue that 3 months temporary ban is another measure of improving extreme vetting process based on changes happened. I am pretty sure Trump EO is created to showboating his election promise. End of the day, both of them are trying to slow down the refugees. It really didn't change that much for refugees in both the cases to the tune of Schumer tears.
There's a huge difference between posting a 25 minute, uncut video of an interview on CNN and the above videos that were edited with biased comments. When a short video is is titled "Busted!" it's already telling you what to think based on the select portion being shown.
However, when a video is 25 minutes long and its subject is "Kellyanne's full interview" (with no commentary) it's letting the viewer make up his own mind.
There's a huge difference between posting a 25 minute, uncut video of an interview on CNN and the above videos that were edited with biased comments. When a short video is is titled "Busted!" it's already telling you what to think based on the select portion being shown.
However, when a video is 25 minutes long and its subject is "Kellyanne's full interview" (with no commentary) it's letting the viewer make up his own mind.
But one can argue that 3 months temporary ban is another measure of improving extreme vetting process based on changes happened. I am pretty sure Trump EO is created to showboating his election promise. End of the day, both of them are trying to slow down the refugees. It really didn't change that much for refugees in both the cases to the tune of Schumer tears.
I suppose one can argue that, but Trump didn't. Not that you would expect an EO to argue anything (it is an EO, after all), but it apparently had not been reviewed very well internally before its release. And then we had the mess with green card holders and permanent residents being turned away; refugees who had their papers in order for months and who had rearranged their lives in order to travel here, turned away; well-vetted visitors from the target countries who had spent months being scrutinized so they could get an operation, see family, etc., turned away.
All of this was an ill-thought-out mess. It doesn't mean that there shouldn't be tougher controls on immigration in general, or that certain controls should not be phased in over a period of time to allow for people to adjust. But this EO was "Cold Turkey." That may play well in some parts of the business world, but in the world of human beings and their economies, it is not so appropriate.
I think you're confused Nancy. It is CNN that is known for telling viewers what to think.
It's actually the very nature of television--and television news--to more-or-less tell people what to think: CNN, Fox, ABC, whatever. It's an oral and visual medium that strenuously scripts, curates, and edits the information conveyed for a largely passive (though not necessarily uncritical) audience. TV is inherently biased, so that kind of has to be accepted. The issue is the degree to which you allow yourself to be manhandled by the commentators, editors, and videographers.
This is why this discussion fascinates me. I don't watch TV and try to get most of my news from print/online sources that I can read, study, critique, and compare. (I had forgotten that CNN is a TV network, so I was more tuned into its online news site.) My more passive side submits to radio news while I'm driving, but I try to be critical and skeptical of what I hear. Radio news can also lull impressionable people into complacency.
So far, if anything, it seems to me that CNN just does with a left-leaning bias what other outlets, such as Fox, do with a right-leaning bias. But not being a spectator of either, that's just a sense that I have. I'm not sure I want to start watching TV in order to find out.
I suppose one can argue that, but Trump didn't. Not that you would expect an EO to argue anything (it is an EO, after all), but it apparently had not been reviewed very well internally before its release. And then we had the mess with green card holders and permanent residents being turned away; refugees who had their papers in order for months and who had rearranged their lives in order to travel here, turned away; well-vetted visitors from the target countries who had spent months being scrutinized so they could get an operation, see family, etc., turned away.
All of this was an ill-thought-out mess. It doesn't mean that there shouldn't be tougher controls on immigration in general, or that certain controls should not be phased in over a period of time to allow for people to adjust. But this EO was "Cold Turkey." That may play well in some parts of the business world, but in the world of human beings and their economies, it is not so appropriate.
If you look at press conference from WH, they said out of thousands around 300 people are affected on that day. They allowed them after further checks in airport. I heard them saying this few times. No news channel and reporter even objected or raised any concern to this claim. But his EO is not properly thought out and some of it is to showboating his poll promise.
They will stop if some is coming back to USA after 6 months with green card. One has to get a special permission in order to stay more than 6 months outside of USA with green card even for other countries. There might be some extra rules for people traveling from these countries with green cards and visas after staying out of USA for certain time.
It's actually the very nature of television--and television news--to more-or-less tell people what to think: CNN, Fox, ABC, whatever. It's an oral and visual medium that strenuously scripts, curates, and edits the information conveyed for a largely passive (though not necessarily uncritical) audience. TV is inherently biased, so that kind of has to be accepted. The issue is the degree to which you allow yourself to be manhandled by the commentators, editors, and videographers.
This is why this discussion fascinates me. I don't watch TV and try to get most of my news from print/online sources that I can read, study, critique, and compare. (I had forgotten that CNN is a TV network, so I was more tuned into its online news site.) My more passive side submits to radio news while I'm driving, but I try to be critical and skeptical of what I hear. Radio news can also lull impressionable people into complacency.
So far, if anything, it seems to me that CNN just does with a left-leaning bias what other outlets, such as Fox, do with a right-leaning bias. But not being a spectator of either, that's just a sense that I have. I'm not sure I want to start watching TV in order to find out.
I think CNN used to be little center before. Fox is right leaning. I think rest of them are left leaning. Is there any paper or channel not leaving either side? Most of the left leaning channels are kinda occupied with running shows with made up stories from nyt and wapoo. There are one or two people on every channel who are reasonable to both sides.
If you look at press conference from WH, they said out of thousands around 300 people are affected on that day. They allowed them after further checks in airport. I heard them saying this few times. No news channel and reporter even objected or raised any concern to this claim. But his EO is not properly thought out and some of it is to showboating his poll promise.
They will stop if some is coming back to USA after 6 months with green card. One has to get a special permission in order to stay more than 6 months outside of USA with green card even for other countries. There might be some extra rules for people traveling from these countries with green cards and visas after staying out of USA for certain time.
They are also doing immigration check in other countries for the people boarding direct planes to USA. Not sure how they handled it there.
Most sources I've seen say that many more people were negatively affected by the ban: people denied boarding at point of origin; people detained once they arrived; people sent back to their point of origin when they did arrive; and so on. This article from the Chicago Tribune is typical of what I had been reading:
[Note: The article says that around 90,000 people are "affected" by the ban, which is technically true, but it seems that the issue--addressed by Trump's number (109)--was the number of active travelers who were "inconvenienced" during the boarding or arrival process. That number seems to be more in the hundreds.]
It's good that some adjustments were made during the mess to admit people who should have been admitted, but ultimately, hundreds of people were affected in different ways. A lot of people where I work were coming back from winter holiday, and some were not allowed to board their plane; others were detained with no notice of timeline. I'm not sure if any of my colleagues were forced to return to point of origin, but it could be.
Fortunately, the worst seems to be over for now. Maybe cooler heads will prevail, and we can have a more sensible and humane policy in place soon enough.
Last edited by Empidonax; 02-08-2017 at 10:47 PM..
Anyone can see that CNN is highly biased. It's yellow journalism. They lie by omission. They lie by cherry picking what is and isn't news. They love to bring on a panel to debate the latest attack on Trump. By default Trump is on the defensive when they have to bring a panel of "experts" to debate things that would never be debated in the first place if it was against Hillary or Obama.
The media spent 20 TIMES more time covering the Billy Bush / Trump tapes versus the Hillary WikiLeaks stuff. Again the media is clearly biased against Trump.
Watch FOX news, read Breitbart or listen to talk radio and you'll hear a completely different perspective.
What does a balanced view have to do with it ? I asked for evidence of lies, not for evidence that the media leans one way or another in bias.
No, what you are doing is making a claim, and then demanding other people work to disprove it. Do your own dam research. If you are so sure that CNN is a 100% truth machine, then its up toy YOU to prove it.
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.
