Live data from Hacker News

First they came for the Iranians

scottaaronson.com

171–180 of 460 posts

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#171
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only relevant fact here is that millions more people voted against Trump than for him. The top reason people voted for Trump wasn't to support him or his policies, it was that he wasn't Clinton ( http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/21/in-their-own-words-wh... ). His approval rating is below 50% ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-app... ). Trump doesn't represent the majority in any sense o…

That's a good way to sweep data like this under the rug: (Left percent is Clinton, Right percent is Trump) White men 31% 63% White women 43 53 White women college graduates 51 45 White women non-college graduates 34 62 White men college graduates 39 54 White men non-college graduates 23 72 ( https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-ove... ) Like it or not, the fact of the matter is that claiming that…

[deleted]

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#172
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only relevant fact here is that millions more people voted against Trump than for him. The top reason people voted for Trump wasn't to support him or his policies, it was that he wasn't Clinton ( http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/21/in-their-own-words-wh... ). His approval rating is below 50% ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-app... ). Trump doesn't represent the majority in any sense o…

OP's premise was in part that only straight white males supported him. The fact is, the majority of white women supported him as well. So OP was wrong on a very, very big part of the premise being floated. Trump's approval is 57% http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trum... The notion that it's useful to pretend Trump represents a tiny group of supporters, for personal emotional comfort over facts,…

Across multiple poll providers, his approval -7.2[1] (although this hasn't updated with the latest Rasmussen poll). Rasmussen is the only provider that has him in positive territory.

Interestingly, Fox gives him the second worst result (only ABC/WashPost gives him worse)

[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorabl...

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really truly do not care at all about the sensitivities of Trump supporters at this point.

Sentiments like yours do not help the current situation where everyone is talking past each other. Demonizing and labeling people like others is not the solution. Characterizing the motivations of 60+ million people as racist is the epitome of mental weakness. How do you expect to solve xenophobic behavior when you are employing the exact same mental processes? All you are doing is perpetuating the cycle of hatred. E…

You make a noble point, but it will not change anything at this stage. I am human. As are all of us. My well of empathy for Trump's people has gone completely bone dry. I am past the tipping point.

They elected an egotistical reality TV star, backed by a hostile foreign government, to the White House and he's taking a wrecking ball to every institution of federal government exactly as one would have expected him to. Any assertion that tears should be shed or some level of respect should be offered to Trump's people or duped Republicans, is absurd nonsense. The only feeling I have left for these people is rage and it grows with every passing day.

Things are going to get very very ugly soon

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good way to sweep data like this under the rug: (Left percent is Clinton, Right percent is Trump) White men 31% 63% White women 43 53 White women college graduates 51 45 White women non-college graduates 34 62 White men college graduates 39 54 White men non-college graduates 23 72 ( https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-ove... ) Like it or not, the fact of the matter is that claiming that…

Do you know any interview or documentary of talking to samples of these populations? I wonder very much what they think. The interviews so far for me personally were showing that they are "morally deaf", but I am sure that this is not all the story (I probably living in my bubble).

This guy drove through the Southeast and talked to a bunch of Trump supporters: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/08/02/listening-to...

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#175

It would be healthier for everyone if there was less speculative outrage. This doesn't affect anyone in the country. It just says if you are trying to get a visa from a country where we think there is a terrorism risk, that country needs to be able to provide screening info on the person, or else we won't provide a visa. It is targeting Syrian refugees, not Iranian PhDs.

People often need to exit the country they live in and apply for a new visa from outside. It doesn’t make much sense, but many visa/residence permit types can only be applied for from outside.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#176
post #11

Advice from a high-level staffer for a Senator: There are two things that everyone concerned should be doing all the time right now, and they're by far the most important things. You should NOT be bothering with online petitions or emailing. 1. The best thing you can do to be heard and get your congressperson to pay attention is to have face-to-face time - if they have town halls, go to them. Go to their local office…

I would imagine it might also help to organise a list of popular topics on a website/forum - eg: Tuesday thousands call about education, Wednesday thousands call about immigration etc?

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#177
post #84
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think there are any real Shiite terror group. Hezbollah is a banned Shia outfit that is involved in killing in many countries including Syria.

Killing is different than terrorism, US military is involved in killing in many countries as well!

[deleted]

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#178

I come from a country which can't keep its le^Wborders closed in front of anyone. So I pity those students a bit, definitely, but otherwise I'm jealous for this policy. It would address my immediate pain had it been implemented here. And yes, I do care more about my own life in a country I am a citizen of, and safety of my relatives, than about people you call "aliens".

What "immediate pain" are you suffering?

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#179
post #84
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think there are any real Shiite terror group. Hezbollah is a banned Shia outfit that is involved in killing in many countries including Syria.

Killing is different than terrorism, US military is involved in killing in many countries as well!

> Killing is different than terrorism, US military is involved >in killing in many countries as well!

Terrorism is a relative term.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#180

My father successfully brought over two of our relatives from Iran during the Obama presidency (thanks Obama). They were a doctor and a professional soccer player. However, the other application for his older sister and my mother's brother has been processing for nearly 20 years. She's nearing her 70s. And my mother's brother has all but lost hope. Looks like it's not going to ever happen under Mr. Trump. Oh well. I…

what motivated your father to vote for trump?
Post reply on HN