no.
Trump called CNN fake news and most of the MSM is posting intentionally mis-directing pieces on the current administration.
I’m aware that there is some of this stuff going on on the right as well but honestly, i just assumed it was on both sides and worse on the left from what i can see. mind you i dont go to any right-leaning news outlets including fox.
The facts support the narrative in these cases. It’s not fake, it’s sensationalized. Something that has been happening from right and left news sources for a looooong time.
You even have The Guardian, BBC, NPR, etc reporting on these events. They’re all fake now? What a convenient narrative to spin up.
how is complete bullshit fake news? why would anyone even consider that shit other than just as a joke to antagonize the opposition.
so is the onion fake news or a satire site?
im going to stick with my initial perspective… agenda driven reporting that intentionally misleads people is fake news to me. bullshit is just bullshit and not worthy of the word news.
It became worthy of the term ‘fake news’ when people spread it around on social media like wildfire and it was believed by millions of people and effected their political views.
Side note: The NPR podcast that I listed above interviews one of the fake news creators. He claimed that at the start they wrote stories about both candidates but the fake stories about the republican side were always debunked and ignored by liberals. Whereas conservatives usually took the bait and spread the stories. Take from that what you will but I found it interesting.
Yeah, fake news isn’t satire, or biased reporting/commentary. It’s Pizzagate, Huma is member of a sleeper cell, etc.
Trump, in his typical fashion, started using “fake news” to describe anything that he finds unflattering.
I read a similar interview. The vast majority of the Fake News(bullshit) that I saw on social media was shared by some of the less technologically sophisticated conservative members of my family, or people I grew up with(rural near poverty)*. Lot’s of .com.co sites, and typical clickbait headlines, or bylines that say “this is all easily verifiable on the internet!!!”.
*You know the sort of people I’m talking about.
That said, do you guys think Trump is “banning Muslims?”
No, he is definitely not. MSM is using the fact that the list of effected countries are predominantly Muslim to drive that narrative, which is bullshit.
EDIT - I forgot to mention; The EO does in fact mention religion. It gives priority to individuals under religious-based persecution but ONLY IF your religion is ‘the minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.’ So it may not TECHNICALLY be a muslim ban, it PRACTICALLY is because; Guess what the most widespread religion is in the 7 countries in the ban?
Here’s a good article that goes over the ban. Although the words ‘Muslim-ban’ appears in the headline by asking if it is one, it does not state that it is.
That’s not to say that I agree with this EO. I do not. It was ill-conceived, lazy, and inconsiderate to people who are in dire need of help. Furthermore, it is causing LEGAL immigrants hardship and denying people entry into this nation based on the country in which they were born. By the way, that is unconstitutional. The US was already one of the hardest nations to immigrate to with a thorough vetting process. This ban is irresponsible and damaging to our international relationships.
Maybe it wasn’t ill conceived or lazy, maybe it went off perfectly.
Definitely not, but “MUSLIM BAN” makes for good click rates and drives their anti-Trump narrative better. To me, this is the the kind of fake news we should all be concerned about because it’s far more damaging than stupid shit that is easily debunked.
Give me a break claiming our vetting is so thorough. For 5 of the 7 countries on the list we don’t even have an embassy presence. You know how you do thorough vetting? You have people on the ground to give you intel. Considering all the terrorist attacks recently on US soil showed MAJOR red flags in their backgrounds, and they were right here in the US with easy to access histories, pardon me for calling BS on your claim that we can properly vet X number of people coming from places like Syria where we don’t even have an embassy and data on these people is basically non-existent because the countries are in turmoil.
Agreed. The problem I have is when the media uses a headline like that, they know most people won’t dig any deeper. “I hear Trump is banning Muslims!” Next thing you know, this shit happens:
This is the fake news of the left.
I agree it was hap-haphazardly implemented. If it’s unconstitutional, let the 109 people who were detained (and released) prove damages in court.
Here’s a trick question for you: what does the “thorough vetting process” include, without mentioning the length of time it takes? 
So… like when Obama changed the policy on Cuban refugees and they were all stuck in transit or at the border?
you and i are on the exact same page here.
America First !!
My arguement here, and i presented it in Howie’s thread on FB… these policies are a direct reflection of what the Trump voter actually wants to see happen. Help the Americans that are already here paying taxes (or trying to) who have been short changed by various elements of globalization.
This is my primary concern with Trudeau as well. He is going to bring in several hundred thousand immigrants and refugees with his liberal / humanitarian agenda which i dont think anyone has an ideological opposition to… however… umm… silly carbon taxes, no economic growth, major competitive disadvantages and entire provinces of people left with limited positive outlook… but lets increase the population of the country by 1% or more anyways…
The father of the guy who planted the bombs in NY and NJ went to the FBI and said, “My son is a terrorist” and the FBI couldn’t find anything. But yeah, I’m totally confident we’re not going to miss a terrorist among the thousands trying to come in from countries that have no functioning government or governments that actively despise and refuse to work with the US.
Bottom line, America first. If we’ve got $1000 to help a Syrian refugee we’ve got a $1000 we could better spend on a homeless vet in the US. If we’ve got $1000 to spend in scholarship money for a kid that isn’t even legally in the country via the DREAM act that’s a $1000 we should be spending on a US citizen’s college education. Trump won because a lot of working class people in the country are tired of watching the liberal elite give their hard earned tax dollars away while they feel they get nothing in return.
Technically not a meme: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm
Boom.
There is no reason that the US can’t help those in need AND our own people. How about the billions of dollars being proposed to build an over-compensation wall at the southern border when that funding could be used for veteran care? Those arguments are everywhere.
It sounds cliche, but I do believe that immigrants made this country what it is and slamming the door on people who need help while pushing an isolationist stance will hurt us in the long run.
Also, how many radicalized Muslims from the countries listed in the ban were involved in terrorist activity that have killed Americans since 9/11? Zero.
Well, I’ve gone through the process for normal immigration. Despite taking several stages and a lot of time, here’s a description from NPR for refugees which is slightly different:
Sorry, missed your edit.
So you’ve addressed how this EO could be conflated as being directed indirectly towards Muslims, but what about all of the other, larger, Muslim majority countries which are not part of the EO? Or Muslim minority countries which are not mentioned either but that have more relaxed travel between them and the US?
What about them? Are you asking if I think they should have been included in the ban? Because that wouldn’t make sense…
Oh we certainly can, the debate is over if we should. That’s a personal moral question.
Also, how many radicalized Muslims from the countries listed in the ban were involved in terrorist activity that have killed Americans since 9/11? Zero.
Libya = Benghazi = Ambassador Chris Stevens, etc.
Iran = sending fighters & road side bombs to Iraq = lots of dead US soldiers.
Yemen = USS Cole bombing = 17 killed, 39 injured
That’s just off the top of my head. Definitely not zero.
… here’s a description from NPR for refugees which is slightly different:
Knew you’d grab NPR’s article
Note that it doesn’t specify how these departments / agency’s get their information on a subject. Some of these countries are failed states, with no record keeping to speak of. It’s apples to oranges comparing immigration from Canada to the US and Libya to the US. The counter terrorism screening center can’t call someone in Libya and get the address, former employer info, etc.
This is the specificity that congress has asked for and hasn’t been given. Show me how you can know the unknown and I’ll be totally trusting of the vetting.
Short answer, based on my understanding of the situation is yes. I think my full answer is more nuanced than that. We all know that it was one of Trumps campaign promises, regardless of it’s Constitutionality.
That answer is also assuming we’re expected to take Giuliani at his word.
From his interview on Fox the other day: “I’ll tell you the whole history of it. When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban’…'”
He then went on to explain how they could legally do it. “We focused on the areas of the world that create danger for us.”
The US admitted a record number of Muslim Refugees last year. 75% of them came from Syria, Iraq and Somalia. Those numbers were likely going to increase this year as a percentage of total admitted refugees.
Longer answer: It’s not a defacto “Muslim ban” as it’s being reported, but I think the intent of the action is pretty clear when taken in context of what’s been said previously, regardless of however easily walked back on legal grounds or wordsmithing.
Still calling it a ban
If we’re “banning Muslims” wouldn’t it make sense to ban them from countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt as well? Or is it more likely that the intent of the EO is to not ban all Muslims, but rather restrict travel from countries which don’t have as detailed record keeping as Saudi Arabia or Egypt? To restrict travel from countries where we don’t even have an embassy or normalized political relations?