4 ms·

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

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.

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.