7 ms·

I don't think anyone is fooled there, though. If you list the countries and you listened to his campaign speeches you know what he's going for. No one is going

by arjie 10y ago

I don't think anyone is fooled there, though. If you list the countries and you listened to his campaign speeches you know what he's going for. No one is going to have a different position if you do that. EDIT: In case, it wasn't clear, I mean that his opponents will see it as a Muslim ban and dislike him for it and his fans will see it as such and like him for it. He ran on that platform. There's nothing disingenuous here.

hrxn 10y ago
So, your interpretation over facts?
Mendenhall 10y ago
There is no fooling needed. Report exactly what it is, then you can report exactly what Trump said in present or past. Its not medias job to create a "Muslim ban". Anyone who is honest at all will tell you there is no Muslim ban. The media does no one any favors by just making things up.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- cazum 10y ago
  You're going to have a tough time finding any msm articles that aren't directly labeled as opinion peices calling it a "Muslim ban"
- Chathamization 10y ago
  That's what most of the MSM does though. Here's a CNN article on the ban, for instance[1]. The only time it talks about a "Muslim ban" is when it's quoting what a Democratic politician said. [1]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-e...
graycat 10y ago
We need to keep in mind that the US Constitution does not grant freedom of religion to US aliens outside the US who want to immigrate to the US. Instead the US, and under US law the POTUS, e.g., see section (f) of "8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens" as at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 starting with: > (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President > Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate .... are permitted to deny entry to any alien outside the US for essentially any reason or no reason. In particular, a "Muslim ban" would be perfectly legal. I repeat, as is fully clear from the law, "essentially any reason or no reason". So, suppose there is a Muslim ban? So what? Whatever the answer, such a ban would be both constitutional and legal. For more detail, is Trump against all Muslims? Nope. Evidence: IIRC, at the Republican convention, the last speaker before Trump accepted the nomination was a long time Trump friend and Muslim. It is fair to conclude that Trump is trying to keep terrorists out of the US. Are all terrorists Muslims? Nope: Not in the world and not even just in the US. But: In recent decades, somehow too many terrorists have been Muslims, from "radical Islam". Europe has seen a lot of that in Nice, Paris, etc. The US saw a lot of that in 9/11, Orlando, and San Bernardino. A good summary of the threat of radical Islam with recent data was from Newt Gingrich at the Republican convention as at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV8vGzmsos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV8vGzmsos There is a nice introduction by Newt's wife, but watch and listen to his actual speech, especially his list of events from radical Islam from "the last 37 days". Or, to keep out radical Islam, a good first step is to carefully vet all Islamists. There's so far not much sense in looking for radical Islamist terrorists among Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, or Jews.
- SnacksOnAPlane 10y ago
  I don't really care whether it's legal. It's just a bad idea, morally and realistically. Alienating people is what turns them into terrorists. To paraphrase a line from "Legally Blonde" (I know I'm really helping my case here), "Happy people just don't kill people, they just don't." I don't know if Trump doesn't understand this or if he really does understand it and wants another terrorist attack on the US so he can gain more power.
paulddraper 10y ago
Except it wasn't a Muslim ban. At least report facts as facts and warranted supposition as warranted supposition. Else we wind up in a post-factual society.
- mcphage 10y ago
  It was the start of the fulfillment of his campaign promise for a Muslim ban. Nobody was fooled about what it was for or why.
  - mercer 10y ago
    Surely it's possible to report the facts without embellishment, and also point out how worrying those facts are in context? If indeed 'nobody was fooled', it shouldn't even be necessarily to embellish headlines or content.

by arjie 10y ago

hrxn 10y ago

So, your interpretation over facts?

Mendenhall 10y ago

There is no fooling needed. Report exactly what it is, then you can report exactly what Trump said in present or past. Its not medias job to create a "Muslim ban". Anyone who is honest at all will tell you there is no Muslim ban. The media does no one any favors by just making things up.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cazum 10y ago
You're going to have a tough time finding any msm articles that aren't directly labeled as opinion peices calling it a "Muslim ban"
Chathamization 10y ago
That's what most of the MSM does though. Here's a CNN article on the ban, for instance[1]. The only time it talks about a "Muslim ban" is when it's quoting what a Democratic politician said. [1]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-e...

graycat 10y ago

We need to keep in mind that the US Constitution does not grant freedom of religion to US aliens outside the US who want to immigrate to the US. Instead the US, and under US law the POTUS, e.g., see section (f) of "8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens" as at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 starting with: > (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President > Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate .... are permitted to deny entry to any alien outside the US for essentially any reason or no reason. In particular, a "Muslim ban" would be perfectly legal. I repeat, as is fully clear from the law, "essentially any reason or no reason". So, suppose there is a Muslim ban? So what? Whatever the answer, such a ban would be both constitutional and legal. For more detail, is Trump against all Muslims? Nope. Evidence: IIRC, at the Republican convention, the last speaker before Trump accepted the nomination was a long time Trump friend and Muslim. It is fair to conclude that Trump is trying to keep terrorists out of the US. Are all terrorists Muslims? Nope: Not in the world and not even just in the US. But: In recent decades, somehow too many terrorists have been Muslims, from "radical Islam". Europe has seen a lot of that in Nice, Paris, etc. The US saw a lot of that in 9/11, Orlando, and San Bernardino. A good summary of the threat of radical Islam with recent data was from Newt Gingrich at the Republican convention as at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV8vGzmsos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV8vGzmsos There is a nice introduction by Newt's wife, but watch and listen to his actual speech, especially his list of events from radical Islam from "the last 37 days". Or, to keep out radical Islam, a good first step is to carefully vet all Islamists. There's so far not much sense in looking for radical Islamist terrorists among Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, or Jews.

SnacksOnAPlane 10y ago
I don't really care whether it's legal. It's just a bad idea, morally and realistically. Alienating people is what turns them into terrorists. To paraphrase a line from "Legally Blonde" (I know I'm really helping my case here), "Happy people just don't kill people, they just don't." I don't know if Trump doesn't understand this or if he really does understand it and wants another terrorist attack on the US so he can gain more power.

paulddraper 10y ago

Except it wasn't a Muslim ban. At least report facts as facts and warranted supposition as warranted supposition. Else we wind up in a post-factual society.

mcphage 10y ago
It was the start of the fulfillment of his campaign promise for a Muslim ban. Nobody was fooled about what it was for or why.
- mercer 10y ago
  Surely it's possible to report the facts without embellishment, and also point out how worrying those facts are in context? If indeed 'nobody was fooled', it shouldn't even be necessarily to embellish headlines or content.