12 ms·

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 m

• myblake 10y ago
  How effective is calling local congress members if you live in an area with a strong progressive majority such as the Bay Area. Not that we shouldn't voice our option to our represented officials but I suspect in some ways it's redundant whereas things like raising money for national organizations may be more impactful.
  • huac 10y ago
    Your congressional representatives voted for Trump's nominees. Remind them who they work for. Edit: misread 'local congress' vs 'US congress' but I think the point still stands.
    • falcolas 10y ago
      Only a little sarcastically: > Remind them who they work for. The lobbyists who pay for their luxuries today, and secure their employment tomorrow?
      • a3n 10y ago
        This is true, but they still have to jump through the election hoop.
        • jacquesm 10y ago
          They just did. The only thing that will worry them is if those that did elect them are abandoning them.
  • derrickdirge 10y ago
    It's still helpful if your representatives can say 'I've received n calls from outraged constituents!' There's little reason you couldn't raise money and make a phone call.
  • burkaman 10y ago
    First, it helps put actual weight behind their words, so they can say "I received 2000 calls about this issue in the past week" or something. Second, members of congress have limited time and limited political capital, so if for example you want them to prioritize stopping the Muslim ban over stopping the border wall, you should let them know. It helps them choose what to focus on, and can also help them recruit other members to help them if they can say "look at the numbers, people really care about this one".
    • myblake 10y ago
      Fair enough, I do think the quantification argument is sound. I certainly don't mean to discourage anyone from contacting their elected officials, I just want to highlight the fact a lot of us live in areas that are both solidly more progressive and solidly more wealthy than the median county in the us.
    • corysama 10y ago
      Keep in mind, when politicians measure how much people care, the numbers are weighted by how much effort went in to making the statement. So, a unique, hand-typed letter takes a lot of effort and therefore is given a lot of weight. A phone call, less so. A copy-paste letter much less. And, a online petition signature, zero.
  • panic 10y ago
    They need to know they have the support to fight in the strongest way possible. Dianne Feinstein, for example, has voted in favor of every Trump appointee so far.
    • cmurf 10y ago
      I think it's short sighted; the administration is throwing a bunch of grenades up in the air counting on distraction and wearing people out. The reality is the easiest way to have flicked off this booger was the election, and that's over. Dealing with it is much harder, much more expensive. So you have to triage which battles you're going to fight, and how. Don't count on the replacement appointees being any better, and don't count on multiple rejections in a row (it never happens, and not because they become more politically agreeable), because literally there's another important item that will be on the agenda and getting sucked into a cabinet nominee black hole is not a hill worth dying on.
      • panic 10y ago
        It's not like there's some sort of fuel that is exhausted by voting "no" on Trump's appointees. We will only get worn out if we let ourselves.
  • bratsche 10y ago
    It feels like it's not very effective, but that may be because there needs more weight of numbers behind it. If you're in a progressive area like the Bay area I can see how it would just add extra load to officials who may not need further persuading. I'm in Texas though. A very red state. I've been calling my representative and senators to voice my opinion on all this stuff, but it's hard to tell how effective it is. I either get someone on the phone who sounds like, "oh geez, another angry liberal" or I have someone who just sounds like they'll add my name to a tally or something and says "I'll pass it along" and it's hard to know if they will or if that will help. And then I call my state senator to oppose the bathroom bill going through the Texas senate and the person who I'm talking to on the phone gets borderline combative with me. I found a group of local people who are trying to do this in a more organized way. I found this[1] the other day and it makes me feel hopeful that our efforts are helping somewhat. We just need to not lose steam. It's easy to get fatigued by this kind of stuff, and we're only a week in. [1] http://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2017/01/26/cruz-cornyn-offices-overwhelmed-by-constituents-who-actually-want-to-talk-to-them http://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2017/01/26/cruz-...
    • myblake 10y ago
      Yeah it's interesting how it can go the other way if you're in a solidly conservative district too (I used to live in austin ehich thanks to some ridiculous gerrymandering has very conservative congressional representation). Thanks for calling even if you aren't convinced they'all listen though, I think it's important to try and change minds and that's the place to start.
    • cderwin 10y ago
      I wonder how much calling actually matters, because I feel like whether they receive 10 calls or 10,000, it's always going to be one-sided. Conservatives aren't going to call their reps and they don't have the propensity to engage in the same activism as progressives, so I would think representatives would take calls with a relative grain of salt. If a very conservative congressperson starts getting a bunch of calls saying how much the dislike [standard conservative proposal], they've got to think that as much as the people who voted against them don't want [standard conservative proposal], the conservatives who voted them in do.
  • smacktoward 10y ago
    Even if your Representatives (whose focus is entirely on your local community) are already on board, you still have two Senators who have to get elected by the entire state, not just the Bay Area. There are parts of California that are very, very conservative. Call them and remind them that there are parts that aren't too.
  • a3n 10y ago
    You want to give progressive incumbents the confidence that they are advocating for what their voters want. Positive and negative feedback are equally important. If you like what they're doing, tell them.
  • zitterbewegung 10y ago
    Just because you voted in someone doesn't mean that they necessarily know what you want them to legislate. Writing them letters and calling them is one of the most effective ways to do this and this was effective for SOPA.
  • sidlls 10y ago
    There is a "strong progressive majority" in the bay area? I guess if one's calculus is "Democrat == liberal == progressive" that might be true. From my perspective I see a large majority of folks who pay lip service to the social tolerance issue with the most media coverage around election time every two years and who otherwise act like conservatives (especially on economic matters) in most other respects. Either way calling Congress members is a feel-good thing that takes almost no effort. It's worthless in terms of getting political power and making changes.
  • baytrailcat 10y ago
    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 real effects. For a practical example, if people of San Francisco jointly decide that they want Nancy Pelosi to do X, Y and Z (otherwise she will get primaried in 2018), she will have no option but to do that. This is exactly what the Tea Party did (with tremendous help from Koch brothers) in last eight years. They unseated the old leaders and took over the party.
    • cmurf 10y ago
      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.
      • baytrailcat 10y ago
        Lol.. history and norms. Norms like releasing your tax returns before running for office? You think we are going to a centrist judge because dems kept their powder dry? Outrage is the only thing left.
      • setpatchaddress 10y ago
        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.
    • anarazel 10y ago
      > 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. What exactly do you want them to do (serious, not provocative question)? All three have spoken up (in varying volume) about the nastier executive orders / memoranda / proclamations, all three argued against several of the more controversial senate approved cabinet posts. Nearly all the senate confirmable posts can't be filibustered under the current rules. I'd even call it surprising how many of them haven't yet made it out of the respective committees due to the republican majorities. All that's holding them back seems to be those arcane "collegiality" rules that the senate has, and the reticence of some republican MoC. Except for filibusterable stuff, the democrats are largely powerless for the moment. Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly happy with how Democratic "leadership" is working, but it's far from clear to me what should be done.
  • davidw 10y ago
    It's a hell of a lot more likely to have some effect than not calling at all!
  • tptacek 10y ago
    It's extremely important. The Republican coalition has had outreach programs for years set up to generate floods of calls; my senator, Dick Durbin, had to shut his phones off because of one such effort to push through pro-Israel legislation. A large number of Democrats have voted to confirm John Kelly, the anti-immigration former general who will now run DHS and enforce Trump's Muslim ban. Almost all of the Democrats supported Mattis for DOJ, because he appears to be the sanest member of the administration's team. A decent sized number even supported Pompeo, a Muslim-alarmist, for CIA. Coming up soon is Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III for Attorney General. Sessions is by many accounts an unreconstructed white supremacist. But Democrats will support him, because he's also a member of the Senate, and collegiality goes a very long way in the Senate. Unless the Democratic coalition makes it clear to their representatives that we are holding them accountable for their votes to give consent for confirmation votes, and for their actual confirmation votes, the Democrats will act "strategically", holding back resistance until they're absolutely required to offer it. It doesn't help that the Republican party is almost uniformly conservative and extremely white, while the Democratic party is a coalition of interests that leans but is not firmly planted in liberal tradition. Even if you're in a liberal state. You have to call. Social media doesn't count. It's very easy to do and if enough people do it, it does make a difference. It's like voting, except that your calls have more influence than your votes. I cannot recommend highly enough the Indivisible Guide, which is the outcome of a bunch of legislative staffers attempting to reverse-engineer the Tea Party's process from the last 8 years and apply them to Democratic objectives: https://www.indivisibleguide.com/ https://www.indivisibleguide.com/ It's all actionable stuff.
  • cadlin 10y ago
    I live in Virginia. Both of my senators are Democrats, as is my representative. One of them (Mark Warner) has released a statement condemning the executive order, while Tim Kaine and Don Beyer are not. I left voice mail for the latter and wrote an email to the former, as AFAICT he doesn't take phone messages over the weekend. Trump signed this on Friday because the response against it will be slower. Sure, a public statement by Democrats won't stop this, but it won't hurt and what the hell else are they doing? I work on the weekends, and they can too when core American values are under assault. And of course, giving or raising money for other organizations is a great thing to do as well.
• anigbrowl 10y ago
  Because people are already deluged with reminders on how to participate in the political process, and also because it's apparent that the political process is in fact badly broken and corrupted, and is not so inherently self-correcting that it inhibits bad actors. Allow me to suggest that you read and internalize this essay, because it is one of the few accurate summaries of out political reality that I've encountered in the past year. https://medium.com/deep-code/situational-assessment-2017-trump-edition-d189d24fc046#.upz4t396o https://medium.com/deep-code/situational-assessment-2017-tru... I am nt arguing that politics is over and there's nothing that can be done any more, in fact I'm going to a city budgeting meeting in a couple of hours to find out/debate what to do about the imminent disappearance of federal funding. But your points about basic civics are redundant, I seriously doubt there's anyone reading or posting here who doesn't already know that.
  • severine 10y ago
    Have you read this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/26/constitutional-problems-with-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
    • anigbrowl 10y ago
      Not until now, but I happen to be knowledgeable enough about immigration law that it's no big surprise to me. My primary worry is that because the executive branch does have extremely broad discretion over immigration enforcement and the scope of judicial review is somewhat limited, by law, the administration will be able to do enough damage on its own initiative that by the time disputes work their way through the courts the issue will be moot, as court proceedings are overtaken by facts. Put another way, it's real hard to bring someone to justice for arson when you're inside the burning building. It might happen later, but in the short term that does little to remediate the risk to your life and property.
  • welder 10y ago
    Second this, I call my reps offices but get a "this mailbox is full" message.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• methehack 10y ago
  I think Mr. Altman is largely addressing tech CEOs here and urging them to make public statements. The actions you list are great for you and me, but he's mostly not really talking to us. Supporting quotations from the post (because evidence): "The tech community is powerful. Large tech companies in particular have enormous power and are held in high regard. We need to hear from the CEOs clearly and unequivocally" "At a minimum, companies should take a public stance."
  • myblake 10y ago
    I think those are the people he wants to ultimately affect, but it's important to remember that attracting and retaining the best talent is one of the main things on the mind of the CEOs of top tech companies. Hearing from employees of prospective employees about the importance of this absolutely will impact their thinking.
  • tadasv 10y ago
    Only small companies can take a public stance and they won't for numerous reasons. No large company will ever take a political stance like this. There's too much at stake. I've been saying this for a long time. US is a capitalist country, it does not matter that it's been built by immigrants.
    • myblake 10y ago
      Let's not give up so quickly: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/28/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-fears-impact-of-trump-immigration-order-recalls-staff/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/28/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-f...
      • gcp 10y ago
        Uh, I'd hope any large enough company in the USA (who's likely to have affected employees) sent out a similar message. They literally risk having personnel that was away on business travel get stuck outside the USA with nowhere to go.
    • cridenour 10y ago
• smallgovt 10y ago
  Because this post is primary targeting CEO's and other primary influencers in the tech community. For that audience, speaking publicly and positioning your organization in the suggested manner are much more effective and practical actions to take than those you listed. For those who aren't in positions of such influence, yes, your list is the right way to go
• jMyles 10y ago
  These items seem to be the very things that have sapped our strength without any measurable impact. We need to find more direct ways to peacefully withdraw our consent of and participation in the existence of the state.
  • zo1 10y ago
    Libertarians et al have been trying to do this for quite some time. It does not work. The entire thing is set up so that you can't withdraw your consent or participation. Fines or jail will ensue.
  • krapp 10y ago
    >We need to find more direct ways to peacefully withdraw our consent of and participation in the existence of the state. That's all well and good if you're an anarchist, but not everyone who objects to Trump also objects to the existence of the state, per se.
• CalChris 10y ago
  If you are going to contact your House and Senate representatives, you should do this at the local level.
• a3n 10y ago
  If you oppose Trump and the right's regressive goals, then to condense this list down: take over state legislatures and governors, by running, supporting, or voting for progressive people. The Republicans learned years ago that state legislatures are the key to regressive state policies, and to helping keep a regressive majority in Congress.
• rayiner 10y ago
  For an emergency thing like this, direct pressure from affected tech companies is going to be the most effective thing. Letters to Congressmen from tech CEOs and the like. For people who are not tech CEOs, financially supporting legal challenges is probably the highest value near-term approach, though the other stuff is important long term.
• RivieraKid 10y ago
  Interesting how calling politicians is a "thing" in the US. It seems very inefficient, archaic and unscalable. If I was a politician, I would hate those random (often organized) calls, such a waste of time. The politicians are usually not learning any new information, they know about most issues, including the approximate percentage of the people who are affected.
  • lacerta 10y ago
    Well, it is supposed to unscaleable. This is how our house of representatives works! The idea is with-in each state there are districts. Representatives from a district are supposed to represent those people within the district. An exchange trader who lives in NYC probably have very different concerns than a farmer in an small district in Nebraska. It is actually a wonderful system when it works. We have grown as a nation so our number of people per representative has grown enormously since the start (we are locked by law at 435). One concern we all have in the states is, when does an individuals voice become too diluted!
    • normaljoe 10y ago
      The limit law is something congress enacted. The Constitution has a much higher limit based on population. Granted I don't think the house could function with over 10K members but then again it would make gerrymandering impossible.
      • __derek__ 10y ago
        It's not as though it functions well now. At least with that many members it would not-function in ways that more frequently benefited areas where people actually live.
      • notduncansmith 10y ago
        With some technological assistance, it seems like a group of 10,000 representatives would actually be robust to many of the problems with the current smaller group.
• padseeker 10y ago
  While I appreciate the sentiment for a call to action, it seems pretty clear that the people who are pushing this agenda don't care about what other people think. The people who are pushing this agenda lost the popular vote but that has not stopped them. Many of these reps supporting these actions are in districts that are gerrymandered to insulate themselves from anyone that disagrees with them on this kind of action.
  • cryoshon 10y ago
    >the people who are pushing this agenda don't care about what other people think they only care about their agenda. to make them care about what people think, disrupt their agenda.
  • eruditely 10y ago
    They won 96.1% of all precints. 30% of people within our state voted for him as well, many more would have voted if it wasn't a lost cause in California.
  • guildwriter 10y ago
    Not exactly true, here's a post on the subject from Instapundit, the largest conservative blog on the net: WELL, THIS IS STUPID: DHS Spox: Trump Muslim Ban Includes Green Card Holders. It’s fine to be more careful about admitting people from countries that are major terror exporters, but Green Card holders are permanent legal residents — they’re not “admitted,” they’re returning home. If there’s a problem with green card grants to people from those countries, it needs to be addressed systematically, not simply by stopping people at the border. This is a debacle, and I’d be very interested in knowing who actually drafted the order. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/255787/#respond https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/255787/#respond I think you'll be surprised at what people think on this issue who support the temporary ban.
• hackerews 10y ago
  How in 2017 is "calling a politician" the best way to stop an executive action? Is the goal to DDOS these offices with phone calls in hopes these politicians will rile together and pass a law?
  • lisper 10y ago
    Yes, pretty much. If enough people call to object then the prospect of losing the next election becomes real; they figure that if people are motivated enough to call then they might just be motivated enough to vote. That more than anything is what motivates politicians.
    • ada1981 10y ago
      Faxes are actually the most noticeable and effective tactic.
      • lisper 10y ago
        What's a fax? ;-) Seriously though, how do you know this?
        • CydeWeys 10y ago
          It's not correct. It's easy to ignore faxes, and throw them away by the bucket-full without ever reading them. A phone call requires spending some low level staffer's time to listen to you. Getting inundated day-in, day-out by callers, all on one side of an issue, does have some effect on a congressperson's staff, and sometimes, the congressperson's actions.
      • arundelo 10y ago
        Unfortunately I can't find a source for this but I saw someone saying recently (and it makes sense) that a lot of congress fax numbers just convert the fax to an email message rather than physically printing it out.
• evo_9 10y ago
  https://dailyaction.org https://dailyaction.org
• mindcrime 10y ago
  7. Join a political party (I'd suggest the Libertarian Party, but whatever floats your boat) 8. Donate money to said party and to candidates in upcoming elections.
  • CalChris 10y ago
    The last three Libertarian candidates for President are: 2016 former Republican Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson 2012 former Republican Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson 2008 former GOP House member and Clinton prosecutor Bobb Barr Gary Johnson ran as both a Republican and a Libertarian in 2008. Republican Ron Paul has run as a Libertarian. On the evidence, the Libertarian Party is a flag of convenience for Republicans.
    • mindcrime 10y ago
      Whatever. My point has nothing to do with the LP. The point is that joining a party and donating money are some of the most effective strategies for pushing change. If you don't like the LP, due to ideology, strategy, both, or something else, then pick your own poison - even if it's one of the "major" parties.
    • splat 10y ago
      I think your point here is a little disingenuous. (For reference I'm a longtime LP party member and have recently been getting very involved in the LP at the local level.) While it's true that the recent presidential nominees have all been former Republicans, the reason for this is that the Party has been wanting to put up respectable candidates who have experience. In its early years, the LP was effectively just an outreach organization aimed at spreading the libertarian message. But these days the LP has been wanting to become a real political party that gets candidates elected. And in order to get candidates elected, we need to have respectable candidates. In local races it's fine to put up someone with no or little experience in government, as long as they are a respected member of the community. But you can't just put up "some dude" for president. So in practice this means we have to take defectors. But heaven knows there has been a lot of consternation in the LP over this. My guess is that the LP is getting tired enough of taking former Republicans that whoever they nominate in 2020 will be homegrown. (Maybe a former Democrat.) But while the presidential race gets the most press, we've been working hard to get Libertarians elected at lower levels of government. It's just really, really hard to break past the two party mindset (and ballot access laws), and we haven't had a lot of success to date. The difficulties we have getting people elected to the lower levels of translate directly to us nominating former Republicans for president.
• WhitneyLand 10y ago
  >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 badly and for so long? Even if the sentiment is now understood why did it bring about a post truth era and why do so many people easily accept this? And on and on. Something is different this time. We need to understand it fundamentally and learn new approaches to counter it while making sure the responses themselves don't make the situation worse.
  • fullshark 10y ago
    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.
• cryoshon 10y ago
  the only actions that matter at this point are going to be protests in which you bring thousands or millions of your friends and shut down economic activity in urban centers. the democrats are a minority, and so they can't effect political change. the republicans are on board with trump, and so they won't effect political change. that means that you have to effect political change by physically preventing the operation of the country to move forward until your demands are met. you can't do this from your computer chair or your couch.
• tptacek 10y ago
  Run for office. Since it's hard to get up the gumption to run yourself (everyone here knows what imposter syndrome feels like), convince friends to run. Don't limit yourself to Congressional races. Those are incredibly hard to win, especially for political outsiders. Run for parks commission, for library board, for school board, for town trusteeships, and for county offices. Run for water reclamation. You don't need to be a subject matter expert --- that's not expected of you. You just have to be willing to do a little extra work every month. Any elected office gives you a greater voice in all of the rest of our politics. You use local offices to put pressure on your congresspeople and your state reps, and to build an organization to win more offices later. This is what the Republicans have been doing since the 1980s, and as a result the GOP controls most US states. Another fantastic place to start: https://www.indivisibleguide.com/ https://www.indivisibleguide.com/
  • spenczar5 10y ago
    This sounds really appealing. How do you do this? How do I get started on running for water reclamation?
    • tptacek 10y ago
      Try starting here: https://www.runforoffice.org/ https://www.runforoffice.org/ Get a couple of friends together, and just pick one of you to go out for something, and then work as a team to collect information and plan outreach. Even if you fail, treat the whole thing as an information gathering exercise. Take notes and share them. The GOP is crazy good at picking up local elected office, and they've had lots of practice. This is how they got that practice. Anyone who thinks local office doesn't matter should figure out who their State Senator is and how many constituents they have, and then look at Congressional redistricting --- it's state leg. that created the system in which rural Republican votes count so much more than urban Democratic votes do.
• molecule 10y ago
  Support the ACLU, who have already filed a lawsuit https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/aclu-and-other-groups-challenge-trump-immigration-ban-after-refugees-detained https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/aclu-and-other-groups...
  • davidw 10y ago
    Chris Sacca is matching donations up to 75K. Yes, $75,000 https://twitter.com/sacca/status/825403419376496641 https://twitter.com/sacca/status/825403419376496641 https://twitter.com/sacca/status/825431544022102016 https://twitter.com/sacca/status/825431544022102016
• thilmo 10y ago
  How about the best way: 7. THINK Think up better arguments, that might convince people. Examine your own opinions, to see whether they're actually right. Examine your opponents' opinions, to see whether they're right too. Maybe come up with new ways of thinking about the issue which are better than the way anyone's thinking about them at the moment. And then start talking. People in politics should put less thought into HOW CAN I SPEAK LOUDER and more thought into how they can think of smarter things to say?
  • cmurf 10y ago
    I'd say evaluate the actual target audience for this conversation, and choose to not engage an audience that clearly has no interest in anything other than what amounts to tribal warfare. And that includes the president smearing every source of criticism as "FAKE NEWS!" He exactly represents those who voted for him: ignorant, fearful, angry, reactionary, conspiracy theorists, suspicious and vindictive. There is no possible way of having rational conversations whether smarter or louder. I don't see any point in examining these opinions, it's a colossal waste of time. I'm not responsible for their opinions, or changing them. I think a very decent chunk will have buyer's (voter's) remorse on their own without me having to say a thing about it, and the rest will just dig their heels in. Ergo, Trump and Trump voters are a distraction. Focus on the effecting policies: non-violent demonstrations and associations, legal recourse, letting local and state reps know how you feel. There are mayors like Marty Walsh who historically have done more to stand up to overreaching state and federal bureaucracy than any U.S. Senator.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • guildwriter 10y ago
      You do realize this sort of behavior doesn't grow in a vacuum right? In a relationship it takes two to tango, unless dealing with someone mentally ill. To claim that say 10 million voters who hold resentment against the left for what they perceive as hostile bias are all mentally ill is grossly unfair. Conservative resentment against what they perceive as liberal intolerance has been going on since at least the early 2000s. The conservative blogosphere really took off around that time. There they either endured constant ridicule for their views or total ignoring from the established media which mostly runs liberal aside from Fox News. When they broke the story on Dan Rather and the faked National Guard memo on Bush, they were instantly derided for being nothing but people blogging in their pajamas. When they were proven true, the hostile indifference never let up. This has gone on for 15 years or so now. For them, this last election to them was the last straw. The coverage that went on during the 2016 elections was deeply shameful and outright scurrilous in some areas. Keep in mind that during the 2000s and probably about until 2008 or so, the internet community sites were mostly dominated by liberal views. Reddit for instance looked vastly different compared to now. This allowed the formation of deep and entrenched echo chambers that allowed certain behaviors to foment and become acceptable. When conservatives began to join the internet en masse, they ran up against these entrenched social communities and quickly found that they were getting shut out. Rightly or wrongly, that kind of blanket treatment will cause resentment. Vast swaths of people on the left have been dismissive of people on the right for ages. This is not a one sided issue, of course conservatives do the same. But that does not matter. We got here because everyone started talking past each other, insulting each other, and not doing the hard work of emphasizing irregardless of our agreement or not. Emotional labor matters and we've all dropped the ball hard. Conservatives are not monolithic and people always appreciate feeling listened to and that their concerns matter. You don't have to agree with someone to do this. When we want to fix a relationship with our partners we don't concern ourselves with who was right or wrong. We concentrate on the relationship itself.
• Frondo 10y ago
  You know who really needs to take a fucking stand? The low-level workers at these airports who are enforcing this bullshit ban. They need to grow some spines and start ignoring bad orders, no matter who they come from. "I was just following orders" was never an acceptable excuse to do the wrong thing.
  • thex10 10y ago
    I agree, but they often are the ones who have the most to lose. They lose their job and then aren't able to pay rent that month/feed their family etc. A VP or probably even a middle manager taking a similar stand likely has cash saved up/secondary income/investments/other options to withstand this sort of change with fewer catastrophic results.
    • davidw 10y ago
      Maybe Sam Altman, Chris Sacca and the like should put together a fund to help people who will not "just follow orders".
    • Frondo 10y ago
      You know who might have more to lose? The people with green cards, the refugees, the people from that list of 7 countries, kept out of the US for bullshit reasons.
  • refurb 10y ago
    How do you know they aren't already doing it? From what I've read, the Executive Order was somewhat vague. Border officials do have some discretion. Maybe they are strictly interpreting it in order to cause an outrage?
  • megablast 10y ago
    So not you. Someone else. Well, that's easy then... For you.
  • SBCRec 10y ago
    Just offering the possibility that some of the workers actually agree with it? That their spine is perfectly intact?
• idlewords 10y ago
  Right now the most important thing you can do is donate money. Consider starting here: ACLU (state offices especially) Council on American-Islamic Relations (state offices especially) National Immigration Law Center
  • jacobian 10y ago
    Can you expand on why donating to state offices is more effective? And, which states?
    • idlewords 10y ago
      The state organizations have separate budgets, and they do the direct work with affected people. For example, CAIR-MA serves all of New England on less than a quarter million dollars a year. Any state, but particularly red states. Consider CAIR-Oklahoma.
  • cpr 10y ago
    Investigate CAIR before giving any money: http://www.anti-cair-net.org/AntiCAIRDataBase.html http://www.anti-cair-net.org/AntiCAIRDataBase.html
    • idlewords 10y ago
      I can personally vouch for CAIR-MA, CAIR-CA, and CAIR-NY.
• hedora 10y ago
  Sample script for calling your mayor; anyone near an international airport should be able to use a variant of this. I am not a lawyer, but it looks as though airports (but not airport security) fall under the city's jurisdiction. (For example San Jose makes decisions about Uber at SJC, and Mayor Daley infamously tore up an air strip in the middle of the night with no warning). Hello. My name is X. I am a resident of Y. Please do everything within your power to push for the release of any middle eastern refugees being held without cause by the Federal government at [local airport], and to put an end to this moving forward.
• ridgeguy 10y ago
  I'll add: 7. Contribute money to organizations filing lawsuits against Trump's actions.