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

Welcome, ACLU

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#691

Post by sueders101 »

deeth_starr wrote: post #679
sueders101 wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In response to your second edit; the vast majority of black voters voted for Hillary, a significantly greater proportion than any other race. Hillary ended up with 88%[1] of the black vote. Furthermore turnout was down across all demographics in 2016. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e...

But compared to the last few elections they stayed home [1]. It could be voter suppression but they were also down in California. [1] http://www.salon.com/2016/11/10/the-real-reason-black-voters...

Your link only talks about early voting in South Carolina. I haven't been able to find a source on black voter turnout numbers nationwide in 2016. As I said in my previous comment, voter turnout was down across all demographics[1]. It's very difficult to vote more loyally to the democratic party than black people have over the past two decades or so.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-...

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#692

Post by freehunter »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #672
freehunter wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90% of what Trump and his supporters are saying truly is not acceptable, you're right. Banning people based on their religion, canceling visas that have already been granted, firing reasonable dissenters rather than working with them, discriminating against LGBTQ folks, destroying access to women's health care, those are all completely unacceptable ideas. It doesn't matter that some people believe in them, some peopl…

"Banning people based on their religion, ..." The ban is based upon country. Muslims in general aren't being banned, otherwise travelers from countries such as Indonesia would be affected. They aren't. "...canceling visas that have already been granted, ..." If the visa has been granted to somebody from a country to which the immigration halt is applied, or otherwise is now subject to additional background checks tha…

What they've done versus what they have said they wanted to do is not the same. The trouble is, what they have said they wanted to do is really, really awful. Sure Trump himself isn't repealing LGBTQ protections, but the Republicans really want to, and aren't shy about it.

And you're calling the Attorney General a terrorist? For saying that she didn't think the EO was legally defensible? Something that AGs do all the time, because they're legal professionals and cannot defend something they know is indefensible? It literally happens all the time. AGs very commonly refuse to defend against laws they don't think, in their legal opinion, will stand up to a successful legal challenge. Do a Google search for "attorney general refuses to defend law" and you'll see just how often it happens. Usually they don't get fired for it, because that's their job. It's not like Trump asked her opinion on it, something he really probably should have done.

Oh and no, the government does not have the right to revoke already-granted visas and green cards. The courts have issued a stay on that particular piece, because it's clearly unconstitutional.

And one of the first EOs Trump signed blocked funding for any healthcare provider who talked about abortion, anywhere across the world. Which is following one of the promises made by Republicans, to make sure Planned Parenthood (one of the largest women's healthcare providers in the nation) gets defunded.

This is the last I will debate any specific things you want to call out. My point wasn't to argue line-by-line but rather that these beliefs are not conservative, they're authoritarian. And that's not okay. No one is attacking conservatives, they're attacking fascists. Unfortunately, fascists have started calling themselves conservatives, something conservatives really should push back against.

So here I am, pushing back. Your comment has you sounding like a fascist. I'm sorry you can't see that. Conservatism has nothing to do with banning muslims, building a wall, or regulating people's sex lives. Those are authoritarian values.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#693

Post by jMyles »

village-idiot wrote: post #630
jMyles wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are an unqualified, categorically "good" organization The ACLU is wonderful, no doubt about that. But I think some people do put an asterisk next to the group because of their (obviously somewhat strange) categorization of the protections of the 2nd amendment as outside the scope of American civil liberties.

That's like castigating someone who volunteers at a soup kitchen for not volunteering at every soup kitchen.

It's more like, in a world with exactly eight soup kitchens, the "soup kitchen support union" specifically excluding one from its support network and issuing a statement that, despite its soup having similar origins and ingredients, doesn't qualify as soup in to today's palette unless consumed collectively by all of society.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#694

Post by sidlls »

chc wrote: post #440
sidlls wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, I fully expect to see continued activity on this front even after the next Democratic adminstration and congress continues the Bush-Obama-Trump programs that are (finally) meeting resistance. I won't hold my breath waiting for that, though. Usually what happens is that when one's favored party regains power the criticism suddenly disappears.

Yes, Obama did some bad stuff, and organizations like the ACLU and EFF did push back on it — you can Google "ACLU slams Obama" for a few examples — but Trump is shaping up to be way past the norm, so you shouldn't expect just a normal amount of resistance.

The only thing "past the norm" here is that Trump isn't hiding behind "the process" or rhetoric. All of the stuff Trump is doing had been either set up by or done, before, by past administrations. It's just that there hasn't been this level of scrutiny or opposition to it.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#695

Post by giardini »

bb611 wrote: post #654
giardini wrote: post #612

Why, oh why, has this been posted here? Is there possibly a single institution that serves as more of a lightning rod for anger in the USA, in any political direction, than the ACLU? Would a similar article be posted about the NRA, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, or Southern Poverty Law Center (all which, along with ACLU, do excellent work for their contributors/supporters)? From the ycombinator Hacker News Guidelines a…

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. The president of the United States just signed an order legally barring hundreds of millions of people from entering the US on the basis of their country of origin, which is in fact unprecedented. > This topic now is yet another gathering point for all unhappy with the election results. Accurate.…

bb611 says> "The president ...signed an order legally barring hundreds of millions of people from entering the US ..."

But the reality is

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-anti-trum...

"The fact of the matter is 325,000 people from foreign countries came into the United States" on Saturday, Priebus told NBC's "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd. "And 109 people were detained for further questioning."

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#696

Post by anigbrowl »

nkurz wrote: post #593
anigbrowl wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there was that thing about Trump calling for a total Muslim ban a little over a yer ago: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-... Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. [...] It's entirely reasonable to consider a politician's stated aspirations as well as their…

until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on What do you feel about the argument that we've "figured out" that Muslims coming from these larger countries are not a significant threat, but that our visa and refugee policies are not yet sufficiently reliable for us to say this about the countries that we've recently been bombing? Do you think there is a legitimate threat, but the measures in the…

I feel it's kind of bullshit because we already perform exhaustive checking on applicants for refugee status, and while it's certainly harder for someone coming from a war zone to provide official documentation of the risks they face, there is abundant detailed guidance for consular officers and other immigration-focused employees of the government to assess risk factors. Unverifiable claims can frequently be validated through circumstantial evidence like medical inspections.

If you don't mind legal reading, most large cities have law libraries and most large law libraries keep copies of Bender's Immigration bulletin or Interpreter Releases, two professional journals which chronicle legal proceedings in immigration cases. You may find it instructive to study some in order to get a better idea of the quality and weight of evidence offered in such proceedings.

Our Visa and refugee policies are the product of over a century of operational and historical experience. It's not as if we've never been faced with such complexities before and can't figure out where to begin. The claim that we can't figure this out right now is literally an appeal to ignorance. The reality is that we have tough and elaborate screening procedures in place already, and abundant data on the risk factors.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#697

Post by sidlls »

deeth_starr wrote: post #447
muninn_ wrote: post #41

Although I think the American Civil Liberties Union is incredibly valuable and I'm glad they have a lot more money now to fight for the American people, I'm questioning all of this. Where was the outpouring of funding when black people were being gunned down by cops from West Coast organizations? Where has YCombinator been as our own impoverished African-Americans are getting slaughtered in the streets of Chicago? Wh…

Why don't you google "black lives matter ACLU". They have fought data collection about BLM protesters as well as defended people unlawfully detained at protests. And we have been funding the ACLU individually. I like that YCombinator is now trying to help them as a org. This comment is unpopular because you're just being a troll. Edit: I get you are complaining about the recent swell of funding. And YCombinator proba…

What makes you think Hillary supported or supports Mexicans or Muslims? I mean, granted she used those groups as a foil to beat up on Trump with but as a rule her past actions (e.g. as Sec. Of State) indicate at best a casual (and in my view cruel) indifference to those communities.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#698

Post by int_19h »

pc86 wrote: post #364
muninn_ wrote: post #41

Although I think the American Civil Liberties Union is incredibly valuable and I'm glad they have a lot more money now to fight for the American people, I'm questioning all of this. Where was the outpouring of funding when black people were being gunned down by cops from West Coast organizations? Where has YCombinator been as our own impoverished African-Americans are getting slaughtered in the streets of Chicago? Wh…

> Maybe I'm too cynical and look at these moves (AirBnB, Uber, Google, etc...) as marketing moves. Of course they're marketing moves. Corporations, especially the three you listed, do not do anything that doesn't generate profit or open the window to future profit.

And even if it's true, so what? If we have created an environment in which this kind of activism is a profitable marketing move, why, that's awesome, and let's keep it up! I trust the profit motive more than I would trust altruism, when it comes to corporations. It's our job as a society to make sure that doing the right thing is also the profitable thing (and vice versa).

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#699

Post by dragonwriter »

sidlls wrote: post #694
chc wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Obama did some bad stuff, and organizations like the ACLU and EFF did push back on it — you can Google "ACLU slams Obama" for a few examples — but Trump is shaping up to be way past the norm, so you shouldn't expect just a normal amount of resistance.

The only thing "past the norm" here is that Trump isn't hiding behind "the process" or rhetoric. All of the stuff Trump is doing had been either set up by or done, before, by past administrations. It's just that there hasn't been this level of scrutiny or opposition to it.

No, much of it hasn't been done by past administrations, which is why whenever someone tries to trot out a supposed concrete example, it's usually a wildly different act than the one Trump did that is supposedly similar to, either in substance or relevant context or, most often, both.

Re: Welcome, ACLU

#700

Post by HeavenBanned »

zo1 wrote: post #572
HeavenBanned wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>half the people on these boards step over a homeless person to get to work every morning. But don't you think half the people on these boards would also support a vast overhaul of the tax system that prioritizes the military/war over services for the homeless? Currently 60+% of our taxes go towards the military. That's unbelievable. Why not chop that in half and redirect it towards welfare services? Or is that too h…

Come on... The budget for military spending in 2016 was 15-17%. What you're regurgitating was actually a hoax/misleading meme photo that propagated that number in order to paint Republicans as war mongers. All it took was one Google search to confirm. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/...

Ok, going purely by 2015 numbers, we spend 609.3Billion on Military. Only 16% of the budget, right?

Then how can China (our next biggest competitor) get away with spending only 150-200 Billion? Why are we spending more than three times the amount China is spending on military? How can Russia (our perceived biggest threat right now in the media zeitgeist)...only get by with threatening us with a paltry 66 Billion? Think about that: we as a nation have collectively decided to outmatch Russia by ten fold. This way of spending is out of control, and I'm not sure how else I can get this very simple point across.

I think it's clear to anyone that we could easily assuage some of the real problems of homelessness if we just cut our Military budget in half.

That would still put us ahead of China, far ahead of Russia, _and_ we'd help those who cannot help themselves immensely.

But I know what the response is going to be: "Big Stick" and all that oft-repeated Military-Industrial justification.

I'm sorry but there's no excuse no matter how you slice it, even if my initial numbers are wrong (which I concede) it's still a terrible situation.

Post reply on HN