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

211–220 of 276 posts

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#211

Post by zimpenfish »

d3ckard wrote: post #87
zimpenfish wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is quite likely, that if Democrats nominated Sanders, he would win with Trump. I haven't seen a single political analysis which shows a path for him to do that. Do you have any examples?

During his campaign he has paid for numerous polls to check the scenario. As far as I know, he won every one of those, which was not the case for Clinton. I believe that it is actually highly plausible, as in my opinion the whole election was spinned to one question - "change or no change". It was damn hard for Clinton to prove she's for change, which would not be the case with Sanders.

Given that (I think) every poll up to November had Clinton handily winning the presidency, I think we can probably take those polls with a grain of salt when it comes to "proof".

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#212

Post by facepalm »

whorleater wrote: post #209
facepalm wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the US is at war with Muslim groups in those countries, so it makes sense to (temporarily) ban Muslims? But how do they make sure someone is really a Christian? Also the ban seems temporary to give them time to improve security checks. Not saying it was handled well, but perhaps there is no other sensible way to do it? If you announce it beforehand, people you want to filter out will just rush to get through…

> Perhaps the US is at war with Muslim groups in those countries, so it makes sense to (temporarily) ban Muslims? But how do they make sure someone is really a Christian? That's the entire point, enforcing religious tests is absurd. > Not saying it was handled well, but perhaps there is no other sensible way to do it? If you announce it beforehand, people you want to filter out will just rush to get through the door?…

"That's the entire point, enforcing religious tests is absurd."

Are Christians actually exempt, or are you referring to the "prioritization of people who are religiously persecuted", who happen to include Christians in those Muslim countries?

"Yes, shocking enough, due process is necessary. And perhaps we don't grant visas and green cards to people who are considered dangerous then?"

But that seems to be the goal? I don't understand you?

"Guiliani" - will watch later, can not watch videos right now.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#213

Post by diyorgasms »

hueving wrote: post #86
estsauver wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think so. Communities that aren't willing to deal with this tragedy that's rapidly unfolding in America aren't communities I want to be a part of.

That's the problem with political posts. One side sees it as good, one side sees it as a tragedy, and then the remaining 80%+ of the people are subjected to the bickering.

If 80% of people don't care then that's even more reason to have these discussions. There is no excuse for disengagement at a time like this. Disinterest and silence are allies of oppression.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#214

Post by whorleater »

facepalm wrote: post #212
whorleater wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps the US is at war with Muslim groups in those countries, so it makes sense to (temporarily) ban Muslims? But how do they make sure someone is really a Christian? That's the entire point, enforcing religious tests is absurd. > Not saying it was handled well, but perhaps there is no other sensible way to do it? If you announce it beforehand, people you want to filter out will just rush to get through the door?…

"That's the entire point, enforcing religious tests is absurd." Are Christians actually exempt, or are you referring to the "prioritization of people who are religiously persecuted", who happen to include Christians in those Muslim countries? "Yes, shocking enough, due process is necessary. And perhaps we don't grant visas and green cards to people who are considered dangerous then?" But that seems to be the goal? I…

> prioritization of people who are religiously persecuted", who happen to include Christians in those Muslim countries?

Christians are hardly persecuted in Muslim countries.

> But that seems to be the goal? I don't understand you?

A blanket ban is not due process. These people were legally allowed to immigrate, and a ban (thereby leaving them off of American soil) is not due process.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#215

Post by kranner »

moultano wrote: post #165
kranner wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This map doesn't say anything about visa holders and green card holders. It is only relevant for persons born in the country, which I'm assuming most visa/green card holders aren't.

It was intended to convey the difference in attitudes, not relevant law.

I got that, but the attitudes about the relevant 'jus' may well be different. It may be as you say it is, but I'm not sure if that's not just a subjective opinion - at least from this graph.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#216

Post by Mahn »

whack wrote: post #194
refurb wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, I have a lot of respect for Iran. It's a beautiful country with great people. But when I turn on the news and I see "Death to America" being chanted or Iranians trample or burn the American flag the rust is broken. Not to mention the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing which killed hundreds of Americans and was committed by a group directly funded by the Iranian gov't. The situation feels very strange. Empty…

Think of the most idiotic people you've seen in America. Maybe it's the "God hates fags" protestors. Maybe it's the 9/11 truthers. Whatever. Now think how you would feel if people halfway around the world judged you and affiliated you with those people, just because you're from the same country.

Funnily enough, that's a little bit what's happening with America now. A lot of Europeans can't help but think that the entirety of the US have lost their senses electing Trump, when in reality the country could not be more divided.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#217

Post by ryanx435 »

1) it's a temporary ban.

2) it doesn't target muslims, it targets people from failed states

3) it is a continuation and more intense version of previous travel bans passed by the Obama administration

4) isis has repeatedly said that they are actively sending sleeper agents to Europe and America posing as refugees

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#218

Post by rdtsc »

ionised wrote: post #164
rdtsc wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which people should we listen to?

> 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. There were in fact people and organisations who spoke up when Obama was droning schools, hospitals, wedings and funerals. They do exist. People just chose not to listen.

Yoy're right. Democracy Now reported We've bombed hospitals, weddings, even an American citizen. It also looks like we've been at least indirectly arming ISIS in the region. I watching to see if there will be more revelations about that.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#219

Post by geowwy »

splike wrote: post #205
mdemare wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have nots? Trump voters were richer than Clinton voters.

Source?

Probably this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps...

TLDR: * Households earning <$30,000 were significantly more likely to vote for Clinton. * Households earning $50,000-$99,999 were a little more likely to vote for Trump. * Other income brackets are more or less the same.

Post reply on HN