Time to Take a Stand • Hacker News Board

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#261

Post by RangerScience » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:38 PM UTC

ftrflyr wrote: post #214

I'm sorry, but you fail to understand exactly what the ACLU stands for - the first word says it all. American. Green Card holders, refugees, and illegal immigrants are not Americans. We need to and should protect Americans first. Period. For all of you who don't understand not agree with this, perhaps you are unamerican?

No. And when you find yourself calling people unamerican, you're doing horribly. Historical example? McCarthyism.

Does the ACLU stand for American as in persons, American as in culture, American as in country...? Unless you work there, not up to you.

ACLU getting in on this implies America as a lot of things. America as a dream. America as a land of laws. America as a corporate entity honoring agreements. And more.

Your attitude is the #1 difference I see between "democrats" and "republicans": Is America an exclusive club, or an inclusive one?

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#262

Post by aidanrocke » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:38 PM UTC

A lot of people in the comments below are fussing over whether there is a Muslim ban. Well, think about it for two seconds.

1. This doesn't set a good precedent. 2. Donald Trump is aiming for a Muslim ban. He said so during the elections.

He said it during the elections: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trum...

At this point I'm surprised by how many people are bickering over this. Why don't you guys just say that you voted for Donald Trump? That would simplify the discussion.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#263

Post by cornholeconnie » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:38 PM UTC

Scirra_Tom wrote: post #86

I think it's shameful to have an open Trump supporter as part of the upper echelons of YCombinator (Thiel). Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But when you openly support a candidate who likes to "grab [women] by the pussy", and now is making headway into some sort of Muslim ban which was a campaign headline, how will female and muslim applicants feel if they know part of their process might be controlled by som…

So only opinions that you deem acceptable are ok. So people are not entitled to their own opinions...

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#264

Post by canadian_voter » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:38 PM UTC

nolepointer wrote: post #182

65827 wrote: post #124

He's not a legitimate president any more. This is illegal. Anyone enforcing these illegal orders will be considered criminal as well.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives him this power.

Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.

But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigratio...

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#265

Post by RodericDay » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:38 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #101

RodericDay wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boycotts are so effective many places make them illegal.

How do you boycott 60 million random people? The statement was about voters, not companies or other organizations.

seems to me like the comment was obviously about other big decision-makers

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#266

Post by akjainaj » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:38 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #26

I am affected personally by this. I have extended family members from Indonesia and Malaysia in the US who are still on Green Card. Although those countries aren't affected by the ban, who knows when Trump will decide to change his mind at his whim. But the time for talk has passed. I don't think very much is going to happen because Trump is empowered by his election victory, and he won't listen to anyone. Has he eve…

>Although those countries aren't affected by the ban, who knows when Trump will decide to change his mind at his whim.

The ban on muslims is not something he decided "at his whim", but something he promised he'd do if he won the presidency.

Turns out he did win, and he's delivering on his promises.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#267

Post by gred » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:39 PM UTC

Maybe under a Trump administration Silicon Valley will also object more strongly to the NSL regime, now that it's "someone I dislike doing something I dislike", rather than "someone I like doing something I dislike."

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#268

Post by rcpt » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:39 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #158

rcpt wrote: post #94

I know it's an extremely antisocial position but I can't help but feel like most of Trump's immigration policies and outrageous tweets are just bait to keep our attention away from big money legislation that the 1% wants to get through. For example, the Keystone XL and Dakota access pipelines were heavily debated, protested, and ultimately rejected under Obama but Trump just signed orders to have them built and Sam's…

> are just bait to keep our attention away from big money legislation that the 1% wants to get through. I really doubt that, considering a vast majority of the 1% supported Hillary.

I'm not sure that Hillary "public and private positions" Clinton is much better in this regard.

Don't get me wrong I'd much rather she won. But even with her in power I think I'd still be concerned that wealth inequality and climate change would continue to get sidelined in favor of never ending battles about racism, lgbt issues, and misogyny.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#269

Post by Scirra_Tom » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:39 PM UTC

general_ai wrote: post #225

Scirra_Tom wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. He's got his foot in the door. That's all he needs right now. > But there's another aspect of this that baffles me. Somehow Sam has no issues with democrats totally destabilizing the Middle East, and funding/arming ISIS to depose Assad. Yet the moment Trump attempts to mitigate the negative side effects of that to th…

Trump stated his intention to stabilize the region. So far he has demonstrated very clearly that he intends to keep his promises. All that needs to happen there is we need to stop arming ISIS, and join forces with Russia and Assad's government to destroy ISIS. It'll be over in a year or two. And if you find the US interventionism repugnant, congratulations, we now have a president who is against it, too.

Simple right? Just destroy them. I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem. He's well versed in Middle Eastern politics and warfare and crucially he's got a level head and able to think decisions through properly which he's proven since becoming president.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#270

Post by chris11 » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:39 PM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #227

zeteo wrote: post #169

>1. Call 2. Participate 3. Share 4. Vote This is the same kind of bullshit that's lost Hillary the election and got us here in the first place. It might have worked in the '90s to get a gold medal for Rosa Parks. It will not work in 2017 to make Trump back off his core message. The problem here is not that your side isn't loud enough and can't get political attention for an issue. The problem is that the opposing sid…

> This is the same kind of bullshit that's lost Hillary the election and got us here in the first place. Wasn't low democrat turnout part of the problem?

And those suggestions seem pretty similar to the Tea Party playbook. They were really successful in getting their message out.