Don’t be misled by reports that Donald Trump has backed away from or was never for his unconstitutional – and outrageous – support for a "Muslim database."

If you’ve paid close attention to what he’s actually said since the controversy erupted, you’d realize he hasn’t backed away from it. That so many people don’t realize this point is a case study in how Trump manipulates the masses and media.

On the right, many are absolutely convinced that Trump never supported a Muslim database but is the "victim" of a biased "liberal lying media." That’s not true. Selective editing fueled this perception. The rest of the media? They’ve bought into the false narrative that Trump has backed away from it. Not true, either.

This was the moment the presidential campaign moved from comical to frightening. Trump has moved the goalposts of what is normalized debate. It should be disqualifying. If he becomes the Republican nominee, I will not vote for him.

A major presidential candidate is now for – or at least not ruling out, depending on the interview and day – the creation of an unconstitutional national government database that would be used to track members of a single religious group in America. That means American citizens in some cases, including people who have done nothing specifically to warrant suspicion. This from the front-runner of the party abhorring big government.

On Sunday, George Stephanopolous gave Trump one of his never-ending chances to insist he didn’t really mean this. As usual, he didn’t take that chance.

"Let's try to clear that up: Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?" Stephanopolous asked.

I would expect that any presidential candidate would immediately respond, "Of course, I would rule that out. It’s unconstitutional."

Not Trump.

"Not at all," he replied. "I want a database for the refugees that – if they come into the country. We have no idea who these people are."

Notice the manipulation. Asked specifically if he would unequivocally rule out a database on "all Muslims," he said "not at all." Yet this is no longer a big headline. It’s become a paragraph in the end of other stories.

Then, manipulatively, he immediately segued to the less controversial database of refugees. Thus, he creates the wiggle room to blame the media if controversy does result.

You could argue he misspoke. But this is a pattern. You can’t argue that he wasn’t aware of what Stephanopolous meant, not with the debate raging for days. I think he knows exactly what he is doing. He will not denounce the Muslim database idea because he’s capitalizing on the anger he’s stoked, but he’s creatively using language to dodge blame for saying it.

There’s more.

On Saturday, at a rally in Alabama, Trump referenced the earlier NBC interview in which he was widely accused of saying he was "absolutely" for a Muslim database. "The database -- I said, yeah, it's all right. Fine," Trump said, according to CBS. "But they also said the wall, and I said the wall, and I was referring to the wall. But database is OK. And watch list is OK. And surveillance is OK." He also called journalists "terrible people."

Got that? He admits he told NBC the database was OK, fine.

Furthermore, asked by Fox, "Would President Donald Trump support a full Muslim database?" Trump said, "I was really responding to a totally different reporter; he was responding to that reporter where basically the suggestion was made, and it's certainly something we should start thinking about, but what I want is a watch list, I want surveillance programs ... I want a database for the Syrian refugees ..."

Note that he said, "It's certainly something we should start thinking about." This after the media was widely reporting that he had backed off the idea, and conservative media decided he never said it.

Let’s back up to the beginning. The entire controversy started because a Yahoo reporter asked Trump a hypothetical – whether he supported such a database, as well as making Muslims carry special identification cards.

Any sane presidential candidate could easily handle this. You say, "No. That’s unconstitutional." Why is that so hard? Why has he still not said this?

Trump’s refusal to rule those things out then created stories about him not ruling those things out. This was unfair, supporters said, because he never proposed them. Trump furthered this narrative by saying he didn’t suggest the database – a reporter did. But he was still not ruling it out … which no one seemed to be noticing anymore.

Not rejecting something is not the same as supporting something, but I expect major presidential candidates to rule out blatantly unconstitutional things.

For example, let’s say a reporter asks if a candidate supports jailing citizens who criticize government, doing away with due process rights or shutting down newspapers. I would expect that any sane candidate would say, "Of course not. That’s unconstitutional."

I expect the same here.

Then, a reporter for NBC attempted to clarify Trump’s position on video:

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 have 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.

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

Trump: Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.

CNN and other media then cut out the bolded section above. It ricocheted around the web that Trump had said he would "certainly implement" a Muslim database.

The edit was unfair because it removed the subjectivity of double meaning (which Trump himself has now cleared up – he WAS saying he was for the Muslim database after all to NBC, he says).  However, at the time the media wrote the first stories, you could read his "absolutely" comments two ways – that he would certainly implement the database or that he was talking about the wall. I don’t think the media should change context through edits. That was wrong. In doing so, they gave Trump the weapon he needed to manipulate his way out of this.

Conservative media pounced, pronouncing the Muslim database story an outright media "lie" due to unfair edit. They claimed he wasn’t referring to a Muslim database. I lost count how many people repeated this new "truth" on social media, saying, "He didn’t say it. How can you believe this media lie?"

However, Limbaugh, Breitbart and other conservative outlets did their own selective editing. They left out the rest of the transcript – and never asked Trump to answer explicitly whether he was for a Muslim database. Here’s what they left out of the NBC exchange:

Reporter: What do you think the effect of that would be, how would that work?

Trump: It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally.

Reporter: But Muslims specifically how do you actually get them registered?

Trump: It would be just good management. What you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do that.

Reporter: Would you go to Mosques and sign these people up?

Trump: Different places. You sign them up at different... but it's all about management. Our country has no management.

Reporter: Would they have to legally be in this database, would they be–

Trump: They have to be — they have to be — let me just tell you: People can come to the country, but they have to come legally. Thank you very much.

(The reporter then approached Trump at a different point in the same rope line to continue asking questions).

Reporter: Mr. Trump, why would Muslim databases not be the same thing as requiring Jews to register in Nazi Germany? What would be the difference? Is there a difference between the two?

Trump: Who are you with?

Reporter: I'm with NBC News. Is there a difference between requiring Muslims to register and Jews?

Trump: You tell me. You tell me. Why don’t you tell me?

Reporter: Do you believe there is?

Trump: You tell me.

Reporter: Should Muslims be, I mean, fearful? Would there be consequences if you don't register?

No answer.

It’s rather bizarre that Trump, bailed out by conservative media, later appeared in Alabama and on Stephanopoulos’ show and basically said that’s what he meant after all. Will they report that? I doubt it. They’ve got their narrative, and they usually stick to it.

By this time, the rest of the media had moved on to reporting other Trump controversies – the fact that he wants to bring back waterboarding and thinks a protester maybe should have been roughed up (and was). Which aren’t insignificant things.

But I’m spending the space to explain what he’s actually said on the Muslim database because I think it’s the scariest proposal I’ve ever heard come out of a serious candidate for the American presidency. Scarier yet? That so many people think he didn’t actually say it. Or that, if they do, they don't care. Our fractured, partisan media has helped fuel that.

We ALL must join our voices together in moving the goalposts back to "this is disqualifying. It’s wrong."

Not only has Trump not repudiated this, he’s said it’s OK, fine, that he won’t rule it out.

By surviving – and even thriving – after saying the previously unthinkable, Trump has normalized a conversation that should never lose the ability to outrage.

It’s repugnant. I’m willing to bet Trump’s poll numbers will only go up after this, though. He’s stoked people’s fears over a supposedly wrecked America, promised himself as the savior through simple solutions and then turned people’s fear into anger toward other groups. It’s not that big of a stretch from that to "we should have a Muslim database."

The media needs to not simply file away this idea as if it’s simply another piece of rhetoric no longer worthy of headlines. It’s not.