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

U.S. To Seek Social Media Details from All Visa Applicants

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 439 posts

Re: U.S. To Seek Social Media Details from All Visa Applicants

#341

Post by mulmen »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #247
bambax wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bureaucracy I wouldn't call it bureaucracy, but I don't know of a proper, better name. Hysteria maybe. Not sure.

Bureaucracy is often the result of hysteria. The USA is hysterical over terrorism when it should be hysterical over cancer, college cost increases, and health care. It's all a product of the government realizing that it's easy to fool the bleating masses with terrorist straw men.

Based on the definition of bureaucracy [1] I disagree with you. I do think the tail is wagging the dog in American politics these days but I do not think bureaucracy is the reason. I actually think the bureaucratic parts of our government work quite well. Examples being the National Park Service or NASA.

I think the real problem is that our elected representatives (politicians) are so concerned with reelection that they manipulate their constituents rather than acting as representatives. It's more of an electoral problem.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy

Re: U.S. To Seek Social Media Details from All Visa Applicants

#342

Post by downandout »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #333
downandout wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it always the case that the President has "disapproval" ratings around 50% though? Half the country tends to like the person they voted for, and half the country has sour grapes because their side lost. Obama's disapproval ratings also hovered above 50% at several points in his Presidency [1]. So it isn't Trump's "disapproval" ratings that are new for any President, it's the level of hatred that the press has f…

Trump's disapproval ratings are very different to the usual ratings at the start of a presidency, which tend to be higher, and Obama's average rating was higher than Trump's highest ever rating (even Obama's lowest ratings are about the same as that). It is just nonsense to pretend that Trump's ratings are "right in the same range" as Obama. http://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-... ?

Were Obama’s disapproval ratings not always in the 40-55% range, which are right where Trump’s are? The data suggests they were.

Considering how laughably biased the media has been against Trump, relative to the exact opposite treatment that Obama had, he’s actually doing amazingly well in this regard. I think Trump has made a tremendous number of mistakes, but just going by the numbers, he seems to holding better than Obama ever did given the headwinds he faces.

My guess is Obama’s disapproval rating would have started off far higher too if Republicans were rioting in the streets and claimed cheating in the wake of his election. But Republicans didn’t do that, and took a considerably higher road than Democrats have done since Trump’s election. It has been shocking and terribly disappointing to see how poorly Democrats reacted to losing, and that poor sportsmanship is still playing out. It turns out that the “party of tolerance” is only tolerant of those in its own party.

Re: U.S. To Seek Social Media Details from All Visa Applicants

#343

Post by dragonwriter »

downandout wrote: post #342
lazyasciiart wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's disapproval ratings are very different to the usual ratings at the start of a presidency, which tend to be higher, and Obama's average rating was higher than Trump's highest ever rating (even Obama's lowest ratings are about the same as that). It is just nonsense to pretend that Trump's ratings are "right in the same range" as Obama. http://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-... ?

Were Obama’s disapproval ratings not always in the 40-55% range, which are right where Trump’s are? The data suggests they were. Considering how laughably biased the media has been against Trump, relative to the exact opposite treatment that Obama had, he’s actually doing amazingly well in this regard. I think Trump has made a tremendous number of mistakes, but just going by the numbers, he seems to holding better th…

> Were Obama’s disapproval ratings not always in the 40-55% range, which are right where Trump’s are?

No, they were not always in that range, and that's a huge range; the only time Trump has been anywhere near 40% is the initial honeymoon phase, where Obama was in the 20s.

> My guess is Obama’s disapproval rating would have started off far higher too if Republicans were rioting in the streets and claimed cheating in the wake of his election.

Yes, mass protests tend to be a symptom of widespread and strong opposition (another sign of widespread opposition is getting fewer votes than the other major party candidate; George W. Bush had the same problem, and started with the same poor numbers as Trump; unlike Trump, he managed to improve them to more typical early first term numbers quite quickly, even before the post-9/11 rally around the flag effect.)

Re: U.S. To Seek Social Media Details from All Visa Applicants

#344

Post by pjc50 »

downandout wrote: post #342
lazyasciiart wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's disapproval ratings are very different to the usual ratings at the start of a presidency, which tend to be higher, and Obama's average rating was higher than Trump's highest ever rating (even Obama's lowest ratings are about the same as that). It is just nonsense to pretend that Trump's ratings are "right in the same range" as Obama. http://news.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-... ?

Were Obama’s disapproval ratings not always in the 40-55% range, which are right where Trump’s are? The data suggests they were. Considering how laughably biased the media has been against Trump, relative to the exact opposite treatment that Obama had, he’s actually doing amazingly well in this regard. I think Trump has made a tremendous number of mistakes, but just going by the numbers, he seems to holding better th…

> claimed cheating in the wake of his election

You're forgetting the birthirism, the claim that Obama was ineligible for the presidency because he was born abroad, complete with theatrical demands for his birth certificate.

Re: U.S. To Seek Social Media Details from All Visa Applicants

#345

Post by dragonwriter »

downandout wrote: post #261
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One nice thing about having a President with 50%+ disapproval [1] is all the things that got swept under the rug, previously, can now be made alarming. This might be an unintended way the system clears detritus and scope creep. [1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/...

Isn't it always the case that the President has "disapproval" ratings around 50% though? Half the country tends to like the person they voted for, and half the country has sour grapes because their side lost. Obama's disapproval ratings also hovered above 50% at several points in his Presidency [1]. So it isn't Trump's "disapproval" ratings that are new for any President, it's the level of hatred that the press has f…

> Isn't it always the case that the President has "disapproval" ratings around 50% though?

No, it's not. From the source cited upthread, here's what other Presidents had at the same point in their Presidency as Trump's current 53.6% disapproval:

Obama: 45.3% Bush 43: 17.6% Clinton: 40.2% Bush 41: 15.3% Reagan: 45.0% Carter: 34.5% Ford: 38.6% Nixon: 31.4% Johnson: 15.1% Kennedy: 12.0% Eisenhower: 22.2% Truman: 45.1%

Re: U.S. To Seek Social Media Details from All Visa Applicants

#346

Post by bsimpson »

opportune wrote: post #301
larkeith wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn't to go after everyone who fails to completely or accurately answer, but rather to provide a pretext for the deportation of people the government disfavor but lack a criminal case against; for example, an immigrant opposition leader, protestor, or whistleblower.

Yes exactly. Laws which de jure make everyone a criminal simply give the government an excuse to de facto imprison or expel whomever they want, and should be avoided at all costs

This is the same reason it bothers me that the actual speed limit is an unknown and inconsistent number approximately 15mph above the one they post and can punish you for exceeding.

Re: U.S. To Seek Social Media Details from All Visa Applicants

#347

Post by bsimpson »

ajeet_dhaliwal wrote: post #6

When the United States does something like this others start doing it too, sometimes seemingly just to reciprocate or spite. The US contributes so much to the world with respect to tech, business, culture and science but it’s also an exporter of increasing bureaucracy.

Happens already with visa fees. I believe one of the reasons Americans need to purchase Indian visas in advance is because Indians must do so to enter America.

Re: U.S. To Seek Social Media Details from All Visa Applicants

#348

Post by dragonwriter »

thinkloop wrote: post #339
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One nice thing about having a President with 50%+ disapproval [1] is all the things that got swept under the rug, previously, can now be made alarming. This might be an unintended way the system clears detritus and scope creep. [1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/...

> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/... Check out George W. Bush's ratings in the comparisons below the fold - massive spike peaking at a little less than 90% approval right around 9/11, and almost always staying above 50%. I really thought he was unpopular.

That’s only through the same point in his Presidency as where Trump is currently; W. was really unpopular by the time he left office, IIRC, a little worse than Trump's current numbers.

Re: U.S. To Seek Social Media Details from All Visa Applicants

#349

Post by pjc50 »

_acme wrote: post #198
cerebellum wrote: post #135

Your wife forgets to list that yahoo mail account to which she no longer has access and everything is deleted: family gets deported.* You forget to list that LiveJournal, Advogato or Quora accounts: family gets deported.* Your daughter forgets to list that Pinterest account: family gets deported.* Your son forgets to list that last.fm or SoundCloud account: family gets deported.* Your mom forgets her Academia.edu acc…

Under what conditions would any of these events actually occur? The government isn't going to waste resources to deport someone solely for forgetting an account; they would only go to such effort if there's another reason that they actually care about to deport that person.

In the UK, the government stupidly set a net migration target. Therefore there is an incentive to deport anyone simply to meet quota.

Latest round of stupidity is schemes to encourage doctors to come work in rural areas ... that don't meet the salary requirements for visas, so the NHS spends money recruiting people that the Home Office rejects.

Re: U.S. To Seek Social Media Details from All Visa Applicants

#350

Post by downandout »

dragonwriter wrote: post #343
downandout wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were Obama’s disapproval ratings not always in the 40-55% range, which are right where Trump’s are? The data suggests they were. Considering how laughably biased the media has been against Trump, relative to the exact opposite treatment that Obama had, he’s actually doing amazingly well in this regard. I think Trump has made a tremendous number of mistakes, but just going by the numbers, he seems to holding better th…

> Were Obama’s disapproval ratings not always in the 40-55% range, which are right where Trump’s are? No, they were not always in that range, and that's a huge range; the only time Trump has been anywhere near 40% is the initial honeymoon phase, where Obama was in the 20s. > My guess is Obama’s disapproval rating would have started off far higher too if Republicans were rioting in the streets and claimed cheating in…

No, they were not always in that range, and that's a huge range

They weren’t always there, but they certainly wound up there as his Presidency dragged on and things like Obamacare began to hit people’s wallets. Where it wound up is what matters, as people can’t disapprove of things that haven’t happened yet (except in Trump’s case, where some Democrats were calling for impeachment before he was inaugurated).

Yes, mass protests tend to be a symptom of widespread and strong opposition

The protests were driven by the media’s response, which were unlike anything that any candidate has faced before. The media was furious that they were unable to influence the election for Hillary, and then they realized that they could profit from the polarization. With enough negative media coverage, anything can sound like a big problem to those that allow the media to shape their opinions.

Post reply on HN