3 ms·

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 go

by 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.
- nkurz 10y ago
  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. Yes, thank you. For Harris's #2, do you think the executive order would have been better received if Saudi Arabia was on the list? I found myself wondering if it was consciously omitted with the intention of creating public support for adding it later. And for #4, do you think it actually is possible "to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry"? I'd like to see more of this, but I'm doubtful that the current political climate allows for it. As counterpart, you might like this piece, in which a Russian-American tries to explain how his immigrant community ended up anti-Clinton rather than pro-Trump: It is thus unsurprising that Trump’s insistent anti-war calls in his rallies and his defense of irredeemable but relatively stable regimes like Saddam Hussein’s resonated so much with my Philadelphia community. In my conversations with contractors, barbers, cooks and other hardworking immigrants, legitimate concerns over America’s actions overseas quickly polarized into a distrust of a “one-sided U.S. press.” Instead of a community backlash against Democrats, leftists or a potential female president, I saw an assault against a hawkish and “corrupt” bipartisan establishment, for which Hillary Clinton was its indomitable flag bearer. And though I noticed this often did not translate to passionate affection for Trump himself, his representation as a force against this status quo was enough to sway many Russian Americans toward the Republican’s cause. https://medium.com/@Kareenmov/how-american-journalists-helped-empower-fake-news-and-foreign-propaganda-295f007ad34f https://medium.com/@Kareenmov/how-american-journalists-helpe...
  - grzm 10y ago
    For Harris's #2, do you think the executive order would have been better received if Saudi Arabia was on the list? Not really, no. I think the way the EO has been handled overall has made it much more difficult than necessary. I'm sure that under the best circumstances there would have been some resistance, but as it's happened, it looks like it's been executed for maximum controversial effect, and likely intentionally. And for #4, do you think it actually is possible "to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism … without lapsing into bigotry"? I agree with you that this is difficult. For one, it requires quite a bit of nuance, which is difficult to do in public messaging, but I think a form of it can. In particular, making a clear distinction between Muslim and Islamism/jihadism I think is one that can be conveyed. There are some parallels that can be drawn with respect to Christianity in the US. It's still tough, though, given how sensitive issues surrounding religion are. That said, I think it might be important to try, because we're at a stalemate politically around this issue. I'm not convinced Trump is one who's able or willing to convey this message. The Executive Order hasn't been handled with much nuance or care. The reform within Islam portion is especially hard to discuss for those outside the religion, just as it would be for any outsider to approach a group and say "hey, you gotta fix this problem your group has". Even supporting those within the group can result in those insiders being viewed with suspicion. Groups like the Quilliam Foundation are trying to do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank) Thanks for the link to the Kareenmov piece. How Trump got framed as an anti-war candidate has been fascinating. Certainly Clinton has been a hawk for a long time. But some of the things Trump said during the campaign with respect to ISIS can't be interpreted as anti-war. ——— https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/18/donald-trump-promises-to-bomb-the-hell-out-of-isis-in-new-radio-ad/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11... "I will also quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one — and I mean, no one — will mess with us" ——— http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trumps-odd-fixation-seizing-middle-eastern-oil-fields-jim-geraghty http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trumps-o... “I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields. I wouldn’t send many troops because you won’t need them by the time I’m finished.” ——— http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608#ixzz42utL0IsD%20 http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-... “We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS,” Trump said. “I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000 [troops].” ——— http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/donald-trump-mike-pence-60-minutes-interview/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/donald-trump-mike-pen... "We're going to declare war against ISIS. We have to wipe out ISIS" ——— https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-military-readiness-remarks https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-... "Immediately after taking office, I will ask my generals to present to me a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS. This will require military warfare, but also cyber warfare, financial warfare, and ideological warfare" ——— Anyway, that's getting well off topic now. Thanks for the civil, reasoned discussion. I appreciate it.

by nkurz 10y ago

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.

nkurz 10y ago
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. Yes, thank you. For Harris's #2, do you think the executive order would have been better received if Saudi Arabia was on the list? I found myself wondering if it was consciously omitted with the intention of creating public support for adding it later. And for #4, do you think it actually is possible "to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry"? I'd like to see more of this, but I'm doubtful that the current political climate allows for it. As counterpart, you might like this piece, in which a Russian-American tries to explain how his immigrant community ended up anti-Clinton rather than pro-Trump: It is thus unsurprising that Trump’s insistent anti-war calls in his rallies and his defense of irredeemable but relatively stable regimes like Saddam Hussein’s resonated so much with my Philadelphia community. In my conversations with contractors, barbers, cooks and other hardworking immigrants, legitimate concerns over America’s actions overseas quickly polarized into a distrust of a “one-sided U.S. press.” Instead of a community backlash against Democrats, leftists or a potential female president, I saw an assault against a hawkish and “corrupt” bipartisan establishment, for which Hillary Clinton was its indomitable flag bearer. And though I noticed this often did not translate to passionate affection for Trump himself, his representation as a force against this status quo was enough to sway many Russian Americans toward the Republican’s cause. https://medium.com/@Kareenmov/how-american-journalists-helped-empower-fake-news-and-foreign-propaganda-295f007ad34f https://medium.com/@Kareenmov/how-american-journalists-helpe...
- grzm 10y ago
  For Harris's #2, do you think the executive order would have been better received if Saudi Arabia was on the list? Not really, no. I think the way the EO has been handled overall has made it much more difficult than necessary. I'm sure that under the best circumstances there would have been some resistance, but as it's happened, it looks like it's been executed for maximum controversial effect, and likely intentionally. And for #4, do you think it actually is possible "to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism … without lapsing into bigotry"? I agree with you that this is difficult. For one, it requires quite a bit of nuance, which is difficult to do in public messaging, but I think a form of it can. In particular, making a clear distinction between Muslim and Islamism/jihadism I think is one that can be conveyed. There are some parallels that can be drawn with respect to Christianity in the US. It's still tough, though, given how sensitive issues surrounding religion are. That said, I think it might be important to try, because we're at a stalemate politically around this issue. I'm not convinced Trump is one who's able or willing to convey this message. The Executive Order hasn't been handled with much nuance or care. The reform within Islam portion is especially hard to discuss for those outside the religion, just as it would be for any outsider to approach a group and say "hey, you gotta fix this problem your group has". Even supporting those within the group can result in those insiders being viewed with suspicion. Groups like the Quilliam Foundation are trying to do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilliam_(think_tank) Thanks for the link to the Kareenmov piece. How Trump got framed as an anti-war candidate has been fascinating. Certainly Clinton has been a hawk for a long time. But some of the things Trump said during the campaign with respect to ISIS can't be interpreted as anti-war. ——— https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/18/donald-trump-promises-to-bomb-the-hell-out-of-isis-in-new-radio-ad/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11... "I will also quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS, will rebuild our military and make it so strong no one — and I mean, no one — will mess with us" ——— http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trumps-odd-fixation-seizing-middle-eastern-oil-fields-jim-geraghty http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trumps-o... “I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields. I wouldn’t send many troops because you won’t need them by the time I’m finished.” ——— http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608#ixzz42utL0IsD%20 http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-... “We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS,” Trump said. “I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000 [troops].” ——— http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/donald-trump-mike-pence-60-minutes-interview/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/donald-trump-mike-pen... "We're going to declare war against ISIS. We have to wipe out ISIS" ——— https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-military-readiness-remarks https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-... "Immediately after taking office, I will ask my generals to present to me a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS. This will require military warfare, but also cyber warfare, financial warfare, and ideological warfare" ——— Anyway, that's getting well off topic now. Thanks for the civil, reasoned discussion. I appreciate it.