Live data from Hacker News

Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

techcrunch.com

221–230 of 283 posts

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did their workers agree to share that solidarity? Or are you saying they should have forced their workers to join the protest? Were taxi companies prohibiting drivers from picking up passengers?

This is a great point that should be made more loudly: the taxi strike was, as far as i can see, the action of the drivers and the union. No taxi company , including uber, was disallowing traffic to or from JFK. If Uber's drivers declined to participate in the strike, that's on the drivers, not Uber.

Uber has actively fought against allowing its drivers to unionize. The drivers' inability to organize and participate in strikes (esp. on such short notice) is in large part because of these actions.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His comment is rhetorically partisan, but you haven't come close to establishing with evidence that it's "alarmist". I'd direct your attention to Eliot Cohen's essay in The Atlantic from this morning: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/a-clari... Cohen is no liberal; he cofounded PNAC and served as a deputy under Rice in the Bush administration. And his take on Trump's last week is even more urgent…

> an informal, non-confirmable role, created to house someone who stood a decent chance of washing out of Senate confirmation This is a good argument. Many of these White House roles need to be confirmed; even if they are mostly advisory, because the law assumes that the President's advisors influence his decisions. If people want to say "Steve Bannon needs to be confirmed by the Senate", that's something I could pro…

> It affects green card holders, who are legally allowed to travel to the US.

This is understating the case. Green card holders aren't just "allowed to travel to the US" - that's true of any visa holder. Green card holders live in the US and aren't allowed to come home.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe you should "get over yourself". If you care so much for the facts perhaps you should make sure to get them right. I suppose you're referring to the Women's March, which took place the day after Trump assumed office. And it's remarkable if your claim is that without Trump's Muslim Ban there would still be protests at JFK this weekend. Are you really arguing that?

It is interesting that you say that, because I read about that protest in the Friday paper (from the 20th). The paper of course became available many hours before Trump was sworn in. Stop pretending that it was a reaction to anything he did in office. I don't know exactly how different protests would have played out if Trump took different actions in office, but it is overwhelmingly obvious that the protests are the…

That's a skillful evasion of facts you just executed, going from your previous claim that the protest occurred before the inauguration to just that it was planned before then. Well played.

Your dubious claim about the motivations of large groups of individuals is not at all "overwhelmingly obvious."

Get over yourself.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#224
post #160
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question: during the Civil Rights movement, people of all sorts disrupted white people just trying to eat breakfast; just trying to get an education; just trying to get to work. Is that "giving them hate"? Should MLK have made fastidiously sure to go to cordoned off areas where no one would have been inconvenienced in the slightest?

You're asking an unrelated question. The morality or advisability of engaging in disruptive protests is completely separate from the morality of Uber allowing its drivers to choose to work while taxi drivers are protesting.

How is it unrelated? The comment I was replying to said, "How about other people that were not part of the protest and were trying to get home/get to the airport?" Implying that Uber shouldn't be condemned for scabbing and helping them get to the airport because the protests were disruptive and they were just providing a public service by making them less disruptive.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#225
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is semantics. It was imposed with the intention of being a Muslim ban, but with plausible deniability. See Giuliani's comments here: http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/trump-asked-me-how-to-legally-c...

DHS picked the countries to ban when Obama was still the President[0]. I'm being flagged for stating the inconvenient truth that this isn't 'muslim ban'. Most muslim countries aren't even affected. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...

Again, semantics. It's being called a Muslim ban because it _only_ affects Muslims. Sure, it doesn't affect _all_ Muslims, but it still singles out one religious group.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#226
post #6

Why is a company that is losing money and having what's left of their lunch taken by a gorilla of a competitor (Uber) throwing away $1M like this? If I were an investor in Lyft I'd sue them.

It's not $1M. It's $1M over 4 years. I doubt they'll last that long.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#227
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DHS picked the countries to ban when Obama was still the President[0]. I'm being flagged for stating the inconvenient truth that this isn't 'muslim ban'. Most muslim countries aren't even affected. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...

Are you saying that Giuliani is lying?

Are you saying Obama wanted a muslim ban? Most muslim countries aren't even affected so if you read it's a muslim ban you have been reading fake news.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#228
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that Giuliani is lying?

Are you saying Obama wanted a muslim ban? Most muslim countries aren't even affected so if you read it's a muslim ban you have been reading fake news.

One person said they were implementing a Muslim ban, and the other... well, he didn't (not to mention his policy was materially different from the current one). I don't need to read fake news to understand the difference.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#229
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is semantics. It was imposed with the intention of being a Muslim ban, but with plausible deniability. See Giuliani's comments here: http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/trump-asked-me-how-to-legally-c...

DHS picked the countries to ban when Obama was still the President[0]. I'm being flagged for stating the inconvenient truth that this isn't 'muslim ban'. Most muslim countries aren't even affected. [0] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-tr...

I think you're being flagged for being needlessly argumentative and uncivil.

The DHS list of countries on that waiver ban is indeed the same as those listed in the Executive Order. I haven't seen a reference that this list was indeed the basis for the countries listed in the Executive Order. If you know of one, please do share. I'm happy to be corrected.

Guiliani is widely reported in an interview on Fox News just yesterday to have confirmed that at least initially the goal was to create a Muslim ban:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t...

I’ll tell you the whole history of it: When he first announced it, he said ‘Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said on Fox News.

"He called me up, he said, ‘Put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.’"

Giuliani said he then put together a commission that included lawmakers and expert lawyers. "And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger," Giuliani said.

"The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible."

Giuliani reiterated that the ban is "not based on religion."

Perhaps the claim that resulting Executive Order is indeed purely based on risk assessment is true. I think reasonable people can understandably question whether this is indeed the case. To deny that it at least initially was motivated by the desire to create a Muslim ban is disingenuous at best. Accusing people of relying on "fake news" if they bring this up is clearly unfair.

Re: Lyft donates $1M to the ACLU, condemns Trump’s immigration actions

#230
post #24
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No country has an obligation to do business with the United States either. If we pull back, not only will our economy will suffer for it, but many people will lose their jobs as well as their lives.

In the future, just flag comments like these. Give them at least 20-30 minutes before dignifying them with a reply.

Probably the right policy. Thanks for this.
Post reply on HN