• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cancel the Debate! CNN Caught Selectively-Editing Trump’s ‘Muslim’ Comments

Furthermore, on this whole "Nazi" analogy - did Jews ever strap on explosive vests, or go on shooting sprees or stabbing sprees to massacre ordinary Germans? The very idea is ridiculous. Were Jews queuing up to get INTO Nazi Germany? Hell, no. I'm 110% sure that if you forced Muslims to wear Yellow Stars or Yellow Spandex, they'd still be queuing up to get into America - so many that you wouldn't be able to beat them off with a stick - deeds speak louder than words, and they'd overwhelmingly continue to vote for America with their feet. So let's not pretend that Muslims even remotely fear "Nazi America" happening - that's just hollow self-serving rhetoric.

This "persecuted immigrant" drama has jumped the shark. I'm the son of Asian immigrants, and I don't see why any country should have to open itself up to terror attacks. Unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
The media is no long the media rather, a political arm of the two parties. We all know what network to watch if we want to hear the slant on the left or on the right don't we?
 
Nah, I think you're doing a Godwin again, trying to cry "Nazi" at the drop of a hat. Security threat is security threat, and must be dealt with practically. Rest of us aren't going to become victims of another 9-11 or another 13-11 just to satisfy you. Immigration is not owed, and countries have the right to sovereignty. Control over immigration policy - including right of refusal - is part of sovereignty. Refusal to recognize that right is an attack on sovereignty.

Today, national sovereignty is under erosion and attack from trans-nationalists, who wish to downplay national sovereignty in order to do away with it.

there is no attack on sovereignty
there is a debate whether we, as a sovereign nation, live up to our ideals and accept those who seek refuge
and the donald says no
and much of the right also says no
unless the refugees are Christian, and for rand paul, if they show up with wealth such that they require no assistance from the public treasury
so much for the highly touted American exceptionalism
we are now inhabited by multi-millions who are afraid
and thru their politicians their fear is evident
 
Furthermore, on this whole "Nazi" analogy - did Jews ever strap on explosive vests, or go on shooting sprees or stabbing sprees to massacre ordinary Germans? The very idea is ridiculous.

So now you're justifying the use of a muslim registry or for muslims to wear stars because certain radical extremists commit terroristic acts?

Were Jews queuing up to get INTO Nazi Germany? Hell, no. I'm 110% sure that if you forced Muslims to wear Yellow Stars or Yellow Spandex, they'd still be queuing up to get into America - so many that you wouldn't be able to beat them off with a stick - deeds speak louder than words, and they'd overwhelmingly continue to vote for America with their feet. So let's not pretend that Muslims even remotely fear "Nazi America" happening - that's just hollow self-serving rhetoric.

First off, yes, German Jews still wanted to go to Germany and they did not want to leave. They were forced to do so because of the oppression felt by Jews in that country. The "hollow self-serving rhetoric" is being espoused specifically because this notion of registering or branding muslims in the United States will open them up to the same type of oppression felt by Jews in Nazi Germany.

This "persecuted immigrant" drama has jumped the shark. I'm the son of Asian immigrants, and I don't see why any country should have to open itself up to terror attacks. Unacceptable.

The United States is not "opening itself up" to terror attacks by allowing refugees or other immigrants to come into the country. There are plenty of ways that terrorists attack our country, and almost all of them are the result of U.S. Citizens already living in the country.
 
TRIGGER WARNING (I always wanted to do that)
This is from BreitBart so I am not making a claim as they are as questionable ad Media Matters or HuffPo. I tried to verify this with other articles but this is the only article I can find. I watched the video and it looks legit but I didn't spend a lot of time on it as I have to meet for dinner with my family pretty quick.

Something I find a bit confusing about this claim from Breitbart and the notion that they are misrepresenting Trump is the fact that the reporter goes on to ask him further about the registry to which he responds in a manner that certainly seems to indicate agreement. And there is no claim that CNN somehow edited that portion as well.

Here is the transcript:

Reporter: Specifically how do you actually get the registry in place?
Trump: It would just be good management. What you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do that. (at this point, he says "that's nice" to someone off screen).
Reporter: And do you support (?) going to mosques and sign these people up and into the system?
Trump: Different places. You sign them up at different pl-, but it's all about management.

While they did edit one part of his response, I would argue the portion removed is irrelevant because it discussing the need for a wall and a border and did not alter the conclusion drawn by CNN that Trump apparently supports (or at the very least, would be willing to consider) a muslim registry.
 
there is no attack on sovereignty
there is a debate whether we, as a sovereign nation, live up to our ideals and accept those who seek refuge
and the donald says no
and much of the right also says no
unless the refugees are Christian, and for rand paul, if they show up with wealth such that they require no assistance from the public treasury
so much for the highly touted American exceptionalism
we are now inhabited by multi-millions who are afraid
and thru their politicians their fear is evident

"we...live up to our ideals"

The Left are good at volunteering others to give the shirts off their backs. Anyone who doesn't toe their line is quickly dubbed as full of fear or fear-mongering.

Democrats are specifically interested in demographic alteration that will lead to more Democrat voters. That's why they're closet-supporters of Amnesty, and that's why California has laws that provide schooling and healthcare to illegal aliens.

How about the Left showing their courage by not dipping into other peoples' wallets, by encouraging people to earn instead of collect welfare benefits, by not mortgaging the future of their children through rampant borrowing.

"Come drink my kool-aid, don't be afraid - don't feel fear"


I'll fear whatever I damn well please to - and no childish taunting about being "afraid" will change my natural instinct to seek a prudent course. If ISIS can hide out in Arab suburbs of Paris, and if Muslims can claim that "alienation" while living in non-Muslim societies is a justification for terrorism, then I think that we'd better think many times before bringing in someone who might feel alienated by living among others different from them. We all have our own lives to lead - figure that out - we can't be orbiting around anyone who feels quickly "alienated" and expresses this through violence.
 
Don't trust this article, it refers to CNN as "left wing". They are corporate.
 
There are a number of other outlets who have called out the MSM and the hack job they did with Trumps statement.

It's a wonder the 4th Estate has become so obsessed with inventing narratives that are so easily dismantled. One would think the perpetrators of their own demise would be less willing to speed along the process by which they will metastasize their terminal illness.

You'd think Dan Rather trying to swing a presidential election in its dying hours would have been lesson enough, but these folks at Pravda USSA simply don't care about credibility.
 
I haven't seen anything from Trump or his campaign claiming that he was misquoted or misrepresented. If he or they have, can someone point it out. If not, does he feel the misrepresentation plays into his campaign base?

That's interesting... I think he's a confident guy who knows any such twisting will be smoked out... and his numbers will rise.

It's always an opportunity for him, and he's built up massive credits with non-Socialist Americans.

Those with a Socialist lean get all excited... only to be left disappointed, and made fools of.

At some point you'd think Pravda USSA would figure it out, but they've only got one modus operandi, and it's not working. In fact, it's being blown up in their faces.
 
You'd think Dan Rather trying to swing a presidential election in its dying hours would have been lesson enough, but these folks at Pravda USSA simply don't care about credibility.

As evidenced by those here who appear to have been taught to accept headlines as fact, rather than substance, they probably don't see the need to be credible in order to project their agenda.
 
at first I was concerned about this but as others have pointed out, the part of the quote that was removed would not have changed the overall meaning of Trump's words. he stated that he would be in favor of, or at least open to, a muslim registry.
 
there is no attack on sovereignty

Yes, there is.

Beginning with your personal sovereignty, which is now considered terrorism.

there is a debate whether we, as a sovereign nation, live up to our ideals and accept those who seek refuge.

Horsepucky. There is no such debate. The President is bringing in refugees under the cover of darkness, and failing to notify the Congress when it occurs - that's what's happening.

This is not about "accepting those who seek refuge". It has nothing to do with that. Any such stupidity is merely Democratic Party talking points, and it's not reality.

Reality is, this government is way too stupid and incompetent to tell who's a refugee and who's not. => YOU <= can't tell, and if you can't tell then neither can they.

and the donald says no
and much of the right also says no

Lefties trying to speak for the right. Gotta love it. lol

unless the refugees are Christian, and for rand paul, if they show up with wealth such that they require no assistance from the public treasury

That has been an immigration requirement from day one, pal. You can't come to our country and sponge off our hard working people. You just can't do that.

The only people who want that, is the dumbass liberal Democrats who haven't yet fully engaged their brains on this issue.

so much for the highly touted American exceptionalism

What is that, something else you clowns made up?

Why don't you start speaking English, and leave the meaningless talking points at the door?

we are now inhabited by multi-millions who are afraid
and thru their politicians their fear is evident

WE are not inhabited that way.

WE are not the ones who've shut down our government and locked down our city and closed all the business and told all the people to stay inside.

WE are not the ones doing that.
 
Reporter: Specifically how do you actually get the registry in place?
Trump: It would just be good management. What you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do that. (at this point, he says "that's nice" to someone off screen).
Reporter: And do you support (?) going to mosques and sign these people up and into the system?
Trump: Different places. You sign them up at different pl-, but it's all about management.

I think Mr Trump means "administration".

After all, you can not "manage" the American People. We're an unruly, unmanageable bunch. Any attempts to "manage" us will be met with the utmost of resistance. Always. Doesn't matter who's in power or which party is doing it.
 
The editing was sneaky in that it dishonestly highlighted an obviously inflammatory answer, but I don't see how his position on a Muslim registry is changed, even without the edit.

It doesn't change Trump's position, but the liberal main stream media uses sleazy tricks like this to form public opinion. It works because most everyone who uses the MSM as their source of "news" and "information" believe everything they say. The following is not a personal attack, but liberals are generally pretty gullible.
 
It doesn't change Trump's position, but the liberal main stream media uses sleazy tricks like this to form public opinion. It works because most everyone who uses the MSM as their source of "news" and "information" believe everything they say. The following is not a personal attack, but liberals are generally pretty gullible.

Those who don't read past the headline will generally fall for any story, and those who are agenda-driven will maintain a death grip on every fake story no matter how much context or contradicting facts are introduced. You can see that same behavior by everybody who stood by the fake story about Clinton's aide threatening a comedy club because it was simply too good to let go of. And then of course partisan conservatives would rather die than let go of the "You didn't build that" and "What difference does it makes comments. Once someone introduces those into a discussion I immediately know that person is too irrational to reason with, much as you would immediately give up on anyone who told you Bush caused 9/11.
 
Last edited:
Those who don't read past the headline will generally fall for any story, and those who are agenda-driven will maintain a death grip on every fake story no matter how much context or contradicting facts are introduced. You can see that same behavior by everybody who stood by the fake story about Clinton's aide threatening a comedy club because it was simply too good to let go of. And then of course partisan conservatives would rather die than let go of the "You didn't build that" and "What difference does it makes comments." Once someone introduces those into a discussion I immediately know that person is too irrational to reason with, much as you would immediately give up on anyone who told you Bush caused 9/11.

I can't disagree with most of that. Although, I'm not and never was a huge Bush fan, so don't count on me defending him at every turn..after all...he is a liberal. ;)
 
I can't disagree with most of that. Although, I'm not and never was a huge Bush fan, so don't count on me defending him at every turn..after all...he is a liberal. ;)

Then you don't know what being liberal actually means.
 
I certainly don't think they should be editing anything out of the statement, but I also don't reach the same conclusion. Blue commentary is mine.





From OP:

The left-wing liars at CNN have intentionally edited the video to make it look as though Trump said “absolutely” to a Muslim registry. What CNN edited out is in bold:

Reporter: Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims who are in this country?

Trump: There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it. But right now we need to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen any longer.

[Assuming that he intended his words to have their ordinary meaning in English, this response means he (1) agrees that there should be databases to track all muslims in the country, (2) he thinks there should be "a lot of systems, beyond databases" in addition, (3) wants strength, and (4) wants a wall. If you edit out the bolded, it makes it look like he said the ONLY thing he wanted was a database + systems beyond a database. That's inaccurate, but not inaccurate in the way that OP wants it to be. He wants databases + systems beyond databases + strength + a wall. ]

Reporter: Is that something your White House would like to implement?

Donald Trump: I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.

Again, here the editing makes it look like the only thing he would implement was databases of muslims and lots of systems beyond those databases. That is inaccurate. As discussed above, what he was actually agreeing should be implemented was databases + systems beyond databases + strength + a wall. That's just how English works.

Trump’s “absolutely” is clearly in reference to strengthening the border. Look at the whole transcript. When the NBC News reporter asks, “Is that something your White House would like to implement?,” Trump has just talked about fortifying the border and obviously believes that is what the NBC reporter is referring to.
CNN edited that out!

No. Where neither the reporter nor Trump identify one of the four things he said we should be doing, the pronoun "that" is taken to refer to the list of things he said we should be doing. Not simply the last of the things he said we should be doing.

Bob: I want a pepperoni pizza, a beer, and a napkin

Joe: Is that something you'd like in one hour?

Bob: Yes, I would.



Bob has obviously just said that in one hour, he wants a pepperoni pizza, a beer, and a napkin. Nobody would interpret this exchange as an expression of desire for a napkin and just a napkin.
 
Last edited:
Hell, Google probably already has a Muslim registry. We just don't know it yet. Anybody want to bet that Halal foods aren't advertised to Muslims every time they log on?
 
"I never said most of the things I said."

~Yogi Berra
 
TRIGGER WARNING (I always wanted to do that)
This is from BreitBart so I am not making a claim as they are as questionable ad Media Matters or HuffPo. I tried to verify this with other articles but this is the only article I can find. I watched the video and it looks legit but I didn't spend a lot of time on it as I have to meet for dinner with my family pretty quick.




Cancel the Debate! CNN Caught Selectively-Editing Trump's 'Muslim' Comments - Breitbart

Boy, I'd feel bad about this post given Trump's most recent statements on banning Muslims from entering the US.
 
Back
Top Bottom