4 ms·

By "specific amendment" he should be saying "throw it out". This policy is misguided and evil from the ground up. If this program had been in place twenty years

By "specific amendment" he should be saying "throw it out". This policy is misguided and evil from the ground up. If this program had been in place twenty years the number of terrorist attacks it would have prevented is zero.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Saying "throw it out" isn't productive. Trump won't back down because that means admitting a loss. You get to, in the short term, choose between a substantial win (finding a better middle ground) and a feel-good victory (saying "screw you" and living with this policy).
- jasonvorhe 10y ago
  The only winning move is not to play. Interacting with Trump's government, unless necessary for legal reasons, is stupid and makes it harder for everyone else to publicly denounce the current government.
  - sremani 10y ago
    Musk is a CEO of multi-billion dollar companies, disengagement for 4 years is not a thing, not with the US government. An activist can tune-out and entrepreneur has to adapt.
    - yarou 10y ago
      It's also a skill to engage with people you disagree with on certain issues, or even if you dislike them personally. These are basic life skills people. Edit: s/work/engage
    - astrodust 10y ago
      He's in a tough spot, but he's also got cards to play.
- Retra 10y ago
  It should be productive. When you make a mistake, you should be able to admit it, fix it, and live with it, and if Trump had any leadership ability, he would do just that. And gracefully.
- techterrier 10y ago
  The logic of the appeaser.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    I would argue the other logic of hammering Trump blindly is the logic that doesn't care about the issues it claims to care about nearly as much as about "feeling good" on a childish level: The main goal seems to be to make Trump angry and not to solve any of those issues. For another example, it's not exactly news that calling Trump supporters (and Trump himself) names does not help, yet that still is what a lot of anti-Trump comments seem to concentrate on. It doesn't help, it doesn't change anything, but it's a main feature of the discussion. Most people on the side of "logic" don't follow logic, they go by emotions. If you cannot remove that president or the people who elected him, and you can't (you don't even have the means to get rid of them, so there's no need to even look at the morals of such a move) you would think that proponents of logical thinking actually use stone-cold logic to find a way, instead they use the biggest hammer they can find and try to use it on the opponents, deriving pleasure not from solutions but from eliciting angry reactions. "I made them angry - my job is done." For example, the downvotes I got immediately for this comment. The anti-Trump camp disappoints me A LOT more than the Trump camp. You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same. Irrational and emotional and out to hurt your perceived "opponents". Maybe the reason some of you dislike Trump so much is because you are looking in a mirror, deep inside yourself you find mostly raw emotions and rage rather than logic and reasoning. As I said, you guys don't care about progress on any issues, only about hurting people you perceive as even slightly different and only superficially so (since I'm not even remotely in the Trump camp).
    - astrodust 10y ago
      I don't give a fuck about what Trump thinks. Nobody should give a fuck about Trump thinks. The number one goal, the main goal, the only goal is to side-step all of his bullshit and get him out of office. Immediately. > If you cannot remove that president ... If your entire argument hingest on this, it's flawed. Presidents can be removed. Deal with it. Bill Clinton was impeached for a fucking affair. Nixon was impeached and removed from office over illegal wiretapping. Those things are hilariously trivial compared to what's going on right now. > You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same. Nobody claimed to be better. In this particular case the anti-Trump crowd is on solid legal ground and Trump isn't. Take that as you will. He's breaking not just tons of protocols and precidents, which alone is grounds for discipline, but laws. Laws which require impeachment. Some even require charges.
- astrodust 10y ago
  > Trump won't back down because that means admitting a loss. Like I'm supposed to fucking care we're going to hurt his feelings? Pull it. Shred it. Burn it. Launch the ashes into the sun. You're painting a false dichotomy. The only reasonable outcome here is impeachment. I don't throw this around lightly. He's already over the line. He's broken the Constitution, he's in a conflict of interest. No negotiations. This is playing for keeps.
egopulsus 10y ago
> This policy is misguided and evil from the ground up. If this program had been in place twenty years the number of terrorist attacks it would have prevented is zero. So what did you say when Obama temporarily (6 months) banned refugees? http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-program-for-6-months/ http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-pr...
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  So I could be wrong but when I tried looking into it I found that: Obama's suspended the processing of refugee statuses with the United States for 6 months for people in Iraq. This had no affect on those with existing visas, green cards or approved refugee statuses. It's my understanding this process can take from 6 months to 2 years to complete. This means no one would be disrupted / detained during travel as they wouldn't have been approved to travel yet. Trump's executive order, however, applied to multiple countries and to people with green cards (initially) and visas. It was highly disruptive to those already in transit or were soon to be traveling. Please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I could tell they seem very different.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    May I ask for your source regarding the application of this order to people with green cards? It's so hard to find the actual facts amid the rhetoric.
    - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
      I can't find the DHS release regarding it but multiple news outlets reported on it. Here's the NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-u... From my understanding: DHS initially said this would affect green card holders. Then the administration said green card holders need a special waiver to get through. Then that specific decision was reversed and now all green card holders can get through. But of course if you find anything I said was incorrect please let me know :). I agree it's hard to find good sources with the media in a fury over this story.
tallanvor 10y ago
Yes. It's a vile action, and most likely illegal under current immigration law.
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  Except it's not. Trump is just doing what Obama did in 2011, who banned refugees from Iraq and countries with direct ties to terrorism for six months, due to terrorism concerns.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Stop getting your talking points from Breitbart news: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-o...
    - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
      Stop getting your talking points from biased news too. What he is doing is legal and within his powers as the President.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Saying "throw it out" isn't productive. Trump won't back down because that means admitting a loss. You get to, in the short term, choose between a substantial win (finding a better middle ground) and a feel-good victory (saying "screw you" and living with this policy).

jasonvorhe 10y ago
The only winning move is not to play. Interacting with Trump's government, unless necessary for legal reasons, is stupid and makes it harder for everyone else to publicly denounce the current government.
- sremani 10y ago
  Musk is a CEO of multi-billion dollar companies, disengagement for 4 years is not a thing, not with the US government. An activist can tune-out and entrepreneur has to adapt.
  - yarou 10y ago
    It's also a skill to engage with people you disagree with on certain issues, or even if you dislike them personally. These are basic life skills people. Edit: s/work/engage
  - astrodust 10y ago
    He's in a tough spot, but he's also got cards to play.
Retra 10y ago
It should be productive. When you make a mistake, you should be able to admit it, fix it, and live with it, and if Trump had any leadership ability, he would do just that. And gracefully.
techterrier 10y ago
The logic of the appeaser.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  I would argue the other logic of hammering Trump blindly is the logic that doesn't care about the issues it claims to care about nearly as much as about "feeling good" on a childish level: The main goal seems to be to make Trump angry and not to solve any of those issues. For another example, it's not exactly news that calling Trump supporters (and Trump himself) names does not help, yet that still is what a lot of anti-Trump comments seem to concentrate on. It doesn't help, it doesn't change anything, but it's a main feature of the discussion. Most people on the side of "logic" don't follow logic, they go by emotions. If you cannot remove that president or the people who elected him, and you can't (you don't even have the means to get rid of them, so there's no need to even look at the morals of such a move) you would think that proponents of logical thinking actually use stone-cold logic to find a way, instead they use the biggest hammer they can find and try to use it on the opponents, deriving pleasure not from solutions but from eliciting angry reactions. "I made them angry - my job is done." For example, the downvotes I got immediately for this comment. The anti-Trump camp disappoints me A LOT more than the Trump camp. You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same. Irrational and emotional and out to hurt your perceived "opponents". Maybe the reason some of you dislike Trump so much is because you are looking in a mirror, deep inside yourself you find mostly raw emotions and rage rather than logic and reasoning. As I said, you guys don't care about progress on any issues, only about hurting people you perceive as even slightly different and only superficially so (since I'm not even remotely in the Trump camp).
  - astrodust 10y ago
    I don't give a fuck about what Trump thinks. Nobody should give a fuck about Trump thinks. The number one goal, the main goal, the only goal is to side-step all of his bullshit and get him out of office. Immediately. > If you cannot remove that president ... If your entire argument hingest on this, it's flawed. Presidents can be removed. Deal with it. Bill Clinton was impeached for a fucking affair. Nixon was impeached and removed from office over illegal wiretapping. Those things are hilariously trivial compared to what's going on right now. > You guys claim to be better, yet you act exactly the same. Nobody claimed to be better. In this particular case the anti-Trump crowd is on solid legal ground and Trump isn't. Take that as you will. He's breaking not just tons of protocols and precidents, which alone is grounds for discipline, but laws. Laws which require impeachment. Some even require charges.
astrodust 10y ago
> Trump won't back down because that means admitting a loss. Like I'm supposed to fucking care we're going to hurt his feelings? Pull it. Shred it. Burn it. Launch the ashes into the sun. You're painting a false dichotomy. The only reasonable outcome here is impeachment. I don't throw this around lightly. He's already over the line. He's broken the Constitution, he's in a conflict of interest. No negotiations. This is playing for keeps.

egopulsus 10y ago

> This policy is misguided and evil from the ground up. If this program had been in place twenty years the number of terrorist attacks it would have prevented is zero. So what did you say when Obama temporarily (6 months) banned refugees? http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-program-for-6-months/ http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/2011-obama-paused-iraq-refugee-pr...

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
So I could be wrong but when I tried looking into it I found that: Obama's suspended the processing of refugee statuses with the United States for 6 months for people in Iraq. This had no affect on those with existing visas, green cards or approved refugee statuses. It's my understanding this process can take from 6 months to 2 years to complete. This means no one would be disrupted / detained during travel as they wouldn't have been approved to travel yet. Trump's executive order, however, applied to multiple countries and to people with green cards (initially) and visas. It was highly disruptive to those already in transit or were soon to be traveling. Please correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I could tell they seem very different.
- leereeves 10y ago
  May I ask for your source regarding the application of this order to people with green cards? It's so hard to find the actual facts amid the rhetoric.
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    I can't find the DHS release regarding it but multiple news outlets reported on it. Here's the NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-u... From my understanding: DHS initially said this would affect green card holders. Then the administration said green card holders need a special waiver to get through. Then that specific decision was reversed and now all green card holders can get through. But of course if you find anything I said was incorrect please let me know :). I agree it's hard to find good sources with the media in a fury over this story.

tallanvor 10y ago

Yes. It's a vile action, and most likely illegal under current immigration law.

DefaultUserHN 10y ago
Except it's not. Trump is just doing what Obama did in 2011, who banned refugees from Iraq and countries with direct ties to terrorism for six months, due to terrorism concerns.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Stop getting your talking points from Breitbart news: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-o...
  - DefaultUserHN 10y ago
    Stop getting your talking points from biased news too. What he is doing is legal and within his powers as the President.