5 ms·

Read the article more carefully. From the article: > “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.” “I'll tell you the who

Read the article more carefully. From the article: > “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.” “I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' " Giuliani said he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” The story goes: 1. Trump phone call to Giuliani: "Muslim ban. Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally." 2. Giuliani assembles "a whole group of other very expert lawyers": “And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.” It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point: > The ban is a temporary measure and has nothing to do with religion.

cookiecaper 10y ago
We're reading the same story and coming to different conclusions. I don't dispute that Trump at one point said "Muslim ban". Giuliani appears to indicate that Trump knew this was illegal in the form that it was literally said it on the campaign trail and that Trump called him up and asked him to figure out how to implement what was meant, not necessarily what was literally said, in a legal fashion -- "seriously, but not literally". >It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point No, it doesn't contradict my original point at all. It is clear that Trump meant that he wanted to exclude terrorists, not Muslims. If the goal was to exclude as many Muslims as possible, they did a terrible job, because they completely missed the countries with the 5 biggest Muslim populations. The raw populations of the banned countries add up to about 140 million; even if we assume 100% of those people are Muslim, which they aren't, that still leaves more than 90% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims potentially eligible for entrance to the United States. And the whole thing expires in 90 days. Not a very effective "Muslim ban". This goes back to the same thing as the campaign. Seriously, but not literally. Trump said Muslim ban on the campaign trail, that is not in dispute. The issue now is whether he really meant a literal ban on Muslims, or whether he just meant a ban on the bad guys that are blowing us up. Based on his EO, it appears that he meant the latter, but of course there will be people who refuse to let go of their narrative and assume the former because it makes it easier to justify their outrage.
- grey-area 10y ago
  According to Guilanni, and to the president himself, that's exactly what he meant. There's just the small matter that what he wants violates the law and human decency, so they've had to temper it, for now. President Trump has turned out to want literally what candidate Trump proposed. Thiel was wrong in a fundamental way. As to your supposed impartiality I think you should be honest about your support for Trump, not dissemble, here is what you said about the press lower down - Given their [media] hostile history with Trump, it's no surprise that they'd issue misleading, incredible, and fabricated screeds as he goes about fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    >As to your supposed impartiality I think you should be honest about your support for Trump, not dissemble, here is what you said about the press lower down - First, thinking that the media is anti-Trump does not automatically make one pro-Trump. Second, being pro-Trump does not make one automatically pro-strong-vetting. As for my personal positions, which are not relevant to anything but which I'm more than happy to disclose based on your expression of interest, I voted for Donald Trump and I've stated that on HN in multiple places before. Immigration is not a major issue for me and particularly anti-Muslim rhetoric is a major turnoff for me; I have a lot of respect for Islam as a religion and I've studied it casually for many years. I think, in general, Muslims are great neighbors and community partners. I am not Muslim, but I am religious, and I've enjoyed working with Muslims on topics of mutual interest to religious people. I don't like Donald Trump very much and I started out strongly opposed to him. I warmed up to him only over the final 6 weeks prior to the election or so. Prior to that, I was considering writing in a vote, and I probably would've if I didn't live in a swing state. My personal preference for a presidential candidate would've been one of several candidates that was in the running earlier in the election cycle (preferably Rand Paul, though to be frank I would still like Ron). I don't know enough about immigration from the blacklisted nations to know a) whether migrants from those countries do, in fact, pose more risk to the United States than migrants from other countries; b) whether that risk is substantial enough to warrant a travel stoppage/visa suspension of the type we've seen; c) whether a review or change in our vetting procedures will have any effect; or d) whether this ban will have larger negative ramifications in PR and internal turmoil than it would have benefit in implementation. Because I don't know any of those things, I don't know if it's a smart thing to do or not. Why are you arguing with me about this and trying to tell me I don't know my own opinions? I don't get it.

cookiecaper 10y ago

We're reading the same story and coming to different conclusions. I don't dispute that Trump at one point said "Muslim ban". Giuliani appears to indicate that Trump knew this was illegal in the form that it was literally said it on the campaign trail and that Trump called him up and asked him to figure out how to implement what was meant, not necessarily what was literally said, in a legal fashion -- "seriously, but not literally". >It is clear that in this executive order, the intent and desire (Muslim ban) is imagined, then the subterfuge (the focus on law) applied, contradicting your original point No, it doesn't contradict my original point at all. It is clear that Trump meant that he wanted to exclude terrorists, not Muslims. If the goal was to exclude as many Muslims as possible, they did a terrible job, because they completely missed the countries with the 5 biggest Muslim populations. The raw populations of the banned countries add up to about 140 million; even if we assume 100% of those people are Muslim, which they aren't, that still leaves more than 90% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims potentially eligible for entrance to the United States. And the whole thing expires in 90 days. Not a very effective "Muslim ban". This goes back to the same thing as the campaign. Seriously, but not literally. Trump said Muslim ban on the campaign trail, that is not in dispute. The issue now is whether he really meant a literal ban on Muslims, or whether he just meant a ban on the bad guys that are blowing us up. Based on his EO, it appears that he meant the latter, but of course there will be people who refuse to let go of their narrative and assume the former because it makes it easier to justify their outrage.

grey-area 10y ago
According to Guilanni, and to the president himself, that's exactly what he meant. There's just the small matter that what he wants violates the law and human decency, so they've had to temper it, for now. President Trump has turned out to want literally what candidate Trump proposed. Thiel was wrong in a fundamental way. As to your supposed impartiality I think you should be honest about your support for Trump, not dissemble, here is what you said about the press lower down - Given their [media] hostile history with Trump, it's no surprise that they'd issue misleading, incredible, and fabricated screeds as he goes about fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  >As to your supposed impartiality I think you should be honest about your support for Trump, not dissemble, here is what you said about the press lower down - First, thinking that the media is anti-Trump does not automatically make one pro-Trump. Second, being pro-Trump does not make one automatically pro-strong-vetting. As for my personal positions, which are not relevant to anything but which I'm more than happy to disclose based on your expression of interest, I voted for Donald Trump and I've stated that on HN in multiple places before. Immigration is not a major issue for me and particularly anti-Muslim rhetoric is a major turnoff for me; I have a lot of respect for Islam as a religion and I've studied it casually for many years. I think, in general, Muslims are great neighbors and community partners. I am not Muslim, but I am religious, and I've enjoyed working with Muslims on topics of mutual interest to religious people. I don't like Donald Trump very much and I started out strongly opposed to him. I warmed up to him only over the final 6 weeks prior to the election or so. Prior to that, I was considering writing in a vote, and I probably would've if I didn't live in a swing state. My personal preference for a presidential candidate would've been one of several candidates that was in the running earlier in the election cycle (preferably Rand Paul, though to be frank I would still like Ron). I don't know enough about immigration from the blacklisted nations to know a) whether migrants from those countries do, in fact, pose more risk to the United States than migrants from other countries; b) whether that risk is substantial enough to warrant a travel stoppage/visa suspension of the type we've seen; c) whether a review or change in our vetting procedures will have any effect; or d) whether this ban will have larger negative ramifications in PR and internal turmoil than it would have benefit in implementation. Because I don't know any of those things, I don't know if it's a smart thing to do or not. Why are you arguing with me about this and trying to tell me I don't know my own opinions? I don't get it.