The big "C" word

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2020, 09:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Again, not 'obviously.'

As my numerous links above and three years of national political discourse have established, "Muslim ban" has become accepted reference to Trump's intent and partial accomplishment, in part because Trump termed it that himself. Insisting it be called a "travel ban" 'cause "that's what it really is" because "it doesn't include Indonesia" seems to me the "obviously partisan" move here, an attempt to completely elide the intent and history of that policy. 

That history: Trump makes a PUBLIC CALL To BAN ALL MUSLIMS from entering the U.S. Can't word it that way, given our Constitution. After several wording fails, his staff creates a "travel" ban instead. Bans immigration from Muslim countries with the weakest Washington lobbies. Needs Saudi Arabia so doesn't ban Saudis. Includes North Korea for plausible deniabilityy (How can it be about religion if it stops those thousands of illegal immigrants from NK?).

So a "travel" ban delivered with a wink  but you missed the wink. 

And I am "inflammatory" and "partisan" if I continue calling it what everyone in national news discourse calls it. Like I have distorted the Trump record. Fair and balanced an non-partisan observers really see just a travel ban. 

As I explained to you a few years back, the result was a policy ineffective and pointless if judged as foreign policy and by its stated goals, but tremendously effective if judged by the support it gathered behind Trump. 

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-SCOTUS-rules-on-Travel-Ban?page=3&highlight=sudan

#s  49, 133, 234, 239, 240, etc. 

Trump calls to ban all muslims.  Takes office.  Does not ban all muslims.  Still called muslim travel ban.

What you do is far more important than what you say.  I reiterate, calling the travel ban a "muslim ban" is factually inaccurate and deliberately so.  All your reasons for still referring to it as such are window dressing.