4 ms·

I 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 eve

by grzm 10y ago

I 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 ago
There 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.
- grzm 10y ago
  I think the double quotes you're referring to are a quote for Giuliani quoting what Trump said to him. Compare with the "Put a commission together" quote-in-quote in the next line.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
nkurz 10y ago
> Aside: may have wanted? Can't even trust what Giuliani said Trump told him? I presume the quote is accurate, but that Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning. In same way that the media uses "Muslim ban" to refer to a moratorium on entry to citizens of certain majority-Muslim countries, given his sloppy approach to accurate speech, I can see that Trump might use these words in a way that isn't as sinister as some would take it. Rather than speculating on his internal state of mind, I think the better debate is whether his actions are acceptable. That is, if we accept him at his word as to his intent, is it acceptable for the President to summarily close the American border to adherents of a certain religion if he believes that some small percentage of those who would come in intend to do us harm? I think there is sufficient disagreement about even this question that we don't need to consider dogwhistles. 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. I haven't seen yet reason to believe that a full ban on Muslims is part of Trump's goal. Some of his supporters (possibly even some of this advisors) want to keep Muslims out of the US as a goal in itself, but I think Trump's actions so far are consistent with his stated intention to keep out those who wish to do intentional harm to the US. The question is how much damage to personal liberties in pursuit of this goal. If he thought there was a reliable way to distinguish between "good Allah-fearing Muslims" and "fundamentalist Islamic terrorists", I think he'd pursue it: "The job of the president is to keep America safe. And that will always be my highest priority. We will do everything in our power to keep this scourge of terrorism out of our country. We're going to keep it out of our country. Just so you understand, people are pouring in from regions of the Middle East. We have no idea who they are, where they come from, what they are thinking, and we're going stop that dead, cold, flat." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1612/01/acd.01.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1612/01/acd.01.html
- conistonwater 10y ago
  > I presume the quote is accurate, but that Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning. This is not a very convincing line of argument. The actual interview on Fox News where Giuliani said this is easily googlable, and on youtube. No missing qualifiers. You can just watch the interview and find out that the quote is accurate and that Giuliani meant what he said, including "Muslim ban". There's quite some danger of hearing people say things that they mean to say, and just assuming that they couldn't possibly have said them because they sound odd to you. After all, what evidence would you find persuasive?

by grzm 10y ago

MollyR 10y ago

There 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.

grzm 10y ago
I think the double quotes you're referring to are a quote for Giuliani quoting what Trump said to him. Compare with the "Put a commission together" quote-in-quote in the next line.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

nkurz 10y ago

> Aside: may have wanted? Can't even trust what Giuliani said Trump told him? I presume the quote is accurate, but that Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning. In same way that the media uses "Muslim ban" to refer to a moratorium on entry to citizens of certain majority-Muslim countries, given his sloppy approach to accurate speech, I can see that Trump might use these words in a way that isn't as sinister as some would take it. Rather than speculating on his internal state of mind, I think the better debate is whether his actions are acceptable. That is, if we accept him at his word as to his intent, is it acceptable for the President to summarily close the American border to adherents of a certain religion if he believes that some small percentage of those who would come in intend to do us harm? I think there is sufficient disagreement about even this question that we don't need to consider dogwhistles. 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. I haven't seen yet reason to believe that a full ban on Muslims is part of Trump's goal. Some of his supporters (possibly even some of this advisors) want to keep Muslims out of the US as a goal in itself, but I think Trump's actions so far are consistent with his stated intention to keep out those who wish to do intentional harm to the US. The question is how much damage to personal liberties in pursuit of this goal. If he thought there was a reliable way to distinguish between "good Allah-fearing Muslims" and "fundamentalist Islamic terrorists", I think he'd pursue it: "The job of the president is to keep America safe. And that will always be my highest priority. We will do everything in our power to keep this scourge of terrorism out of our country. We're going to keep it out of our country. Just so you understand, people are pouring in from regions of the Middle East. We have no idea who they are, where they come from, what they are thinking, and we're going stop that dead, cold, flat." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1612/01/acd.01.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1612/01/acd.01.html

conistonwater 10y ago
> I presume the quote is accurate, but that Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning. This is not a very convincing line of argument. The actual interview on Fox News where Giuliani said this is easily googlable, and on youtube. No missing qualifiers. You can just watch the interview and find out that the quote is accurate and that Giuliani meant what he said, including "Muslim ban". There's quite some danger of hearing people say things that they mean to say, and just assuming that they couldn't possibly have said them because they sound odd to you. After all, what evidence would you find persuasive?