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

81–90 of 276 posts

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#81

Post by hueving »

chimprich wrote: post #61
aedron wrote: post #5

You know what a lot of people consider worse than Donald Trump? The status quo. That's what I feel is missing in all this indignation - where were you before? The political system has been deeply broken for decades, with the same unjust policies being pursued regardless of which public face was on it - imperialist militaristic foreign policies abroad, economic inequality at home. All sold to the public with glib mark…

> There's a lot not to like about Donald Trump, but for one thing he is an outsider to the established system Or from another perspective a billionaire managed to get elected through spending enormous amounts of cash on a huge publicity machine that imprinted a simplistic and repetitive message of being an outsider on large numbers of people as if that in itself is a positive quality. /Serial killers/ are outsiders.

He spent less than Clinton, no?

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#82

Post by birken »

ominous wrote: post #63
rtpg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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…

> 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 religion is Islam, therefore by prioritizing refugee claims by people who practice a minority religion they are de-prioritizing claims by refugees solely due to being muslim.

-----

Also Donald Trump once released a press release stating:

> "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,"

----

There is no reason to twist the reality of the situation. Donald Trump has talked many times about banning Muslims from entering the US. The text of the bill allows for Muslims to be banned or at least de-prioritized from being able to enter the country due to their religion. Why anybody would assume the main intention of the executive order is not to do the exact thing Donald Trump has talked about doing?

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#83

Post by noelwelsh »

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?

Imagine you're a person who was strongly against "[b]ombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments[,] and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured". Now imagine that the US has just elected a president far more conservative (and volatile!) than his predecessor, and a result there is a widespread movement for progressive political change, in line with your beliefs, from people who are normally not engaged in the political process. Do you:

a) bitch and moan at the johnny-come-latelys climbing onto your bandwagon; or

b) accept that society reacts in a non-linear way and use the opportunity to actually achieve something meaningful.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#84

Post by lawless123 »

barking wrote: post #51
aedron wrote: post #5

You know what a lot of people consider worse than Donald Trump? The status quo. That's what I feel is missing in all this indignation - where were you before? The political system has been deeply broken for decades, with the same unjust policies being pursued regardless of which public face was on it - imperialist militaristic foreign policies abroad, economic inequality at home. All sold to the public with glib mark…

Trump is not doing anything he didn't say he'd do. I don't suppose there was ever a possibility of Jeff or all the people currently protesting, voting for Trump in the first place. So, aren't we just seeing the same people who were anti-Trump before the election, protesting now? The election of Trump came as a shock even during the count because the Trump voters tended to be quieter and/or ignored. But they won the e…

>Trump voters tended to be quieter and/or ignored.

haha

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#85

Post by pg314 »

venomsnake wrote: post #72
dredmorbius wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. No it is not. "Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’" “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.” “I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'"…

Still it is not. Because when you leave out China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Germany, Turkey, UK, France ... which each have a lot of Muslims there whether in relative or absolute terms. The ban is only for arabs in very unstable countries and Iran. There is no good reason to allow entry of people from countries that are at (civil) war and Iran is adversary, so there is n…

> There is no good reason to allow entry of people from countries that are at (civil) war

There is a very good reason: a humanitarian one. I do not know how a nation where 70% of the population calls itself christian could turn away refugees from war-torn countries.

> there is no reason for non diplomatic personal Iranians to enter US at all.

Top US universities and tech firms beg to differ. The US got the best universities and leading tech firms exactly because of immigrants. Paul Graham's essay about this is interesting: http://paulgraham.com/95.html

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#86

Post by hueving »

estsauver wrote: post #27
aswerty wrote: post #14

This is the second political post I've seen sky rocket on HN this morning. I assume a mod intervened on the last one since it disappeared rather quickly. Do we really want to start political discussions in HN? Politics creates enough friction between people in real life let alone discussions with strangers over the internet.

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.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#87

Post by d3ckard »

zimpenfish wrote: post #74
d3ckard wrote: post #68

Nice post, though there are some caveats. As a Pole (as some of you know, we do have some issues here too, though many would disagree) I feel at least a bit competent to give you a bit of advice, so you can get out of it better than we did. 1. Donald Trump is not your enemy, nor a problem. He is a manifestation of the problem, which is current state of your society and problems you have. Do not believe that you can j…

> 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.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#88

Post by rdtsc »

noelwelsh wrote: post #83
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?

Imagine you're a person who was strongly against "[b]ombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments[,] and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured". Now imagine that the US has just elected a president far more conservative (and volatile!) than his predecessor, and a result there is a widespread movement for progressive political change, in line with your beliefs, from people who are normally n…

Why does it have to be a and b only. Why not both or add c and d to the list.

He brought a valid point it seems but it was "bitching and moaning". And gave him a binary choice to pick between.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#89

Post by moultano »

SBCRec wrote: post #15
levlaz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured. Who is saying that this is acceptable? > 90-day ban on immigrants coming from war-torn countries I think the key issue here is that this ban includes valid Green Card holders and people who have Visas. This means that they have already spent up to two years being vetted. This policy makes no sense. If…

I believe he is referring to the global hate train (media hype?) being run on Trump, magnitudes higher than any directed at the previous administrations responsible for those actions. edit: Are military actions against these countries targeting Muslim communities worse than removing immigration privileges of Muslim communities? I dunno how to approach this question...

The people he's targeting now are Americans, which for better or worse people are much less willing to tolerate. Green card and visa holders are Americans.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#90

Post by aniforprez »

zimpenfish wrote: post #76
chimprich wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a lot not to like about Donald Trump, but for one thing he is an outsider to the established system Or from another perspective a billionaire managed to get elected through spending enormous amounts of cash on a huge publicity machine that imprinted a simplistic and repetitive message of being an outsider on large numbers of people as if that in itself is a positive quality. /Serial killers/ are outsiders.

To be fair, he didn't spend an enormous amount of cash -relative to other political campaigns-. Didn't need to because he got a lot of free advertising from the media (eg. his fake-birther/really-his-hotel announcement that got wide coverage.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-electi...

A billion dollars. Less than what Hillary spent sure but it's not as if he coasted into Presidency by spending a few nickels. Even relative to Hillary's ENORMOUS sum this is no small amount

Post reply on HN