4 ms·

The problem with this reasonable seeming approach is that it accepts the frame. Trump/Bannon present the following frame: we can combat terrorism by banning re

by marcell 10y ago

The problem with this reasonable seeming approach is that it accepts the frame. Trump/Bannon present the following frame: we can combat terrorism by banning refugees from Muslim countries. This claim is factually incorrect, and moreover it is an attempt to set up an "other" group (Muslims) as an enemy. Keep in mind Trumps unapologetic claim on the campaign trail: Donal J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States -- Donald J Trump, Dec 2015 By proposing "specific ammendments", Musk says the framework as correct, but the details are wrong. In fact, the opposite is the case: the framework is wrong, as well as the details. The entire order should be rescinded, without qualification. Musk and other SV commentators should know better than this, and not lend their credibility to un-American actions by the administration.

egopulsus 10y ago
> This claim is factually incorrect Can you back this statement up with facts?
JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Musk is saying "find a face-saving way for Trump to substantively repeal the order without saying that nor making it sound like that to his supporters".
- StringyBob 10y ago
  "Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across." Sun Zsu, the art of war
dexen 10y ago
I'd like to correct the quote: Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. [1] That's why the current order has set duration of 90 days, and it's announced that subsequent immigration from the affected seven countries will be allowed, subject to tougher vetting. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-u-s/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and... - first hit in Google search.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- marcell 10y ago
  Yes, that is the full quote. The "90 days" is not what is at issue with the original quote or the Executive Order. Again--the details are not the issue, the entire frame of thinking is.
- simonh 10y ago
  What is going on is that muslims such as the Iraqi government and Iraqi army are fighting IS tooth and claw right now. An Iraqi that had family members murdered for helping the US has been prevented from getting on a plane to the US. This ban is affecting thousands of people who support the US and some who are risking their lives to help the US fight terrorism. Trump had no idea what he was doing when he made that quote, has no idea now. What better idea in 90 days? Cancel this order? Meanwhile his actions are increasing the risks to the US. This is all about posturing and victimising a minority that's easy to demonize and nothing to do with security.
  - JohnTHaller 10y ago
    The same kind of better ideas like the GOP's perfect replacement for "Obamcare" of course. It's going to be great. Trust me.
refurb 10y ago
we can combat terrorism by banning refugees from Muslim countries Why is that claim factually incorrect? If you had said "eliminate" terrorism I would agree it's incorrect. But not allowing foreigners into the US is certainly a way to combat terrorism. Most of the terror attacks in the US have been by foreigners. Not allowing them to enter the US would help combat terrorism. NOTE: I'm not arguing this is actually a good idea. I'm just stating that I disagree with you claim that it's factually incorrect.
- gregn610 10y ago
  " Most of the terror attacks in the US have been by foreigners" You sure about that ? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-m...
  - celticninja 10y ago
    He may be using the "it's only terrorism if your Muslim" definition.
    - refurb 10y ago
      Great job avoiding addressing my comment directly.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Are you claiming that a complete list of all terror incidents on US soil? And if it would make you feel better, I could just slightly tweak my comment to say "most terror attacks [by number of Americans killed] have been by foreigners".
- danso 10y ago
  The war on terror has required the hiring of native speakers as translators for our military. Translators are often promised the opportunity for asylum since it is dangerous to be seen as a collaborator with the U.S. military. A ban on refugees makes people less likely to assist the U.S. military, hence, why some military experts have asserted that this ban will have a negative effect on the safety of our military.
org3432 10y ago
They're doing the right thing, this is about as terrifying it gets based on history, so having people close to the decisions that are not bat shit insane is at least a strategy.
leereeves 10y ago
> Trump/Bannon present the following frame: we can combat terrorism by banning refugees from Muslim countries. This is not a ban on refugees from Muslim countries. It's neither a ban, nor targeting refugees, nor limited to Muslim countries. It's a 90 day suspension of immigration from countries described by 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), specifically: * Iraq and Syria * Governments which have repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism * Countries or areas of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187
- ern 10y ago
  This is not a ban on refugees from Muslim countries. It's neither a ban, nor targeting refugees, nor limited to Muslim countries. Rudy Giuliani has now claimed on Fox News that he helped design the restrictions as a legally valid form of Trump's "Muslim ban": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion. “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.” “I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
  - leereeves 10y ago
    “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” And it should be noted that the list of countries of concern to which Trump's order applies came from the Obama administration. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...
thisnotmyacc 10y ago
> present the following frame That's not what the order states, and I SEVERELY doubt you have read it. http://on.wsj.com/2kGbSdj http://on.wsj.com/2kGbSdj so we are all on the same page here. There is literally one country mentioned in the document - that country is Syria. The other references are to other documents that group countries that I can't find. I think if you read the executive order, you'll have much better framing for what it actually says, and why.
- marcell 10y ago
  Framing is not just the executive order, but also the narrative around it, and the manner in which it's presented to Americans. That's why the comments Trump made on the campaign trail are important. The narrative is that America is under siege, and that we are in grave danger of terrorist attack. The only way to stop is to take extreme executive action, and to frame our national security policy around fighting ISIS. Consider, as an example, the hasty nature of this executive order. It went into effect immediately, and refugees previously approved for entry had that approval revoked. Was there really something so urgent that happened on Thurs Jan 23rd that required immediate action? This is a similar strategy used by the Bush Administration, where the government uses the spectre of terrorism to justify actions completely disproportionate to the threat. The question I would ask apologists of the travel ban is this: what was the real, imminent threat that required such a hasty executive order to be made on Jan 23rd? Is it a real threat, or is it political theatre for another purpose?

by marcell 10y ago

egopulsus 10y ago

> This claim is factually incorrect Can you back this statement up with facts?

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Musk is saying "find a face-saving way for Trump to substantively repeal the order without saying that nor making it sound like that to his supporters".

StringyBob 10y ago
"Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across." Sun Zsu, the art of war

dexen 10y ago

I'd like to correct the quote: Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. [1] That's why the current order has set duration of 90 days, and it's announced that subsequent immigration from the affected seven countries will be allowed, subject to tougher vetting. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-u-s/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and... - first hit in Google search.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
marcell 10y ago
Yes, that is the full quote. The "90 days" is not what is at issue with the original quote or the Executive Order. Again--the details are not the issue, the entire frame of thinking is.
simonh 10y ago
What is going on is that muslims such as the Iraqi government and Iraqi army are fighting IS tooth and claw right now. An Iraqi that had family members murdered for helping the US has been prevented from getting on a plane to the US. This ban is affecting thousands of people who support the US and some who are risking their lives to help the US fight terrorism. Trump had no idea what he was doing when he made that quote, has no idea now. What better idea in 90 days? Cancel this order? Meanwhile his actions are increasing the risks to the US. This is all about posturing and victimising a minority that's easy to demonize and nothing to do with security.
- JohnTHaller 10y ago
  The same kind of better ideas like the GOP's perfect replacement for "Obamcare" of course. It's going to be great. Trust me.

refurb 10y ago

we can combat terrorism by banning refugees from Muslim countries Why is that claim factually incorrect? If you had said "eliminate" terrorism I would agree it's incorrect. But not allowing foreigners into the US is certainly a way to combat terrorism. Most of the terror attacks in the US have been by foreigners. Not allowing them to enter the US would help combat terrorism. NOTE: I'm not arguing this is actually a good idea. I'm just stating that I disagree with you claim that it's factually incorrect.

gregn610 10y ago
" Most of the terror attacks in the US have been by foreigners" You sure about that ? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-m...
- celticninja 10y ago
  He may be using the "it's only terrorism if your Muslim" definition.
  - refurb 10y ago
    Great job avoiding addressing my comment directly.
- refurb 10y ago
  Are you claiming that a complete list of all terror incidents on US soil? And if it would make you feel better, I could just slightly tweak my comment to say "most terror attacks [by number of Americans killed] have been by foreigners".
danso 10y ago
The war on terror has required the hiring of native speakers as translators for our military. Translators are often promised the opportunity for asylum since it is dangerous to be seen as a collaborator with the U.S. military. A ban on refugees makes people less likely to assist the U.S. military, hence, why some military experts have asserted that this ban will have a negative effect on the safety of our military.

org3432 10y ago

They're doing the right thing, this is about as terrifying it gets based on history, so having people close to the decisions that are not bat shit insane is at least a strategy.

leereeves 10y ago

> Trump/Bannon present the following frame: we can combat terrorism by banning refugees from Muslim countries. This is not a ban on refugees from Muslim countries. It's neither a ban, nor targeting refugees, nor limited to Muslim countries. It's a 90 day suspension of immigration from countries described by 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), specifically: * Iraq and Syria * Governments which have repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism * Countries or areas of concern designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187

ern 10y ago
This is not a ban on refugees from Muslim countries. It's neither a ban, nor targeting refugees, nor limited to Muslim countries. Rudy Giuliani has now claimed on Fox News that he helped design the restrictions as a legally valid form of Trump's "Muslim ban": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion. “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.” “I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "
- leereeves 10y ago
  “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” And it should be noted that the list of countries of concern to which Trump's order applies came from the Obama administration. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...

thisnotmyacc 10y ago

> present the following frame That's not what the order states, and I SEVERELY doubt you have read it. http://on.wsj.com/2kGbSdj http://on.wsj.com/2kGbSdj so we are all on the same page here. There is literally one country mentioned in the document - that country is Syria. The other references are to other documents that group countries that I can't find. I think if you read the executive order, you'll have much better framing for what it actually says, and why.

marcell 10y ago
Framing is not just the executive order, but also the narrative around it, and the manner in which it's presented to Americans. That's why the comments Trump made on the campaign trail are important. The narrative is that America is under siege, and that we are in grave danger of terrorist attack. The only way to stop is to take extreme executive action, and to frame our national security policy around fighting ISIS. Consider, as an example, the hasty nature of this executive order. It went into effect immediately, and refugees previously approved for entry had that approval revoked. Was there really something so urgent that happened on Thurs Jan 23rd that required immediate action? This is a similar strategy used by the Bush Administration, where the government uses the spectre of terrorism to justify actions completely disproportionate to the threat. The question I would ask apologists of the travel ban is this: what was the real, imminent threat that required such a hasty executive order to be made on Jan 23rd? Is it a real threat, or is it political theatre for another purpose?