View Single Post
Old 01-29-2017, 03:29 PM   #5
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
the ban was just to feed the base their hunk of red meat..

He promised even more than this in his campaign. He is keeping some of his promise. When he appears not to be keeping a promise, the left likes to point that out, or fabricate the notion that he is not keeping a promise, to imply that he is not to be trusted. He can't even win for losing.

Kelly ann conway statement just shows their willingness to do what ever they want in America.. framing it as a small price to pay .. the same thing happen after 9-11 massive surveillance

“That’s 1 percent,” she pointed out. “And I think in terms of the upside being greater protection of our borders, of our people, it’s a small price to pay.”

Trump’s executive order, which triggered the detention of permanent U.S. legal residents at airports across the country.

It was not part of his executive order to do that.

Whats the price if your in that 1%

Conway pointed out the price: "the upside being greater protection of our borders, of our people,"


what is the term Obama haters like to use Bad Optics...

I thought "Bad Optics" was a term that media likes to use when it criticizes various administrations, usually Republican ones. I guess it's bad if "Obama haters" use it.

well This is Bad optics for the country World wide and thats not fake news ..

Who said it was fake news? And should we determine security policies by what some consider bad optics over actual security. Optics, for the most part, are appearance rather than reality. Security should be based on reality not appearance.

the new mantra of the right when anyone is critical of Trump just cry fake news and look away

That's a weak straw man argument. Trump has been called a purveyor of fake news, as has been social media, or anybody that the main stream media is either in competition with or just wants to discredit. Many on the "right" are critical of Trump and are more likely to call his mouthings as fake than most of those on the "left" are likely to nail Hillary, or Obama, et al. as fakers.

national review has been called the "bible of American conservatism," has a far right bias. I feel this is more balanced view http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-38790842
There you go again, discrediting the presentation of facts because of who states them, not because the report is unfactual or wrong.

So, because someone has called National Review the "bible of American conservatism", anything in it ain't no good? That is pure ignorance. And having a bias does not mean you are wrong. If it does, then everybody is wrong. And the National Review is not "far right." It is often not only "moderate," but often moderately Progressive. Hey, it has been said that the BBC has a leftist bias--some claim "far" left.

The National Review article that John cites is not giving an opinion about Trumps' executive order. It is clearly stating the parameters of the order and challenging anyone to actually read it. But instead of seeing that or responding to it, you ignore it and jump off the deep end of the false hysteria that it comments on.

And nothing in the BBC article you cite disputes the National Review article which you disparage.
detbuch is offline