[rootusrootus]

> That's all he said to the interviewer

And then the next day, he clarified:

Reporter: "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 then he tried to backpedal. Decided it was a watch list, not a database, etc. Basically the usual shtick of his where he tries to say everything and nothing at the same time.

[hunterb123]

Again that's a generic response:

> There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems

Beyond databases. What does that mean? That could be analog systems, that could be anything not stored in a computer.

Nothing to do with identification which would need a database. It's a generic answer to avoid a hypothetical. It's a nonanswer.

He said nothing, not everything. You are attributing the reporters question to him. The reporter is posing the hypothetical that they created in the first place by the initial interview.

My main point was hypotheticals are always trap (unless among friends!), but that's a great example of an obvious one.

The usual shtick is to say nothing, because the journalistic usual shtick is to ask gotcha hypotheticals.

[danShumway]

You're kind of quibbling over details. The below quote is already bad enough:

> "We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully."

I already do not trust the person who has said that. Does it really matter if he proposed a full-fledged ID system? He still proposed monitoring mosques. He still proposed surveillance based on religious identity.

The correct answer to that question, "should Muslims be subject to special scrutiny" is a simple "no". I don't really get the debate about hypotheticals; this a question that does have a straightforward, right answer. And the implications here in regards to surveillance and ordinary people having stuff to hide -- those implications are all the same regardless of whether or not Trump actually proposed a literal database.

He was open to increased surveillance on Americans based on their religious identity, he didn't immediately shut the idea down.

[hunterb123]

Details are important. The media campaigns are claiming he wanted Muslim identification, a system THEY proposed in their hypothetical. When he didn't confirm they said "he wouldn't deny it" as their proof of support.

> The below quote is already bad enough. He still proposed surveillance based on religious identity.

He said nothing about citizens or monitoring them based on religious identity. He said look at mosques, that's all. Mosques are often the target of attacks.

https://search.brave.com/search?q=mosque+coordinated+attack&...

[danShumway]

Are you proposing that increased surveillance of mosques is to protect them? That requires a certain level of imagination given the full context of the quote:

> "Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy," he added. "We’re going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago."

> "We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely," Trump continued. "We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully."

----

And once again, it kind of doesn't matter. An increased focus on monitoring places of worship is monitoring people based on their religious identity. I don't know a single Christian who would argue to me that monitoring churches isn't the same thing as monitoring Christians.

Mosques and churches are not abstract concepts that are divorced from the people inside of them. When you monitor an institution, you are necessarily monitoring the people inside of it, and it is reasonable for them to be concerned about the government taking an interest in their religious-identity. To argue otherwise requires someone to completely divorce religious identity from the practice of religion, and that's just not a reasonable argument to make.

----

> Details are important.

Not in the context of the original statement, "ordinary people often do have something to hide, and should care about privacy." Look, whatever, you trust Trump. You shouldn't, but you do. Fine.

Do you trust Biden? Do you trust the current government not to attempt to monitor you based on your vaccine status?

You're fighting over the idea that "your guy" wouldn't surveil ordinary people, but this also kind of doesn't matter because your guy isn't in the Whitehouse right now, and I can guarantee you that Republicans are never going to have permanent power over the government. No party wins forever. You have as much reason as anyone else to care about personal privacy, why are you fighting over who specifically is a threat? Does it change anything about the overall privacy debate?

[rootusrootus]

> Again that's a generic response

Like I said, he always manages to say exactly the right things so the people who support him will read between the lines, but leave just enough ambiguity so those same people can quibble constantly over whether that was what he really meant.

> hypotheticals are always trap

He could have just said "No." Or "I have no such plans at this time." if he wanted to sound like a typical politician. His circumlocution is legendary, because it allows everyone to believe what they want to believe. Politicians all have this problem, but Trump elevates it to a whole new level.