4 ms·

> 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 dro

by 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?
- nkurz 10y ago
  The actual interview on Fox News where Giuliani said this is easily googlable, and on youtube. No missing qualifiers. I haven't watched the interview. What you say would imply that I'm wrong to think that it might be due to the reporter. Despite my clumsy phrasing, though, I was mostly thinking that Giuliani might have failed to mention Trump's implied "until we figure out a way that we can identify who's dangerous and who's not". For me, that clause makes a difference. Does it matter for you? After all, what evidence would you find persuasive? I'm not sure. Short of Trump explicitly saying "I don't think we should allow Muslims to live here", I'm not sure what single thing would convince me. A pile of lower quality evidence eventually would, but I don't think we are there yet. I tend to agree with what Scott Alexander writes here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo.... I don't think Trump is a subtle guy, and if he truly was personally prejudiced against Muslims (as opposed to concerned about terrorism) he would just say so explicitly.
grzm 10y ago
Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning It's from a televised interview. You're free to watch it yourself. There's no need to speculate on anyone's internal state of mind. As for the possibility that Giuliani misspoke, everyone is aware that Muslim immigration is a highly contentious issue. This requires careful, considered speech. It was either intentional (and purposefully misleading if disingenuous) or sloppy. During the interview, the interviewer even prefaced the question asking if it was about religion, giving Giuliani an opportunity to state upfront that it wasn't about religion. The first thing he said was the quote above, that he was asked to implement a Muslim ban. Looking back, the Trump campaign was all over the map with respect to the Muslim ban, which started out as 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. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-... This NBC piece has a collection of different positions (unfortunately without links to sources) that the Trump campaign has taken on the Muslim ban. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801 http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-dona... It's difficult to determine what exactly is Trump's position on this, or anything else, in my opinion. He's also been known to flat-out lie without feeling a need to correct himself later. He's also been shown to be very good at saying what he thinks his supporters want to hear more brazenly than few other politicians I can remember. At this point, I no longer think it's wise to give him the benefit of the doubt. I agree that we should also watch very closely the actual actions being taken. Here are some past actions that I keep in mind when judging whether to give him the benefit of the doubt in doing the right and ethical thing: - Trump University and its affiliated lawsuits - Refusing to release his tax returns, a practice in transparency followed by presidential candidates for years - Promising to "Drain the Swamp", yet his cabinet and other staff include a number of insiders, both government and corporate - Refusing to adequately and cleanly distance himself from his investments upon attaining office I commend your reasoned and considered approach, and encourage you to continue to do so. You've brought up concerns such as "The question is how hunch damage to personal liberties in pursuit of this goal", and are careful to avoid expressing your own opinion. I understand that as well, and appreciate that this may be a desire to withhold judgement until seeing additional evidence. For my part, I'll continue to strive for reasoned consideration, but I'm no longer willing to err exclusively on the charitable side. I've seen enough that I no longer feel it's prudent to withhold judgement or grant him the benefit of the doubt.

by nkurz 10y ago

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?

nkurz 10y ago
The actual interview on Fox News where Giuliani said this is easily googlable, and on youtube. No missing qualifiers. I haven't watched the interview. What you say would imply that I'm wrong to think that it might be due to the reporter. Despite my clumsy phrasing, though, I was mostly thinking that Giuliani might have failed to mention Trump's implied "until we figure out a way that we can identify who's dangerous and who's not". For me, that clause makes a difference. Does it matter for you? After all, what evidence would you find persuasive? I'm not sure. Short of Trump explicitly saying "I don't think we should allow Muslims to live here", I'm not sure what single thing would convince me. A pile of lower quality evidence eventually would, but I don't think we are there yet. I tend to agree with what Scott Alexander writes here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo.... I don't think Trump is a subtle guy, and if he truly was personally prejudiced against Muslims (as opposed to concerned about terrorism) he would just say so explicitly.

grzm 10y ago

Giuliani (or the reporter) may have dropped a qualifier that would change the meaning It's from a televised interview. You're free to watch it yourself. There's no need to speculate on anyone's internal state of mind. As for the possibility that Giuliani misspoke, everyone is aware that Muslim immigration is a highly contentious issue. This requires careful, considered speech. It was either intentional (and purposefully misleading if disingenuous) or sloppy. During the interview, the interviewer even prefaced the question asking if it was about religion, giving Giuliani an opportunity to state upfront that it wasn't about religion. The first thing he said was the quote above, that he was asked to implement a Muslim ban. Looking back, the Trump campaign was all over the map with respect to the Muslim ban, which started out as 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. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-... This NBC piece has a collection of different positions (unfortunately without links to sources) that the Trump campaign has taken on the Muslim ban. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801 http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-dona... It's difficult to determine what exactly is Trump's position on this, or anything else, in my opinion. He's also been known to flat-out lie without feeling a need to correct himself later. He's also been shown to be very good at saying what he thinks his supporters want to hear more brazenly than few other politicians I can remember. At this point, I no longer think it's wise to give him the benefit of the doubt. I agree that we should also watch very closely the actual actions being taken. Here are some past actions that I keep in mind when judging whether to give him the benefit of the doubt in doing the right and ethical thing: - Trump University and its affiliated lawsuits - Refusing to release his tax returns, a practice in transparency followed by presidential candidates for years - Promising to "Drain the Swamp", yet his cabinet and other staff include a number of insiders, both government and corporate - Refusing to adequately and cleanly distance himself from his investments upon attaining office I commend your reasoned and considered approach, and encourage you to continue to do so. You've brought up concerns such as "The question is how hunch damage to personal liberties in pursuit of this goal", and are careful to avoid expressing your own opinion. I understand that as well, and appreciate that this may be a desire to withhold judgement until seeing additional evidence. For my part, I'll continue to strive for reasoned consideration, but I'm no longer willing to err exclusively on the charitable side. I've seen enough that I no longer feel it's prudent to withhold judgement or grant him the benefit of the doubt.