The dude is a Trump surrogate.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trump Surrogate Cites Japanese Camps as Precedent for Muslim Registration
- Thread starter Kreuzader
- Start date
- Status
TBiddy
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "surrogate" - isn't that just a strong supporter?
That's my point though, there shouldn't have been attempts to refute them, because there was nothing to refute... and here we are again suggesting he advocates bringing back internment camps. Once again, the dude brought up two examples of precedence, one was the Iranian revolution, and the other was WWII. When he said that, Megyn Kelly pressed him on if he was talking about bringing back internment camps, in which he responded by saying no he was not
To say he "specifically" brought up internment camps is dishonest, he said nothing about internment camps, and when asked if he was referring to internment camps he answered no.
That is the truth, and that is the story you would tell if you were a witness in court describing that interview... there's really nothing to object or refute in that remark. You can't keep saying there's no misinformation being spread and then go back to claiming that this person specifically referred to internment camps.
If we're to stick to facts here, the two things we're talking about that are being proposed by the administration are 1. reinstating the Nationality Act on a select list of countries, and 2 reinstating the NSEERS database.
If you have any criticisms to say about these ideas, I would be likely to join you, but lets stop trying to lead people into believing that anyone has proposed bringing back internment camps. When someone comes in here and says they're not proposing bringing back internment camps, don't argue against that statement. If you would like to say "while it is true that they are not proposing this, (insert opinion here)" fine, but don't treat that person as if they are being dishonest to everyone when they are not
and that's pretty much all there is to it, I'm not arguing against people for criticizing this surrogate for bringing up the Japanese during WWII as precedence, I'm only arguing against the claims that they're proposing bringing back internment camps, because it's not true.
You tried to downplay Higbie's comments, people told you the dangers of doing that, you ignored them and then claimed people are spreading misinformation. Bullshit. No one is following this narrative you've created. Don't act like the rebuttals to your posts aren't valid. You just chose not to address them.
EDIT:
yes he did specifically bring up internment camps, what the fuck are you smoking?
https://youtu.be/EiaXNxQ1w8k?t=1m58s
'WWII' 'the Japanese'
Come on dude, stop playing dumb. There is nothing else that could be referring to. Stop denying it.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/surrogate
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Kobach isn't just a surrogate, he's on the transition team.
People think of mouthpieces like Conway or Jefferey Lord when you say "surrogate" which is why people don't understand the importance off the bat.
People think of mouthpieces like Conway or Jefferey Lord when you say "surrogate" which is why people don't understand the importance off the bat.
TBiddy
Member
Which of these terms apply then? Does he speak on behalf of Trump or is he just some half-celebrity nut-job leeching on the name?
There's nothing else he could be talking about? uh actually, he could have been talking about the NSEERS database, because that's literally what he was being asked about. For precedence of the NSEERS database he mentioned the Iranian revolution and WWII, because both conflicts used similar databases.
He didn't "specifically" mention camps as you claim. He mentioned the Japanese during WWII, which leads people to think of internment camps, and I'm with you in saying he is responsible for the concerns people are feeling regarding internment camps, but what I'm not with you on is claiming he was specifically referring to camps, or that he was proposing bringing back internment camps
You say there's nothing else he could have been referring to, and that is definitely not true. One could easily be talking about the mere database used, and not the Alien Enemies Act, and it is pretty damn apparent he was talking about the database considering he mentioned WWII as precedence in response to a question regarding the NSEERS database, furthermore, he also used the Iranian revolution as an example for precedence
What do the US's policies on WWII and the Iranian revolution have in common, is it internment camps? absolutely not, it is their databases.
So again to clarify, what we're talking about here is 1. the reinstating of the Nationality Act on travel from some countries, and 2. the reinstating of the NSEERS database.
Not internment camps. These are the facts
Then he would have specified the database, or left out mention of the internment camps at all. Hell, Kelly even read back to him specifically what the whole exchange was supposed to be about, yet he still went and brought up internment camps.
It's plainly obvious the subject is the Muslim registry, and the internment camp reference is to that. That isn't why people are aghast. They are reacting to internment camps being brought up at all. You would agree Higbie could have made his point without doing that, yes? Then you also agree the reaction to that being unnecessarily mentioned is fair, and that no one is overreacting or doesn't understand the subject.
He's a spokesman for the Great America super-PAC, a strongly pro-Trump organization, so definition 1. You could split hairs and say he doesn't directly represent Trump, but that ignores the context, being that he was brought on air to a national news network to discuss a proposed Trump policy as a representative of said policy, and wouldn't be getting air-time otherwise. Someone approved him to speak on the Trump administration's behalf. Perhaps I'm wrong - but unless they clarified it, it's an obvious assumption to make that in this instance he represents the Trump administration. Maybe you could clear that up for me if you know better.
temesgen77
Member
Registries, list and bans based on religion are all unconstitutional and should be rejected for what they are; people who excuse these actions should try replacing the word Muslim with Christian and see if they are still OK with it. Its unfortunate that some have been so desensitized to these issues......
Too many people try to play the lawyer and deny the statements of Trump and his supporters but anyone whose been listening knows the controversy is not all a big misunderstanding. Trump and his apologist have made inappropriate comments at times and should be repudiated for it.
Too many people try to play the lawyer and deny the statements of Trump and his supporters but anyone whose been listening knows the controversy is not all a big misunderstanding. Trump and his apologist have made inappropriate comments at times and should be repudiated for it.
Or he would have answered that he was not referring to internment camps.. which he did. He answered that he was not talking about going back to internment camps
He never mentioned internment camps specifically, but he did use a precedence FOR the database that most reasonable people would have used AGAINST the database. That is, he referred to a period in which we used internment camps, but he did not say anything specifically about the internment camps themselves. People are not wrong to criticize him for that, and they are not overreacting. The only thing I am arguing against is the suggestion that he was calling for bringing back internment camps, and I only argue against that because I do not find that to be the honest truth. I find the honest truth to be that he was talking about the NSEERS database, which in itself is concerning, however, they would need to reinstate the Alien Enemies Act to actually put people in camps
We can talk about how bringing back NSEERS database is unnecessary and concerning, and how this surrogate's choice of precedence only adds to those concerns, but I don't want to mislead people into believing that they are proposing bringing back internment camps. That is not what the surrogate was referring to, and I say that is not what he was referring to because that was the answer he gave. It seems apparent to me that he was referring merely to the databases used during those periods, and not the internment camps themselves
He wasn't explicitly calling for bringing back internment camps, he was alluding to it. He then did another pivot with his 'America First' rhetoric. People are reacting to that allusion. Note the difference, and in the future please pay more attention to the subtext of what people say, particularly anyone speaking on a political topic.
Alright, and it's fair enough to say he was alluding to internment camps by mentioning the Japanese during WWII. I was only arguing against the notion that he specifically referred to putting people in camps, or that him or the administration in general are proposing putting people in camps.
CadetMahoney
Member
Gonna be a long 4 GAF years with them coming out the woodwork selectively.
Wow. That must've been hell.
I feel for you Americans. I wonder if/when it'll be Australia's turn...
TBiddy
Member
I think it's stretching it claiming that this guy is approved and/or represents Trump. That he's brought on TV to discuss something can just as well mean, that he's a supporter of that policy.
It's usually how it works here in Denmark, at least. Tons of "experts" and a bunch of other very biased people usually use the news or public debates to try and sway public opinion. That doesn't mean they speak on behalf of anyone.
- Status