3 ms·

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'

by 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.

nkurz 10y ago
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. So far as I can tell, this is still his view: our government's priority needs to be the physical safety of its citizens, and we should not be willing to trade this safety for the comfort (or even lives) of non-citizens. I'm personally uncomfortable with this degree of nationalism, but I know that lots of Americans agree with this sentiment, and I don't know that it's unconstitutional for him to act in accordance with this belief. It's difficult to determine what exactly is Trump's position on this, or anything else, in my opinion. I agree, and this is why I'm dubious about media coverage that declares his position to be clear and unambiguous. 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: Those are all big warning flags to me as well. I particularly don't know what to make of the tax returns, since I presume (hope) they will be leaked and published at some point. this may be a desire to withhold judgement until seeing additional evidence. For greater clarity, I strongly supported Sanders, and was distressed by the way he was treated by the press and the Democratic Party. I voted for Jill Stein, mostly in hope that greater support for 3rd parties will eventually help change America's two party landscape. I (still) generally prefer Trump to Clinton, but some of his recent actions make me scared that he might be too narcissistic to be an effective leader, although I can't tell how much is real and how much is media exaggeration. I still have hope that he's less likely to engage in wars of aggression than previous administrations. 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. That makes sense, both for Trump and with regard to the mainstream media. Also, I think it might be a good idea to focus more attention on Steve Bannon, and less on Trump: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-to-make-of-steve-bannon/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-to-make-o...
- grzm 10y ago
  So far as I can tell, this is still his view Which is in direct contradiction to the claims that it's not a Muslim ban or has a religious component. Whether or not this is the right thing to do, denial of the intent on the part of supporters or the administration bothers me. our government's priority needs to be the physical safety of its citizens, and we should not be willing to trade this safety for the comfort (or even lives) of non-citizens. While I can sympathize, I'm also concerned with the personal liberty issues and apparent disregard for the rule of law, which seems threatened by the blocking of permanent residents and the firing of the AG when she questioned the constitutionality of the EO. Sam Harris, who's been outspoken on what he considers the proper role of profiling and discussing honestly the threat of jihadist terrorism addressed the Executive Order in a blog post you may find interesting. Here's a quote: I think Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a terrible policy. Not only is it unethical with respect to the plight of refugees, it is bound to be ineffective in stopping the spread of Islamism. As many have pointed out, it is also internally inconsistent: It doesn’t include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Lebanon, any of which has been a more fertile source of jihadist terrorism than several of the countries Trump named. https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-muslim-ban https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-mu... His take on the situation is one that results in him attracting flak many sides. In the post, he's pretty damning of what's been described as the "regressive left" as well.

by grzm 10y ago

nkurz 10y ago

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. So far as I can tell, this is still his view: our government's priority needs to be the physical safety of its citizens, and we should not be willing to trade this safety for the comfort (or even lives) of non-citizens. I'm personally uncomfortable with this degree of nationalism, but I know that lots of Americans agree with this sentiment, and I don't know that it's unconstitutional for him to act in accordance with this belief. It's difficult to determine what exactly is Trump's position on this, or anything else, in my opinion. I agree, and this is why I'm dubious about media coverage that declares his position to be clear and unambiguous. 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: Those are all big warning flags to me as well. I particularly don't know what to make of the tax returns, since I presume (hope) they will be leaked and published at some point. this may be a desire to withhold judgement until seeing additional evidence. For greater clarity, I strongly supported Sanders, and was distressed by the way he was treated by the press and the Democratic Party. I voted for Jill Stein, mostly in hope that greater support for 3rd parties will eventually help change America's two party landscape. I (still) generally prefer Trump to Clinton, but some of his recent actions make me scared that he might be too narcissistic to be an effective leader, although I can't tell how much is real and how much is media exaggeration. I still have hope that he's less likely to engage in wars of aggression than previous administrations. 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. That makes sense, both for Trump and with regard to the mainstream media. Also, I think it might be a good idea to focus more attention on Steve Bannon, and less on Trump: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-to-make-of-steve-bannon/ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-to-make-o...

grzm 10y ago
So far as I can tell, this is still his view Which is in direct contradiction to the claims that it's not a Muslim ban or has a religious component. Whether or not this is the right thing to do, denial of the intent on the part of supporters or the administration bothers me. our government's priority needs to be the physical safety of its citizens, and we should not be willing to trade this safety for the comfort (or even lives) of non-citizens. While I can sympathize, I'm also concerned with the personal liberty issues and apparent disregard for the rule of law, which seems threatened by the blocking of permanent residents and the firing of the AG when she questioned the constitutionality of the EO. Sam Harris, who's been outspoken on what he considers the proper role of profiling and discussing honestly the threat of jihadist terrorism addressed the Executive Order in a blog post you may find interesting. Here's a quote: I think Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a terrible policy. Not only is it unethical with respect to the plight of refugees, it is bound to be ineffective in stopping the spread of Islamism. As many have pointed out, it is also internally inconsistent: It doesn’t include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Lebanon, any of which has been a more fertile source of jihadist terrorism than several of the countries Trump named. https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-muslim-ban https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-mu... His take on the situation is one that results in him attracting flak many sides. In the post, he's pretty damning of what's been described as the "regressive left" as well.