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

I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

blog.codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 276 posts

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#101

Post by redsummer »

birken wrote: post #82
ominous wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It excepts non-Muslims Can I get a source on that? I just want to read about it, not doubting you.

From the EA: > "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 " In all of these 7 countries the majority religi…

Are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered? Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'? What would be worse, having a religious test or being driven to extinction?

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#102

Post by masklinn »

rtpg wrote: post #46
redsummer wrote: post #37

This is hysteria. "he signed an executive order that literally, not figuratively, banned Muslims from entering the US" Of the 10 countries with the largest Muslim populations, only one - Iran - has been restricted: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_proje... The list of countries was previously drawn up by the Obama administration. I'm not in favor of the restrictions, but there is no need to make…

- It was a ban of people from 7 muslim-dominated countries - It excepts non-Muslims (religious test) - It includes dual-citizens, and permanent residents. Even when you become the citizen of another country, you're still tainted according to the EO. Even when you've been vetted for the green card, you're still tainted. - Guiliani is on the record that Trump said "I want a Muslim ban" and this was drafted to be the "m…

> Imagine England banning Irish citizens for the IRA.

The IRA at least came from Ireland, that's like England banning Scots for the IRA.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#103

Post by grey-area »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #97
grey-area wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no, none of your stated problems are important to trump supporters or reasons for him to be elected. America first appeals to them, in spite of, or sometimes because of, all the nasty implications of it and the racial and social revolution it requires. Trump will not stop NSA surveillance, reduce copyright terms, meaningfully reform Wall St (he hired Goldman Sachs alumni), meaningfully reform the tax code or…

America First and protectionism is how Trump won Michigan, not how he won the Republican primary (and thus Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, etc.) He got nominated by being the candidate most resembling a middle finger to the establishment. The existing system has been systematically destroying the middle class, and the people see it happening but don't understand why or how to fix it, but they know that voting for establ…

I honestly don't think he has promised anything to address the points you raised, or has any intention to.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#104

Post by Ygg2 »

Angostura wrote: post #91
MisterWebz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet people seemed to be awfully calm when Obama was droning weddings. I'm not saying we should've put so much hate towards Obama as well, I'm saying we should put things into perspective.

> Yet people seemed to be awfully calm when Obama was droning weddings. No, no they weren't. However it was always pretty apparent that the administration took death of civilians seriously and did all it could to minimise it. That doesn't mean that there weren't screw-ups.

There were never mass protests on this scale. Unless, I missed a huge protest.

What seems to me, like an outside observer, is that Obama's orders didn't ruin lives of Americans. Unlike these.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#105

Post by rdtsc »

varjag wrote: post #12
MisterWebz wrote: post #8

Bombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured. These are things that are acceptable, but a 90-day ban on immigrants coming from war-torn countries, that's a step too far? Has everyone seriously lost their mind?

You are arguing strawman. Most people who are anti-ban were also against Iraq war and waterboarding.

The level of outrage doesn't seem to make sense. If they are ready to donate to ACLU, drive to a protest at an airport, subscribe for more media, over a botched travel ban surely they protesting 10x harder when actual killing was talking place.

I even got an email from Lyft about it. A driving app on my phone is now telling about this travel ban too and how much they are donating to the ACLU.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#107

Post by 3131s »

dredmorbius wrote: post #31
YarickR wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's 8 year long trail of posts shaming and blaming previous administration and personally pres. Obama for those actions ? I see hypocrisy reigning supreme since Jan 20, from both sides.

Four pages of results right here on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query="drone%20strikes"&sort=byPopul...

13 pages in the last week for 'Trump':

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=trump&sort=byPopularity&prefix...

I do however think that Trump is an extreme problem, but also a foreseeable one. I think it's revisionist history to say that Obama's terrible presidency got due attention on HN or anywhere else. Democracy Now! was one of the few outlets that did though, so kudos for posting them.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#108

Post by masklinn »

redsummer wrote: post #101
birken wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the EA: > "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 " In all of these 7 countries the majority religi…

Are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered? Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'? What would be worse, having a religious test or being driven to extinction?

> Are you suggesting it's wrong to prioritise religious minorities who are being murdered?

You're apparently assuming people not from these minority religions aren't being murdered for some inane reason. How about prioritising people who are getting murdered regardless of the underlying reason?

> Would you, during WW2, say no to Jews, because it would be a 'religious test'?

Apparently you would, during WW2, say no to 7th day adventists, gays or socialists.

Incidentally your invocation of Jews in WWII is interesting given the administration's all-live-matter-ing of these exact same WWII jews on Remembrance Day, confirmed to have been intentional.

> What would be worse, having a religious test or being driven to extinction?

How about neither and judging each and every application instead of applying nonsensical blanket bans?

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#109

Post by rdtsc »

Angostura wrote: post #91
MisterWebz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet people seemed to be awfully calm when Obama was droning weddings. I'm not saying we should've put so much hate towards Obama as well, I'm saying we should put things into perspective.

> Yet people seemed to be awfully calm when Obama was droning weddings. No, no they weren't. However it was always pretty apparent that the administration took death of civilians seriously and did all it could to minimise it. That doesn't mean that there weren't screw-ups.

Not even close. How many of the tech CEOs who wrote blogs about the ban lobbied previous administration to end the war and arming of rebels in that part of the world?

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#110

Post by pjc50 »

_b8r0 wrote: post #100
pjc50 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that, due to the two-party system, complaining about bad Democrat policy on these issues was always somewhat muted at elections because the likely alternative wasn't some better Democrat but a Republican with a far worse policy. Which is pretty much exactly what's happened. (The same applies to British politics: yes, the Labour party were wrong over the Iraq war, but does anyone think the Conservative party were…

> The same applies to British politics Your example is a poor one, and the British electorate have very different motivations when it comes to voting for very different parties with very different backgrounds, in very different elections with a very different governmental structure.

I've seen people arguing that, since Clinton was the "pro-war" candidate (due to her work at the State Department), one should vote for Trump.

It's true that the governmental structure is different; the ability of an incoming administration to sweep away the civil service and security services is much less in the UK. However, the recent R (Miller) -v- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union case has a useful parallel: to what extent is the executive able to deprive people of rights by simple order?

Post reply on HN