Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump Obliquely Backs a Federal Database To Track Muslims
HughPickens.com writes: Philip Bump reports at the Washington Post that Donald Trump confirmed to NBC on Thursday evening that he supports a database to track Muslims in the United States. The database of Muslims arose after an interview Yahoo News's Hunter Walker conducted with Trump earlier this week, during which he asked the Republican front-runner to weigh in on the current debate over refugees from Syria. "We're going to have to do things that we never did before," Trump told Walker. "Some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule." When pressed on whether these measures might include tracking Muslim Americans in a database or noting their religious affiliations on identification cards, Trump would not go into detail — but did not reject the options. Trump's reply? "We're going to have to — we're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely," he said. "We're going to have to look at the mosques. We're going to have to look very, very carefully." After an event on in Newton, Iowa, on Thursday night, NBC's Vaughn Hillyard pressed the point. "Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims here in this country?," Hillyard asked. "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases" Trump said. "We should have a lot of systems." Hillyard asked about implementation, including the process of adding people to the system. "Good management procedures," Trump said. Sign people up at mosques, Hillyard asked? "Different places," Trump replied. "You sign them up at different places. But it's all about management."
The cataloging, rounding up, and internment of the Japanese is one of the darkest and frankly most embarrassing chapters in America's history. I can't believe someone is honestly suggesting that we do this again.
I think they've done this project before.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Joke's on him.
The government already knows.
I'm not going to say what everybody is thinking. But I thought about it.
Make them stitch some sort of emblem to their clothing to make it easier to identify them. That works pretty good I heard.
Seriously America what the fuck?
What is wrong with people?
Let's have a proper /. debate.
No ... I am not proposing this. I am just terrified this is the direction things are headed. The current hysteria over a few mentally unbalanced fanatics really has me worried. The worst thing that can happen is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, who are as horrified at the actions of IS as the rest of us, are marginalized and dissuaded from helping in rooting out this menace.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/...
Clearly there could be the rise of a charismatic egomaniac who preys on the fears and hatred of the conservatives, making groups out to be the scapegoats (Muslims, gays, immigrants... at least it's not Jews this time around). Everything Trump says about these groups are the same things that Goebbels and Hitler were saying about Jews. We are witnessing the rise of the radical fascists Europe had to deal with 80 years ago. How in the hell are people so damn fucking stupid not to learn from history?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
For easy identification, just make them all wear a yellow crescent on their clothes. Maybe tattoo an id number to their wrists.
Déjà vu.
even /. can't ignore it. every other media is Trumped-up since that gets the attention. Ventura/Swartzenager were governors and Reagan got the brass ring.
No. This is all bullshit. Just some crap from the media. bait and smear
"Trump would not go into detail — but did not reject the options" apparently Not saying "NO" = "YES"
That might be antisemitic. Maybe the ADL will get involved.
How would the posters that are upset about this feel about applying this to the
Scientologists ?
Aum Shinrikyo ?
Golden Dawn ?
The KKK ?
Neo Nazis ?
Pegida ?
Republicans ?
Libertarians ?
People that have more money than you do ?
Just how do you feel about freedom of speech ? Woodrow Wilson at Princeton ? The Halloween costume of your choice ? Operation Rescue publicizing abortion practices ?
It seems that a lot of people have remembered the first amendment today and will probably forget about it by next week.
The Power of Nightmares 1: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (BBC-2004)
Today Trump released a statement saying the Muslim database was the reporter's idea, with his camp and conservative talking heads like Rush Oxycontin Limbaugh implying that the MSNBC reporter was laying a trap for him by asking such a provocative question while Trump was rushed for time. Of course the reporter was laying a trap but since Trump can't resist running his mouth whenever a microphone is put in front of his face he obliged and walked right into it.
Here is a transcript of what the reporter and trump said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
And here is Rush Fathead's spin on it:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da...
Does anyone here not believe that every citizen and resident's religious, political, and social associations aren't already sitting in federal databases? This is part of what TIA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., Prism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., and many of the related programs were really created for...
So basically Trump wants to make tracking databases that are already in use by law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and who knows how many private organizations public. Who isn't in a database nowdays?
Washington Post has none.
Who is this guy and what has he done with Trump? Trump doesn't waffle. Trump doesn't dodge the question. Trump is balls to the wall, 'Murica! Fuck Yeah! in every interview. So who is this guy who won't just say it?
Wait, wait wait. Does Mr. Donald Trump think he's a viable candidate?? Ahahahahahaha
That's funny.
Has anyone read it? Freedom from religious persecution is the #1 reason this country was founded. Everything else was secondary. Remember, this includes freedom to be atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Jedi, whatever. That freedom is worth more than ANY other.
He doesn't deserve to be called a Cow. Cows are innocent. Cows say MOOOO! MOOOO! Cows don't have a special permit license to carry a gun. Mooo say the cows. YOU NON-COW!!!
The man is a nut job and I really don't want him as president, but I don't think it is what he meant to say. He is doing the candidate thing and jumping to a talking point, database for Muslims may be what he was asked, but is not the question I think he was answering. With Syrian refugees being a big topic recently, he probably went straight to immigration because that is probably the group he thought he was being asked about. I would like him to publicly clarify. The funny thing about this is the American people are already in a database, multiple databases. SSI, IRS, geology, police, Walmart, Target, gas stations, your local grocery store. That rewards card you use to get a discount on gas or groceries are all there to track your actions in their respective databases. Target knows if you are pregnant based on changes in your purchasing habits. It is still scary, and shouldn't be a thing for a government to keep track of a group of people based solely on their religion.
Quick rant: He scares the crap out of me, he is a ruthless boss. He ran his businesses like a jerk and if elected he will run this country as a jerk and treat the american people like he treats employees. Also, his hair needs a banana for scale.
tldr: He was rushed, answered the wrong question, and was quoted with what I think was a easy misinterpretation. Still a nut job and not fit to govern.
Lately I've been feeling like I'm in a Philip K Dick novel.
Mostly random stuff.
Good move. Republicans are largely temporarily embarrassed millionaires living in their own fantasy world, and bigots. This should give him the bump in the polls that he'll need to win the whole thing.
Some sects of Islam actively seek overthrow of the US government by force. Since participating in an organization for the purposes of overthrow of the US government by force is a violation of the Smith Act, then a "database" of suspects for investigative purposes is no so far fetched. Are you supporting one of those sects? Participating in one of those mosques? I'm not seeing a lot of problem there when it comes to conspiring in support of armed rebellion against the US government.
Nope. You're living in your own little fantasy world, sponsored by Rush Limbaugh. Trump explained how he'd sign Muslims up for the database.
The reason this is a good move is because people like you are so delusional you'll give him a pass because you would sooner blame the media than pull your head out of your ass.
That wascally wabbit tricked him again!
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's all about management, human resources and firing. He wants to do some firing. Quickly, fill his remaining reality shows with Muslim candidates and interns so the he gets the need of firing Muslims out of his system before his ointment, I mean anointment.
That word "obliquely" - I do not think it means what you think it means.
sPh
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
He is explicitly asked should there be a Muslim-tracking database system to which he replies the whole nonsense about "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases" and "signing up at different places" when asked about signing people up at mosques.
Nobody is putting words in his mouth.
He IS an idiot that does not think or listen to other people and talks in thought-terminating cliches but he clearly understood those questions and replied to them in his poorly thought through manner.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
In fact, Christian minorities have a number of special rights under the law, including representation in the parliament. Exactly what kind of country are we trying to become?
Video link, for the skeptical: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
It is amusing to me how much gotcha attempts such as this piece and a lot of the comments help trump. The more this happens the more support he gets. The lesson isnt that Trump is a moron, it is that people are sick and tired of the endless political games. Trump, like him or not, is the only one who isnt playing stupid political game. So by all means, please keep bashing him, come up with more and more gotchas for him as he gets stronger with each failed attack.
Nope. You're living in your own little fantasy world, sponsored by Rush Limbaugh. Trump explained how he'd sign Muslims up for the database.
I don't like Trump (really, I don't like any of the candidates, but......), but as far as I can tell, he didn't say he'd sign Muslims up for a database. He carefully worded his way around it, continually returning to building a wall (so useful that will be~ ), and generally avoided the reporter's question. Here is the actual transcript, you can judge for yourself. I'm giving my understanding of it, he was careful to avoid saying he would sign Muslims up for a database (and even more avoided how he would accomplish it, "management"):
Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening in this country happen any longer.
Hillyard: But that’s something your White House would want to implement?
Trump: Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.
Hillyard: What do you think the effect of that—how would that work?
Trump: It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming in to our country illegally.
Hillyard: But specifically, how do you actually get them registered into a database?
Trump: It would be just good management. What you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do that. [to someone else] That’s nice.
Hillyard: Do you go to mosques and sign people up?
Trump: Different places. You sign ’em up at different, but it’s all about management. Our country has no management.
Hillyard: Would they have to legally be in this database, would they be—
Trump: They have to—they have to be. Let me just tell you: People can come to the country, but they have to come legally. Thank you very much.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Thanks for posting the transcript. This story is seems like it's being reported accurately, whether he wants to backpedal or not.
Thanks for posting the transcript.
You're welcome, any time.
This story is seems like it's being reported accurately,
Which quote of Trump's specifically are you referring to here? Can you be a little more specific?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
To me it sounds more like having them wear something to single them out... maybe a yellow Star of David, as it worked so well in the past for the last group of fascists.
It did really remind me of the yellow stars.
That being said, do you believe for a *second* that they aren't already doing it? Obvious sources are every college application in the country (which have religious affiliation), facial recognition in photos online (in a picture with a half dozen Muslims?), facial recognition from city cameras (some have substantial tech behind what they do--NYC and DC come to mind), etc..., and that's just the low-hanging fruit.
Quoting the BIBLE:
those who oppose the LORD will be shattered. He will thunder against them from heaven
source
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.
source
The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish.
source
If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed.
source
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
source
Arise , O LORD; let not man prevail : let the heathen be judged in thy sight.
source
Only because your religious text tells you something to do, you aren't excused to actually do it.
its the wackadoodles that are the problem
when you get past CORE DOCTRINE and start treating Matters Of Faith as Doctrine you run into the problems
Christians in the Group need to remember
1 Corinthians 13:13 (deal with DBR after you prove you are not an Idiotic Jerk)
On the Muslim side
Would you mind NOT blowing things up and disturbing our potluck??
The Roast Beef and Lamb is from our Pastors Farm and was prayed over and everything before slaughter.
Trump gave a vague response to loaded questions.
Now that's what I call great reporting!
No, the transcript indicates the story is being reported inaccurately.
Clear Question: Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Dodge, Pivot to safer ground: Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening in this country happen any longer.
Follow-up, intended to force an answer to originally posed clear question: Hillyard: But that’s something your White House would want to implement?
Trump, believing he has successfully pivoted, pushes further on that line: The rest of the transcript.
It's pretty clear that he's talking about registering and tracking foreign nationals (i.e. with visas) so they don't overstay or cause trouble. This isn't controversial and plays up to his strength.
Follow-up coverage on this conversation has been very disingenuous. Trump is a terrible choice for president (IMHO), but he and his supporters are absolutely right when they complain about unfair treatment by "the media".
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
"There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems." - Donald Trump
"Different places. You sign ’em up at different..." - Donald Trump
That takes out the context of the questions, but the context makes it more clear, we're talking about database. I don't doubt that he wants to backpedal now and cry loudly about media persecution, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the way this is being reported. He said what he said.
Again, the video link: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
I came here to see how many people would be flipping their shit over the idea. I watched the video, and to my disappointment discovered that Trump didn't suggest anything about said Moslim Database, it was the Reporter shoving it down his throat. And if you listen to the conversation, it seems like the Reporter and Trump are talking about two completely different things!
Come on, ppl!
It's occurred to me that there is some cognitive dissonance going on:
When articles come up about H1B visas, it seems that a majority complain that it should be limited because they believe the evil tech. and software corporations just want more H1Bs so they can fire US born workers and replace them with cheaper workers.
But when the kind of people being considered to allow into the country are Mexicans who have nothing of value in Mexico so try (and do) come into the USA illegally, or random refugees, migrants, etc. from some extremely poor and/or war-torn nation, then it is considered racist to propose any sort of restrictions on their entry.
WTF?
Let's just apply the same standards from now on to all potential immigrants: If you object to letting in an arbitrary number of H1B visa applicants, you are a racist!
Honestly I'm surprised that with all the stuff he's been saying, that he is still even getting support.
Visas and foreign nationals were not even mentioned, and you completely left out the very next part where he was asked, "Do you go to mosques and sign people up?", and he says, "different places..."
That's one hilarious bit of spin you've got there. Can you see the back of your own teeth up there?
The first sentence you quoted carefully avoids answering the question. No one will disagree that we should have a lot of systems beyond databases. It's a non-answer to a reporter's question. Typical politician tripe.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Oh my, you're going for a Godwin's law violation here. "No one will disagree that we should have a lot of systems beyond databases."
lollerz. Good spin attempt, I guess. Insofar as all spin is actually really shitty. The media has reported this correctly, whether you like it or not.
Yeah, I used to think that too. Then someone pointed out that Christians have their own book, called imaginatively, the "New Testament". Most of that kind of stuff is not in there, and Christians are expected to live by the new moral code, not the old. It doesn't always work that way in practice, but that's the basic theory, anyways.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
And put a database behind it
You know, a big relational database because we're gettin killed here
Did you even watch the video?
Oh my, you're going for a Godwin's law violation here
Oh really? How? Do you think talking about systems is a fulfillment of Godwin's law?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Considering the amount of spying and bulk surveillance that the NSA has been doing since the Patriot Act came into existence; what makes anybody think that the database Trump wants to create doesn't already exist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I don't know who of them is worse.
I'm not voting for Trump, but the US media is just bullshit. Whatever it takes to get the most views and politicians latch onto anything they think will give them an edge. It's all bullshit. The country would be so much better off if all campaign money went back into the country to fix and improve things instead of bashing people over careful and deliberate misinterpretations.
The story is not accurately being reported, he doesn't need to backpedal. He's talking about illegal immigrants. Like people who come for a short vacation trip and stay forever. These people are already entered into databases. Everyone who enters the country gets a log entry in a database. So yes, they have to be entered and you sign them up at different places, different immigration and border places, Trump is talking about making sure those databases contain good information and using them to go after the people who have been staying too long, staying illegally. People have to come legally.
Only seeing what you want to see is a very annoying human ability.
There is nothing political about the simplicity of this exchange. To people familiar with the campaign coverage, this is trivial to unravel.
Don't like the question? Spin it to familiar ground, hit your talking points. The reporter keeps trying to talk about muslim registration, but Trump just wants to talk about the border. Or federal mismanagement in general. Or watching out for radical clerics.
Recall that this is a verbal exchange in a crowded room. He's even carrying on multiple conversations at the same time. He isn't paying attention to the reporter, so he's just kind of rattling off lines from his stump speech. There is literally zero content in this exchange, but Hillyard is jizzing himself because he thinks he's caught Trump in an all-timer of a gotcha.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
and trying to divert attention from the real candidates (Jeb & Rubio) while they go around the country trying out their material and wooing billionaires. He's basically a shield, which is why the Republican's tolerate him. He has the added bonus that he riles up the crazies and will make sure they come out and vote. Make no mistake, Trump is nothing but good to the Republican party...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Trump was in a campaign event, simultaneously autographing things for supporters and answering questions from a gaggle of reporters. A phony anti-Trump "reporter" from Yahoo started interjecting all sorts of whacko "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" questions into the mix of questions from other reporters about illegal immigration and screening for Syrian refugees. If you actually watch and listen to ALL of the raw video from the event, it's very clear he's addressing the border issues that are his campaign staple and that the faux reporter is intentionally trying to set him up and then later ran back to his keyboard to claim Trump called for all sorts of stuff Trump did not call for. In fact, the reporter even mis-attributes some Trump answers to a different reporter about a border wall as answers to his dishonest gotcha questions. Trump has said he was answering the questions he was obviously answering and did not even fully hear what the Yahoo idiot was even saying over the din in the room.
Pay attention to ALL the sound in the videos - the microphones are closer to the Yahoo fake so those questions are louder in the recordings, but you can hear the questions Trump is hearing and answering in amongst the background noise. People need to wake the hell up and stop being manipulated. This is an orchestrated attempt to eliminate Trump so that the GOP leaders can once again run feckless establishment guy (which is their idiotic preference) and Hillary can thus win (thus the Yahoo claptrap).
This is what passes for "truth" at places like Yahoo and the New York Times.
Let's see what answers a right-wing troll could get out of Hillary in a similar circumstance... probably could get her to seem to confess to being a space alien, but then you'd have to FIND somebody on the right who is capable of being 1/10th the troll of a typical left wing "journalist".
Trump's not even a right-winger... He's just threatening to upset the bi-partisan corruption-fest in Washington DC. There's nothing scarier to Wall St Bankers than a President who is not in need of their campaign cash, nothing scarier to the permanent army of lobbyists in DC than somebody who does not take their money (and therefore does not need to listen to them), and nothing scarier to the millionaire political consultant class in DC than a candidate who does not hire lots of consultants and speech writers. The Republican establishment is totally freaked-out by him and keeps trying to wipe out his campaign, and the Democrat establishment does not want Hillary to face him. Slashdot people are always calling for a 3rd part candidate who's not just a shill for one of the parties... here's your chance. Bernie is certainly NOT that; he claims to be a 3rd part socialist but in reality has spent his entire career caucusing with Democrats, campaigning with them, taking their money, advancing their bills... and the Democrat party likes him just fine. Trump's the only candidate in 20 years who the leaders of both parties DESPISE.
You don't think you're safe, do you? This dumpster fire will eventually involve the entire planet....all because "my make pretend friend has a bigger dick than your make pretend friend."
Wrong. It's 100% within the law. The supreme court has ruled that listing individuals is not punitive; that's why the no-fly, no-buy, sexual- and violent-offender registries can list anyone, any time, without conviction or a judge's order and there need be no recourse.
Here are the details. But the following "money shot" from the SCOTUS ruling is really all you need to know:
Held: Because the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the ex post facto clause.
Who gives a shit about Trump. He doesn't even listen to himself. He just opens his Trump hole and whatever you get out of it is whatever you get out of it. But you know, as long as we're wiping our ass with the Constitution anyway, gun violence kills a lot more Americans than terrorism does. Can we do away with that lot, too? Clearly they don't have any respect for the constitution (Or, probably, any idea what's in it) so it should be a no-brainer, right? Or is that one of those "hard" questions that hurts their feelings so much in the debates?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Trump is popular exactly because of these bullshit attacks. He's popular because Americans are *just* smart enough to see through attacks like this one, and feel the need to defend him. He's like Oliver North and Hillary Clinton squared. They get attacked unfairly, and people rush to their defense.
"Trump Obliquely backs a database of muslims"
Yeah, for extremely false values of "Obliquely".
A reporter mentioned a database, and Trump said something other than "go fuck yourself", so that's a "tacit" endorsement of a database. In languages where "tacit" means "not".
Full disclosure: I'm a liberal who gives money to Democrats. I'm just sick of people giving Trump oxygen by attacking him unfairly. If you can't figure out a way to attack him fairly, your'e really, really. really. really. really, really, not trying.
This is why Trump keeps going up in the polls - people keep seeing the extreme dishonesty of the people trying to tear him down.
The Yahoo reporter injected a bunch of out-of-the-blue got-ya questions into the middle of a pack of normal questions about border security by legitimate reporters. Trump is clearly answering those other questions about building a wall, deporting illegals, doing background checks on refugees, and building lists and databases about terror suspects, but the reporter who clearly knows what he is doing and all the Trump haters out there are clearly claiming Trump's answers to those other questions are answers to the Yahoo questions.
Anybody who thinks they are going to take Trump down with such transparently dishonest tactics, in an era when voters can go look at and listen to the recordings themselves, is smoking crack, and losing all credibility
IANAL, but the way I see it, it's fully Constitutional to keep undesirable immigrants out. The poem associated with Lady Liberty is a slogan--at Ellis island, many people with diseases were turned away. We didn't need more TB coming in, and they checked for things like that.
Once somebody is allowed in, they get certain rights; but not the right to stay until they are naturalized. Once they're naturalized they have full almost full rights (just a few special things are missing like becoming POTUS) so yeah we'd better be DAMNED SURE ABOUT PEOPLE before we let them in and naturalize them.
There's absolutely nothing that says we can't keep people out based on religion or even skin color if that's what we wanted. Yes. I went there. The Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens, at least not in the way that it does to citizens. We're fully within our rights to keep out undesirables. I'd even go so far as to say it's a vital function--providing for the common defense.
Now of course every Muslim is not a terrorist, but pretty much all the terrorists are Muslims so it's perfectly rational to keep them out. It's fully Constitutional. Of course Constitutional is not the same as "politically feasible", so... more mosques, coming soon to city near you, and all the troubles that come with it, just like in Europe.
Yeah, we've already got some of that, I know. We're just gonna get more because everybody's afraid to be called a racist. We're fucked.
Totally agree. WaPo editorial board really thinks they can say anything they want.
The irony of this is that it will fuel Trump. He will (correctly) say the press is out to get him, and the press won't have any credibility when they print actual dumb stuff Trump says.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
"Only seeing what you want to see is a very annoying human ability."
Which you demonstrated quite adequately. The video link is up there. Trump was talking about entering Muslims into a database, going to mosques, or different places.
Remain skeptical. Always. Including when you have to dismiss a Rush Limbaugh talking point because you acquired the information available in a simple video link, which, from your description of the events, it's not clear that you have even watched.
Video link, again: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
You apparently want to defend what Trump said by saying it's spin now, not whether his words are being reported correctly. It doesn't matter whether it's spin or not, he said what he said, and it's being reported accurately.
Trump will gain significant ground if he can spin this both as red meat for the bigots, and media persecution for the mentally unkempt.
You are in the latter, good for you.
Didn't we just recently learn the government is keeping track of ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY?
What difference does this make?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
"The Qu'uran... The Qu'ran... who's core tenets..."
How about you figure out how to write 4 lines in proper English before we consider your textual interpretations of the Quran.
You're not strange; the ones who are strange have their heads planted deep in the sand and thinking that all the Syrian refuges are completely harmless.
Because you, like Trump, were formulating your responses in the context of the following question:
Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Tracking people of a specific religion is something Hitler would do. I am starting to think that the reason so many people fall for the Republican's media persecution ruse is that you're really just a little too stupid to follow what's going on in a conversation.
Alright, let's try it this way:
There was some question about what was said, what he meant, etc. So, he tweeted today that he was talking about a watch list, while the reporter was talking about an all-muslim database. Why disbelieve him? There is a simple explanation here, but you choose to believe a wild conspiracy theory in which Trump has a secret plan that he accidentally tells everyone twice.
Simple, obvious, and in line with all the rest of the facts. I don't like Trump, but I don't hate him enough to stop thinking when his name is uttered.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
I watched the video and it seems clear to me he misheard the questions. He never uses the word Muslim himself. the reported just put it out there and it seems clear he thought the question is do we register immigrants.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
There are many accurate negative things to be said about Trump, but he's not Hitler. Neither was Bush, and Obama is not the antichrist.
Trying to compare politicians to legendary evil villains only muddies the water for the real debate.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Okay, watch the video link, and try to note what was actually said (the words that were actually spoken): http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
The story is being reported correctly. He said what he said, there is no need for a conspiracy theory.
If you are willing to believe the never-ending Republican refrain that they are being persecuted by the mainstream media, then you're simply willing to look past what they actually say, on camera, an example of which is right there in the link. That will help them. It's a dullard's belief system. It lets them off the hook for saying very stupid shit.
So you are in their camp for that, but Trump also gets points for tossing some flesh to their extremely bigoted base. I never once said this was bad for Trump. He'll get a boost from this for all the wrong reasons, of which you are one very, very dismissive, dissembling example.
It has already been proven beyond a doubt that the media baited, then fed him the lines, and when he didn't agree but didn't disagree ran with the story that he wants a muslim database. How more pathetic can you get? Reporting on this is the last straw. /. is no better than the slime that oozes from mass media's pores.
Is he a stooge or a super genius? You're going back and forth.
This may be the first raw transcript you've seen. Raw transcripts always have wrong information and contradictions because they accurately reflect the words we say. The way people speak is a mess. It's up to a good reporter to contextualize it and report the meaning of a particular sentence rather than the exact words spoken.
Recent examples:
Obama: "My muslim faith....", "we’re speeding up training of ISIL forces..."
A good reporter looks at that transcript, figures out that, in this context, he's talking about borders and a beefing up of terrorist watch lists. He's dodging and playing coy with the more explosive "muslim watch list". A shitty reporter (or one blinded by ideology) calls that a confirmation. A good reporter knows he doesn't have anything and moves on. A shitty reporter thinks he just made his career.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
I'm talking about YOU. Again, it seems more clear now than ever that you buy the media persecution ruse because you're not able to follow a conversation with any meaningful depth.
If you are drunk, I can understand. In fact, I would prefer to hear that you are under the influence of something right now. It would explain a lot.
Again, it seems more clear now than ever that you buy the media persecution ruse
Who said anything about media persecution? Certainly not me.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I never said he was either a stooge or a super genius. This may be the first conversation you have participated in because you clearly can't tell what is actually being said, you're whaling away at some imagined argument.
I will link the video for you again, because you are talking about a transcript, despite the fact that a primary source is right there at your fingertips:
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
You keep it up, though. Enough people are willing to pretend they have all the facts themselves, and the mainstream media is just out to get Republicans. I do not think I am winning over many people, but it should be clear to anybody reading this conversation, who has any experience with critical thinking, that you are not following it correctly.
The thread you are posting in is titled, "Liberal misinformation." Did you somehow miss that part? That would, once again, show a deficiency in reading comprehension consistent with my assessment that you cannot follow a multifaceted conversation, and thus are vulnerable to the media persecution ruse.
The media persecution ruse indicated, once again, in this "liberal misinformation" thread in which you are currently participating.
We already have a gun ownership database because of about three dozen lunatics in the past 50 years. So yeah. Y'alls turn.
But it's not a theory I espoused, nor is it one I subscribe to. Somehow you assumed I do. You probably assumed a lot of things about me.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
According to Thomas Aquinas, whose teachings are highly respected within at least the Catholic church, there are three types of law in the Old Testament: moral, judicial, and ceremonial. The moral laws are permanent, being the ethical foundation of the old and new laws. The judicial laws, though no longer binding, are no sin to follow, as they are built upon the moral laws. The ceremonial laws are forbidden, as to follow them would be to declare the old covenant still binding (this is why Catholics do not keep kosher).
All of the above quotes can be classified as either judicial or moral laws under Aquinas. You can also classify Deuteronomy 13:9 as judicial law - so modern Catholicism would not consider it a serious sin to stone apostates.
I'll let someone else explain the Orthodox or Protestant views on following the Old Testament. I'm even less an expert at those than I am Catholicism.
You posted the following question:
"Who said anything about media persecution?"
I answered it thusly: "The thread you are posting in is titled, 'Liberal misinformation.'"
There is an answer to your question buried in there somewhere. I get that you apparently do not like the fact that you are feeding a well-defined Republican persecution complex, but you asked a question (see the quote), and then I answered it (see my quote below it).
Was that answer not sufficient? Do you not yet know, "who said anything about media persecution"? Either way, I would also like to invite you to look literally anywhere else in this /. posting. Every other post is complaining about the reporting. Trump said what he said, do not try to shoot the messenger. Republicans would absolutely love to get away with all their bullshit with that simple out.
I get that you apparently do not like the fact that you are feeding a well-defined Republican persecution complex
Not at all. I just don't like it when people misinterpret the words of someone, even if I don't like that person.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You know, having some faith or being an atheist is not something you need to disclose or be honest about or which even needs to be constant. On the second-to-last census form, I wrote "Jedi Knight" and on the last one they sensibly allowed you do decline to answer or I would have put in "Pastafarian" (not US though).
Incidentally, while Christianity is an older and hence more sedate religion, it has a pretty bloody history and the argument is BS. It does come down to the individual person, not what their religion is. Fanatics are primarily fanatics, not fanatics for a specific religion or world-view. My guess would be that Trump just wants to track everybody and uses Muslims as a pretext for establishing the system for that. Once it works, add a bit more storage and you can easily keep tabs on everybody. After all, these days citizens are presumed guilty until proven otherwise.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
There is no misinterpretation. The video link, for the umpteenth time: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
What else will you allow politicians to say and then allow them completely off the hook? The reporting is the reporting. His words are there. If he clarifies or backpedals later, do not shoot the messenger who gave the first reports.
You are shooting the messenger who reported his initial words. That's a well-known Republican tactic that has been used over and over again this political season. By contrast, Democrats will clarify or backpedal but they will rarely if ever say the initial reports were biased, and evidence that the whole world is against them.
We should probably bring in more context at this point. Marco Rubio says the mainstream media is the biggest SuperPAC in the world for the Democrats. That is so absurd, but it got so many cheers in the last debate. Does that lend any extra context to what you are doing here?
To summarize: the initial reports were not inaccurate by any means. The video link is there. Republicans blame the media to get away with all manner of bullshit, and you are both apparently ignorant of the tactic, and an enabler by promoting a bullshit counter-narrative to Trump's database of Muslims.
So can you explain why Christians were still executing heretics and blasphemers well into the modern era, or whu Evangelicals still oppose gay rights?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The previous government party in Canada had quite a long run. One of their platforms was to play the anti-Muslim card (no Burkas during citizenship ceremony, or for those in government positions). Or attracted some people - though who knows if they were already party supporters - but ultimately they lost the election. Now to be fair they'd already pissed off a lot of voters due to various policies and scandals, but at the least this didn't get them the votes they wanted (it did get a number of raised eyebrows on the international news).
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the US.
Video link, for the skeptical: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
I'm the child of a muslim... personally atheist but reasonably scared by this headline... Watched the video and it's just some jargon about a wall and immigration. Of course he's advocating for nothing in particular, probably nothing congress would pass, but what we're seeing here is sensationalist nonsense from a journalist. Trump is obviously not listening to him, or barely listening to him. Thanks white people for wasting my time. I thought I was going to have to arm myself to defend my constitutional rights against fascism. Turns out the media "GOTCHA" ...
What do you mean he's advocating for something that congress would never pass? Is he advocating something, or not?
Blaming the media for stupid shit that politicians say is something that every politician would absolutely love. Don't blame the media, blame Trump's lack of comprehension if you want to go easy on him. Blaming somebody other than them lets them off the hook, allows them to be sloppy, and, worse, if he actually meant this, it lets him play both sides of the coin. In that case, it is both red meat for the bigots, and an appeal to the media persecution complex that has so pervaded the Republican party it is now their default.
Blame Trump for his own sloppiness, or, like Ben Carson, they'll be intentionally sloppy and then play it off later.
Carson, by a mile.
Trump is an asshole.
Carson is batshit crazy; planned parenthood a government conspiracy for black population control? Really?
Seriously, that man just isn't right in the head--he may be good at one thing, but that's it.
The exchange was a trap by the reporter, after Trump just finished a long speech and was obviously tired. And even then, from the context it is obvious that Trump shifted his response to the Trump Wall, and he was talking mainly about that.
At no point did Trump actually say "yes we need Muslim database". As for "free interpretations", well, there are a thousand databases on EVERYONE already, including suspected terrorists.
In short, the press set up Trump. And everyone including Slashdot, fell for it. The result will only be increased support for Trump, because we the people see through the media's attempts to smear him. The circus is over.
I also see that in most quotes from the Bible (Old and New Testament), it is God that is performing the actions causing death and destruction. However, in the Qu'ran, it reads more like you (the reader) are to carry out these actions in the name of Allah.
There is no "moderate interpretation" to be made here.
You may declare that about any religion's stances, and yet that doesn't mean that there aren't a whole lot of people who think that way anyway. A lot of modern Christians conflate modern social values with being a good Christian even when they don't have much to do with religion. The Torah contains some rather questionable messages about interacting with goyim, but despite the fears of paranoid racists on the internet, there are many honest Jews who will treat everyone with fairness and respect anyway.
Likewise, of the 1.5 billion Muslims on our planet, the ones doing violent things are a tiny minority. A database of Muslims would be just like a TSA body scan database: not very effective for any good purposes, but vryy effective for doing bad things.
It's equally strange to think that they're all completely harmful. Just how frequently do people lock ranks 100% on political issues, let alone religious ones?
I was always under the impression that Christians regard the entire Bible as the revealed Word of God, and that you don't get to pick and choose. Thanks for correcting that nonsense they taught me in Religious Ed when I was a kid.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Holy false dichotomy, Batman!
It is possible and indeed more realistic to assume that MOST of the refugees are the real deal and that a FEW of them might be plants.
The fact that a few of them are ISIS plants does not make all of them or even the majority of them ISIS operatives or even sympathisers.
MOST of them are folks who don't want to live in a war zone, or in a false "Caliphate" run by psychotics.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Knowing the history and knowing the enormous breach of freedom this is, how can any presidential candidate not immediately answer "noooo! NO ! double no !" alone on the US and European historical precedent and the breach of constitutionality ? Remember they are supposed to uphold the constitution when elected.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
And it worked out well for them, didn't it? It seems that putting everyone you hate in a database solves all your problems. You can then build the country you really want and it will last for a thousand years. Not so?
When your running for office even what you allude to counts as what you say. Lack of clarity is not a means to weasel out of anything later.
On Fox Trump plains says we'll have to close mosques down. If he is willing to do that then we can safely assume a database would not be any problem. Closing a religious organization by force of the government is completely unconstitutional. A database is not.
OR you could play the overly nerdy anal retentive person and say WELL.. technically speaking there might a radical islam mosque in the US and then we could close that. OK, yeah, it's possible there are a couple radical mosques that are nothing but covers for terrorism, but Trump's lack of clarity doesn't get to magically error on the side of sanity because Trump CONSISTENTLY makes these kinds of statements.
It's a ploy. He says things to anger people while leaving himself enough room to weasel out of the statement later. Why you ask would he do that? Well, I will tell you. Trump is running for GOP primary and he has to appeal to a ever more radicalised conservative base as the GOP demographics shrink their best optionis to rally their base through extremism and that requires fear. Conservatives cannot win election without firing up the base with extremely exaggerated statements. They've been doing this for years, but every year it gets a little worse. Obama's election cycle was abnormally bad because the GOP had a lot of lose after Bush and the GOP completely wrecked the economy AND allowed 911 under their watch as well as basically losing two wars, The GOP knew a potential big loss was on the way and to counter that they would pull out all the black radical muslim stops, bringing in strategies that would have seemed insane 10-20 years ago, like the hole birth certificate thing or saying Obama was paling around with terrorists, because lets not forget all that did happen.
Now they have to live up to that bar like a heroin addict who just got their first taste of pure heroin. Without that level of fanatic hatred the GOP turnouts won't win elections.
Anyway, Trump has to appeal to the fanatic to win the primary and then to win the general he has to pretend he didn't say any of that and that's what ALL this is about. Who Donald Trump really is, or any candidate for that matter, is a complete unknown. We just know who they present to the world and that's all we need to know.
Donald has presented a multi faceted racism and bigotry. He has said he would definitely implement a database. That's going to appeal to the GOP base, but he purposely mixed it back in with his generalized anti-immigrant policy so that he doesn't seem too racist, just the right amount of racist to look like a tough guy buy not like a radical who can't win a general election. That's how this game works now for Republicans. For Democrats it's still pretty civil.
You can clearly see this in other statements and in this interview. Trump is a billionaire, he is not entirely stupid and he has to be fairly detail oriented. He knows what a mosque is, so he knows the journalist is talking about Muslims, but he purposely gives himself some wiggle room by the way he handled it. This is how any good slightly shady merchant might handle a casual negotiation. You try not to allow certain terms to be laid down so you can adjust them later.
Trump probably heard him say Muslims and even if he didn't he definitely heard him say mosques. Would you like to content that Trump is talking about Mexican mosques?
He is just playing games here to get ratings, but this will all come back to haunt him in the general election, especially a year from now when ISIS is less of a big deal and the economy continues to grow. I still say Jeb is the GOP's best bet, but none of the GOP candidates are likely to poll well against Hilary when it actually comes down to voting time. That's when the reality of all the crazy shit Trump has said will be played over and over and he won't be able to escape it or the journalists asking for clarification. The GOP basically needs a real candidate to beat Hilary and they don't really have one. They don't even have a candidate as good as Romney or McCain and that's pretty sad.
Maybe get them to sew a little crescent moon on their clothes. And tracking is so, so hard and would be easier if we could segregate them into areas with high walls and guard towers. Obviously this will be disruptive so by way of compensation we can build them an excellent rail network which transports them to a "holiday" destination so wonderful they'll never come.
Yeah, I used to think that too. Then someone pointed out that Christians have their own book, called imaginatively, the "New Testament".
I hate to invite certain rather obvious comparisons here, but you're literally saying it's fine to apply it to Jews then. The Jewish texts are more or less the old testament, with none of the wishy-washy liberal new crap. It's all vengeful desert god all the time.
SMITE!
and Christians are expected to live by the new moral code, not the old. It doesn't always work that way in practice, but that's the basic theory, anyways.
So you'd be happy applying it to the denominations or churches which rather over emphasise the old testament then?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Nothing you quoted tells Christians that they have to do the judging and punishing. It's all passive voice.
Nearly 12,000 Germans were interred during WW II as well.
I'm never quite sure why when internment is mentioned that this is left out. It could be that it's because it's historically obscure or smaller than the number of Japanese interred.
Or could just be that the fact that Germans were interred doesn't fit the "because racism" narrative of internment.
> Trump: Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.
It doesn't get clearer than that. There is no twisting of words, or meaning. The simple fact is that when pressed on whether he would implement a database of muslim americans he said: "Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely."
I personally feel he was answering off-the-cuff and had no idea he was declaring intended presidential policy, but that is in fact what he was doing. A leading candidate for the President of The United States of America stated that he would 'Absolutely' implement an alarming and repugnant plan.
I gave you a link to a video where he is explicitly asked should there be a MUSLIM tracking database.
Not refugee, not immigrant, not Bosnian, Syrian, French, Belgian or Vulcan.
He was explicitly asked should there be a religion-based tracking system.
To which he replied yes, expanding it to "a lot of systems".
The "out of context" situation you are imagining never happened. Explicit question - followed by a mindbogglingly retarded answer.
Now... you can prattle on about him talking about something else, or being confused, or senile, or drunk... which caused him to hear "MUSLIM-tracking" and translate that to "whatever it is that YOU think is less volatile".
The fact is that this is just another case of him showing that he is thinking in "ferner" generalizing metaphors - mostly about brown people.
You know... like those Mexican drug-dealers, criminals and rapists.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
WHOA! That's context! You can't put context into a smear. That's like putting thought into a law, and we can't allow THAT, now, can we?
So, he tweeted today that he was talking about a watch list, while the reporter was talking about an all-muslim database. Why disbelieve him?
Because the tweet was a non-denial - he said "I didn't suggest a database - a report did" but he didn't repudiate the idea of a database.. All he had to do was say "I would not put all muslims in a database" -- but he didn't. In fact he then went on to say we must have surveillance and a watch list. Which is database.
The most charitable explanation for that tweet is that he tried to have his cake and eat it too. So it is completely fair to judge him for that.
> I never said he was either a stooge or a super genius.
Retreat into literalism. The coward's defense.
> it should be clear to anybody reading this conversation, who has any experience with critical thinking, that you are not following it correctly.
Lol. When someone claims something is obvious it usually means it's only obvious to them because they lack perspective.
Yes, when you cant attack the argument attack their grammar! Surly the best way to win an argument.
He acutely called for a database:
Nothing subtle there.
Cause I linked (and quoted) a video of him hearing, thinking over and replying to an explicit "MUSLIM-tracking question".
He replied with a YES. Adding that there should be "a lot" of tracking systems, beyond databases.
Which makes your either-or question a deliberate lie. Not just a terribly embarrassingly set up false dichotomy.
I'm getting fremdschamen just thinking of it.
So it's not a question did I hear the actual exchange. The question is are you just a troll, an idiot, delusional or some combination thereof.
Now, to that the answer would be irrelevant. To me.
But you should check that and hope that you're just a dickhead troll. Mental illness is not something to be taken lightly.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
he agreed with the suggestion, knowing this his weaseling around hte word would get his stupid supporters to defend him
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
he agreed with the suggestion, knowing this his weaseling around hte word would get his stupid supporters to defend him.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Listen to the actual conversation. The reporter proposes the database idea, Trump turns the conversation back to boarder control. That's it. The media is not reporting news here, they are generating it themselves. I'm not a big Trump fan but the other side of the coin is starting to look just as scary.
Had you said a glorified brick salesman it would have made more sense while being less of an exaggeration.
As for obfuscation, he must have went to the Giorgio A. Tsoukalos school of obfuscation and denial.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Trump: Why would I want to track myself, I know where I am!
Interviewer: I said ragheads, not rugheads.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
after all when you have rounded up all the cab drivers, then the polticians are going to have to employ chaffeurs to drive them around.
Ha, but neither did you say you were against making Muslims wear identifying symbols... you republican racist!!!!!!!111!!!!11!!!!1!!!!!!
Its one thing to hassle somebody with questions on the street at no notice with a microphone shoved up their ass, but then to take nothing he said and spin it into some OMG story is just purely the worst kind of "journalism".
I don't mind attacking Trump on what he thinks and says, but to attack him on what he didn't say is getting to be silly. Ever wonder why politicians refuse to say anything - this is why, whatever they do say will be picked apart and turned into something else by journos trying to make a story.
Because the new testament doesn't replace the old one. Because if you remove the old one, there's fuck all in the new one.
No god.
No creation.
No original sin.
Nothing to forgive and nothing to do the forgiving.
Without the OT, JC did not die for any of our sins, since those sins are OT.
And with the OT, EVEN BY THE CLAIMED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JC, JC is not god. And did not change a SINGLE THING from the OT until the prophesied "End of Days".
Moreover, you morons still read it and accept it as the word of god, just like muslims take the quran and accept IT as word of god.
And JC insists you should hate your parents. And that parents should kill their children if they are disobedient.
And, oddly enough, insists that you must give up all your worldly goods to follow him. I don't see you or any other xtian insisting that the NT and ONLY the NT be considered actually doing what the NT says...
I've heard variations on this story for the last few days and I wish I were surprised it keeps getting reported with all of the relevant portions removed that make it a non story. If you listen to the raw audio or read the text you will see he basically ignores the question that was asked and talks about building a wall to control illegal immigration.
Reporter : "Should there be a database system that tracks the Muslims that are in this country?"
Trump : "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border. We have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what's happening to this country happen again."
REPORTER: But is it something your White House would like to implement?
TRUMP: Oh, I would certainly implement that, absolutely.
REPORTER: What do you think the effect of that would be? How would that work?
TRUMP: It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally.
If you only react what someone tells you is true and don't check the raw information it's easy to be misled. Trump will say a lot that some people won't agree with or downright hate, but at least let it be his stances you don't like and not a reporter inferring what he meant by interpreting the answers to fit the scenario he prayed would play out or a channel editing it to make the soundbites fit the emotion they want to place in you.
Best Trojan horse ever!
I'm all for equality, so my database would be open to groups of any race/religion/gender that has shown by their own actions that they have a systemic policy of murder of civilians to promote/enforce their own religion.
I'd also remove groups if they have gone say 30 years without haveing performed any such action otherwise the database would be self-defeating.
. Lack of clarity is not a means to weasel out of anything later.
Are you kidding? 'Weaseling out' is why people hate politicians. It's been standard technique for centuries.
The GOP basically needs a real candidate to beat Hilary and they don't really have one. They don't even have a candidate as good as Romney or McCain and that's pretty sad.
I agree with you there (except about McCain.....remember you're talking about the guy who chose Palin as his running mate. He isn't someone who makes good decisions).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It doesn't get clearer than that. There is no twisting of words, or meaning
It's extremely ambiguous. What does "that" refer to?
Remember, politicians are even willing to argue about the definition of the word "is"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Slashdot, still shilling for the democrats after all these years.
The reactions that we have been seeing in response to the Paris and Beirut tragedies by GOP politicians really boil down to a lack of empathy for humanity. Unfortunately this seems to be a trait of people who claim to be religious, whether they be conservative Christians or conservative Muslims, which always boggles my mind.
As a practicing Muslim American who has spent most of my adult life, the last 20 years or so, in America, it is sad to see the direction we are going in.
I still remember when I first starting hearing about Taliban, and I was like no fucking way, are they really reading the same book I am, how the fuck can they justify a complete lack of humanity.
The past few years I have been seeing an entire populace being objectified as something less than human's, Palestinians, because of biblical interpretations, Deash or Isis which puts anything we have seen as insanity in the past look like ponies and unicorn and I continue to be amazed.
I know and understand what I read and I am sure that the same can be said of Christians or any other intellectuals who take religion beyond what is written and understand the context, the message always is and always will be of all religions that humanity and empathy is above everything else, but loud and obnoxious voices always seems to win.
The "he didn't say that the reporter did" crowd has some serious denial going. Yep. It's the liberal media again. Or something. The reporter said "database", Trump agreed and kept going with it.
Spin it away on slashdot if you want. Everyone knows what he said and where he stands, or stood for a moment actually. I don't for a moment believe Trump really holds any of his far right positions out of ideological commitment. He sees the open lane politically and he's going top speed. Once President? He'd be fine with whatever came across his desk as long as it said "Trump" somewhere.
I think you're getting it. The Republican party needs to stop blaming the media for its politician's bullshit. He's weaseling out with a very specific lob, shooting the messenger, introducing uncertainty and distrust of the media.
Everybody should always remain skeptical, but the Republican party gets this get out of jail free card where they get to blame the media, claim superiority over the facts, and suffer no consequences among their base for their extraordinary bullshit.
Eh. It's a politician thing. Politicians have been blaming the media for centuries, and probably will continue to do so as long as it works.
Q: How can you tell if a politician is lying?
A: Check if his lips are moving.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm all for equality, so my database would be open to groups of any race/religion/gender that has shown by their own actions that they have a systemic policy of murder of civilians to promote/enforce their own religion.
So you're in favour of tracking all men? Bear in mind the majority of murders in the name of religion are committed by men.
Also how do you define "religion"? Where do you draw the line as "different religion" for the purposes of your database in the following:
Abrahamic, Christian, Protestant, Baptist, Baptist Church of God, Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation 1879.
Would you track all Shia Muslims based on what a Sunni terrorist group does?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The problem is that the whole thing lends itself to "wackadoodles". You have an entire system of belief based on nothing but hearsay ... Then people believe this stuff with no evidence for it ... take some part of that "literal truth" and decide that it really means you need to go murder some people.
Unfortunately, trying to stop it also has bad history. Meme-infected people tend to remain meme-infected until death when opposed (because opposition tends to reenforce such memes), and forcible brain-washing normally doesn't work (though it may get them to pretend to have changed their beliefs, in order to make the pain stop or avoid death or mutilation). Meanwhile there's a long history of people infected with OTHER religious memes using governmental power to wipe out the believers in competing religions.
The history of Europe, in the centuries before the framing of the US' Constitution, was full of disastrous religious wars, and many of the religious groups in the Americas were here to escape this. One of the groups was "The Separatists", the (colorfully dressed "Pilgrims" of the Plymouth colony, often conflated with the "Puritans" who settled a bit farther north) who held, as a core belief,the separation of the church and the state (because each would corrupt the other).
This ideal was built into the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights, pushed by many leaders of small religions (who knew that, if the government picked and promoted a church, it was unlikely to be theirs, and the religious wars would start over here). The US federal government (and, though "incorporation", the states and their subdivisions) is prohibited from doing anything, for or against, any specific religion (including dogmatic non-religion).
And Islam was known to the framers. It shows up in their debates, where it is held up as an example of a non-Christian religion for which the same arguments can be made, for and against, as are made with respect to Christian sects.
So tracking people by religion, as religion, is right out, and any such plan would almost certainly be gutted the first time it hits the courts.
If the government wants to go after the I.S. brigands, it needs to frame the laws and activities in terms of their civil actions, without respect to any religious motivations or professed religious claims.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Trump exact words:
Yeah, I'm sure the Bundy ranch family and friends who pointed high-velocity firearms at Federal law enforcement officers, and anti-choice terrorists, will both be in that database. Sure.
sPh
A reporter suggested the idea. Trump wants to create a database for Syrian refugees, which - irrespective of better or worse an idea - is different than what is being reported (and anyone - senator, candidate, or news reporter) who pushes this without checking to see if it is correct/accurate should be ashamed.
The hard Radical Right pushback attempt has failed utterly. Here's another through documentation of Trump saying exactly that he proposes to create a national tracking database singling out members of a specific religion: http://www.vox.com/2015/11/20/...
The dog whistle dropped down into audible range this time and it is repugnant.
sPh
By the way, the time is about 5 years past when simply throwing out the word "liberal" causes reality-based folks to cower in fear and allow the mainstream media to fall in line with the hard Radical Right line without serious and vociferous counterattack. You can put your magic totem back in the skin bag: it doesn't work any more.
no db required.
I would recommend DB/1 on an IBM 360 with COBOL68. Pretty cool stuff!!
Too bad the Hunter didn't tell the "REAL" story. I was there and hear the exchange and it was nothing like the story was told!
http://dianadigunawan.blogspot... i hope the world peace.
Oops. Time to update the talking points:
I'm sure Trump didn't really say that either.
sPh
If you're not from my caste/religion, you're non-human to me; I can abuse/exploit/rape/harm you; Brahmin are covertly promoting caste for past 2000 years in your country; http://wh.gov/iyhMK
Casteism
The Japanese certainly did use a 5th column of residents in SE Asia to pave the way for their invasions, so why would we assume that they were not also doing it in the USA?
All those troop ships and Navy vessels leaving through the Golden Gate were very vulnerable to IJN submarines. There was just too much at stake to risk the assumption that all Japanese Americans were loyal citizens.
War is never fair.
While not probably obvious, I'm sure many such "databases" exist already, they just are not really out there in the public consciousnesses.
For example, the "No Fly List". where do you think that comes from? How are people put on it? What criteria does it take to be put on it? Etc... I remember a story years ago, that Cat Stevens was mistakenly put on the list, probably in part because when he converted to Islam he changed his name for example.
So while people are getting all high and mighty about the topic, I am sure meany such questionable measures have been in place in the US for many years already. At least he is being upfront about it, insofar as any politician can be.
Personally I think it is wrong, and over the top, but then again, "over the top" is basically Trumps campaign in a nutshell!
>> you don't get to pick and choose.
How can that even work when the bible, ((just like the quran, the torah and most other religions books), isn't even consistent with itself?
>> So you're in favour of tracking all men?
No, like I said, just the ones that are in religious groups that advocated/perpitrated murder in the last 30 years.
Actually, you are perpetuating misinformation. Trump was "jumped" while signing autographs after an hour and a half speech at a campaign stop. He did not hear the reporter's line of questioning and thought he was talking about illegal aliens. Trump never actually said that he believes there needs to be a database to track Muslims. This has been conveniently blown all out of proportions. At this point, every progressive and liberal extremist is going to try their best to topple this guy.
Trump says what most Americans think, not the 22% on the extreme left. Continuing to spread this false story in an attempt to further amplify it is disingenuous and not journalism.
Republicans have made part of their very being; their lifeblood, and one of their most central themes - that "the media" or "mainstream media" is out to get them. It drives conservatives to distrust most media sources (google Pew Media Polarization)
They are right in a sense - most media outlets absolutely try to drive a narrative, exaggerate, and push for viewers and clicks when they can.
But they do it selectively, in all directions, against whoever. And Democrats do not complain, in part b/c liberals don't want to hear the excuses, and conservatives would just scream even louder about media bias.
That is why all that is required is skepticism. Always. Even when Republicans are bitching about the media like the parent of this thread. It's BS to say this event wasn't covered accurately, and if Trump wants to backpedal, that's on him, not this reporter.
And Democrats do not complain,
Seriously dude, you must have the worst partisan bias of all time. You need to fix that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Dems do not make it a central tenant of their entire existence to bitch about the media.
Did you not hear Marco Rubio say the "mainstream media" is the biggest SuperPAC in the world for the Dems? Did you not watch the debate, where Ted Cruz got the loudest cheers of the night for bitching about CNBC's questions?
Since you apparently don't pay attention, and you can't google for yourself, here are some articles:
http://www.journalism.org/2014...
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/28/...
Pay attention. It's not just that the entire Republican constituency thinks the media is out to get them, it's that their biggest politicians get points for crying like little babies over things like this, with Trump, and Cruz.
Did you pay attention to the fact that the biggest politician of them all, President Obama, was also complaining about the media?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's few and far between, unlike the never ending refrain from every Republican politician. Conservative media teaches distrust of the mainstream, while liberal media, which may levy a complaint once in a blue moon, doesn't make it a central issue.
Did you even read the Pew Poll? Democrats/liberals are less likely to simply buy this argument from any source, because they don't have that massive trust issue.
You've already demonstrated your complete lack of statistical intuition. If you're not going to believe the actual statistics, you are simply living in a fantasy world.
Conservative media teaches distrust of the mainstream
? Do you trust the mainstream?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Always be skeptical. Actually, the rhetoric is usually against, "the media," but I'm trying to hedge against you saying, "but what about Fox News?"
Trust but verify to the best of your ability. I listened to some Ann Coulter on Hannity's radio show with someone else filling in for him on my holiday drive. They couldn't go more than 45 seconds without bashing some other media source. Have fun with that group, guy. I'll take the, "mainstream," NYT, LAT, and local news over those fools, and Fox News.
You're comparing NYT to Fox News. The primary difference there isn't party affiliation, it's quality of the product.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
How many more straw men are you going to construct? I compared a lot more than that. You haven't even read the Pew poll. I'm sorry you apparently just didn't know that blaming "the media" is a very common Republican tactic, but try to pay attention going forward.
"Confirmation bias," is another important phenomenon here. I feel I must apologize though, you're making so little progress here I do not feel like discussing it further.
phantomfive, any comment? I was just speculating that you hadn't read the Pew poll.
It's clear to me that this is a Republican tactic, and, in fact, I can trace it back close to its surge under the Newt Gingrich house, but I always welcome outside opinions. I find it completely disgusting that a group of folks would attempt to wave a hand and make all media criticism go away, AND I find it quite honorable to take any questions head own without crying, but it's possible that I have the entire world upside down.
What say ye? I am open to all informed commentary. :-)
No no, I read the poll, it's irrelevant. For any political tactic, it is likely that one party will use it more than the other. Whether Republicans complain more about it recently than Democrats or not......in 50 years, it could be flipped the other way. (Incidentally, I find it fascinating that the only media source trusted across the board was the WSJ. Not sure what to think about that.)
The biggest thing that annoys me about you is that you seem only able to see faults in the 'other' party, not in your own. That is a sign of immaturity. Wise people look hardest for faults in their own position.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."