Time to Take a Stand • Hacker News Board

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#341

Post by Senji » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:52 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #324

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…

> the opposing side The opposing side is people who support the arbitary and harmful ban on a huge number of people based primarily on their religion. No, the opposing side needs to learn some bipartisanship. The idea that a narrow election victory gives the right to steamroller a programme like this through is extremely dangerous. [trolling deleted]

It would be particularly hilarious watching the left twist itself into knots transitioning from an anti-gun position to pro violent overthrow.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#342

Post by akjainaj » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:52 PM UTC

emehrkay wrote: post #314

djrogers wrote: post #8

> In doing so, we should not demonize Trump voters—most of them voted for him for reasons other than the promise of a Muslim ban. We need their eventual support in resisting actions like these, and we will not get it if we further isolate them. This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe, a moron, and not deserving of the franchise is not going to help anything. I didn't vo…

I feel like the only thing that he campaigned on was hurting black/brown people and repealing the ACA. Everything else, every other policy topic was met with "I have the best people" or "I will have the best advisors." He constantly, falsely, repeated how bad black people have it in inner cities. How we can't go anywhere without the fear of being shot and killed by other black people. He touted the need for a nation-…

>How we can't go anywhere without the fear of being shot and killed by other black people.

I'm not from the US but this really looks awful. I wouldn't set foot on this city even if you paid me a million dollars. http://crime.chicagotribune.com/

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#343

Post by lebanon_tn » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:52 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #287

lebanon_tn wrote: post #161

I strongly encourage people who consider Donald Trump to be a threat to consider arming themselves in accordance with the 2nd Amendment. While my hope for the future does not involve needing to use them, if the situation one day comes to that, I would prefer that people who are indifferent to the actions of this administration NOT be the only ones with guns.

Wow. Suddenly the left supports the 2nd amendment? I never thought I'd see the day.

Your assumption about me being "the left" is wildly incorrect.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#344

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:52 PM UTC

mythrwy wrote: post #290

jacquesm wrote: post #38

The time to take stand was 3 months ago. Things will get a lot worse now before they can get better and no amount of blogging is going to change that. Trump is hell bent on destroying America from within and his followers (who we are not supposed to criticize) are A-Ok with that. Soon to be seen in a theater near you in Europe as well.

"Trump is hell bent on destroying America from within" No he isn't. Those kind of ridiculous hyperbolic statements don't help anything. You may disagree with Trump's policies and platform. But "intent on destroying America" is a silly charge. And it is equally silly when (as often happens) it is leveled at the left.

I'm just looking at the evidence of the last two weeks and that's my conclusion. That he thinks he's doing something positive I'll believe but the end result is going to be a very large net-negative, the longer this goes on unchecked the worse it will get.

What you think is hyperbole is merely extrapolation from the last two weeks over a period of four years. You'll see a world order remarkably different than the present one, one in which America's role will be greatly diminished and where the American economy will be much smaller than it is today or even worse.

It's about May 1914, time is running out to get the train back on the rails before momentum will take over.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#345

Post by thedevil » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:52 PM UTC

mozumder wrote: post #312

thedevil wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a book I recently read: https://www.amazon.com/Never-Split-Difference-Negotiating-De... This is a book about negotiation written by a hostage negotiator. It was an eye-opener that I needed. One of the key principles is that you don't accuse or attack (something I still need to work on myself).

In sales training seminars, that would be one tactic. Other valid tactics include the frontal attack.

How well do you think the aggressive tactics work in long-term relationships? How well do you think they work when you're in the weaker position (e.g. when your side controls neither congress nor the white house)?

And more specifically, how well do you think they worked in this election?

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#346

Post by leesalminen » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:52 PM UTC

bobzibub wrote: post #172

karmelapple wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all in a per-individual basis. I know many family members who specifically encouraged this ban. To them, I will now have to have the difficult conversation of how their desire for safety - at any cost to people unlike themselves - has unintended consequences. And I doubt it will be a pleasant conversation.

I think that their desire for safety is not valid either. If an immigrant population believes they are unwanted by the majority, they'll tend to have "no skin in the game" for the society which they live and be much more open to political violence, crime etc. I believe if you compare (in this case) Muslim immigrants to England vs Muslim immigrants to Canada you'll see a difference in acceptance by the majority. Obvio…

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

-Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#347

Post by bassman9000 » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:53 PM UTC

burkaman wrote: post #16

In case anyone is still skeptical that this is really a Muslim ban and not just a blanket ban on refugees and immigrants, note that Trump has said he will give priority to Christian refugees: http://www1.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2017/01/27/brody-fi...

Irrelevant. The text of the order is what matters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...

Yeah, he's doing a shitty job communicating it, but what did you expect...

> (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

> (e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#348

Post by sidlls » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:53 PM UTC

myblake wrote: post #22

_m8fo wrote: post #7

Why is that all of these posts saying to "take a stand" fail to explain the political process? I'll just quote myself here. If you want to help stop trump the most effective ways are to: 1. Call - Local congresspeople (http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/) - Senators (https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/) - Local officials (https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials) 2. Participate - Get involved in local electi…

How effective is calling local congress members if you live in an area with a strong progressive majority such as the Bay Area. Not that we shouldn't voice our option to our represented officials but I suspect in some ways it's redundant whereas things like raising money for national organizations may be more impactful.

There is a "strong progressive majority" in the bay area? I guess if one's calculus is "Democrat == liberal == progressive" that might be true. From my perspective I see a large majority of folks who pay lip service to the social tolerance issue with the most media coverage around election time every two years and who otherwise act like conservatives (especially on economic matters) in most other respects.

Either way calling Congress members is a feel-good thing that takes almost no effort. It's worthless in terms of getting political power and making changes.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#349

Post by maratd » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:53 PM UTC

_callcc wrote: post #307

general_ai wrote: post #100

First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US. Other than Iran (which imo shouldn't be on the list) we're bombing and droning all of those countries at the moment. It's insane to accept mil…

What this is really about for executives like Sam is Trump's meddling in the free movement of labor. Where the action goes wrong is in its banning of our Kurdish and Iraqi brothers and sisters who have fought alongside US & NATO troops for years now.

> What this is really about for executives like Sam is Trump's meddling in the free movement of labor.

Bingo. It would substantially increase the cost of labor in the short-term.

Notice how there's no outrage over a dozen other outrageous things done by Trump over the last week ... just this specific one.

> Where the action goes wrong is in its banning of our Kurdish and Iraqi brothers and sisters who have fought alongside US & NATO troops for years now.

Agreed.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#350

Post by thilmo » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:53 PM UTC

braindead_in wrote: post #213

I question how effective this policy is going to be in stopping the actual terrorists. Just as a determined hacker will always find a way to break into your server/network, the terrorists will find a way to illegally enter.

They'll enter somewhere and kill infidels, it just won't be the United States. It will probably be Europe, or Australia, at least until those places start imposing similar bans.

I reluctantly support this policy. Islamic terrorism has become sufficiently decentralised that we can no longer fight it with the means we've been using. Either we turn our own countries into police states where everybody is constantly monitored and searched, or we just do it at the border, where we're not actually impinging upon anyone's rights (note: nobody has a right to enter a different country as a guest).

Treat Islamic terrorism like a disease. Either we all walk around in full protective gear all the time, or we simply quarantine the disease in the areas where it exists. That sucks for the uninfected people who live in the area, but... I dunno, being born in most places at most points in history has kinda sucked anyway.