The reason I asked is I want to know what you, Kady M., think can be inferred from the statement in context because you simply said, “I disagree.” Why?
Because I don’t think anyone has enough information to infer what the president was actually thinking (assuming he was). I believe that assuming this statement to be an euphemism for racism is a rush to judgment that we see all too often from the irrational cheering section of the American left these days.
I seriously doubt that you make no inferences about the character of a person based on what they say and how they say it. Yet here you even refuse to offer an opinion. Why?
If I believe that a singular word without context is insufficient to draw a conclusion on a matter such as racism, then it logically follows that I believe that it would be insufficient to draw a conclusion on a more broader matter such as “character.”
What if the President had instead said, “Why aren’t we taking people from these shitholes, people in places like Norway don’t need to come here.”
Well, now you have not only a word, but you actually have some context. So, suddenly you can infer a bit more meaning, eh?
Does this example not show, by way of contrast, possible inferences one can reasonably make from the statement concerning what kind of person the President is and what kind of policies he would support?
Oh, I would say its EVIDENTIARY, for sure. However, most critics are not claiming it’s evidentiary; than in fact it is PROOF (of racism, of low character, etc.)
There’s a difference, as you know, between evidence and proof. And I am damn well not going to do something as evil as accuse somebody of racism unless I have proof, not just some evidentiary points which are both circumstantial and tenuous at best.