For the most part, I avoid political talk. I was in a waiting room, today, when this news story came on.
This man has decided that his mother died because of the flying ban. If not for the ban, his mother would still be alive, which is just ridiculous. If she didn’t last 24 hours after she was told she could not fly, what proof does he have that she could survive the 18 hour plane ride? Of course, the article is incomplete as it does not say what she died of. What could America have done to save this woman that the fine hospitals of Iraq could not provide?
Stories like this, do nothing more than cause trouble.
Yeah, I don’t agree with the way the ban was carried out ( I think it was too sudden and they should have just stopped issuing visas instead of holding people at the airport, etc), but you can’t just recount sob stories as arguments. There will be sad stories no matter what. My husband is pretty liberal and even he thinks the media is overreacting.
Media is never really neutral. That’s a strong statement but one that is close to the truth.
Sensationalism profits them. However this is not the same as all journalists as not being professional.
Media can be a tool for furthering agendas and depend on their political leaning, they would just do that. It is quite easy to pick their reports to illustrate that either from the omission or exegerration of their news.
Although I am largely happy with Mr. Trumps executive actions so far (not so much his unnecessary tweets), I think he brings his own set of problems. That said, the media and the (radical) left in general is proving his point and that of many conservatives.
They have an ideology which no longer includes “dialog” or fairness in dealing with the other side. They wish to shout and shut us down. They won’t even respect rule of law if it means that they lose. And I think this is opening many eyes. Especially to those honest leftists who have been fooled by the dishonest rhetoric.
They wish to de-legitimize Trump because he’s so bad for them. If Mr. Trump is genuinely that bad, let him de-legitimize himself. Instead, it is the media and the left which are de-legitimizing themselves. But to them, the right and all conservatism has been de-legitimized. We wind up in a situation where we can no longer talk with each other.
Although, I think conservatives are also at fault, I think the majority of fault lies with the radical left which has imposed itself. But the country didn’t get here because of Mr. Trump- we’ve been pulling in different directions for a long time now. Perhaps peacefully separating would be the best solution- but that’s won’t happen. This seems to be a winner-takes-all to-the-death contest.
This is why I think that it’s very important that we Catholics and other Christians do our best to re-evangelize the world, in spite of all the nonsense going on in the Church today.
Reasonable people who recognize that they are headed in opposite directions have no trouble peacefully going their own ways. The problem is that we are not reasonable people.
I would have no desire to “take over” or force others to accept and adopt my ideology if they decided to separate. And yet, there are many people who want to force me to vehemently support very twisted and anti-human and anti-God ideologies. Ultimately, I believe that things like abortion and “gay marriage” should be up to the states.
Technically no, he ended the wet-foot/dry-foot policy. And technically, Trump did not ban anyone - he ordered a moratorium on refugees from seven countries.
If you want to play semantic games, go ahead, but people who object to turning away refugees would fairly and honestly be upset at both. Instead, they aren’t.
The whole argument is inconsistent anyway.
Many object that this is a Muslim ban.
2)The same people object that we targeted the wrong countries, pointing to Saudi Arabia (even though we targeted countries known for training terrorists, not giving birth to them, but never mind that little detail).
If you make a point of number 2, the implication is you don’t really object to what you call a Muslim ban, it just has to be the “correct” Muslims. Anyone who objects to what they erroneously call a Muslim ban (number 1) wouldn’t even bring up number 2 as it undermines their point.
It is of note that the man in question is a US citizen who went back to Iraq during war to work for the U.S. Special Forces as an adviser and interpreter. His mother had a green card. Because of the keystone cop roll out of the ban, there was confusion over what to do about with people with green card. Thankfully the bad news helped led the administration to realize the problem; it has altered and clarified procedures to allow entry for green card holders. Sadly, too late for the mother of this man who put himself in harms way for the US.
We don’t know much about her health at the time. However the idea that she dies prematurely after the stress of this situation cannot be fairly dismissed as “ridiculous”.
A tragic thing happened in the aftermath of poor implementation of questionable policy - the urgency and scope of which was ginned up, ironically, by demagogues who trumped up bad news stories. Own it.