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

Time to Take a Stand

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#811

Post by gizmo »

googlryas wrote: post #802
gizmo wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countries that "happen to be" majority Muslim? Really? What a coincidence! Of course a ban on Muslims is discriminatory against Muslims. Who do you think you're fooling?

Why didn't he ban Indonesians then? Or Turks...or Nigerians? Or Pakistanis? Or the 175M+ Indian Muslims...?

We didn't get mass surveillance overnight either. It started with some surveillance some of the time, and a court order was required. We ended up with mass surveillance 24/7 with barely any oversight or transparency. Human rights erode over time, unless we resist. Donald Trump is just getting started.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#812

Post by CalChris »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #792
CalChris wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clinton paid $850,000 without admitting liability to make a lawsuit go away. Jones' lawsuit was bankrolled by Republicans. Equivocating what Trump bragged about with what Clinton was only accused of is a sad argument.

So, $850K in today's money would be a couple of million? A lot to pay someone, but he got what he wanted in not having to admit liability. I doubt you have watched the Paula Jones interviews from when she was a young woman, since you don't believe that Clinton behaved shamefully in this instance when he was governor. Clinton was an effective president, but he apparently had his bad sides. In no way way am I defending…

You are aware this settlement was only after the court had dismissed the suit. This was just to get her to drop the appeal.

  In no way way am I defending Trump, but I am willing to wait a few months to see if he can accomplish anything positive.
Wow.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#813

Post by tomjen3 »

buyx wrote: post #674
MichaelGG wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>racist Explain how the EO is racist. Blocking a country is not racist. If the EO was "Persians are not allowed in" that'd be different. And homophobe? A gay man spoke at the RNC to huge applause (even made a comment on how getting upset over transgender bathroom use is pointless). These kind of careless accusations just make everyone ignore real charges of racism.

Blocking a country is not racist. If the EO was "Persians are not allowed in" that'd be different. Indeed."Muslim" is not a race. Perhaps a better word would be "bigoted" or "discriminatory" not "racist"? If we are going to be splitting hairs: are Persians a race, or are they an ethnicity?

You can stop being a muslim, you can stop being a christian (I know, I did) and you can stop being a socialist. You can't stop being whatever ethnicity you were when you were born.

Thus this is actually a worse order than a straight out ban on muslims from these countries would be.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#814

Post by cjslep »

bassman9000 wrote: post #471
cjslep wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- A ban is not needed while revising the rules. - Revision doesn't mean suspension of the ban. - Temporary can mean indefinitely. - The overwhelming number of terrorists that commit acts of terrorism on American soil come from people born in the United States of America.

Holy shit, no one has actually read the text. Why do I bother. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli... > (c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards…

I know you mean well. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy.

I in fact did read the text. Specifically because you pointed it out, not in spite of. If your knee jerk reaction is to assume I'm that dumb (the insinuation I am getting), it's really difficult for me to be constructive. And makes me wonder just who you think reads these forums.

All that being said, forgive me for not engaging in this any further.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#815

Post by tomjen3 »

shitgoose wrote: post #705
microtonal wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe Maybe they are not racist homophobes, but they voted a racist homophobe and his cabal into power. They knew that his was one of the expected outcomes. Voting is powerful and you are (co-)responsible for the outcome. If you don't want racist executive orders, don't vote for a racist. Simple as that.

racist homophobes They used to call Trump also an anti-semite in the same sentence. Now he is down to just a racist and homophobe. Have I missed something?

The rabbi at his inauguration? His jewish daughter?

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#816

Post by lefstathiou »

ivraatiems wrote: post #565
lefstathiou wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For many Americans Sam Altman and Madonna are unrelatable so the messaging falls on deaf ears (or is potentially even counter productive). Nobody believes Google or YC is hiring refugees, or that Sam Altman and others are sending their kids to public schools attended by refugees, or living in low to middle income neighborhoods housing refugees and having to manage the increased violence that ensues. All well and good…

Would you say Donald Trump, himself a billionaire celebrity, is someone Middle America can relate to? Why or why not?

A qualified no - Trumps relatability may not matter in this context. There are two parts to this: the message and the messenger.

Speaking in broad strokes here...

I believe more people are relating to (i.e. are inclined to agree with) Trumps [closed border] message and therefore do not need to relate to Trump the messenger.

Fewer people are relating to the open border message and thus, to help guide their analysis, people are looking to the messenger and finding them less relatable.

So there isn't an equal burden of proof / relatability and that's part of the problem. The left is already perceived as being out of touch and their loudest / most visible voices may not be helping that.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#817

Post by mcguire »

leesalminen wrote: post #346
bobzibub wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There c…

On one hand, Teddy wasn't a very nice man. On the other, the US had a German and Irish problem then.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#818

Post by setpatchaddress »

cmurf wrote: post #626
baytrailcat wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that this will not be helpful. The old-guard of Democratic Party hails from these hyper liberal areas (Fienstein, Schumer, Pelosi), and based on what we have seen so far, they aren't even showing a slightest hint of resistance to Trump. See the senate democrat's response to Trump nominees for example. Put enough pressure on them, they will at least form a semblance of resistance which can inspire and have…

Wide latitude has been given on cabinet appointments by the senate, historically. And also with a supreme court nominee looming, there's every reason for Democrats to not use their outrage on cabinet nominees where it won't matter anyway.

You second sentence was the excuse given by Democrats throughout George W. Bush's presidency for every single failure to contain the damage. And they did it every single time, every single violation of the constitution, every single movement-conservative (old-speak for alt-right) Supreme Court pick. The outcome was that newspapers got used to publishing the words "Democrats Capitulate" in headlines. That was great for building the party's brand, as you might imagine.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#819

Post by general_ai »

pavlov wrote: post #736
general_ai wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump stated his intention to stabilize the region. So far he has demonstrated very clearly that he intends to keep his promises. All that needs to happen there is we need to stop arming ISIS, and join forces with Russia and Assad's government to destroy ISIS. It'll be over in a year or two. And if you find the US interventionism repugnant, congratulations, we now have a president who is against it, too.

You mean the guy who, exactly a week ago, said that maybe the USA will have another chance to "keep the oil" from Iraq? Here's the quote from his speech at CIA: "We don’t win anymore. The old expression, “to the victor belong the spoils” -- you remember. I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said,…

Who would you rather get to "keep the oil"? The country that sunk hundreds of billions into first destroying and then rebuilding Iraq, or some other country?

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#820

Post by jacquesm »

shitgoose wrote: post #705
microtonal wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe Maybe they are not racist homophobes, but they voted a racist homophobe and his cabal into power. They knew that his was one of the expected outcomes. Voting is powerful and you are (co-)responsible for the outcome. If you don't want racist executive orders, don't vote for a racist. Simple as that.

racist homophobes They used to call Trump also an anti-semite in the same sentence. Now he is down to just a racist and homophobe. Have I missed something?

Kushner. A good chance that he'll use the American veto in the UN in support of Israel.
Post reply on HN