Say What You Mean, Mr. President

By Ravenne Reid on March 24, 2017

In Trump’s America, paying for a border wall is just a suggestion to the Mexican government, a Muslim ban is not a Muslim ban, and wiretap claims are only accurate when used with air quotes. The justifications for these controversial issues — among several others — reveal that President Trump expects the American people to see the frivolity in most, if not all, of his assertions. The question here is quite simple: when should we take the president literally?

Prior to the election, businessman and avid Trump supporter Peter Thiel said the following during a speech at the National Press Club: “The media always is taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously … I think a lot of [his supporters] take Trump seriously, but not literally.”

Before diving any deeper into what Thiel had insinuated about the president, first and foremost, both words must be defined in order to understand the difference between them. To take a statement literally means that a person accepts every implication of a speaker’s words exactly as they are stated. On the other hand, to take a statement seriously means that a person accepts that a speaker’s words are genuine, but can take into consideration that he or she is, perhaps, being grandiose.

Although politicians are no stranger to overpromising, Trump’s proclamations surged unforeseen optimism from self-proclaimed political junkies and apolitical people. After all, these vows of drastic changes are what brought him to victory on November 9. But Thiel’s assumption that the only people who had the capacity to take the then Republican presidential candidate literally were members of the press was false.

Surely, citizens who were enthusiastic about their potential next president, especially if they were unsatisfied with the current one, took Trump’s words literally. The border wall, for example, would literally be funded by Mexico — just as he had promised. Fast forward to the present, those unrelenting “build that wall” chants have slightly subdued since, as it turns out, taxpayers would endure this burden with the hope that Mexico will somehow reimburse us. If that is the case, then should we also take this “guarantee” as literally as we did the previous one?

As stated by Dara Lind, a writer for Vox, “When Trump uses wildly wrong ‘facts’ over and over again, it drives the media batty (because they take it “literally” and fact-check it), but it resonates with his supporters, who feel Trump is talking about ‘serious’ problems they too see in American life.”

Without a doubt, immigration policy is a hot-button issue. Who should we let into our country? How should we vet them? Under what circumstances should we deny them access? Certainly, there are much better solutions to these questions than the current administration has come up with. The travel ban that the president implemented, which halts incoming immigrants and refugees from six (formerly, seven) Muslim-majority countries, has divided our nation, but, mostly, for the wrong reasons.

Confusion — among other emotions — has stemmed from this administration’s efforts to convince us that the travel ban on Muslims is not a Muslim ban. In lieu of airport protests and desperate catch-up from the mainstream media, Trump issued this statement: “To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting … This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.”

And, the first image below proves why.

Trump has conveniently chosen to omit countries with citizens that have harmed Americans from the travel ban because of his business ties. In case you’re wondering, this is a prime example of how Trump’s conflicts of interest have already interfered with his role as leader of the free world.

Back in 2011, patriots praised – and I am using this term lightly – President Obama for presiding over the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the founder of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda and mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. In 2017, those same loyalists have become even more appreciative of President Trump’s Muslim ban. But while Trump’s promise to keep America “safe” was serious, it was not literal. If it were, neither the president nor his followers would be supportive of a ban that somehow works its way around countries that would ultimately make more sense to subject to prohibition (even though it would, nonetheless, still be blatant discrimination).

And the audacity to say that it is not a Muslim ban contradicts his criticism of the former president following the Pulse nightclub shooting. After Trump had condemned Obama for not referring to the attack as “radical Islamic terrorism,” you would think that he would be more than willing to be upfront with the American people when it comes to our protection against extremist acts. Again, if we look at the facts, Trump was more concerned with fulfilling the campaign promise that he made a little over a year ago:

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on … There is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.”

It is obvious that the executive order was implemented because of this previously made statement, in which he called for — quite clearly — a ban on Muslims. Bear in mind that, at the time, he did not specify Muslim-majority countries, and definitely not Muslim-majority countries with citizens that were involved in the worst terrorist attack on United States soil, but Muslims overall. So, when the president’s words are not indicative of the truth, we must remember that facts matter.

Speaking of facts, it would be completely accurate in saying that they were overlooked when the president tweeted this:

And this:

And this:

So far, there has not been any concrete evidence to back this claim up. Keep in mind that such accusations against a predecessor are an impeachable offense because, according to PolitiFact, “a president cannot unilaterally order surveillance on an American citizen.” As commander-in-chief, Trump is under oath 24/7 and must execute his powers responsibly. Unfortunately for him, this does not include tweeting about a “fact” that he did not examine thoroughly. To be more specific, he received this information from a New York Times article, in which the headline was “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.”

The report does not accuse President Obama of ordering a tap on Trump’s phones during the election cycle. Instead, it provides details on the FBI’s investigation into some current and former aides of Trump, such as Carter Page and Paul Manafort, for their ties to Russia. In addition to that, it does not say that his campaign was under surveillance, like what Press Secretary Sean Spicer had alleged.

During a press conference, Spicer backed the president’s claim by saying, as CNN put it, “Trump wasn’t referring to wiretapping when he tweeted about wiretapping.” Apparently, the word “wiretap” was not supposed to be taken literally, as ascertained by Spicer’s use of air quotes, but rather as a form of “surveillance and other activities.” Also, when Trump referred to Obama as a “bad or sick guy” for ordering this tap, Spicer says that he was speaking about his administration in general, not blaming the former president entirely (although we can argue otherwise).

So, from now on, when Trump tweets about a matter as serious as a former president’s participation in sabotaging a presidential candidate, the American people should do the following: 1) always consider other interpretations of a claim; 2) ignore clear-cut evidence that debunks the claim; 3) use air quote when referring to what he has actually said; and 4) remember that fake news is only fake when it doesn’t support your beliefs.

I included the latter because, as you may recall, President Trump was once adamant in his belief that the New York Times was dishonest, earning the clever nickname “failing New York Times.” Of course, the widely acclaimed newspaper only reports on “real” news when it benefits our president, and only time will tell how long he will able to keep making these baseless statements without consequences. For now, as a Democrat, aspiring journalist, and American citizen, it will be difficult for me to take the president seriously, let alone literally.

Follow Uloop

Apply to Write for Uloop News

Join the Uloop News Team

Discuss This Article

Back to Top

Log In

Contact Us

Upload An Image

Please select an image to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format
OR
Provide URL where image can be downloaded
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format

By clicking this button,
you agree to the terms of use

By clicking "Create Alert" I agree to the Uloop Terms of Use.

Image not available.

Add a Photo

Please select a photo to upload
Note: must be in .png, .gif or .jpg format