Was Trump talking about citizens?
I thought I’d write a separate post about this today, since the subject was such a bone of contention yesterday.
My strongest objection to Trump’s remarks about banning Muslims from entering this country was that he seemed to be including citizens. And so he did, as his spokesperson had indicated. He certainly didn’t explicitly exclude them in his written or spoken comments, either—until the next day during a television interview, which I did not see reported on until today.
I finally found a timeline:
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump called Monday for a blanket ban on all Muslims entering the United States, further stoking an incendiary debate spurred by recent mass shootings carried out by terrorists in Paris and Southern California.
Trump, in a formal statement from his campaign, urged a “total and complete shutdown” of all federal processes allowing followers of Islam into the country until elected leaders can “figure out what is going on.”
Asked by The Hill whether that would include American Muslims currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ”˜everyone.’ ”
During a Tuesday morning interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” however, Trump clarified that American Muslims would still be able to travel freely under his plan.
“If a person is a Muslim and goes overseas and come back, they can come back. They are a citizen, that is different,” Trump said.
So there you have it. Was Trump testing the waters on the “including citizens” part and then pulling back, having established plausible deniability through his intentional vagueness? That’s my leading theory, although many of you will no doubt differ. Or was he simply being vague, but always meant to exclude citizens and got his signals crossed with Hicks, who spoke out of turn? Or is he just plain sloppy?
But now that Trump has clarified that (although he changes so many of his positions that I don’t trust his change, either), I retain the other objections that I’ve described in other posts. I’ve also briefly offered my own suggestions on the subject, here.
It’s his standard negotiation tactic. He wrote an entire book about it in 2004, so why do so many people not get it?
The first offer is always outrageous, to set the anchor.
What if a Muslim citizen go overseas for jihad and come back?
Still good?
No?
Which is why easy sound bite solutions don’t work.
This requires difficult decisions and work, and Big Government doesn’t like either of the aforementioned.
standard negotiation tactic “the first offer is always outrageous, to set the anchor” blah blah blah
Yeah, no, I decline to negotiate with presidential candidates. Oh, Sir, please tell me your actual meaning (as a reasonable reading of your first statement is being used to make my side look bad and Hillary Clinton look good).
Tired of this. Tired of the blundering, obvious machinations GOP establishment. Disgusted with the only alternative being Trump v. Clinton. Choose your idiocracy.
No-one on the left is willing to have a rational discussion on the advisability of allowing large numbers of Muslims to settle in a non-Muslim country. The lamentable situation in the UK alone should be sufficient, considering, just as two examples, the ongoing horrors of Muslim “grooming” of non-Muslim girls and the fact, widely reported in the media last year, that more British Muslims have gone to Syria to fight for ISIS than have joined the British military.
AMartel:
Trump vs Clinton is one of my worst nightmares (in the electoral sense, that is). And if things proceed as they have so far, it looks as though it’s on track to come true.
These are very very difficult problems with no good solutions, and certainly no easy ones. I’ve tried to point out that even Trump’s solution (if in fact he were elected and tried to do it by executive order, which is how it would have to be done) is no real solution. People have trouble with acknowledging that the problem may have passed a point of no return already. That is what I believe, and even I have trouble accepting it. My solutions are what I consider the best and most effective ways to deal with it that have any hope whatsoever of actually being implemented, and I admit they are far from perfect.
I believe most Trump supporters want to believe he has a magic answer. It’s a cult of personality, IMHO.
fred:
Yes, I think many people well understand that’s what Trump is doing here. It’s pretty close to my description of my theory of what he’s doing: “Was Trump testing the waters on the ‘including citizens’ part and then pulling back, having established plausible deniability through his intentional vagueness? That’s my leading theory…”
He floats an idea that’s more extreme first, to see how it goes, and it’s purposely vague so he can pull back later and say he never meant it in the first place.
Fine for a business wheeler and dealer, not fine for a president speaking to the American people. If Obama or Hillary did it you’d hate them for it, but when Trump does it it’s just hunky-dory, it seems, because he described it in his book and it’s an effective business technique.
A lot of Trump supporters think he’s going to be their Obama.
They’ve watched how Obama worked his magic on his fans and they want their own personality cult leader.
AMartel:
That’s what I mean about cult of personality.
I’ve said for a long time that Trump is the right’s version of Obama.
People are people, apparently, and many of them fall prey to the same things dressed up in a different guise.
If I can change the first sentence of your last paragraph “not fine for a president speaking for the American people, ” I think you would describe the most serious problem with Trump. How will we get information that we need for vetting and following terrorist groups if Muslim countries feel that they are being dissed? The problem is not having sharper controls on who enters the country; the problem is the way Trump says things. He insults and turns off our allies and he makes it harder for our diplomats and intelligence people to get info.
Perhaps Eric can give us a summary of the dances Bush had to do to get any help from Pakistan.
My comment was directed to neo’s reply to Fred.
I thought the precedent was to assassinate without due process any American citizens believed to be engaged in Islamic jihad. The same precedent is applied to nationalist Muslims under cover of a preemptive coup, and hopefully that will segue to a civil war, refugee crisis, and other anti-native actions.
“Ammunition, IS propaganda found after France mosque closure …”
As I throw fuel on the fire here, it would probably be wise to also take the news claims that “334 war grade weapons” (or something similar) have been found in raided mosques, with a grain of salt for the time being.
As we see, other news sources are reporting that only about 30 some were war grade weapons. I have seen no specific definition included of what constitutes a war grade weapon.
We immediately think of a Kalashnikov. But given that we are talking France and Europe more generally, it could be anything more lethal than a shotgun … or if this were England, a BB gun.
The fact that a pistol, in a dwelling linked to a mosque, was singled out for specific mention, should alert one to be cautious in making “natural assumptions” regarding what was actually found.
It may help cheer one up to imagine Ted Cruz in the guise of G.C. Scott portraying Gen. Patton saying “Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!”
From a different angle:
Given that pausing the Muslim entry for a period is unacceptable, we will also say that stopping is not possible and that is a given as well. This means technically that it doesn’t matter if they check them out a lot, a little, or barely at all — there is no pausing, so there is no stopping, so what difference is the point of checking? No one will be held accountable regardless of the outcome no matter what level you pick as there are no brakes on this train. If pausing because they are from X is ok and Muslim is not, then that is just a semantic game akin to hugging your wubby and protecting sensibilities. It just requires one to be more careful of their euphemism’s and pick the right one the pc one, and all would be fine. Isnt that what we have been complaining about? Word games? PC games? Being blunt is not acceptable, better to lie and be loved than be brutally honest and make the persons in the sitting room faint from a violation of their safe space.
Ok, so you can’t stop them from entering even for a bit. Since nothing can negate that, there is no requirement to waste a lot of money and resources on good checks as the entry process is not conditional upon some quality level. Given this, you have to work with what you have received, and will have to figure out what to do with what you now have. So what percentage of incidents is acceptable? None? A few? A whole lot? Or doesn’t it matter? Sadly the answer is, it doesn’t matter. Regardless of the number, there is no action that could even stem the flow of more.
Basically it’s a case of let em in, and we will try to catch what we can at great expense, and accept any loss of life as sad but not really preventable, other than the lucky finds at great expense.
Now I know that people are going to argue that you can improve the thing and not have to pause it, which is true, but its also the same dysfunctional way its always done that doesn’t improve as there is no entity that is responsible in a way that would suffer anything regardless of how its accomplished — but it is useful to get more and more revenue claiming changes will improve things, then waiting till the next time it needs to get changed around for more capital.
It would be quite different if the people who wanted people to come in had to pass a certain quality level or else there is a pause… then it would be consequential as to how mean the people in charge are for letting quality slide and thus causing those poor people to suffer, and that it better be fixed so that they can start coming in again. Its basic quality control, the entity doesn’t get past point X unless its cleared by a process of acceptable quality.
r was he simply being vague, but always meant to exclude citizens and got his signals crossed with Hicks, who spoke out of turn? Or is he just plain sloppy?
how about he assumed the public to be smarter than it was and that he didn’t have to spell out that he is talking about people who are unknown coming in without a good process to handle them.
But now that Trump has clarified that (although he changes so many of his positions that I don’t trust his change, either)
can you clue us in on those changes? one thing he hasnt done is change position even when pressured to do so and with tons of the world yelling at him. so what points has he changed, and if he did, what made it capricious vs a good reason (at least potentially)
Entertainment is taking advantage of this fiasco.
Actor George Takei went on MSNBC denouncing Trump’s statements, saying that we are repeating history – recalling the controversial Japanese internment camps where he was housed as a young boy. Add JK Rowling to the mix as well.
Mosques were essentially the same as baronies under Islamic Iqta. Meaning, both produced manpower and wealth to fund wars, jihad in Islam’s case.
GRA Says:
December 9th, 2015 at 8:28 pm
Entertainment is taking advantage of this fiasco.
Congress too:
Members of Congress Give Obama Standing Ovation After Challenging Trump
The pretense to nuance on this matter is effete.
Mongols have no respect for effete.
TRUMP’S RIGHT — UK HAS MUSLIM NO-GO AREAS, SAY POLICE OFFICERS…
Meanwhile pseudo-intellectuals wring their hands …
Thomas Sowell warned us about them.
Artfldgr:
The changes I’m talking about are things like these (scroll down and start where it says “immigration” in darker print, and keep reading), this, this, and see this.
By the way, those changes of opinion are not all that important in determining why I’m not a Trump supporter, although they don’t help. I assume that if you’ve been reading this blog you’re already aware of my reasons for not supporting him, since I’ve written a great many posts on the subject.
GRA Says:
December 9th, 2015 at 8:28 pm
Celebrity fools like them think that they will be tolerated under Sharia law. Or else they’re simply ignorant about how Islam spreads and conquers a country. Perhaps both.
The real problem is that so many people care what celebrities think about serious issues; thus they have much more influence than they deserve.
Takei did not protest constructing congruences (e.g. “=”) under the pro-choice doctrine to establish constitutional and institutional selective exclusion of politically unfavored orientations and behaviors (i.e. classes). The rainbow flag is notably lackluster and represents a progressive (i.e. monotonic) liberal (i.e. unprincipled) prejudice under the State-established pro-choice cult.
As for the interned people, they were classified by common allegiance, and the temporary restrictions were imposed under a perceived and real existential threat to America, her People, and Posterity. Today, the threat is somewhat more nuanced, with the pro-choice cult legally killing and cannibalizing over one million Americans annually, and the Islamic religion which is universal and marred through marriage to a left-wing ideology (i.e. totalitarian, coercive).
That said, it is already common place to restrict rights based on legitimate classes, including allegiance and commonly held principles.
The donald would be another bho, of neither the left, right, or middle. But like his majesty, he will be a dictator wannabe. Is that not obvious?
fred Says:
December 9th, 2015 at 4:56 pm
It’s his standard negotiation tactic. He wrote an entire book about it in 2004, so why do so many people not get it?
The first offer is always outrageous, to set the anchor.
&&&&
Bingo!
Thread winner.
Léª Äức Thá» pulled the EXACT same stunts all through his negotiations with Johnson and Nixon.
No-one attacked him for the truly absurd.
Instead, JF Kerry rushed ( Russ’d ?) to his aide // aid.
&&&
Trump ALSO cleared the decks — as he well knew that the MSM would simply have to go APE all over his pitch.
PERFECT.
And free, to boot.
blert:
Perfect—if you’re a bombastic, narcissistic, egomaniac.
Perfect.
Sen. Patrick Leahy attempts to demonstrate he is in touch with the American people.
AMartel Says:
December 9th, 2015 at 5:04 pm
What if a Muslim citizen go overseas for jihad and come back?
Still good?
No?
Which is why easy sound bite solutions don’t work.
This requires difficult decisions and work, and Big Government doesn’t like either of the aforementioned.
standard negotiation tactic “the first offer is always outrageous, to set the anchor” blah blah blah
Yeah, no, I decline to negotiate with presidential candidates. Oh, Sir, please tell me your actual meaning (as a reasonable reading of your first statement is being used to make my side look bad and Hillary Clinton look good).
&&&
Can you be serious?
Where did the notion of you personally negotiating with Trump pop into your brain?
He’s on a SALES campaign.
Negotiating? — that’s administration – – more than a year away.
Absolutely NONE of the candidates are proposing real world solutions, nothing that they would actually employ, EVER.
It can NEVER happen.
It has never happened, before, either.
The ONLY serious point of debate: who can stop HRC?
The more Donald Trump plays the MSM like a banjo — the more I’m impressed.
I still prefer Cruz — and I’d slot Carly as VP… ’cause she’s going to pull female votes.
Carson is a fine man, fine on policy. He is just too White to pull Black votes.
Even Sowell and Thomas can’t gain traction.
When Black genius arrives — it is disrespected — especially by the Democrat machine.
Trump is insulting Muslim leaders?
Tosh.
No Muslim nation wants ANY of these, so-called, Sunni refugees.
As for being insulted — what do you think KSA and Jordan and Iraq think RIGHT NOW?
Give me a break.
Iran didn’t feel insulted when Reagan arrived.
Trump’s mouth is about as outrageous as Churchill’s.
Remember?
It was a scandal all the mean things he kept saying about Hitler.
The peace lobby was shushing Winnie all through the Thirties.
Remember?
I think we all remember the aftermath of that peace campaign.
Lexington and Concord WERE outrageous.
The Tea Party WAS outrageous — and roundly denounced — by most of the Founding Fathers — no less. (!!!)
Does ANY Muslim land permit American Christians or Jews to immigrate?
Yet, do WE feel insulted?
As a CANDIDATE Trump can say ANYTHING and it will not insult Araby.
Heck, he can’t hold a candle to Barry Soetoro.
Over there, no-one wants to answer his phone calls.
And, a FEMALE lesbian president ?
Oh, yeah, that’s sure to be a lead balloon.
Tabloid America — its what’s for publication.
blert:
Are you trying to say that what Churchill said about Hitler or Nazis in the 30s has some parallel to Trump stopping any Muslim from coming here in 2016?
Hitler was a person and Nazis were his supporters. The correct analogies would be what Trump (or any other candidate or public figure) would be saying about Iran’s leaders or about the ISIS leader, for example, and about their supporters.
The orthodox politicians of his time SHUNNED Winston.
He was in the wilderness.
His declarations were often described as provocative even an insult to peace.
For he was railing against the Peaceniks of his era.
Even as late as Munich he was deemed — way out there.
No analogy is ever perfect, but the parallel here is that Winston was deemed politically uncouth, a has-been who’s been all mouth his entire life. Mr. Gallipoli… etc. etc.
Indeed, deemed a flat out warmonger.
Deemed far, far, far, more bellicose than Donald Trump.
When quoted — he was up for ridicule.
His ostracism lasted right up until the shadow of war case its cold embrace. Churchill later proved to be a MASTER of playing the Press.
The same slams were laid on Reagan. Now (mostly) forgotten, President Carter portrayed Reagan as a total lightweight.
The Press had him as a cowboy, a dufus, a second string actor, a fellow that could only read scripts handed to him, etc. etc.
I’ve said it before — and say it now.
I’m not the slightest bit concerned about Donald and policy and administration. He’s cut from the same salesman’s cloth as Reagan, and FDR.
As an administrator it’s plain on his track record he delegates like Reagan, not like FDR, not like Carter.
He’s also a certainty to turn every problem into a construction project. He’ll out FDR, FDR… out Hoover, Hoover.
His burden is that he’ll be a punching bag for HRC and her media thugs.
I’m ever more impressed with his moxie. Like Reagan and Obama he has Teflon outer wear. The level of screeching I’m hearing is identical to that of 1980.
Reagan was NOT the GOPe candidate in 1980 — not by a long shot.
The candidate that admired FDR and never moved against FDR’s legacy was deemed too far to the right to ever be elected against a sitting president.
Like Reagan, it’s plain that Trump wants to build up the DoD — and scarcely use it.
Rubio, and the rest want to jump in — right now — with the shell that Barry Soetoro has left us.
America has LOST all of its expeditionary power. Barry pencilled it down to zero.
He’s shut down the production lines for both cruise missiles and Hellfire missiles. We’re living off of Reagan’s military build up even to this day. (B1, B2, F15E, Super Hornet, etc.)
At a low enough level, without radical imams, those Muslims inside the USA can be suffered.
Eventually the travesties in Europe will pull the Overton Window back towards sanity — and Muslims can be expelled.
They MUST be if America is to be a Judeo-Christian nation.
We can’t have a future if jihadi’s are terrorizing the diamond district all the time… blowing up Hollywood…
I fully expect a US Constitutional Amendment to be required stipulating that Islam is not a protected ‘religion.’
Without mosques and imams, their jihad will die. Yep, that’s all that it will take. Mosques are the fortress from which ALL of these jihadis launch their assaults.
The French could give you current events on exactly this point.
No Mosques – No jihad.
from 1924 to 1965 the usa stopped ALL immigration to allow for assimilation.
during WWII it should have been clear that there were a lot of germans who were NOT part of the nazi party machine. what we are doing now is saying, poor german citizens who are not part of the nazis, should have been allowed to immigrate during the war because the british bombed their homes.
thats now how nutty we are..
today we would have allowed german refugees to immigrate, and not allow good checking or anything like that cause it would be bad to do that.
Video: Knife-brandishing Muslim threatens Donald Trump: “I will circumcise you!”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/video-knife-brandishing-muslim-threatens-donald-trump-i-will-circumcise-you
[and the democrats will hold trump down for him]
This video is certain to convince ol’ Trump that Islam is a Religion of Peace, and that he should, as Bah Ebou demands, show some more “respect.” Or else. If Trump is circumcised, will he change his mind about Muslim immigration? Warning: strong language, high emotions, and a certain paucity of calm, rational argumentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv1YgVKoqLw
Congressional source: ‘The amendment is intended to be a response to Trump’s statement’ about Muslims… …Congress is set to vote on Thursday on what some have called an “unprecedented” right that would allow immigrants easier access to relocate to the United States, according to new legislation offered by a Democratic senator. The legislation, which is being offered by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) as an amendment to a larger bill governing nuclear safety, would prohibit the U.S. government from barring any individual from entering the country based on their religion….”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
so basically, EVERYONE will claim a turn down is for religion, the state cant prove that, and now you have an open door…
of course when the fit hits the shan, they will come up with laws to lock the citizens down
parker Says:
December 9th, 2015 at 10:03 pm
The donald would be another bho, of neither the left, right, or middle. But like his majesty, he will be a dictator wannabe. Is that not obvious?
He may wanna be, but he wouldn’t be able to indulge. Unlike Obama (because he’s black and a Liberal) and Hillary (because she’s a woman and a Liberal), Trump would be easily impeachable. There would be no shortage of Republicans who’d join their Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate in that endeavor.
parker Says:
December 9th, 2015 at 10:03 pm
The donald would be another bho, of neither the left, right, or middle. But like his majesty, he will be a dictator wannabe. Is that not obvious?
your steeped in liberal zeitgiest too long…
even when you dont want to be a liberal and have their views you still have their views.
yeah. strong men are evil, strong women are sexy, and the right is just a fascist dictatorship waiting to happen…
not bad for 30 years of endless sameness in propadandic bs
then there is this:
Early Saturday morning two “foreign speaking” men set off alarms after they entered the local Walmart store in Lebanon, Missouri and purchased 60 cellphones. The purchase was made around 4 AM in the morning. Police were called but released the men saying they didn’t have a legal reason to detain them. Now this… The Macon County Sheriff’s office is investigating a second suspicious purchase of dozens of cellphones at the Columbia Walmart on Conley Road.
After Clinton, who cares about impeachment? Clinton went nowhere. It was just a vote of ‘no confidence.’ Big deal.
Now that Clinton has set the bar, impeachment is only a footnote in Wikipedia that is meaningless to most.
Section 313 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was passed June 27, 1952 states the following:
[its long so i will just put the parts that are relevant, please take the time to read the whole law if you can]
These North American women might generally not wear a physical Hijab but they most certainly wear a virtual one.
If they truly objected to Islaaam we wouldn’t have a moooslime problem.
Thanks heavens for the likes of Pam Geller.
There is such a thing as denaturalization, where naturalized citizens can be stripped of the American citizenship.
And it’s on the books.
You find a bunch of people doing the IS thing, I got no problem with it.
Trump in SC poll BEFORE his muslim statement = 30%
Trump in SC poll AFTER his muslim statement = 38%
Who has the pulse of middle america?
Awww!: aiding and abetting …
Mark Zuckerberg
18 hrs · Palo Alto, CA ·
I want to add my voice in support of Muslims in our community and around the world.
After the Paris attacks and hate this week, I can only imagine the fear Muslims feel that they will be persecuted for the actions of others.
As a Jew, my parents taught me that we must stand up against attacks on all communities. Even if an attack isn’t against you today, in time attacks on freedom for anyone will hurt everyone.
If you’re a Muslim in this community, as the leader of Facebook I want you to know that you are always welcome here and that we will fight to protect your rights and create a peaceful and safe environment for you.
Having a child has given us so much hope, but the hate of some can make it easy to succumb to cynicism. We must not lose hope. As long as we stand together and see the good in each other, we can build a better world for all people.
KATIE HOPKINS: Don’t demonise Trump, he speaks for millions of Americans. And who can blame them for not wanting to end up like us?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3353060/Calm-Trump-s-Muslim-travel-ban-never-going-happen-isn-t-America-just-little-bit-lucky-suggest-it.html
Erdogan friends Zuckerberg over pro-Muslim message
Awww!
Kalashnikov ammunition and [pro-ISIS] Islamist propaganda videos were seized by French police in raids on Sunday after shutting down a mosque in the Paris suburbs, according to French authorities.
Linked to the traditionalist Salafist branch of Islam, the prayer hall in Lagny-sur-Marne, around 18 miles east of the capital, was shut down last Wednesday following a major police operation.
It was the third mosque in France to be closed as part of state of emergency clamp down after the jihadist attacks on Paris on November 13 that killed 130. …
Police also found recordings of religious chants “glorifying the martyrs of jihad linked to the terrorist organisation Jabhat al-Nusra”, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, the prefecture added.
The recordings were found among a wealth of teaching material for young people in an undeclared madrassa, or religious school.
K-E:
Clinton didn’t set the bar. The bar was set by the Constitution. Impeachment is relatively easy (majority vote in House) but conviction is hard, so impeachment becomes a House no-confidence vote unless there is conviction, which is extraordinarily hard. In fact, several presidents have been impeached but none convicted.
So why impeach Obama without conviction? It would just be a no-confidence vote that would be seen as partisan persecution of a black president. But if he wasn’t black, if would still be seen as partisan persecution of a liberal president. This didn’t start with Clinton.
Arfldgr:
And although I certainly can’t claim personal knowledge on this score, my guess is that Trump is already circumcised, since circumcision was quite standard for males born in the US in his age cohort.
Trump did say all muslims but how would it be any different if he said Syrian refugees?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222405/How-six-wealthiest-Gulf-Nations-refused-single-Syrian-refugee.html
“Yet, as debate rages between politicians in Europe over how many they should take, nearby super-wealthy Gulf nations of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain have refused to offer sanctuary to a single Syrian refugee.”
These 5 very rich “muslim” countries are saying WE DON’T WANT THEM!
Now these same “muslim” countries are crying “rasist, bigoted Trump!”
Here is a good piece on the evolution of Trump:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/the-definitive-timeline-of-donald-trumps-opinion-of-barack-o#.bwXyx8K9M
He does not seem capable of analytical thought. He seems to get his opinions from watching CNN in the morning.
In the coming weeks I would bet the farm this will happen.
If Trump feels he cannot get the repub nomination he will nuke the repub elites. He will tell them and the nation if you don’t get behind me you have elected Hillary Clinton.This will be his last offer in this “negotiation.”
He actually said this in the first debate but no one thought he would do it … think again!
And god knows America loves itself a sell-out since it has elected one to the Presidency twice the last two national executive cycles. Why quit now? All in, America?
artfldgr,
I am not steeped in anything other life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My roots go back to 1742, I know where I came from and where I am going. You and a few others are steeped in your own self-importance and all knowingness. You do have much info at your fingertips, but encyclopedic info without humility is of limited use other than spewing in blog world. On Main Street it is of little use as hearts and minds need the human touch.