Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 283 posts

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

#231

Post by benchaney »

couchand wrote: post #223
benchaney wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it an evasion of facts to focus on facts that are relevant? If a protest was planned before Trump took office, that logically excludes actions taken by Trump as motivation for the protest. That is "overwhelmingly obvious" to anyone who isn't confused by the concept of causality.

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

#232

Post by lifeformed »

jakeogh wrote: post #161
justinpombrio wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate asking about downvotes, but I'm really confused why this comment has been pushed to the bottom. Why?

Well, it's not a "Muslim Ban" for starters. Look up the countries with the highest Muslim populations, then cross ref to the list of countries that have a 90 day (to start) ban.

It is a Muslim ban. It's just how you do it politically. You start with the goal of banning Muslims, then you see how to implement it in a way that gives you plausible deniability. You couldn't get away with just saying, "No Muslims allowed." That is way too overtly racist and illegal. So you look for existing groupings of countries that align with your goals.

You find a list of countries banned on the visa waiver program made by the previous administration, and it covers many Muslim nations that are in the international spotlight right now. They're hot topics and it fits your criteria well. (Also they conveniently don't intersect with your business interests, so that's another plus.) You ignore Indonesia and India because they aren't in the news for terrorism, so it doesn't fit your narrative. Now you can get away with banning these "previously chosen" countries, by saying it's for national security, while you wink to your more explicitly racist supporters. You achieved their racist goal, de-facto, while having a non-racist "legitimate" excuse.

This is how institutional racism works. You have a racist goal in mind, and you implement it through actions that are under the guise of something more reasonable. It has the same effect as if you just made some overtly racist policy, but you can do it legally and with plausible deniability.

Also, if it helps, Rudy Giuliani said on national TV that Trump told him to do literally exactly this.

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

#233

Post by 551199 »

grzm wrote: post #229
551199 wrote: 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...

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 ye…

Giuliani 'It's based substantial on evidence people are sending terrorist into our country'[0]. If christian terrorist would be coming in to US with evil intention from certain countries I don't think anyone would oppose them being banned temporarily while their organisation is taken care of. Trump is looking to attack ISIS in the next 30 days if someone wasn't paying attention and wants to lower risk of attacks happening by people coming in. It's easy to misrepresent what someone is saying as we have seen the last year.

Obama has been bombing these countries killing innocent people and now people are upset that Trump doesn't let army age men to come from these countries while he is taking care of the terrorist Obamas action created? Where were the marches against Obamas warmongering policies?

[0]https://youtu.be/NF2k11QQW0g?t=4m00s

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

#234

Post by couchand »

benchaney wrote: post #231
couchand wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it an evasion of facts to focus on facts that are relevant? If a protest was planned before Trump took office, that logically excludes actions taken by Trump as motivation for the protest. That is "overwhelmingly obvious" to anyone who isn't confused by the concept of causality.

I don't think anyone claimed that the Women's March wasn't planned before January 20th, that would be absurd. However it was still clearly a reaction to Trump's words and actions, and that doesn't require him being a sitting president first.

But it's worth noting the difference between that protest and the one at JFK, which I think it's pretty clear was a direct reaction to a specific policy created by President Trump. Using the Women's March as some sort of catch-all "haters gonna hate" dismissal of the valid concerns that many Americans have about the sitting president's actions is, to put it simply, a remarkable argument.

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

#235

Post by 551199 »

r00fus wrote: post #211
magarathea wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard this called racist a few times and at risk of sounding like a pedant or an apologist I respectfully object. Creating abusive policy targeted at people from certain countries seems xenophobic, isolationist, draconian, cruel, stupid. Racism is a far more evil concept than any of those. Abusing and rationalizing the abuse of people because you have made a generalization based on their geography, ideology or…

This is a strawman. People call Trump racist, but this is an unconstitutional action with clearly racial motives. Arguing against this being called "racism" is completely missing the point. What Trump is doing is unamerican and unconstitutional. Arguably an impeachable offense.

Upholding laws is un-American and unconstitutional? You might see why liberals lost the election.

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

#236

Post by grzm »

551199 wrote: post #233
grzm wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ye…

Giuliani 'It's based substantial on evidence people are sending terrorist into our country'[0]. If christian terrorist would be coming in to US with evil intention from certain countries I don't think anyone would oppose them being banned temporarily while their organisation is taken care of. Trump is looking to attack ISIS in the next 30 days if someone wasn't paying attention and wants to lower risk of attacks happ…

You're cherry-picking one quote from Giuliani rather than looking at the larger conversation he had during the Fox News interview. And then shifting the discussion to Obama.

The fact that people didn't protest more about Obama is a separate argument. The fact that Bush invaded Iraq is a separate argument. The fact that the US supported the mujahideen during the Soviet Afghan war is a separate argument. The fact that the US helped overthrow the Iranian government and install the Shah in 1953 is a separate argument. The fact that European powers divvied up the Middle East following World War I is a separate argument. Want to go back to the Crusades? Abraham?

Or you can tie them all together. They're all ultimately related. Which do you want? Where do you want to draw the line? What do you want to take responsibility for? Drawing in all manner of related topics doesn't help us move forward. I don't think any of that is useful.

What people are discussing now, today, is Trump's Executive Order, and what to do about it now.

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

#237

Post by MichaelBurge »

tptacek wrote: post #179
MichaelBurge wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm having a hard time understanding the argument you try to make as you confirm all the arguments your selected opponents are making. "It only lasts for 90 days" is a rebuttal, but it's an awfully weak one to hang your entire rhetorical outfit on.

It looks like the language in that part of the executive order was specifically intended to trigger this section in the law. So it seems legal, and means I can't even say it was incorrect for him to include Green Card holders:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

> Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President"

> Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

I don't think anyone here explicitly said it was illegal, but I've seen a lot written that seemed to indicate that it was, which was the basis for me singling out the green cards in my other comments.

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

#238

Post by benchaney »

couchand wrote: post #234
benchaney wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it an evasion of facts to focus on facts that are relevant? If a protest was planned before Trump took office, that logically excludes actions taken by Trump as motivation for the protest. That is "overwhelmingly obvious" to anyone who isn't confused by the concept of causality.

I don't think anyone claimed that the Women's March wasn't planned before January 20th, that would be absurd. However it was still clearly a reaction to Trump's words and actions, and that doesn't require him being a sitting president first. But it's worth noting the difference between that protest and the one at JFK, which I think it's pretty clear was a direct reaction to a specific policy created by President Trum…

I never used the women's march as a "hater's gonna hate" dismissal. I never even dismissed the concerns of protesters. My point was that protests are based on emotion. I only felt that need to make that point because eropple took some weird offense to me saying that the cause of protests was people being unhappy. It is fine with me if you want to defend him, but don't pretend that context doesn't exist.

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

#239

Post by [deleted] »

551199 wrote: post #235
r00fus wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strawman. People call Trump racist, but this is an unconstitutional action with clearly racial motives. Arguing against this being called "racism" is completely missing the point. What Trump is doing is unamerican and unconstitutional. Arguably an impeachable offense.

Upholding laws is un-American and unconstitutional? You might see why liberals lost the election.

[deleted]

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

#240

Post by sctb »

551199 wrote: post #208
jakeogh wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top 6 countries [1] with the highest Muslim populations are not (temp) banned, yet somehow it's a "Muslim Ban". [1] http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_proje...

Yes, 'muslim ban' is fake news. Too bad democrats can't think to themselves and have to offshore thinking to MSM who push this fake narrative.

We've already asked you to please stop using HN primarily for this kind of political battle. We have to ban accounts that continue to abuse the site this way.
Post reply on HN