["The View": Week of 2/3/2020]

39 minutes ago, Haleth said:

She did not.  She was told it doesn’t work that way.  (That’s what they said on the news, I don’t know why People has a different result.)

 

I guess that would explain why the other articles didn't mention that part. Thanks for clarifying!

["The View": Week of 2/3/2020]

6 minutes ago, Rainyhawk said:

You’re right. He did answer her question, just not the way she wanted.  If that’s her hill to die on (avortion), then she (and Rs like her) are not voting for any democrat so who is she trying to fool with her “you have to win us over” crap(never believed her anyway).  

Exactly. His response and his comments were pretty clear from the get go, she just wanted to ask it again so that when he confirmed his point of view, she could have her moment.

["The View": Week of 2/3/2020]

26 minutes ago, lusinia said:

I was wondering the same thing myself.  This woman was a Klobuchar voter (I think she's wearing her buttons), but Klobuchar wasn't viable, so she switched to Pete.  It is disheartening to see such stark evidence of how little attention some people pay to politics.

One other big group of voters that's hardly ever mentioned, which encompasses all three groups, are the registered voters who didn't vote in 2016.  There were slightly more of those non-voters than the number of votes that Hillary received.  Meghan just wants Democrats to think Republicans are crucial to their success and therefore should be kowtowed to. 

I had to go to the second page of google before I stumbled on an article that wasn't a regurgitation of all the others. People.com reported that the woman walked off and a voting official approached her and helped her change her vote to Elizabeth Warren.

Meghan is probably too obsessed with that 2016 map of red and her small brain has forgotten how to comprehend that all those votes don't mean Republican voters.

["The View": Week of 2/3/2020]

And it's moment like Megan's Twitter retweet that make me question her intelligence and ability to think for herself. When Mayor Pete answered her abortion question, she thanked him for clarifying and then went on to lecture him about how he's not going to get votes because of it. Now she's retweeting a headline that's saying that Mayor Pete refused to give his stance on partial birth abortion with a clip of her question and his response from today. Are people stupid or just need to clean the wax out of their ears? He clearly answered the question - the government has no business making those decisions for a woman and that he will put his trust in a woman making that decision for herself. That's a pretty obvious point of view. But Meghan can't pass up an opportunity to feel like she had a 'gotcha' moment, lol.

["The View": Week of 2/3/2020]

Today just proved to me what I always suspected about Meghan. Meghan is the type of person who can hear one person say something and if that person is a Democrat, then she's going to repeat that information and misrepresent it in a way that makes it seem like there's a large body of people that feel this way when in truth she only knows of one source. She gets offended that Whoopi gave her a taste of her own medicine but she doesn't recognize how dismissive it is that she basically attributes the exact same thought and opinions to all 3 women on the panel just because they all happen to be Democrats. She doesn't recognize how dismissive it is for her to misinterpret what the women were saying and then acting like they were being naive about Mitt Romney. None of them praised him for being a good guy. They simply gave him credit for a specific situation. Meghan turned it into something that it wasn't and the saddest part is that she didn't even have the awareness to recognize this and apologize or own what she did. She turned herself into a victim the moment she said 'I knew this was going to happen'. She's the poster child for people who say 'I'm not a victim' but then go on to say and behave like a victim.

It was really disheartening to see that voter wanting to withdraw her vote when she found out Pete is gay. She believed in what he stood for, enough to give her vote to him but is willing to sacrifice that vote because of something that really is of no consequence to her. What does she really lose in her life knowing that Pete is gay? Out of curiousity, was she able to get her vote back? And if so, was she allowed to vote for someone else?

I appreciate that Pete corrected Meghan about having a substantial lead on Sanders in Iowa. His dig at Trump's service was incredibly smooth. I've said it from the first interview I saw of him, he is incredibly thoughtful and well spoken in his delivery. I loved how he handled the abortion question and even laughed at the stupidity of what people like Meghan think about late term abortion. Even on its surface, the idea that a woman would go through an entire pregnancy and only within weeks of giving birth would so casually and dismissively decide that she didn't want to have a child...so absurd. He can explain it until he's blue in the face, but it won't resonate for some people and you have to just be okay with knowing that sometimes you just can't fix stupid.

And let's be real - Meghan keeps talking about what's going to win over Republicans. Everyone knows that elections come down to independents. He doesn't need Meghan's vote because unless he suddenly announced that he was joining the Republican party and espousing their talking points, there was no way in hell that she would ever vote for him anyway. Gotta cut your losses and speak to people who are open minded.

 

["The View": Week of 2/3/2020]

On 2/4/2020 at 12:10 PM, deirdra said:

Is there a reason Joy was not there for the Rosie Perez segment?

What was Whoopi going to ask Jurnee?  How she felt about being Jussie Smollett's sister?  Odd way to not ask a question. 

Damn, I had no idea that they were siblings!

[Very Cavallari - General Discussion]

Justin has literally replaced the role of Kelly this season.

I'm starting to see how this was all envisioned.

Season 1 Kirsten needed to promote her business and thought the best way to do it is to let her messy employees bring the drama while she enjoys the storyline arc of a mother, wife and businesswoman doing it all and learning that she needs to stop being the boss everyone loves and become the boss everyone respects.

Season 2 Kirsten saw the fruits of her business being promoted and once again leaned on her employees to bring the drama while she solidified her role as a boss bitch, making hard decisions to ensure success of her company.

Season 3 Kirsten can't use come into a third season making the same boss lady mistakes when she also wants to run with the storyline of UJ being a crazy success and with great potential to expand. So now, it feels like she's making a mountain out of molehill with Kelly, shifting the drama from the business lens to a more personal lens without having to sacrifice her husband or her closest friends to do it.

["The View": Week of 12/09/2019]

14 minutes ago, PradaKitty said:

Looking at Abby’s dress I just knew she would be trying to keep it from flying up over her head in the giveaway sequence!

I didn't look at that segment but I think she looks great in that colour! She pulls off bright colours really well, in my opinion.

["The View": Week of 12/09/2019]

1 hour ago, lusinia said:

She knew the DT Jr. interview would get a lot of right wing press, so she acted all prim and proper and played the quivering-voiced victim.

Yeah that's why she's full of shit. She's very careful of how she criticizes Republicans (mostly by turning the conversation into a 'both sides' argument but let it be a Democrat then all of her entire talking points will be focused on Democrats) but she claims that she calls balls and strikes. She is still beholden to her politics above all else. That's why you would think that she took a mood stabilizer when a Republican guest is on the show but with Democrats, she acts like a raging raccoon with rabies that drank a crate of Red Bull. She's got all energy then. I'm being excessive with my descriptions of her but I have little rope for people who demonstrate a disgusting lack of self-awareness and expect from others what they are unwilling to give of themselves. That is Meghan McCain on this show.

["The View": Week of 12/09/2019]

19 minutes ago, Sarah Heart said:

Tulsi and Corey aren't on this show, Steyer, is. If he can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I think she loves to get a rise out of people, it's working. 

So they why is Meghan mentioning Corey? There should be a certain level of decorum as a host interviewing a guest. Nothing wrong with tough questions, but everything is wrong with an unprofessional attitude. It's forgivable once in a while when dealing with intentionally difficult guests or guests who say things that are very racist or bigoted and endorse hate speech. People can be entertained by her and agree with her politics, but there is not a single person on planet earth who can believably do the mental gymnastics required to deny that this woman isn't a hypocrite when it comes to 'views'. She polices other peoples reactions and behaviours and even hot topics but takes issue when people do just a fraction of that toward her. She doesn't speak to uncover facts or clarify points, she speaks to be condescending and shame people and that's what makes her a bitch on this show.

She acts like a dumb donkey when Donald Trump Jr. is on after all the shit he said about her family or all of the shady shit her 'uncles' take part in right now and she has mum to say but has all the energy in the world for Democrats who come on the show when very few of her Republican people bother to show up.

["The View": Week of 11/04/2019]

First of all, don't bring up being a woman of colour when it suits your attempts at dodging criticism. The criticisms against Gabbard had nothing to do with her being a woman or a person of colour (which is a far different experience when you are white-passing by the way). Defend your intellectualism, that's fair enough...but all the other comments was so cheap and sickening to listen to her bring up. As a person of colour, don't cheapen my experiences in this world as though someone's criticism of you and your campaign platform is some kind of affront to me and my very existence. As far as I'm concerned, Gabbard can take her cult-ish leader speak far away and never come back. She came prepared, I'll give her that, but she came prepared to be a victim. I read the transcript and heard the full answer from HC.  The question was about Republican strategy and in response, Clinton said they (Republicans) were grooming a third party candidate (Gabbard). And then she made reference to the Russian interest in Gabbard given the rise of bots and fake sites in support of her. She said that Jill Stein was a Russian asset (pretty sure an asset not in the sense that she's on the phone with Russia conspiring against the United States, but a Russian asset in the sense that they have special interest in her for a reason (as they do with Gabbard). Clinton's spokesperson did in a roundabout way confirm that it was Gabbard that HC was referencing, BUT Gabbard is continuing to push a false narrative that HC is saying she is being groomed by the Russians even though there has since been corrections to clarify this.

This has nothing to do with calling into question her patriotism. When I read the actual transcript and heard the podcast, I wondered if so many people can be so obtuse...can people not keep up with conversation and simultaneously have consideration of context? Is this not what we learn in grade school when we read stories and have to write summaries on them? I find it alarming that anyone would consider Gabbard a real candidate for President when her comprehension skills are so clearly lacking which is a good basis to suggest that maybe she isn't as smart as she thinks she is. And I say all of this as someone who can't stand HC. It's unfortunate, because I agree on her general sentiment with respect to war. When you topple other governments, you give rise the chaos and instability. 

Pretty sure Meghan's turnabout on Gabbard is because Gabbard has said she won't take her guns.

Joy is often flippant with her remarks and she was called to task today. I don't mind that she doubled down but she didn't do it all that well. I get that her issue with Tucker Carlson is that she feels that Gabbard is giving someone a platform they don't deserve and it's a matter of principle for Joy and even the likes of Warren but that's a personal decision. Nothing wrong with understanding that you have to promote yourself to many different demographics and going on popular Fox shows is just part of playing the game.

I wish Sunny would have been there today as I do think she would have a done a better job at not only clarifying the comments, but also pushing back on Gabbard's insistence that HC's camp confirmed it was her that HC claimed was being groomed by Russian as a Russian asset.

[Kim Kardashian Thomas Humphries West]

Cute concept with the Flintstones theme but the edit on Chicago is pretty bad but I don't blame Kim for specifically mentioning that she was edited it because she probably would have gotten called out for forgetting one of her children and having to edit her in after the fact, lol.

["The View": Week of 9/23/2019]

7 hours ago, bannana said:

Just re this part, is what MeAgain said even true?

No. She was misleading as usual. She tried to turn into a moment exposing leftist hypocrisy but the issue pressed right now is not about the President withholding funds to Ukraine, but within the context of a phone call that may have included extortion which eventually led to the release of funds that was being withheld in an unprecedented capacity. That is the crux of the issue that the Democrats were raising eyebrows over - they were not getting on a pedestal and proclaiming how immoral it was not to provide funding to Ukraine.

Here's what she did, she quoted the Washington Post with her Obama comments but she conveniently forgot read the quote in full - Obama resisted efforts to send lethal military assistance to Ukraine because he was worried that it might provoke Russia but he was not against the general concept of funding for military assistance to Ukraine. She also 'forgot' to mention that Congress has steadily appropriated more for those programs than what has been requested by Obama OR Trump.

She selectively left out words and whole sentences that provided more context in an effort to make an apples and oranges situation seem alike when they weren't. Ignorance is forgivable, but what she does is exactly what she blames the media for doing it but rationalizes her behaviour by claiming she's not a 'journalist'. As though that exempts her from bearing any responsibility for propagating false information with the intent to mislead.

[S04.E20: Reunion (Part 2)]

3 hours ago, qtpye said:

Besides Monique, the only “affluence” any of them have is a Bravo paycheck as proven by those pre d list fame wigs.

Candiass was stupid to risk her friendship with Monique over that stupid Amistad lie. Cynthia Bailey’s husband Peter made some good coin after he divorced Cynthia and got Cordell Stewart to finance his second restaurant. Monique is a good friend and she’s got money. Candiass can front about country clubs all she wants but her life is a failure. Her biggest accomplishment thus far has been coming out of a well educated cooch. 

I don't recall her lying about the Amistad comment. She repeated the word as Monique said it and when prodded about what it meant, she confirmed it in the way she interpreted it. It was a stupid reference to make and Candiace shouldn't be blamed for how she interpreted it, however, she was not a good friend sharing that information with Gizelle knowing Monique's history with her and when prodded by Gizelle, she should have simply said 'honestly, I don't know exactly what she meant by it but I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't meant maliciously'. Because that's what you do for your friends - you give them an opportunity to explain themselves rather than throw them under the bus with other people.

["The View": Week of 9/23/2019]

57 minutes ago, 1SimonMom said:

I have never seen someone who hates being at their job but yet feels it is her duty to be there because her political intelligence and just plain no one understands America more then her (I just threw up)  If Elsa was a true patriot like she reminds of then she would taken to heart what Sunny said the Republicans are more about power then country and that explains Meghan in a nutshell - she is all about the power she feels at this job and the power that she exploit her views more than the love of the country as with everything it is me me me not America and those of US who want her off the View - its her above everyone else.

Straight out of Meghan's own mouth, she said the reason she loves politics is because there are winners and losers. That lens views politics as a reflection of power and ego. You can try to disguise it with portraits of Founding Fathers and hang as many flags as you want but anyone with a lick of sense can see that those intentions are not patriotic.

[S04.E20: Reunion (Part 2)]

18 hours ago, bichonblitz said:

Michael could suck a dick right in front of Ashley's face and she would still deny he did it. They all need to let it go already. For what ever reason, Ashley is in this marriage 100% and she's going to defend her coins.She saw what her dismal life was like when he kicked her out and she's not going there again. Now the arrangement is that she was granted the baby she so desperately wanted and he got her undying devotion and agreement to stand behind his disgusting ass no matter what. A marriage made in heaven. 

This is basically how I see Ashley's situation. She can't be that stupid. She'll lie to herself until she believes it but she's not willing to jeopardize the money or lifestyle...even if it means that her husband is in fact guilty of molesting people. I know being poor sucks but she done sold her soul.

Candiace has been frustrating to watch. Every sensible point she can make is overthrown by her poor temperament and her immediate need to rebuttal with low blows. It's like she's trying really hard to gain a reputation of being the 'shade queen' instead of focusing on simply getting her point across. And she was frustrating up until the point she was angering when she made the hood comment. She thinks that because she grew up in a nice community that her nasty behaviour can't be described as 'hood'? Her sense of entitlement is mind boggling to me. And that's why I can't get on board with people who call her husband a gold digger. Candiace is the gold digger and she's digging in her momma's purse.

["The View": Week of 9/16/2019]

I started watching this new season (though I'm behind today and yesterday's episodes) and I'm going to be honest, aside from a few 'typical catty' moments with her co-hosts and guests, I found Meghan's overall demeanor to be improved from last season (still don't agree with most of her opinions and do think she conflates and is intellectually dishonest when positioning her points), however, now I'm reading she stomps off set...who the hell pissed her off? lol. Guess what I thought was a 'playing nicer' Meghan may have left the building already.

[S04.E18: Mom's the Word]

6 hours ago, ButterQueen said:

This season was tired....old news.  Maybe next season will be a breakout.

Andy called it a breakout season for the show. He's happy with it and it's likely that Bravo feels the same way. It's all a matter of personal opinion though. I happen to disagree with you - I enjoyed the season and much prefer it to the recycled garbage that I see on the OC and BH franchises yet they keep coming back. But again, personal opinion. I'm really excited for the reunion. I'm hoping they really drag Ashley and Michael.

[S04.E18: Mom's the Word]

6 hours ago, ButterQueen said:

I do hope they have another season.  

I'd be surprised if they didn't. Apparently the seasons are the best yet and Andy has called it Potomac's real breakout season.

["The View": Week of 9/9/2019]

21 hours ago, deirdra said:

And she was born in Mississauga (Toronto suburb). She's Canadian, not an immigrant. Please, Joy, you lose credibility when you make the same assumptions that you accuse Trump of.

She didn't claim Bianca was an immigrant. In fact, she specifically mentioned that it was Bianca's parents that were immigrants to Canada. When she made the comment something to the effect of 'this is what immigration looks like' she meant holistically, that is what immigration often looks like - not a slew of rapists and murderers, but most immigrants become fruitful contributors to their communities and born first-generation children who have even better opportunities to succeed in life - like Bianca.

["The View": Week of 9/2/2019]

33 minutes ago, lusinia said:

So Meghan says, with her typical snarl, "Mayor Pete, you're not gonna change anybody's mind on that", about his suggestion that people, of faith and not, think about addressing the climate emergency because it's moral issue. 

So Mayor Buttigieg, who is more educated, well-spoken, talented and accomplished than Megan is (and they're just about the same age, so I should add more mature to that list). can't possibly cause someone to rethink their position on why and what we need to do about climate change, but she thinks that her opinions are something that people should listen to and come around to agreeing with?  Puh-leez.

I do wonder why she's so contemptuous of him, since he fits into two of her favorite catagories of people,

I actually find it funny that 3 days into the new season, the woman who speaks for 50% of America (50% she is claiming to be Republican/Conservative to which I would challenge that 'stat') she has basically described them as violent (don't take their guns away) and ignorant (doesn't matter what you say, they can't be taught any different than what they know...at least when it comes to climate change). Even if I did share her views, I would be mortified that someone as inarticulate and unprofessional as Meghan McCain would be considered the face of what I stand for.

["The View": Week of 9/2/2019]

13 hours ago, film noire said:

Amen and WTF was Whoopi on about? (My god, her comments are maddenly elliptical and confusing and so full of "ums" and "you knows" I want to shake her until her bones rattle.) McCarthyism was a government witch hunt bent on stripping citizens of their constitutional rights; this is about citizens deciding if they want to spend their disposable income (and attention) on someone supporting a political figure they find abusive and reprehensible.

If you don't want anybody to know you've given money to Trump (or anyone else) that's an issue for the actor to ponder long and hard, not information to be hidden from consumers.

3

I'm still trying to wrap my head around any of them equating this to a blacklist in any sense when the information is always made part of public record. Whoopi often talks out of her ass and doesn't seem to think that use of appropriate words and being coherent is all that necessary for her job. Whoopi was effectively arguing against (and Meghan co-signing with her sound effects in the background) the freedom of an individual to make informed personal and professional decisions that they feel is consistent with their integrity and values because that essentially was their point - they have their eyes on that fundraiser and will be paying attention to who is spending what and maybe that will shape their own personal decisions of who they work with and what corporations they support as a consumer. That is within their right. At least wait for them to start calling for collective boycotts before getting incensed over the request to have public information shared.

[S04.E17: Unanswered Questions]

20 hours ago, telemachus2 said:

Why does Karen get to appoint herself judge & jury of Michael Darby?  The matter has already been adjudicated &, as Assley stated, dismissed.  Karen & the rest of the coven can disagree all they want, but the law has spoken. As Michael's behavior upset Karen, can't she just try to be civil to Ashley & ignore her spouse, rather than spoiling a previously happy day by again trying to rehash the issue?  Public, same-sex, jocular, drunken, alleged groping is highly offensive but is far from rape. This so-called "sexual assault" & the cameraman's subsequent request for a "peace/restraining order" have been reviewed by prosecutors, & dropped for lack of evidence.  Karen - MYOB & focus on that rollerball (& finding/funding palatial rentals after The Black Bill Gates's little financial/legal fiasco.) 

And so what if Michael is truly bi or gay - that's strictly an issue for he & Ashley to address, & nobody else gets a say, period.

There are a number of incorrect comments you've made about the legal aspects of the case. 

The case was NOT adjudicated and the law did NOT speak on this matter.  No judge or jury assessed the facts of the case and determined guilt or innocence. The State's Attorney Office determined that they had not gathered sufficient evidence to take pursue the case, therefore, the case was never presented before a judge. Karen is within her rights to speak facts - a dismissal of the case due to insufficient evidence gathered is not a vindication of someone's innocence nor a validation of their guilt (and she didn't claim either). People who tend to have little value for other people's space or consent rarely make it a point to take advantage of people in obvious plain sight. I don't know about you or others here, but I don't know enough people with enough fingers and toes to count all of the times I've heard the accused in a sexual assault case defend themselves with complete denial of the incident, the insistence that the interaction was consensual, or much like this case, invoking a narrative that challenges intent because both parties admit to contact. Karen is not making herself the judge, jury, and executioner here, as a rape survivor, she understands the difficulties one goes through trying to prove that they were violated and she has every right not to buy the watered-down 'court win' that Ashley and Michael are selling because he was not proven innocent. The eyes of the law do not agree with anyone who suggests that his innocence was proven. It wasn't.  Everyone here can hate on Karen for what she said and/or how she said it but she in no terms was wrong about what she said.

[S14.E04: Breakdown In Beverly Hills]

Vicki and Tamra are vile human beings. They actively take part in taking down people and repeating vile information about them but then play innocent when they get called out for their behaviour...meanwhile they get heated when people do the same to them. Um hello, have we forgotten how pissed off she was about Vicki repeating rumours about Eddie being gay? I don't really see how either of these women try to be good Christians. They are going to have a wonderful surprise the day they meet their Lord and he rebukes them for being an accomplice to the damn devil. And I must have missed something but wasn't it Tamra that brought up the train and tried to have the conversation with Shannon about it?

B was absolutely right to tell Kelly as a friend. It's not like it was a private conversation. They put that information out there into the world for all of us to hear. No matter what you think of Kelly, she deserves to know what was said so that she can also use that same platform to defend/address the situation.

It's hard to care much about Emily crying about Shane and especially his lack of interest in attending her lingerie performance when she knew exactly what she was getting when she married him. She cared more about starting a family than she did about who she was starting that family with. Still sucks for her that she has to deal with that but also, it's not like the guy pulled a 180 on her. This is just the perfect opportunity to bring it all to the forefront without it being pushed in her face that she knew what she married.

[S03.E04: Little Lies]

I've just started watching this show and haven't watched any of the seasons related to this franchise before this (though I'm aware of some of the more controversial couples...most of which are with Arab men and American women it seems).

So it appears that Darcey was on the show with another foreign lover which didn't end well. I do think that Tom has catfished her but she seems like an incredibly needy and insecure woman who is more obsessed with wanting someone to feed her ego than someone who is at least confident enough to show a recent picture of themselves before she flew all the way to London to meet him. He's doesn't seem like much of a prize but neither does she and while I understand her neediness being a turn off, can't say I feel bad for her.

I understand that Rebecca doesn't want to be controlled but don't haul your ass all the way to Tunisia for some dick and then take issue with customs in their country. Zied had admitted that he's jealous but it seems his issue with her dress is more to do with the customs and expectations of his country. It's possible that he wouldn't be as bothered for her to dress like that in America. In any case, I do find him a bit creepy and I think Rebecca should run but I also think it's hilariously ironic that she's telling him she just wants to be herself and be accepted for herself when she was the one who sent him excessively filtered pictures of herself up until the moment he met her in person. Show a little care about where you are in the world.

Angela...I can't even with this one. Does she just want camera time because there's no way this man wants anything more than a green card from her. But oh my, Caeser is even worse. How can he not see that he's being used? I really hope that his situation is staged for TV because it's just so pathetic that it makes my heart hurt to think that there are people in the world so gullible and can so easily be taken advantage of by someone who they have never met.

Tim is an odd looking dude but I do think he's solid to have maintained a fatherly role for that little girl. Not sure what to think of Jennifer. She is beautiful and it's obvious that it's his money that his her main priority in the 'relationship'. Either her anger about his ex is because she genuinely is open to trying in the relationship and doesn't like their relationship or ego is bruised by the idea that there may be another woman in his life when she expects him to only worship her.

Avery is so young and I can certainly understand why her mother is so worried about her decisions but I also understand why her mother is taking part in Avery's journey because she knows that otherwise, Avery is an adult and there's nothing her mother can do to force her to stay if she 'forbids' Avery from going to Lebanon or getting married. I also understand her protective nature about a completely foreign culture and religion that in fairness has not been presented in a positive light in the US but I also understand why Omar feels she's being disrespectful of his culture. Instead of googling information and being confrontational with him about it, ask him questions to learn about how he and his family do things. There are Muslims all over the world and their cultural traditions bleed into their interpretation of religion. You can have 10 people claim to be religious but when you start asking them questions, you may learn that the way they practice their religion is not identical to one another. On the bright side, Omar does seem decent with a mild temperament. He is conservative but hasn't appeared aggressive in the times where he didn't wasn't completely happy with Avery's choices (like the fit of the wedding dress). It's too early to tell how things will work out there, even if he is a good person who genuinely wants a marriage with Avery, they have a whole separate issue of getting him to the States given the travel ban.