I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#91

Post by Angostura » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:42 AM UTC

MisterWebz wrote: post #23

varjag wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are arguing strawman. Most people who are anti-ban were also against Iraq war and waterboarding.

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.

> Yet people seemed to be awfully calm when Obama was droning weddings.

No, no they weren't. However it was always pretty apparent that the administration took death of civilians seriously and did all it could to minimise it. That doesn't mean that there weren't screw-ups.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#92

Post by masklinn » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:43 AM UTC

polymatter wrote: post #62

SBCRec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 media was waiting for anything to crucify Trump. He has done nothing but stoke them. He already has been demonized as a white supremisist. The narrative "Trump will ban all Muslims and turn the US into a fascist state" was already on the press, they just needed an excuse to print it. And there are many who not only disagree with Trump, but are appalled at his persona. There was that big march and that whole "Not…

> The media was waiting for anything to crucify Trump. He has done nothing but stoke them. He already has been demonized as a white supremisist. The narrative "Trump will ban all Muslims and turn the US into a fascist state" was already on the press, they just needed an excuse to print it.

Of course it helps that "a muslim ban" is quite literally what Trump asked for according to Rudy Giuliani:

> So when he 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.” I put a commission together with judge Mukasey [Michael Mukasey, a former federal judge], with congressman McCaul [Texas Rep. Michael McCaul], Pete King [New York Rep. Peter King], a whole group of other very expert lawyers on this, and what we did is we focused on, instead of religion, danger—areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion, it’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#93

Post by TorKlingberg » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:43 AM UTC

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.

This a blog post by a well know person in tech on a blog that is normally about tech. It is not like the front page is suddenly full of op-eds.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#94

Post by pokemon-trainer » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:44 AM UTC

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.

Are we supposed to ignore that our coworkers from these countries can now no longer visit their families or leave the country? Seems a lot more relevant than a point release in some JS framework IMO.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#95

Post by venomsnake » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:45 AM UTC

pg314 wrote: post #85

venomsnake wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unive…

In the world of realpolitik humanitarian is not a valid reason.

Educating the citizens of a country that you may have to go war with soon is also not a way to further your national interest - if we define US interest as unchallenged US might.

It all depends on the perspective in which you view the other countries.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#96

Post by 127 » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:46 AM UTC

The reality is that nothing was achieved in helping the poor and those suffering. Empty words and promises. Now that the shit has hit the fan, the well off are actually talking about politics and getting mobilized, because their own interests are on the line.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#97

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:46 AM UTC

grey-area wrote: post #77

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't that both parties are the same on all issues, it's that there are important issues that no viable candidate would actually address. Do you think President Clinton would end NSA mass surveillance? Reduce copyright terms? Meaningfully reform Wall St? Meaningfully reform the tax code or social spending? Republicans won't either. That's the problem. You get enough people frustrated enough and they vote for whoev…

Actually no, none of your stated problems are important to trump supporters or reasons for him to be elected. America first appeals to them, in spite of, or sometimes because of, all the nasty implications of it and the racial and social revolution it requires. Trump will not stop NSA surveillance, reduce copyright terms, meaningfully reform Wall St (he hired Goldman Sachs alumni), meaningfully reform the tax code or…

America First and protectionism is how Trump won Michigan, not how he won the Republican primary (and thus Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, etc.)

He got nominated by being the candidate most resembling a middle finger to the establishment.

The existing system has been systematically destroying the middle class, and the people see it happening but don't understand why or how to fix it, but they know that voting for establishment candidates from either party hasn't fixed it.

Therefore Trump. Make America Great Again. Exactly what people want to hear. Actual method unspecified.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#98

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:47 AM UTC

Quarrelsome wrote: post #78

rimantas wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a.k.a. keeping one's head in the sand.

its more diplomatic than that. I have very strong opinions I just choose where I present them and where I dont. We're engineers, we're here to share with other engineers and solve problems irrespective of the other engineers beliefs, political alignments or whims. I would not want to turn this place into another spot for activism, there are other fine spots for that sort of thing. Lets talk about code and business pl…

OK. For a while there this weekend, some of your employees/co-workers who had been legally present and working in the United States couldn't gain re-entry to the United States if they happened to have been traveling.

But of course that's "just politics". Nobody should talk about it on HN. No business impact whatsoever. Nope. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada. A goose egg. No idea why that suddenly got some tech execs to get up and go out and express their carefully-vetted couched opinion that perhaps hypothetically it might from some perspectives be worth considering the possibility of expressing a hint of tentative questioning as to whether the best policy might not be being pursued.

Here's a hint: there is no separating out the "politics". Whether you realize it or not, what you're really doing is trying to separate "things which I perceive to directly personally affect me right at this moment" (on-topic) from "things which I perceive to directly and personally affect other people and not me, or which I perceive to not currently affect me" ("politics", off-topic). The problem with this, of course, is that for every thing that affects you, there'll be another person who is or perceives him/herself to be unaffected and declare your issue "politics". And for every issue you declare "politics" there'll be another person who is or perceives him/herself to be affected and dispute it with you.

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#99

Post by aniforprez » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:47 AM UTC

lifty wrote: post #52

MagnumOpus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, you fell for an "alternative fact".

Do you know where this "alternative fact" was published first and how it came into existence? And does it have any root in reality or is it totally manufactured? Would like to understand the phenomenon better.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-adm...

Obama had an act in place to make it difficult for people fro these countries or who had visited these countries to get a visa. Trump expanded the "getting a visa should be difficult" part to "let's ban people from these countries regardless of if they already have Green Cards or dual citizenships".

Obama's act, though again not including countries funding and harboring terrorists, only made it difficult to get a visa which sort of makes sense but is still stupid because it didn't include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. the ACLU protested this act but it was passed through Congress anyway

Re: I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

#100

Post by _b8r0 » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 11:47 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #41

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?

Note that, due to the two-party system, complaining about bad Democrat policy on these issues was always somewhat muted at elections because the likely alternative wasn't some better Democrat but a Republican with a far worse policy. Which is pretty much exactly what's happened. (The same applies to British politics: yes, the Labour party were wrong over the Iraq war, but does anyone think the Conservative party were…

> The same applies to British politics

Your example is a poor one, and the British electorate have very different motivations when it comes to voting for very different parties with very different backgrounds, in very different elections with a very different governmental structure.