woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,188
- 14,099
- 136
You seriously don't know the point? Really? I don't think you were THAT stupid.
What do YOU think the point was?
I don't "think" anything. I know what the point was because Rudy Guilliani said exactly what Trump's purpose was. Do you know?
"I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News.
"He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’"
Giuliani said he then put together a commission that included lawmakers and expert lawyers.
"And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger," Giuliani said.
"The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible."
Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion."
"It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country," he said.
Trump's original idea was to disallow people from entering the country based on their religion. Guiliani and/or other advisers came up with the idea of basing it on geography instead of religion per se because otherwise it would have been illegal. Then they came up with some Muslim countries from which few if any terrorists have actually come to the US, while excluding Saudi Arabia, of course, which has contributed a bunch.
Substantively, the measure was meaningless and accomplished nothing. It's purpose was solely to placate the xenophobia and Muslim hatred of his fans.
Which makes your entire point utterly trivial and inane. You're here to win a semantic argument over whether "Muslim ban" is the correct set of words to describe it when in fact the real issue is that we have a POTUS who enacts policies which affect people's lives, based solely on the prejudice of his voters. Next to that, your wonderful semantic argument is small minded, pointless drivel.
Last edited: