Did Trump say "all" Muslims are to be banned?

Thank you for looking up.
If you listen to the video again you would hear him saying there would exception like sporting events and other things.
So it is not all Muslims.

As per the video he said shutdown of Muslims with exceptions and did not clarify what these exceptions are.
So it is not ALL Muslims as the media was promoting.

 

Why do we need to "invent new meanings" when he did not say that what the media said he said?

 

He gas been all over the place on what he said about Muslims, Muslim refugees, refugees, Muslimscalready here,Muslims in Eurooe, Muslims in the NE, dead Muslims, live Muslims, Muslims nit yet born.

 

Yes, ISIS could slip in from Canada or Mexico.
But when there is a flood of who knows what these people are ... and most of them are strong younger males with few women ... certain extreme tactics must be taken.
When the pipe if broken you temporarily shut off the water main.

Mayor of London is clearly a Muslim nationalist (if there is such a definition), but since his papers are in order he can certainly visit.
He cannot become a U.S. citizen however if he accepts Sharia law above out laws.

 

Yardmeat linked Trump's quotes. And I respect him for doing that.
What do you mean? Are you saying Trump said he wants all Muslims dead?

 

Yes, Muslims visiting for sporting events might be an exception, according to that video. Other than that, he provided the test. He has since changed his mind, but that's what he proposed. And this is Trump's typical style of media manipulation (one he actually details in his book): Say something outrageously over-exaggerated, get lots of coverage and then walk back your statements.

The original statement cannot logically be interpreted in any other way. I appreciate the effort that goes into such Sophistry, but it is still Sophistry. What he did was modulate afterward -- his usual M.O. He has no business crying now that his usual form of media manipulation is backfiring on him.

- - - Updated - - -

Any meaning other than a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States is a new meaning.

 

But how can it possibly mean ALL when he clearly did not write on his website ALL?
Besides, he clearly stated there would be exceptions. He said it.
We have Muslim businessmen, politicians, diplomats who are entering in an out as a part of their job.

The point of this thread is that we believe not the truth, but that what we wish was true just because we hate that person.

And media knows it. And they play on hatred.

Hatred is a powerful and self-centered emotion. It is stronger than truth.

 

The fact you post that....shows you have zero self-awareness or expect the rest of us not to see your hypocrisy.

 

Yet a meaning that a complete shutdown of ALL Muslims cannot possibly be an objective interpretation.
He even said there are exceptions to what he said, such as sporting events AND OTHER THINGS.
Media should have asked "what other things"?
They did not ask because they are playing their game as well.

And it is not sophistry since the argument was not fallacious. It was exaggerated and tricky, but only for the ones who cannot be objective because they hate or love Trump.

Yes, Trump manipulates the media by saying something outrageous, media puts her spin on it, people no longer know what to believe and choose the version that they personally like.
Then he tones it down by clarifying in without denying its essence.

And the statement that total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering U.S. is aimed at people who already hate Trump.
And if you hate, you do not read and interpret it objectively, but the way that is close to you. (I am not addressing you specifically).

This is Trump ...
If he repeats something over and over and over again in the most clear terms - consider it done. It will happen.
If he says something and does not really clarify the specifics, he waits for the media to exaggerate it and then he clarifies it.

Veterans, Obamacare, taxes, the wall and Mexico paying for it, drugs, police, jobs coming back, renegotiating NAFTA and many other repeated statements - these will happen.

The rest, if it is not repeated over and over again, can be changed.

Besides, he promised 20 times more than any of the politicians have.
And knowing Trump (people will find it out later), he will deliver that what he clearly promised.

 

But I really truly do not hate you or Hillary as an individual.
Really.

Please understand, people often assume that the motives of others are similar to their own.

 

Again, this is his usual means of communication: speak in absolutes, then walk it back. He suggested that we kill the families of terrorists, then walked that back. This is no different. You can always deliver on what you promise when people will just let you rewrite what you promised. He's already walked back the whole wall promise, and he'll probably walk it back some more between now and November.

 

But I did not say ALL Muslims are dangerous.
This is what I said ... "Muslims are hijacked by the radical Islamic mafia".
This means that the Radical Islamic Mafia (a certain leadership and group within the Muslims) are dangerous.
And the regular Muslim population are not rebelling against them because they are hijacked by (afraid of) them.

And some from that Muslim population are hating the Western culture. But that is another topic and another approach.

 

You are absolutely correct.
Concerning families he said we need to "take them out", since they know what their boyfriends and husbands are doing and are not reporting them.

Yet only people who hate Trump will interpret it to say that we are to arrest every family member of every terrorist, put them against the wall and shoot.
Hatred makes people interpret the way we wish.

If we look at this objectively we understand that a terrorist cannot hide behind his family.
His wife and uncles and brothers are others are always on his side. Always.
Sometimes one needs to take out the entire house just to get to some of the big criminals.

 

No talk of "vetting" is fairly recent.. within the past 3 months.

What do you think about Trump using campaign funds to buy his own book?

 

I can't even begin to count the number of things incorrect with this statement. You've bought a complete lie, hook, line and sinker. I'll provide videos later, but he gave this suggestion after being asked about COLLATERAL DAMAGE during WARS OVERSEAS. It had absolutely nothing to do with reporting. He later doubled down, saying he stood by those statements because the terrorists may not care for their own lives, but they care about the lives of their family members. After that, he was specifically asked about killing these family members by reporters (yes, the reporter used the word "kill"), because some former military personnel said that they would disobey such an order, and his response was to smirk and say that the military will do what he tells them to do.

He then lied and said that he said that we should "go after" them, when those weren't even his actual words.

So tell me, how can collateral damage during a war overseas, in a way that makes terrorists fear for the lives of their families, mean anything other than killing their families?

This is as far from "objectively" considering Trump's words as you can possibly get.

 

The words speak for themselves. What the corporation propaganda outlets do is change words, replace words or add words - and rant and editorialize about there words. This is one example. If he did not say "ban," then it is a deliberate lie to say he did.

The most notable example is the 100,000 times the (non)press and (non) media have stated that Trump said Latinos are rapists and criminals, and he never said any such thing.

 

Term "vetting" is recent as a talking point. Yes.
However, the topic of migrants, and refugees (mainly strong men) without papers was discussed since the problem became obvious.

Just looked it up. Did not know about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/donald-trump-self-funding-payments.html
Well, it was his own money he donated and the expenses were for family members traveling with him to rallies and things like that.
I see them being interviewed all the time and it is a legitimate expense.

What I read however someplace, is that he forgave the debt that the campaign owes him.

The way it works is once you donate to own campaign, legally speaking it is a loan.
And loans should be paid back unless forgiven.
He forgave the loan of 50-60 million dollars he gave to his campaign in the primaries.

If there is something I do not see please let me know.

Thanks,
Ed

 

And it is equally obvious, from the video I provided, that he is not only talking about migrants and refugees without papers.

 

Yes, you are correct, I mixed it up with something else.
He was talking about the collateral damage and some generals said they would not follow such orders.
I could use a video if you have it handy, but it might not be needed if I address this on topic ...

You ask ... "how can collateral damage during a war overseas, in a way that makes terrorists fear for the lives of their families, mean anything other than killing their families?"
But it does mean killing families, but clearly not in every case.
And "killing families" means dropping a bomb on a house and not putting them against the wall and shooting.

However, it also means arresting them, jailing them. Going after them.
We are not planning dropping a bomb on every house of a terrorist.

Just remembered when we let Osama's family out of the country after the 9/11 without investigating.

 

He said we have to take them out. Yes, it does mean killing, and it also means deliberately targeting them. He suggested that we deliberately target and kill the family members of terrorists, and then he changed his mind and lied about doing so.

The comment came in regards to collateral damage in foreign wars, not domestic arrests. And he didn't say "go after", he said "take out."

 

Yes, today it is so, since we saw bombings in the U.S. and other Muslims not reporting the home-made bombs in their house. It was expanded.
But vetting topic was addressed all the way back of Syrian refugees without actually using the term "vetting".

 

Yes, he said that and he meant it. Killing as a collateral damage.
He ALSO said that this is the effective way of stopping terrorism, since the terrorists will stop terror once they know their families are in danger.
Today they hide behind their families.

Yes, this is a controversial approach, but it is also very effective way of stopping terrorism.

Uncles, brothers, wives that know about their terrorist relative will pay the collateral price when they are with him when the forces come after him.

Rules are different during war.

 

Targeting non-combatants like that during war is illegal, and should be. Hence why he backtracked later and lied about making the suggestion in the first place.

 

Good example.

 

Could be illegal, yet it is effective stopping terrorism.
Wars are packed with illegal things including collateral damage.
Most are done accidentally and some are done purposely.

Lied? Did he deny saying "kill" or did he use a term "go after them"?
If he denied he said 'kill' I would like to see this quote.