4 ms·

I am affected personally by this. I have extended family members from Indonesia and Malaysia in the US who are still on Green Card. Although those countries a

I am affected personally by this. I have extended family members from Indonesia and Malaysia in the US who are still on Green Card. Although those countries aren't affected by the ban, who knows when Trump will decide to change his mind at his whim. But the time for talk has passed. I don't think very much is going to happen because Trump is empowered by his election victory, and he won't listen to anyone. Has he ever listened to anyone, even during his celebrity-only days? To think that you can actively engage him in a conversation is not the way to do this. What is needed is to prepare for the 2018 and 2020 elections RIGHT NOW. We need an organized social media structure where all of the positive, democracy-pro candidates in every electoral district gets publicized and supported. EDUCATE YOUNG PEOPLE WITH GREAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES AND MOTIVATE THEM TO VOTE. I'm not talking about just voting for the Democrats. Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. We need a new voice that actually cares about progressive, democratic values, and actually believes in what they say. Not the same, tired politicians that play us for fools and leave us with the best of two evils. Organize now, smash the two-party oligarchy and elect REAL POLITICIANS, hopefully young people that care about the US, not people who want to enrich themselves from the teat of government funding. You could argue that Trump was that candidate for half of Americans, as well as Sanders for the other (nearly) half. We need fresh blood, and we need to start now. The only way to stop Trump is to silence him by breaking up the Republican Congress majority, and it's only in 2 years.

leesalminen 10y ago
> I am affected personally by this. > Although those countries aren't affected by the ban... So, you have not yet been personally affected? That's like saying German citizens have been personally affected by this action.
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  Compared to the post above, a German citizen has an incredibly smaller chance of being affected by any of Trump's future follow-up actions similar to the executive order that was just issued, so your comparison is invalid. If one has to come up with new contingencies based on radical shifts in the likelihood of extreme events, then of course they are directly affected.
  - leesalminen 10y ago
    I'm not so sure I agree. It seems to me that Germany is currently having issues identifying refugees entering their country as well as keeping its citizens safe. If this trend continues, it wouldn't be too far fetched for the US to require "extreme vetting" of German document holders to enter the US.
- pfarnsworth 10y ago
  I'm personally affected because my extended family is terrified of what could happen next. They do a lot of business in SE Asia, and can't afford to be locked out of the country indefinitely. We are all in it together, because we're a family, so yes, I'm personally affected.
  - whitemale 10y ago
    The word you are looking for is concerned not affected. As you yourself pointed out, so far he hasn't done anything that actually affects you. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to not play the victim card and instead make rational arguments.
- 3131s 10y ago
  Of course GP and their family are affected. They are having to map out an entire alternate plan for their lives, and beyond just many hours spent worrying they may have already taken concrete steps toward preparing for the worst.
jacquesm 10y ago
> We need fresh blood, and we need to start now. There is a real chance that you'll get more fresh blood than you are bargaining for. When you start running roughshod over peoples lives violence is just around the corner and should be expected. Action -> reaction, it's as old as physics. Of course that plays right into Trumps hands.
mschuster91 10y ago
> The only way to stop Trump is to silence him by breaking up the Republican Congress majority, and it's only in 2 years. In the Senate, this will get tough, because the majority of positions in the senate available for reelection is mostly Democrat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018). And even if Congress Republican majority is broken down, Trump and Pence will still be able to rule with Presidential orders, much like Obama did.
akjainaj 10y ago
>Although those countries aren't affected by the ban, who knows when Trump will decide to change his mind at his whim. The ban on muslims is not something he decided "at his whim", but something he promised he'd do if he won the presidency. Turns out he did win, and he's delivering on his promises.
wcummings 10y ago
>Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. This false equivalence convinced people to vote for Trump. No way Hillary would have implemented this ban.
- pfarnsworth 10y ago
  You are completely incorrect. Empirically, the country voted with a nearly 50/50 split between the two candidates, meaning the country felt both candidates were "just as bad". Just because you have your own personal biases doesn't actually make them right, the data does.
  - becarefulyo 10y ago
    Empirically, it wasn't 50/50, not even among the percentage of the population that actually voted.
    - pfarnsworth 10y ago
      That's pretty disingenuous. For the purpose of my argument, 48/46 is close enough to 50/50 to make my point that it was close to split.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - wcummings 10y ago
    Just because a lot of people "felt" something doesn't make it true.
- whitemale 10y ago
  > This false equivalence convinced people to vote for Trump. "false equivalence" is a non-argument used by Hilary supporters to sidestep proving that she is objectively better than Trump, after it is correctly pointed out that she is not an angel from heaven either. > No way Hillary would have implemented this ban. This is a misleading statement that you can't even prove, because it requires you to either be a mind reader or being able to travel to an alternate reality. For the sake of argument though let's assume that she wouldn't have performed this action, can you prove that she wouldn't have done worst things? She gets money from Saudi Arabia, you would have a hard time proving that she can do no bad.

leesalminen 10y ago

> I am affected personally by this. > Although those countries aren't affected by the ban... So, you have not yet been personally affected? That's like saying German citizens have been personally affected by this action.

dwaltrip 10y ago
Compared to the post above, a German citizen has an incredibly smaller chance of being affected by any of Trump's future follow-up actions similar to the executive order that was just issued, so your comparison is invalid. If one has to come up with new contingencies based on radical shifts in the likelihood of extreme events, then of course they are directly affected.
- leesalminen 10y ago
  I'm not so sure I agree. It seems to me that Germany is currently having issues identifying refugees entering their country as well as keeping its citizens safe. If this trend continues, it wouldn't be too far fetched for the US to require "extreme vetting" of German document holders to enter the US.
pfarnsworth 10y ago
I'm personally affected because my extended family is terrified of what could happen next. They do a lot of business in SE Asia, and can't afford to be locked out of the country indefinitely. We are all in it together, because we're a family, so yes, I'm personally affected.
- whitemale 10y ago
  The word you are looking for is concerned not affected. As you yourself pointed out, so far he hasn't done anything that actually affects you. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to not play the victim card and instead make rational arguments.
3131s 10y ago
Of course GP and their family are affected. They are having to map out an entire alternate plan for their lives, and beyond just many hours spent worrying they may have already taken concrete steps toward preparing for the worst.

jacquesm 10y ago

> We need fresh blood, and we need to start now. There is a real chance that you'll get more fresh blood than you are bargaining for. When you start running roughshod over peoples lives violence is just around the corner and should be expected. Action -> reaction, it's as old as physics. Of course that plays right into Trumps hands.

mschuster91 10y ago

> The only way to stop Trump is to silence him by breaking up the Republican Congress majority, and it's only in 2 years. In the Senate, this will get tough, because the majority of positions in the senate available for reelection is mostly Democrat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018). And even if Congress Republican majority is broken down, Trump and Pence will still be able to rule with Presidential orders, much like Obama did.

akjainaj 10y ago

>Although those countries aren't affected by the ban, who knows when Trump will decide to change his mind at his whim. The ban on muslims is not something he decided "at his whim", but something he promised he'd do if he won the presidency. Turns out he did win, and he's delivering on his promises.

wcummings 10y ago

>Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. This false equivalence convinced people to vote for Trump. No way Hillary would have implemented this ban.

pfarnsworth 10y ago
You are completely incorrect. Empirically, the country voted with a nearly 50/50 split between the two candidates, meaning the country felt both candidates were "just as bad". Just because you have your own personal biases doesn't actually make them right, the data does.
- becarefulyo 10y ago
  Empirically, it wasn't 50/50, not even among the percentage of the population that actually voted.
  - pfarnsworth 10y ago
    That's pretty disingenuous. For the purpose of my argument, 48/46 is close enough to 50/50 to make my point that it was close to split.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wcummings 10y ago
  Just because a lot of people "felt" something doesn't make it true.
whitemale 10y ago
> This false equivalence convinced people to vote for Trump. "false equivalence" is a non-argument used by Hilary supporters to sidestep proving that she is objectively better than Trump, after it is correctly pointed out that she is not an angel from heaven either. > No way Hillary would have implemented this ban. This is a misleading statement that you can't even prove, because it requires you to either be a mind reader or being able to travel to an alternate reality. For the sake of argument though let's assume that she wouldn't have performed this action, can you prove that she wouldn't have done worst things? She gets money from Saudi Arabia, you would have a hard time proving that she can do no bad.