Time to Take a Stand • Hacker News Board

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#281

Post by fullshark » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

WhitneyLand wrote: post #240

_m8fo wrote: post #7

Why is that all of these posts saying to "take a stand" fail to explain the political process? I'll just quote myself here. If you want to help stop trump the most effective ways are to: 1. Call - Local congresspeople (http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/) - Senators (https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/) - Local officials (https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials) 2. Participate - Get involved in local electi…

>Why is that all of these posts saying to "take a stand" fail to explain the political process? Because most everyone here already knows these things. And because the implication that it would be a useful strategy to keep reiterating basic principles seems reductionist. This whole thing is a complex phenomenon that even experts are still trying to figure out. How was the sentiment or 27% of voters underestimated so b…

I don't think most people actually do know these things, or necessarily have the motivation to follow through on them. I think most of these blog posts are about self-expression and venting frustration more than anything else.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#282

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

einarvollset wrote: post #235

gizmo wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minorities on average earn less, have less job security and despite this they utterly rejected Trump and his hateful platform. Trump voters also weren't the most economically desperate, those people voted Clinton. Trump did well among solidly middle class white people in rural areas. So no, Trump didn't get elected because people desperate for a job were willing to overlook his hate.

Data does not support your opinion (yes I know Latinos is only one minority): https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-bett...

65 percent Clinton to 29 percent Trump is a pretty strong margin regardless of how it compares to the previous election.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#283

Post by tlogan » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

So Trump is a racist homophobe but he also won the elections: straight and fair. At last 45% of American population is like that - if their "economic anxiety" causes them to ignore rights of LGBT people, immigrants, latinos, blacks, and other minorities, then just imagine what they will do when there is no food on the table.

I cannot blame these people: that is how it is. But we need to accept that fact: we live in a very diverse country where there are people who do not share the same moral values as SV, NY, LA, etc.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#284

Post by rayiner » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

ftrflyr wrote: post #214

I'm sorry, but you fail to understand exactly what the ACLU stands for - the first word says it all. American. Green Card holders, refugees, and illegal immigrants are not Americans. We need to and should protect Americans first. Period. For all of you who don't understand not agree with this, perhaps you are unamerican?

Green card holders are subject to the draft, so I think that counts.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#285

Post by wcummings » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #26

I am affected personally by this. I have extended family members from Indonesia and Malaysia in the US who are still on Green Card. Although those countries aren't affected by the ban, who knows when Trump will decide to change his mind at his whim. But the time for talk has passed. I don't think very much is going to happen because Trump is empowered by his election victory, and he won't listen to anyone. Has he eve…

>Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.

This false equivalence convinced people to vote for Trump. No way Hillary would have implemented this ban.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#286

Post by cobralibre » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:42 PM UTC

qwertyuiop924 wrote: post #27

jowiar wrote: post #11

This is meaningless grandstanding until: 1) YC voted Thiel off the island 2) YC establishes a policy of "take money from Thiel and you are toxic to us" Anyone in a position of power who took a look at Trump and didn't recoil with disgust needs to be exiled from civil society.

>Anyone in a position of power who took a look at Trump and didn't recoil with disgust needs to be exiled from civil society. I don't like Trump, but fighting him isn't worth going against the very principles we fight for. People have a right to their beliefs, even if their beliefs are stupid. If not, than what kind of country are we?

> People have a right to their beliefs, even if their beliefs are stupid. If not, than what kind of country are we?

Politics is a process of conflict and negotiation between varied, competing interests. In a liberal democracy, "people have a right to their beliefs" is the starting point for that process, not the endpoint.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#287

Post by refurb » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:42 PM UTC

lebanon_tn wrote: post #161

I strongly encourage people who consider Donald Trump to be a threat to consider arming themselves in accordance with the 2nd Amendment. While my hope for the future does not involve needing to use them, if the situation one day comes to that, I would prefer that people who are indifferent to the actions of this administration NOT be the only ones with guns.

Wow. Suddenly the left supports the 2nd amendment? I never thought I'd see the day.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#288

Post by javajosh » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:42 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #251

meritt wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. A 90-day suspension and a ban are the same thing. ban is defined as "officially or legally prohibit." -- duration is irrelevant. > Second, it's not "Muslim" The executive order specifically exempts people of minority religions in those countries "prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious…

You completely failed to address the OP's comment about the largest Muslim countries in the world (Indonesian and Pakistan) not being a part of the ban. If Trump was targeting Muslims, wouldn't he have started there?

Perhaps because he has business interests there? Pakistan is particularly interesting because the San Bernadino shooters were from there. Saudi Arabia is also not on the list, despite being the home of Wahabist terrorism. I'm totally against the ban, but these inconsistencies are revealing.

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/01/26/countr...

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#289

Post by pm90 » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:42 PM UTC

bobzibub wrote: post #172

karmelapple wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all in a per-individual basis. I know many family members who specifically encouraged this ban. To them, I will now have to have the difficult conversation of how their desire for safety - at any cost to people unlike themselves - has unintended consequences. And I doubt it will be a pleasant conversation.

I think that their desire for safety is not valid either. If an immigrant population believes they are unwanted by the majority, they'll tend to have "no skin in the game" for the society which they live and be much more open to political violence, crime etc. I believe if you compare (in this case) Muslim immigrants to England vs Muslim immigrants to Canada you'll see a difference in acceptance by the majority. Obvio…

Canada does not have anywhere near the same amount of skin in global geopolitics as the US, consequently it has not pissed off large number of people in other countries making it less of a target for bad things. I do appreciate the immigration system in Canada and such, I'm only pointing out why the comparison b/w US and Canada is not correct in this particular matter.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#290

Post by mythrwy » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:42 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #38

The time to take stand was 3 months ago. Things will get a lot worse now before they can get better and no amount of blogging is going to change that. Trump is hell bent on destroying America from within and his followers (who we are not supposed to criticize) are A-Ok with that. Soon to be seen in a theater near you in Europe as well.

"Trump is hell bent on destroying America from within"

No he isn't. Those kind of ridiculous hyperbolic statements don't help anything.

You may disagree with Trump's policies and platform. But "intent on destroying America" is a silly charge. And it is equally silly when (as often happens) it is leveled at the left.