4 ms·

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

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.
  - grey-area 10y ago
    a) Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero (0) Americans in terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and the end of 2015 (as opposed to say Saudi Arabia). b) See a) above c) The deliberate effect was immediately sending back green card holders and dual-citizens arriving at the border, this is wrong, both morally and pragmatically (damages US standing and the value of citizenship). d) See the large worldwide protests at the ban.
altern8tif 10y ago
How do we know when to take Trump literally or not? When he says "build the wall", does he mean a literal wall or a figurative one? When he said he has a plan to defeat ISIS, or a plan to replace Obamacare, is that a literal plan? Are we cherry-picking his words based on what our personal ideologies are? Are we rationalising? The fact that he lies blatantly without any regard for consequences (or remorse) makes his message even more muddled. Is this a hallmark of a great leader?
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I have no position on whether or not Trump is a great leader. Is that the argument we're having here? I thought it was about whether Trump is filling his controversial campaign promises seriously or literally. So far, it appears that he is filling them seriously, but not literally. The law is the law. We are governed by the law according to its plain meaning. Trump's intentions are irrelevant when interpreting the law. Like other politicians, his campaign statements are also irrelevant when interpreting the law. The law is interpreted according to its plain meaning, barring scrivener's errors or other interpretations that would cause an obviously absurd or extreme outcome. Up to this point, Trump's EOs appear legally sound, even if some people don't like their content. A court of law will eventually have to hear arguments and rule one way or the other based on the specific details. On the other hand, many of Trump's campaign promises were facially illegal or discriminatory as literally described. It is left to the reader to determine whether Trump's EOs or campaign statements is more true to his original intention, but it doesn't matter as far as actual implementation and governance goes. Generally, I would say that if something sounds bombastic, illegal, or extreme, it's probably more figurative than literal, but who can really say? It's like dealing with anyone else. You have to feel them out and make a probabilistic determination about what they meant by some comment they said the other day, and whether that was literal or not. That is absolutely not the way that most legally-minded politicians have done things up to this point. But it's the way Trump does things. I can't answer for his intentions and I have neither the obligation nor the intention to do so.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Trump's intentions are irrelevant when interpreting the law. They are not irrelevant when determining whether his actions comply with statutory and Constitutional provisions which preclude actions directed toward certain ends. Intent is quite often relevant in the application of law to particular sets of facts.

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.
- grey-area 10y ago
  a) Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero (0) Americans in terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and the end of 2015 (as opposed to say Saudi Arabia). b) See a) above c) The deliberate effect was immediately sending back green card holders and dual-citizens arriving at the border, this is wrong, both morally and pragmatically (damages US standing and the value of citizenship). d) See the large worldwide protests at the ban.

altern8tif 10y ago

How do we know when to take Trump literally or not? When he says "build the wall", does he mean a literal wall or a figurative one? When he said he has a plan to defeat ISIS, or a plan to replace Obamacare, is that a literal plan? Are we cherry-picking his words based on what our personal ideologies are? Are we rationalising? The fact that he lies blatantly without any regard for consequences (or remorse) makes his message even more muddled. Is this a hallmark of a great leader?

cookiecaper 10y ago
I have no position on whether or not Trump is a great leader. Is that the argument we're having here? I thought it was about whether Trump is filling his controversial campaign promises seriously or literally. So far, it appears that he is filling them seriously, but not literally. The law is the law. We are governed by the law according to its plain meaning. Trump's intentions are irrelevant when interpreting the law. Like other politicians, his campaign statements are also irrelevant when interpreting the law. The law is interpreted according to its plain meaning, barring scrivener's errors or other interpretations that would cause an obviously absurd or extreme outcome. Up to this point, Trump's EOs appear legally sound, even if some people don't like their content. A court of law will eventually have to hear arguments and rule one way or the other based on the specific details. On the other hand, many of Trump's campaign promises were facially illegal or discriminatory as literally described. It is left to the reader to determine whether Trump's EOs or campaign statements is more true to his original intention, but it doesn't matter as far as actual implementation and governance goes. Generally, I would say that if something sounds bombastic, illegal, or extreme, it's probably more figurative than literal, but who can really say? It's like dealing with anyone else. You have to feel them out and make a probabilistic determination about what they meant by some comment they said the other day, and whether that was literal or not. That is absolutely not the way that most legally-minded politicians have done things up to this point. But it's the way Trump does things. I can't answer for his intentions and I have neither the obligation nor the intention to do so.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Trump's intentions are irrelevant when interpreting the law. They are not irrelevant when determining whether his actions comply with statutory and Constitutional provisions which preclude actions directed toward certain ends. Intent is quite often relevant in the application of law to particular sets of facts.