3 ms·
[posting at the top level as responding to the dead post was not allowed] [...] Instead of reading second hand sources, why not ACTUALLY READ what Trump said
by nkurz 10y ago
[posting at the top level as responding to the dead post was not allowed]
[...]
Instead of reading second hand sources, why not ACTUALLY READ what Trump said in his own words, 17 hours ago, right here:
“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion - this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158567643610725 https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10158567643610725
I disagree with your unnecessarily vulgar phrasing (please don't do that), but vouched for your post because I think focussing on Trump's actual words can be a constructive way of establishing common ground. Presumably, you quote this because you think it shows that Trump is being intentionally misconstrued by the press. I agree --- many people are distorting what Trump actually says in a way that fits the narrative they want to create.
What you may not understand is that many people think it's best to ignore Trump's actual words because they are designed to mislead. Since they've already decided that Trump's actions are based on racism rather than an honest desire for national security, Trump's explanations are presumed in advance to be a cover story for this true goals.
This is essentially a stalemate, as nothing that Trump can say will serve to persuade those who are prejudiced against him. Where I think the media is being misleading is that they jump straight to this conclusion, rather than building a solid case that might convince those who do not already agree with them. They intentionally conflate their own interpretation of events as being Trump's stated goals.
With this in mind, I'd like to focus on what Trump is actually saying. If we take him at his word, is Trump's explanation here reasonable? Is the expressed intent unacceptable, or does it become unacceptable only if we assume the true meaning is contained in inaudible dogwhistles? How do we eliminate the "simple" explanation that Trump believes in what he's doing, and is doing it for the reasons he says he is?
- grzm 10y agopeople think it's best to ignore Trump's actual words because they are designed to mislead Trump can say will serve to persuade those who are prejudiced against him. nothing that Trump can say will serve to persuade those who are prejudiced against him. Add to these the many conflicting statements Trump has made during the campaign. It's hard to figure out whether to trust that we understand what he means when he speaks, whether we are inclined to believe him or not. Even now, I've read comments from people who support Trump and those who don't expressing "Yes, it's a Muslim ban! Just like he said he'd do!" and "No, it's not a Muslim ban! Look at the Executive Order!" I'm pretty unsophisticated. I'd like to be able to trust what people say, and that they say what they mean. With Trump I'm left very confused. I want to be able to trust what he says, so I can evaluate that against what actions he takes, and that it allows me to predict what he intends to do. This is all independent of what's being added by the media. If I'm left with not being able to trust what he says, where does that leave me? What's my rational response? Trust that his intent is good for American's as a whole (not just those who voted for him)? Given government in general, and the past actions of Trump himself and those he's chosen to govern with him, it's not clear that that's a rational choice.