3 ms·
In the article, it says explicitly. """ "The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, pe
by MollyR 10y ago
In the article, it says explicitly.
"""
"The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible."
Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion."
"""
A muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me.
As for the conspiracy theory medium article, its easy to do in a world of big data. It's called cherry picking, and its exactly what Info Wars does to create their fear mongering articles. Vague speculation and half truths on the main premises of the paper, and then even the conclusions.
Here's an example from the medium article:
"The aims of crushing various groups — Muslims, Latinos, the black and trans communities, academics, the press — are very much primary aims of the regime"
This is clear hysteria.
Here's what Trump actually said on black communities while campaigning, "We're going to rebuild our inner cities because our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever."
And so far President Trump as been doing pretty closely what he said.
- tptacek 10y agoI don't understand your argument. He is right there on video, from just a couple days ago, saying that he and his team were tasked with designing a Muslim ban. I'm sorry, I believe my lying eyes.
- grzm 10y agoA muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical to me. I agree. Will you admit that sometimes people figure out ways to accomplish their goals under the cover of something else? That they know something won't be politically or legally feasible to do head on, but that they can accomplish another way if they don't express their actual intent explicitly? I think it's hard not to argue this happens. This type of accusation is thrown around all of the time from all sides. In this particular instance, we've got explicit evidence of exactly that from one of the people who was involved in doing it. It's really hard to ignore this, or even deny the possibility without being disingenuous. And this is ignoring the submitted article all-together.
- MollyR 10y agoNo I don't. I think the executive limits worked pretty well here. President Trump may have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn't do it. So they tried to take Obama what did in 2011, a few steps further and are rightfully taking flak for it, just like I think Obama should have gotten in 2011. Again though a muslim ban not based in religion sounds nonsensical. Edit: Is there subtext I'm missing. Are you implying this is a slippery slope to a full muslim ban ?
- grzm 10y agoI think the executive limits worked pretty well here. President Trump may have wanted a muslim ban, but they couldn't do it. (Aside: may have wanted? Can't even trust what Giuliani said Trump told him?) Great. So we're supposed to be happy with a President who stretches the law as far as he can to do what he wants. This smacks of the "well, it was legal, so what's the problem?" argument we hear all too often. Just because you can figure out a way to do something legally doesn't mean it's the right or moral thing to do. Response to the edit: Yes, I think there's something you're missing, and it's not subtext at all. Trump at minimum wanted a Muslim ban. There's no reason to think he won't continue to push for one, or one that accomplishes the same goals. Trump is very good at not clearly expressing what he means. I'm not satisfied yet whether this is intended or not. If the latter, it's sowing a lot of needless confusion domestically and abroad. If on purpose, it makes it very difficult to trust him and know what his intent is, domestically and abroad. Evidence on HN: Trump supporters are divided as to whether this is a Muslim ban or not. You'll find comments expressing either opinion.
- MollyR 10y agoThere was double quotes in your article about Giuliani talking about the "muslim ban", so yes I don't know what that may mean or may not mean and I didn't feel like speculating. Also I said I don't think it was the right thing to do. But again I have to say a muslim ban that isn't based on religion really doesn't make sense. As for region based bans, those are not really new they've been done since Jimmy Carter.