Tweet
Originally posted by Geoff Parkstone
View Post
Its not even as if this was a speculative traveller, his attendance would have been notified well in advance to the US authorities, he had been issued with a visa, (contrary your claim it seems he had been granted a visa) your claiming that "something" might have come up since then to justify his exclusion? POssible but on the evidence of how Trump's adminstration behaves highly unlikely.
MM as I said, if this administration acted in a fair and transparent manner on such matters, one would indeed give them the benefit of the doubt, but given the track record the odds are heavily stacked in this being just another deliberate action designed to highlight Trump's "decisive" action on immigration.
But lets examine your claims that its my prejudice and political bias that leads me to conclusion.
Actually its called making a judgement, taking into account how the current US administration currently behaves, how only a fool would believe without question what Trump and his aasociates say, how he has stuffed the various government agencies, not with people with the knowledge and qualifications required to run them, but with people who are loyal to him and who mostly have neither the experience, ability or knowledge to run them. How decisions are taken not on the basis of law, in fact the law (and the constitution are routinely broken or ignored) but on the basis of a a flawed ideology.
There is ample actual evidence as to the fact that the Trump administrations word cannot be trusted, and the many cases where the US border authority have behaved atrociously with entirely innocent people, that is hardly a bias, its called making a judgement based on what actually happens. Obviously I cannot prove the facts of this case, but if your saying that US border authorities suddenly discovered something about a key person whom they have issued a visa to previously, then either they are remarkbly incompetent (possible) or there is political game playing happening. I know which I believe to be more likely given the fact that the latter is rampant currently in the US.
Of course if I was to take your point about not having the exact knowledge as to why this action was taken, which is valid, though can be qualified with what I've said above. I'd then have to ask why are you so keen to defend these actions, when in other cases you don't take that line, but frequently express a view without any actual evidence to support what you have said? Is it your own political bias that leads you to do this?
If you responded by saying, we don't know what the details are beyond what the Trump administration has said, but gvien its track record we should be suspicious of their motives, I could see your point. But thats not your response, your assuming innocent until proven guilty, which is fair enough when dealing with people who behave within the norms, but that ship has longed sailed with Trump and his officials. Thats how they get away with what they are doing, I would ahve thought you could see that?
One only has to observe whats been done and whats said on a daily basis to udnerstand that the basic approach of trump and this government is to flood the zone with so much false information that it becomes increasingly difficult to work out what is fact and what is fiction, the norms of political and diplomatic behaviour are trashed everyday.
So no its not uniformed opinion, its a judgement based on how Trump and this administration actually behaves, unlike Trump I'm not making things up I'm working on the basis that if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck it is very likely a duck.
I gvie people who make honest mistakes the benefit of the doubt not serial liars, law breakers and the like.
Comment