15 ms·

I'm Loyal to Nothing Except the Dream

411 points by hkailahi 10y ago

_andromeda_ 10y ago
>Mexican culture is ingrained deeply into America and we are all better for it. How is this the case? Multiculturalism is not necessarily a good thing. I'm reminded of Thiel's The Diversity Myth. We no longer question whether some of these statements are true. Diversity is not necessarily a good thing and sometimes it can actually be detrimental by allowing for the tolerance of mediocre standards in a society.
untilHellbanned 10y ago
Having the luxury of time and money like the OP has allows for an extensive checklist like this. Kudos for putting it out there and for fighting a good fight. However, many people don't have the bandwidth or financial stability to divert activity away from non-stability generating activities. Sadly the more I thought about this, the more I'm finding it difficult to see any internet posts as anything other than contributing to a constant stream of agenda pushing and/or humble bragging. FB started it and I fear now we a stuck with everything (including of course these comments) washing away in a sea of noise.
- arc_of_descent 10y ago
  I don't why, but I agree with you. I'm a full-time programmer. The rest of my free time is devoted to my other passions (guitar, music). I always have arguments with my friends over whether we should take an active interest in politics/policies. I sometimes say, that if you want to, then please join politics full-time, or let the Government do its job. But the fear exists. You won't do something, until it happens to you. So, people like the OP, have a real sense of empathy which I admire.
wingerlang 10y ago
> And he signed an executive order that literally, not figuratively, banned Muslims from entering the US. Isn't "banned muslims" the wrong choice of words here? You could enter US as a muslim from e.g. Malaysia still.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  No. No it is not. "Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’" “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.” “I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] 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.'" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI
  - wingerlang 10y ago
    Fair enough, but it is still not a literal ban is it? I repeat my statement as a question: as a muslim from e.g. Malaysia, you can still enter US - right?
    - thecopy 10y ago
      Yes, you can. Trump activated a policy invented and signed into law by Obama, he did not choose the countries himself.
      - MagnumOpus 10y ago
        Sorry, you fell for an "alternative fact".
        lifty 10y ago
        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.
        aniforprez 10y ago
spir 10y ago
Beautiful post, thank you.
aedron 10y ago
You know what a lot of people consider worse than Donald Trump? The status quo. That's what I feel is missing in all this indignation - where were you before? The political system has been deeply broken for decades, with the same unjust policies being pursued regardless of which public face was on it - imperialist militaristic foreign policies abroad, economic inequality at home. All sold to the public with glib marketing campaigns through a monopolized mass media. The whole democracy road show feeling like a sham for the gullible to eat up. There's a lot not to like about Donald Trump, but for one thing he is an outsider to the established system (I believe in this because of how hard the mainstream media is bent on pulling him down). It is hard for me to see that as anything but an improvement.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- test1235 10y ago
  "Better the devil you know" vs "Out of the frying pan into the fire" Maybe change was needed, but this is so much worse than before.
- verbify 10y ago
  > he is an outsider to the established system He's a billionaire who inherited around $750 million. He didn't pay his taxes. His chief of staff was chairman of the Republican party. His cabinet have a combined net worth of $6 billion. If anyone represents the powers-that-be, he does. If anyone has a glib marketing campaign, it's the Trump presidency in claiming to be 'outsiders'. And if you think the political system is broken, well, you haven't seen nothing yet. > how hard the mainstream media is bent on pulling him down Maybe the media is criticizing him because, you know, he does things that deserve criticism.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    Just because you're part of one club (business leaders) doesn't make you part of another club (political elite). America is a very odd place, there's cheerful talk about being the most democratic place in the world, but you have all these really bizarre ruling families who keep winning powerful positions. It's not normal to have two Bushes, let alone 3 in power in the space of a couple of decades. Or Clintons. Or Kennedys. How can you not look at your own politics and wonder, with 300 odd million, how do the same families keep winning? That the whole thing's not a stacked deck? It's really weird. To outsiders, there's obviously something deeply corrupt in America where a tiny ruling dynasty keep getting themselves elected. There's a 'queue' and Hilary was at the top because of her connections. SNL even joked before the election that if she wasn't elected, she'd be back next time as it was still her 'turn' to be president. Trump is not part of that club, that's what he's talking about. By supporting that corrupt status quo the democrats helped a monster like Trump be elected.
geff82 10y ago
Wonderfully written, giving my thoughts a word. For me and my wife, the USA, despite all their shortcomings, are a country we really want to live in. It stands for many good things. It is not a country you want to mess with, and we are fine with that. We embrace American culture, we love American companies, we so far respected American politicians. For stuff we as individuals are interested in (which might not be what everyone is interested in), the USA is perfect. So far, we live in Germany, but to prove our love, we tried to find ways to at least spend some years in the country we like to visit so much. Until Friday. Now we are banned. My wife is Iranian. This is always a burden because of some extensive visa requirements, but we accepted the fact. With a bit of planning, we could go anywhere we wanted, go visit NYC, enjoy the plains of Texas, visit houses to buy in Dallas. All gone. We already are "extreme vetted". But now, our trust is broken. We wanted to tour Miami and Washington with our little daughter in April. Thank god we had not yet booked. This situation feels very strange. Empty.
- pzone 10y ago
  Damn I'm sorry. This is truly the opposite of making America great.
  - Mahn 10y ago
    "Make America great again" never stood for making America actually great, it was all along an euphemism for "Make America go back in time 50 years again", and sadly a lot of people wanted just that.
    - czep 10y ago
      > for "Make America go back in time 50 years again" Or 100 years. There were culture wars in the 1910s that were as fierce as those today. That's how we got the Harrison Narcotics Act for one example. I certainly don't mean to belittle the present crisis, but we should realize that these battles have been going on for a long time. As long as people like Mr. Atwood continue to speak up, we will weather this one as we have since this great nation was founded. For evil to win it is sufficient for good to remain silent. Let's not be silent.
MisterWebz 10y ago
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?
- levlaz 10y ago
  > Bombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured. Who is saying that this is acceptable? > 90-day ban on immigrants coming from war-torn countries I think the key issue here is that this ban includes valid Green Card holders and people who have Visas. This means that they have already spent up to two years being vetted. This policy makes no sense. If the order was just "stop issuing visas", I don't think that there would have been such an uproar.
  - SBCRec 10y ago
    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...
    - levlaz 10y ago
      Yeah that makes a lot of sense actually.
    - ctack 10y ago
      Well put. I wonder if this ban would have been as strongly challenged by the media if it was someone else proposing it.
      - kevingadd 10y ago
        Considering the huge parade of Republican and Democrat politicians that condemned the very idea over the last year, what do you think?
andyfleming 10y ago
I'm encouraged by those who realize that they have a responsibility to our country. Freedoms are not only fought for with guns and tanks. Nor is voting our only responsibility. And beyond the politics and policy, we all have a role in developing our culture. I hope we will all choose patience and education of one another rather than condemnation and divisiveness.
aswerty 10y ago
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.
- estsauver 10y ago
  I think so. Communities that aren't willing to deal with this tragedy that's rapidly unfolding in America aren't communities I want to be a part of.
  - hueving 10y ago
    That's the problem with political posts. One side sees it as good, one side sees it as a tragedy, and then the remaining 80%+ of the people are subjected to the bickering.
    - diyorgasms 10y ago
      If 80% of people don't care then that's even more reason to have these discussions. There is no excuse for disengagement at a time like this. Disinterest and silence are allies of oppression.
      - hueving 10y ago
        How exactly is watching one group of people call another group racists over and over going to help someone engage? Particularly if they are a citizen of Hong Kong?
  - badwulf 10y ago
    This is a tech community, we aren't supposed to deal with politics. What tragedy are you talking about? I think what's happening is great, Europe should start embracing a similar policy(assuming you are talking about the refugee ban). Here is a tip: whenever you feel overly sensitive about something in politics, ask yourself the question: why did this happen? how did we get here? and look up people who have an opinion opposite to yours, not just the ones who feel like you.
moultano 10y ago
I wrote this today from a similar place. I've never been more furious at my government than now. https://medium.com/@moultano/they-tried-to-ban-green-card-holders-1eede6976f65#.v0j1jx4fz https://medium.com/@moultano/they-tried-to-ban-green-card-ho...
- ryanx435 10y ago
  Never? So you didn't mind when we were bombing weddings and hospitals? Nice.
  - sctb 10y ago
    This is not the sort of thing we say to fellow community members as part of a civil and thoughtful discussion. Please don't post like this.
    - ryanx435 10y ago
      what part of that question was uncivil or not thoughtful? challenging their biases? the way it was phrased? using "never?" as a grammitically incorrect sentence? pointing out their hypocrisy?
josscrowcroft 10y ago
A very well-reasoned and well-written piece. Thank you.
tempodox 10y ago
I wholeheartedly agree with this post. We may regret that the wakeup call didn't come through earlier, but late is better than never.
redsummer 10y ago
This is hysteria. "he signed an executive order that literally, not figuratively, banned Muslims from entering the US" Of the 10 countries with the largest Muslim populations, only one - Iran - has been restricted: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables74/ http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_proje... The list of countries was previously drawn up by the Obama administration. I'm not in favor of the restrictions, but there is no need to make things up.
- rtpg 10y ago
  - It was a ban of people from 7 muslim-dominated countries - It excepts non-Muslims (religious test) - It includes dual-citizens, and permanent residents. Even when you become the citizen of another country, you're still tainted according to the EO. Even when you've been vetted for the green card, you're still tainted. - Guiliani is on the record that Trump said "I want a Muslim ban" and this was drafted to be the "most legal" way to do this, and a compromise from "ban all people from all muslim countries" - There is no correlation between the list of countries and terrorist attacks on US soil. None of these country's citizens have contributed to attacks in over 40 years. Imagine England banning Irish citizens for the IRA. Trump called for a Muslim ban over the campaign, asked for it as president, Guiliani gave what he thought to be a muslim ban, no other executive office seemed to give input. Not sure what else this could be but a muslim ban.
  - ominous 10y ago
    > It excepts non-Muslims Can I get a source on that? I just want to read about it, not doubting you.
    - birken 10y ago
      From the EA: > "the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality" In all of these 7 countries the majority religion is Islam, therefore by prioritizing refugee claims by people who practice a minority religion they are de-prioritizing claims by refugees solely due to being muslim. ----- Also Donald Trump once released a press release stating: > "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," ---- There is no reason to twist the reality of the situation. Donald Trump has talked many times about banning Muslims from entering the US. The text of the bill allows for Muslims to be banned or at least de-prioritized from being able to enter the country due to their religion. Why anybody would assume the main intention of the executive order is not to do the exact thing Donald Trump has talked about doing?
rtpg 10y ago
One thing that might be missing from this action plan is "get into local action". If you vote Democrat, there were many uncontested republican seats that voted Clinton. The Democratic party has had its foundation fall out, and its mostly because the local-level stuff has fallen completely by the wayside. Hell, you can even just run for office in 2018. All the DNC chair candidates agree that there are not enough people offering to run on the Dem ticket for congress (hence uncontested seats). If you want to be third party, start trying to win local elections. There too, maybe you can present yourself. If 5 people from a third party got into congress through the house, that'd be a big deal. Best way to do that? Concentrated local efforts. Also, state legislatures are important! Look at California Just like gov't is more than once every 4 years, government is not just the presidency, or just federal. Every level matters.
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  As a UK citizen I wouldn't run for elected office here given the level of abuse and "alt-truth" levelled at politicians. I certainly wouldn't run for elected office in the US. If you've ever done anything that could be twisted to cast you in a bad light, even if you haven't, you - and your family - will be put through the wringer. I keep seeing parallels with the decades leading up to the end of the Roman Republic, except all we have are Caesars and Pompeys with no Cicero's thrown into the mix.
nicolas_t 10y ago
While I agree with most everything Jeff says and it's really well written, I'm always a bit irked when I see the the president of the US being called "Leader of the Free World". Especially when it's stated in those terms: "We lead the free world. And we do it by taking the higher moral ground, doing what is right before doing what is expedient." I'm not sure the US can still qualify as leading the free world under those terms. Ask people who were tortured by Pinochet, look at the coup in Haiti in 1991, look at what happened in Iraq and the lie around the Weapon of Mass Destructions, look at Gitmo. Are those the actions of "leaders of the free world"? I do wish that the US could become worthy of being called leaders of the free world but they're not there yet and with Trump, they're not going in the right direction.
- jhbadger 10y ago
  The "free world" is pretty meaningless since the Cold War ended. It never really meant "free" anyway -- Pinochet's and Franco's regimes were as much a part of it as Western democracies. What it really meant was the "anti-Soviet world".
  - JBiserkov 10y ago
    I see a browser extension potential here. Substitute Soviet with Russia/China and call it a day.
  - nicolas_t 10y ago
    Yes, the term "the free world" comes from the Cold War propaganda but it doesn't stop the fact that the US, as an economic powerhouse, has a disproportionate influence on the rest of the world and this is why I would want it to be worthy of the name "Leader of the Free World". It's unfortunately not and I think that people repeatedly calling them that tends to legitimize the US actions.
  - mdemare 10y ago
    That's nonsense. Spain under Franco wasn't considered part of the "free world". To a first approximation, it referred to countries in NATO, plus a few allied countries like Sweden and Japan.
d3ckard 10y ago
Nice post, though there are some caveats. As a Pole (as some of you know, we do have some issues here too, though many would disagree) I feel at least a bit competent to give you a bit of advice, so you can get out of it better than we did. 1. Donald Trump is not your enemy, nor a problem. He is a manifestation of the problem, which is current state of your society and problems you have. Do not believe that you can just impeach a guy and call it a day. 2. Don't even try to just get back to status quo. That's basically what happened in Poland in 2007 and problems came back after 8 years, worse than ever. The status quo you had created the Donald Trump and would continue to promote similar politicians. 3. Do not hate Trump supporters, do not be mean to them, do not laugh them off. They are people who live in different US than you do. As far as I can tell, most people on HN could retire in their 40s if they wanted to. This is not the reality of average American, as are your salaries and life opportunities. You live in a bubble and you need to accept it and reach out to learn what the world looks like for an average Joe. 4. You have a lot of power now, do not lend it to random politicians, as they will try to capitalize on your emotions. Hillary Clinton was not some heavenly figure, she had her bunch of issues too. Those issues were just of lesser importance to you. It is quite likely, that if Democrats nominated Sanders, he would win with Trump. They did not nominate him for the reason - he also wanted to change quite a lot, just in different direction than Trump. No matter what your political views are, his popularity showed that what your people expect is change and they will fight for it, because they have much less to loose than you. Acknowledge that and find a way to deal with it. 5. Do not expect the situation to just calm down. It won't. It is not some kind of mistake that can be solved by moving to popular vote. Life ain't that simple. You have people working full-time who cannot afford the living. You have one of the most expensive and unreachable for many healthcare systems. You do have degressive taxing systems. You have much smaller middle class that you are used too. Those problems need attention, you cannot just swipe it under the rag and pretend it's just some kind of national outrage. It isn't. What you're seeing is your society stopping to work as it used too. It won't bounce back until you decide to do something with it and it might not be pleasant to you. It may mean higher taxes for example. Or some other change you will not be happy about. Trust me, the alternative is much worse. Good luck!
- zimpenfish 10y ago
  > It is quite likely, that if Democrats nominated Sanders, he would win with Trump. I haven't seen a single political analysis which shows a path for him to do that. Do you have any examples?
rdtsc 10y ago
> As of 2017, the United States, through a sequence of highly improbable events, managed to elect an extremely controversial president. I think it a mistake to see this as a random fluke and chuck it up to chance. It seems like chance to those who were asleep or were watching news from their own bubble. Trump is a symptom of something that was already there probably decades in the making. If we ignore the conditions which created Trump, if we only pay attention to what is in our own Facebook feed we'll end up with another Trump, and another. Every time assuming it was random or an act of God or Russians or whatever. Also where were all these prominent tech people and CEOs when Obama was Hillary were busy destabilizing the region, bombing civilians and arming rebels in that part of the world. I find a bit hypocritical everyone being upset about a travel ban and not upset about much worse stuff. But this is about waking up so it is a good first step. > And he signed an executive order that literally, not figuratively, banned Muslims from entering the US It was a list created by the Obama administration for largely the same purpose. And was even used for a while to actually ban people from a Muslim country. Was there any outrage, how many tech leaders pledged to oppose the unfair blocking of refugees then? Also why didn't Trump block Indonesia instead if this this infamous Muslim ban. If this was a general Muslim ban it doesn't seem very effective just based on the countries it covers. Let's criticize Trump and his politcies but is this the main and most serious thing to expend all the effort on? We should be paying attention to his cabinet picks, trade deals, economic and military policies. And also, to be effective it is important to have well defined and realistic goal. Goals such as "removing Trump" are probably not realistic for the next 4 years. But in this case maybe trying to remove some countries from the ban like Iran for ex., or lobbying and campaigning to allow green card holders to be unaffected by it is better.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  Best post by a mile. Not only did America elect Trump, Sanders also did mighty fine for someone who in years past would be considered unelectable. People pass around figures about GDP and low unemployment to prove to themselves things are absolutely fine, but then you dig further and you find that many feel lost and desperate. Obama said "America is already great", and many people found it a vomit-inducing quip. In many ways liberals brought this upon themselves. I find similarities in how liberals deal with Trump and how americans in general dealt with 9/11. "They hate us for our freedoms" is a much more palatable idea than thinking about systemic dynamics.
127 10y ago
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.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
andrewstuart 10y ago
Addressing the concerns of the Trump supporters is the only way forward. Why are they angry? Silicon Valley - one of the richest sectors of society, is up in arms because the disenfranchised "have nots" are expressing their anger about being "have nots" by just tearing the whole damn thing down. The "have nots" say - through Trump and his actions - "OK, you got everything, we got nothing, here's the payback". The have nots are angry and simply want to smash everything. The process is only just starting. The ONLY solution is to bring the "have nots" back to being "haves". When you fight Trump, you simply fight the "have nots". You cannot fight them, you must take away Trumps support base by winning them over, not opposing them.
- rtpg 10y ago
  The question now: how big is his base? His approval is in free fall. What's the low point? 40%? 30%? 20%? The French president was at one point at 8% approval.
  - icu 10y ago
    The only thing that matters now is Trump's approval in the next election. If he keeps his voter base happy and is seen to be actually doing more things right than wrong he may even pick up more votes. I honestly can't think of one Democrat at the moment who can take Trump on. They would have to be whiter than fresh snow and 'straight talking' and pro-economic growth and sensible immigration enough to swing Trump supporters... quite an ask.
    - majewsky 10y ago
      There is another way. Trump mostly won because of voter disenfranchisement: It's not that more people voted Republicans than last time, but a lot fewer people voted Democrats than 2008 and 2012. A good Democratic candidate could pull these people back to the polls.
- jondubois 10y ago
  I bet that there are a lot of Americans who completely disagree with Trump's policies and yet at the same time they feel avenged by them. The working class enjoys watching the elites get worked up and horrified about Trump. I think that this election is a manifestation of inter-class conflicts according to "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs ). On one side, we have the working class made up of people who don't care too much about moral ideals because they can barely afford the "Safety" step on the Maslow pyramid. On the other side, we have the elites who don't seem to care about the daily struggles of the working class and instead prefer to indulge their need for self-actualization by focusing on convenient moral ideals instead of inconvenient practicalities. Why weren't any of these celebrities protesting when Washington bailed out the big banks during the financial crisis? That issue had much more significant ramifications on the average American but the elites didn't care because doing something about it would have hurt their stock portfolios.
andrewstuart 10y ago
I look fondly back on George W Bush, that clever, subtle, wise and compassionate President.
- googletazer 10y ago
  At least he was funny, thats about it. Anybody else saw that video where a lady describes how she works three jobs to make ends meet and he nods and declares it to be "exceptionally American"? So much for GW compassion
facepalm 10y ago
I have high respect for CodingHorror, which is why I am confused about some of his claims. Perhaps HN can help me understand a few things: - why do people claim it is a muslim ban, when really it seems to be a ban on countries that the US is fighting a war with (except Iran)? Whether there is a causality between "at war with the US" and "Muslim" seems to be another question? - what is the proper US stance on Immigration? Is the "good" line that there should be no borders at all, and everybody should be able to enter at will? Because the wall, crazy as it sounds, seems to be aimed at illegal immigration. So why not fight for better immigration laws, rather than against the wall? I have read the memes about Jews who were denied entry to the US and then died in the Holocaust. Fair enough, and as a German, I am actually extra concerned about that. I was always very pro asylum laws, because I thought what if one day there is no US to flee to, if shit hits the fan? Still, the examples also show that immigration to the US was never as open as people seem to think. I am not sure if the temporary ban or the wall are useful measures - I am not a fan of Trump's politics as such (not all of it anyway). But I still think criticism should be reasonable. It seems reasonable for example to ban people from a country you are at war with from entering. Maybe people are just in denial about being at war? It is only droning, not real war? To be honest it reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton not having sex. I am not sure illegal immigrants from Mexico are hurting the US - maybe they benefit everyone by providing cheap labor. But then, why not change the immigration laws, rather than pound on an arbitrary measure for enforcing the existing laws?
- whorleater 10y ago
  > why do people claim it is a muslim ban, when really it seems to be a ban on countries that the US is fighting a war with (except Iran)? Whether there is a causality between "at war with the US" and "Muslim" seems to be another question? Because it omits Christians from the ban? Because it bans legal visa holders and (initially) permanent residents, who, I repeat, went through the immigration process legally and now are suddenly banned based on the country of their origin? Because, Rudy Giuliani, the White House Adviser, literally admitted on live television that Trump tasked him to find a legal version of a "muslim ban"? How else are you supposed to see it, "it's not a muslim ban, it's just a ban on people who happen to be muslim specifically because their religion"?
comice 10y ago
"We lead the free world. And we do it by taking the higher moral ground, doing what is right before doing what is expedient." It's at this point that you know for sure Jeff is ignorant of American government policy. His heart seems in the right place and he's taking some important steps. But along with it I think he needs to educate himself. Can't fix problems you don't even believe exist.
andriesm 10y ago
Jeff makes the point that we are on the verge of a Nuclear DOOMSDAY - Common be serious. Don't make such extraordinary claims without providing extraordinary evidence. Ridiculous.
ryanx435 10y ago
1) it's a temporary ban. 2) it doesn't target muslims, it targets people from failed states 3) it is a continuation and more intense version of previous travel bans passed by the Obama administration 4) isis has repeatedly said that they are actively sending sleeper agents to Europe and America posing as refugees
throwaw181ay 10y ago
> We lead the free world i sincerely hate when people from anywhere say that. During the second half of the 20th century, the american government was directly or indirectly responsible for at least half of the conflicts on that planet. Americans need to wake up, they are as much the beacon of tyranny than they are the beacon of the "free world". It's just that most Americans don't care about what their own government does abroad. And it didn't start with Bush II. > And we do it by taking the higher moral ground, I absolutely hate that too, this is so arrogant. There is really a disconnect between how some Americans view themselves and how the rest of the world see them for what their government actually is: playing war-games on a constant basis and selling the PAX AMERICANA as something just. I'm sorry but i'm extremely disappointed by Jeff here, this is just wrong and insulting for the rest of the world. For all the bad that Trump does, I hope that at least it will tone down this sense of superiority coming from Americans, because that's the source of many problems. > how negligent and dangerous Trump is as the leader of the free world. You're not the leader of the free world, not according to most of the rest of the world, because of your foreign policy post WWII. You supported dictatorships, rigged democratic elections, trained death squads in south america, killed millions in Vietnam, spoiled their land with agent orange, invaded countries like Iraq that did nothing to you, all in the name of "freedom" ... freedom for whom?
- grzm 10y ago
  Please stop creating throwaway accounts to post purely political rants.
  - googletazer 10y ago
    Why does it matter? He (mostly) isn't wrong in his political rant
    - grzm 10y ago
      Because HN is a community where people have discussions with each other. Pseudonyms are fine. The community benefits from consistent accounts that others can relate to as members of the community. Otherwise there are effectively no users and no community, which is a very different place.
1ris 10y ago
> how negligent and dangerous Trump is as the leader of the free world. A torture-endorsing leader of the free world is like the meat-eating leader of vegetarians. Trump is simply not part of the free world, and therefore not it's leader.

411 points by hkailahi 10y ago

>Mexican culture is ingrained deeply into America and we are all better for it. How is this the case? Multiculturalism is not necessarily a good thing. I'm reminded of Thiel's The Diversity Myth. We no longer question whether some of these statements are true. Diversity is not necessarily a good thing and sometimes it can actually be detrimental by allowing for the tolerance of mediocre standards in a society.

untilHellbanned 10y ago

Having the luxury of time and money like the OP has allows for an extensive checklist like this. Kudos for putting it out there and for fighting a good fight. However, many people don't have the bandwidth or financial stability to divert activity away from non-stability generating activities. Sadly the more I thought about this, the more I'm finding it difficult to see any internet posts as anything other than contributing to a constant stream of agenda pushing and/or humble bragging. FB started it and I fear now we a stuck with everything (including of course these comments) washing away in a sea of noise.

arc_of_descent 10y ago
I don't why, but I agree with you. I'm a full-time programmer. The rest of my free time is devoted to my other passions (guitar, music). I always have arguments with my friends over whether we should take an active interest in politics/policies. I sometimes say, that if you want to, then please join politics full-time, or let the Government do its job. But the fear exists. You won't do something, until it happens to you. So, people like the OP, have a real sense of empathy which I admire.

wingerlang 10y ago

> And he signed an executive order that literally, not figuratively, banned Muslims from entering the US. Isn't "banned muslims" the wrong choice of words here? You could enter US as a muslim from e.g. Malaysia still.

dredmorbius 10y ago
No. No it is not. "Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’" “How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.” “I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] 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.'" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/tr... Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9GKL6i38pI
- wingerlang 10y ago
  Fair enough, but it is still not a literal ban is it? I repeat my statement as a question: as a muslim from e.g. Malaysia, you can still enter US - right?
  - thecopy 10y ago
    Yes, you can. Trump activated a policy invented and signed into law by Obama, he did not choose the countries himself.
    - MagnumOpus 10y ago
      Sorry, you fell for an "alternative fact".
      - lifty 10y ago
        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.
        aniforprez 10y ago

spir 10y ago

Beautiful post, thank you.

aedron 10y ago

You know what a lot of people consider worse than Donald Trump? The status quo. That's what I feel is missing in all this indignation - where were you before? The political system has been deeply broken for decades, with the same unjust policies being pursued regardless of which public face was on it - imperialist militaristic foreign policies abroad, economic inequality at home. All sold to the public with glib marketing campaigns through a monopolized mass media. The whole democracy road show feeling like a sham for the gullible to eat up. There's a lot not to like about Donald Trump, but for one thing he is an outsider to the established system (I believe in this because of how hard the mainstream media is bent on pulling him down). It is hard for me to see that as anything but an improvement.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
test1235 10y ago
"Better the devil you know" vs "Out of the frying pan into the fire" Maybe change was needed, but this is so much worse than before.
verbify 10y ago
> he is an outsider to the established system He's a billionaire who inherited around $750 million. He didn't pay his taxes. His chief of staff was chairman of the Republican party. His cabinet have a combined net worth of $6 billion. If anyone represents the powers-that-be, he does. If anyone has a glib marketing campaign, it's the Trump presidency in claiming to be 'outsiders'. And if you think the political system is broken, well, you haven't seen nothing yet. > how hard the mainstream media is bent on pulling him down Maybe the media is criticizing him because, you know, he does things that deserve criticism.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  Just because you're part of one club (business leaders) doesn't make you part of another club (political elite). America is a very odd place, there's cheerful talk about being the most democratic place in the world, but you have all these really bizarre ruling families who keep winning powerful positions. It's not normal to have two Bushes, let alone 3 in power in the space of a couple of decades. Or Clintons. Or Kennedys. How can you not look at your own politics and wonder, with 300 odd million, how do the same families keep winning? That the whole thing's not a stacked deck? It's really weird. To outsiders, there's obviously something deeply corrupt in America where a tiny ruling dynasty keep getting themselves elected. There's a 'queue' and Hilary was at the top because of her connections. SNL even joked before the election that if she wasn't elected, she'd be back next time as it was still her 'turn' to be president. Trump is not part of that club, that's what he's talking about. By supporting that corrupt status quo the democrats helped a monster like Trump be elected.

geff82 10y ago

Wonderfully written, giving my thoughts a word. For me and my wife, the USA, despite all their shortcomings, are a country we really want to live in. It stands for many good things. It is not a country you want to mess with, and we are fine with that. We embrace American culture, we love American companies, we so far respected American politicians. For stuff we as individuals are interested in (which might not be what everyone is interested in), the USA is perfect. So far, we live in Germany, but to prove our love, we tried to find ways to at least spend some years in the country we like to visit so much. Until Friday. Now we are banned. My wife is Iranian. This is always a burden because of some extensive visa requirements, but we accepted the fact. With a bit of planning, we could go anywhere we wanted, go visit NYC, enjoy the plains of Texas, visit houses to buy in Dallas. All gone. We already are "extreme vetted". But now, our trust is broken. We wanted to tour Miami and Washington with our little daughter in April. Thank god we had not yet booked. This situation feels very strange. Empty.

pzone 10y ago
Damn I'm sorry. This is truly the opposite of making America great.
- Mahn 10y ago
  "Make America great again" never stood for making America actually great, it was all along an euphemism for "Make America go back in time 50 years again", and sadly a lot of people wanted just that.
  - czep 10y ago
    > for "Make America go back in time 50 years again" Or 100 years. There were culture wars in the 1910s that were as fierce as those today. That's how we got the Harrison Narcotics Act for one example. I certainly don't mean to belittle the present crisis, but we should realize that these battles have been going on for a long time. As long as people like Mr. Atwood continue to speak up, we will weather this one as we have since this great nation was founded. For evil to win it is sufficient for good to remain silent. Let's not be silent.

MisterWebz 10y ago

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?

levlaz 10y ago
> Bombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured. Who is saying that this is acceptable? > 90-day ban on immigrants coming from war-torn countries I think the key issue here is that this ban includes valid Green Card holders and people who have Visas. This means that they have already spent up to two years being vetted. This policy makes no sense. If the order was just "stop issuing visas", I don't think that there would have been such an uproar.
- SBCRec 10y ago
  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...
  - levlaz 10y ago
    Yeah that makes a lot of sense actually.
  - ctack 10y ago
    Well put. I wonder if this ban would have been as strongly challenged by the media if it was someone else proposing it.
    - kevingadd 10y ago
      Considering the huge parade of Republican and Democrat politicians that condemned the very idea over the last year, what do you think?

andyfleming 10y ago

I'm encouraged by those who realize that they have a responsibility to our country. Freedoms are not only fought for with guns and tanks. Nor is voting our only responsibility. And beyond the politics and policy, we all have a role in developing our culture. I hope we will all choose patience and education of one another rather than condemnation and divisiveness.

aswerty 10y ago

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.

estsauver 10y ago
I think so. Communities that aren't willing to deal with this tragedy that's rapidly unfolding in America aren't communities I want to be a part of.
- hueving 10y ago
  That's the problem with political posts. One side sees it as good, one side sees it as a tragedy, and then the remaining 80%+ of the people are subjected to the bickering.
  - diyorgasms 10y ago
    If 80% of people don't care then that's even more reason to have these discussions. There is no excuse for disengagement at a time like this. Disinterest and silence are allies of oppression.
    - hueving 10y ago
      How exactly is watching one group of people call another group racists over and over going to help someone engage? Particularly if they are a citizen of Hong Kong?
- badwulf 10y ago
  This is a tech community, we aren't supposed to deal with politics. What tragedy are you talking about? I think what's happening is great, Europe should start embracing a similar policy(assuming you are talking about the refugee ban). Here is a tip: whenever you feel overly sensitive about something in politics, ask yourself the question: why did this happen? how did we get here? and look up people who have an opinion opposite to yours, not just the ones who feel like you.

moultano 10y ago

I wrote this today from a similar place. I've never been more furious at my government than now. https://medium.com/@moultano/they-tried-to-ban-green-card-holders-1eede6976f65#.v0j1jx4fz https://medium.com/@moultano/they-tried-to-ban-green-card-ho...

ryanx435 10y ago
Never? So you didn't mind when we were bombing weddings and hospitals? Nice.
- sctb 10y ago
  This is not the sort of thing we say to fellow community members as part of a civil and thoughtful discussion. Please don't post like this.
  - ryanx435 10y ago
    what part of that question was uncivil or not thoughtful? challenging their biases? the way it was phrased? using "never?" as a grammitically incorrect sentence? pointing out their hypocrisy?

josscrowcroft 10y ago

A very well-reasoned and well-written piece. Thank you.

tempodox 10y ago

I wholeheartedly agree with this post. We may regret that the wakeup call didn't come through earlier, but late is better than never.

redsummer 10y ago

This is hysteria. "he signed an executive order that literally, not figuratively, banned Muslims from entering the US" Of the 10 countries with the largest Muslim populations, only one - Iran - has been restricted: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables74/ http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_proje... The list of countries was previously drawn up by the Obama administration. I'm not in favor of the restrictions, but there is no need to make things up.

rtpg 10y ago
- It was a ban of people from 7 muslim-dominated countries - It excepts non-Muslims (religious test) - It includes dual-citizens, and permanent residents. Even when you become the citizen of another country, you're still tainted according to the EO. Even when you've been vetted for the green card, you're still tainted. - Guiliani is on the record that Trump said "I want a Muslim ban" and this was drafted to be the "most legal" way to do this, and a compromise from "ban all people from all muslim countries" - There is no correlation between the list of countries and terrorist attacks on US soil. None of these country's citizens have contributed to attacks in over 40 years. Imagine England banning Irish citizens for the IRA. Trump called for a Muslim ban over the campaign, asked for it as president, Guiliani gave what he thought to be a muslim ban, no other executive office seemed to give input. Not sure what else this could be but a muslim ban.
- ominous 10y ago
  > It excepts non-Muslims Can I get a source on that? I just want to read about it, not doubting you.
  - birken 10y ago
    From the EA: > "the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality" In all of these 7 countries the majority religion is Islam, therefore by prioritizing refugee claims by people who practice a minority religion they are de-prioritizing claims by refugees solely due to being muslim. ----- Also Donald Trump once released a press release stating: > "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," ---- There is no reason to twist the reality of the situation. Donald Trump has talked many times about banning Muslims from entering the US. The text of the bill allows for Muslims to be banned or at least de-prioritized from being able to enter the country due to their religion. Why anybody would assume the main intention of the executive order is not to do the exact thing Donald Trump has talked about doing?

rtpg 10y ago

One thing that might be missing from this action plan is "get into local action". If you vote Democrat, there were many uncontested republican seats that voted Clinton. The Democratic party has had its foundation fall out, and its mostly because the local-level stuff has fallen completely by the wayside. Hell, you can even just run for office in 2018. All the DNC chair candidates agree that there are not enough people offering to run on the Dem ticket for congress (hence uncontested seats). If you want to be third party, start trying to win local elections. There too, maybe you can present yourself. If 5 people from a third party got into congress through the house, that'd be a big deal. Best way to do that? Concentrated local efforts. Also, state legislatures are important! Look at California Just like gov't is more than once every 4 years, government is not just the presidency, or just federal. Every level matters.

cmdkeen 10y ago
As a UK citizen I wouldn't run for elected office here given the level of abuse and "alt-truth" levelled at politicians. I certainly wouldn't run for elected office in the US. If you've ever done anything that could be twisted to cast you in a bad light, even if you haven't, you - and your family - will be put through the wringer. I keep seeing parallels with the decades leading up to the end of the Roman Republic, except all we have are Caesars and Pompeys with no Cicero's thrown into the mix.

nicolas_t 10y ago

While I agree with most everything Jeff says and it's really well written, I'm always a bit irked when I see the the president of the US being called "Leader of the Free World". Especially when it's stated in those terms: "We lead the free world. And we do it by taking the higher moral ground, doing what is right before doing what is expedient." I'm not sure the US can still qualify as leading the free world under those terms. Ask people who were tortured by Pinochet, look at the coup in Haiti in 1991, look at what happened in Iraq and the lie around the Weapon of Mass Destructions, look at Gitmo. Are those the actions of "leaders of the free world"? I do wish that the US could become worthy of being called leaders of the free world but they're not there yet and with Trump, they're not going in the right direction.

jhbadger 10y ago
The "free world" is pretty meaningless since the Cold War ended. It never really meant "free" anyway -- Pinochet's and Franco's regimes were as much a part of it as Western democracies. What it really meant was the "anti-Soviet world".
- JBiserkov 10y ago
  I see a browser extension potential here. Substitute Soviet with Russia/China and call it a day.
- nicolas_t 10y ago
  Yes, the term "the free world" comes from the Cold War propaganda but it doesn't stop the fact that the US, as an economic powerhouse, has a disproportionate influence on the rest of the world and this is why I would want it to be worthy of the name "Leader of the Free World". It's unfortunately not and I think that people repeatedly calling them that tends to legitimize the US actions.
- mdemare 10y ago
  That's nonsense. Spain under Franco wasn't considered part of the "free world". To a first approximation, it referred to countries in NATO, plus a few allied countries like Sweden and Japan.

d3ckard 10y ago

Nice post, though there are some caveats. As a Pole (as some of you know, we do have some issues here too, though many would disagree) I feel at least a bit competent to give you a bit of advice, so you can get out of it better than we did. 1. Donald Trump is not your enemy, nor a problem. He is a manifestation of the problem, which is current state of your society and problems you have. Do not believe that you can just impeach a guy and call it a day. 2. Don't even try to just get back to status quo. That's basically what happened in Poland in 2007 and problems came back after 8 years, worse than ever. The status quo you had created the Donald Trump and would continue to promote similar politicians. 3. Do not hate Trump supporters, do not be mean to them, do not laugh them off. They are people who live in different US than you do. As far as I can tell, most people on HN could retire in their 40s if they wanted to. This is not the reality of average American, as are your salaries and life opportunities. You live in a bubble and you need to accept it and reach out to learn what the world looks like for an average Joe. 4. You have a lot of power now, do not lend it to random politicians, as they will try to capitalize on your emotions. Hillary Clinton was not some heavenly figure, she had her bunch of issues too. Those issues were just of lesser importance to you. It is quite likely, that if Democrats nominated Sanders, he would win with Trump. They did not nominate him for the reason - he also wanted to change quite a lot, just in different direction than Trump. No matter what your political views are, his popularity showed that what your people expect is change and they will fight for it, because they have much less to loose than you. Acknowledge that and find a way to deal with it. 5. Do not expect the situation to just calm down. It won't. It is not some kind of mistake that can be solved by moving to popular vote. Life ain't that simple. You have people working full-time who cannot afford the living. You have one of the most expensive and unreachable for many healthcare systems. You do have degressive taxing systems. You have much smaller middle class that you are used too. Those problems need attention, you cannot just swipe it under the rag and pretend it's just some kind of national outrage. It isn't. What you're seeing is your society stopping to work as it used too. It won't bounce back until you decide to do something with it and it might not be pleasant to you. It may mean higher taxes for example. Or some other change you will not be happy about. Trust me, the alternative is much worse. Good luck!

zimpenfish 10y ago
> It is quite likely, that if Democrats nominated Sanders, he would win with Trump. I haven't seen a single political analysis which shows a path for him to do that. Do you have any examples?

rdtsc 10y ago

> As of 2017, the United States, through a sequence of highly improbable events, managed to elect an extremely controversial president. I think it a mistake to see this as a random fluke and chuck it up to chance. It seems like chance to those who were asleep or were watching news from their own bubble. Trump is a symptom of something that was already there probably decades in the making. If we ignore the conditions which created Trump, if we only pay attention to what is in our own Facebook feed we'll end up with another Trump, and another. Every time assuming it was random or an act of God or Russians or whatever. Also where were all these prominent tech people and CEOs when Obama was Hillary were busy destabilizing the region, bombing civilians and arming rebels in that part of the world. I find a bit hypocritical everyone being upset about a travel ban and not upset about much worse stuff. But this is about waking up so it is a good first step. > And he signed an executive order that literally, not figuratively, banned Muslims from entering the US It was a list created by the Obama administration for largely the same purpose. And was even used for a while to actually ban people from a Muslim country. Was there any outrage, how many tech leaders pledged to oppose the unfair blocking of refugees then? Also why didn't Trump block Indonesia instead if this this infamous Muslim ban. If this was a general Muslim ban it doesn't seem very effective just based on the countries it covers. Let's criticize Trump and his politcies but is this the main and most serious thing to expend all the effort on? We should be paying attention to his cabinet picks, trade deals, economic and military policies. And also, to be effective it is important to have well defined and realistic goal. Goals such as "removing Trump" are probably not realistic for the next 4 years. But in this case maybe trying to remove some countries from the ban like Iran for ex., or lobbying and campaigning to allow green card holders to be unaffected by it is better.

RodericDay 10y ago
Best post by a mile. Not only did America elect Trump, Sanders also did mighty fine for someone who in years past would be considered unelectable. People pass around figures about GDP and low unemployment to prove to themselves things are absolutely fine, but then you dig further and you find that many feel lost and desperate. Obama said "America is already great", and many people found it a vomit-inducing quip. In many ways liberals brought this upon themselves. I find similarities in how liberals deal with Trump and how americans in general dealt with 9/11. "They hate us for our freedoms" is a much more palatable idea than thinking about systemic dynamics.

127 10y ago

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.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

andrewstuart 10y ago

Addressing the concerns of the Trump supporters is the only way forward. Why are they angry? Silicon Valley - one of the richest sectors of society, is up in arms because the disenfranchised "have nots" are expressing their anger about being "have nots" by just tearing the whole damn thing down. The "have nots" say - through Trump and his actions - "OK, you got everything, we got nothing, here's the payback". The have nots are angry and simply want to smash everything. The process is only just starting. The ONLY solution is to bring the "have nots" back to being "haves". When you fight Trump, you simply fight the "have nots". You cannot fight them, you must take away Trumps support base by winning them over, not opposing them.

rtpg 10y ago
The question now: how big is his base? His approval is in free fall. What's the low point? 40%? 30%? 20%? The French president was at one point at 8% approval.
- icu 10y ago
  The only thing that matters now is Trump's approval in the next election. If he keeps his voter base happy and is seen to be actually doing more things right than wrong he may even pick up more votes. I honestly can't think of one Democrat at the moment who can take Trump on. They would have to be whiter than fresh snow and 'straight talking' and pro-economic growth and sensible immigration enough to swing Trump supporters... quite an ask.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    There is another way. Trump mostly won because of voter disenfranchisement: It's not that more people voted Republicans than last time, but a lot fewer people voted Democrats than 2008 and 2012. A good Democratic candidate could pull these people back to the polls.
jondubois 10y ago
I bet that there are a lot of Americans who completely disagree with Trump's policies and yet at the same time they feel avenged by them. The working class enjoys watching the elites get worked up and horrified about Trump. I think that this election is a manifestation of inter-class conflicts according to "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs ). On one side, we have the working class made up of people who don't care too much about moral ideals because they can barely afford the "Safety" step on the Maslow pyramid. On the other side, we have the elites who don't seem to care about the daily struggles of the working class and instead prefer to indulge their need for self-actualization by focusing on convenient moral ideals instead of inconvenient practicalities. Why weren't any of these celebrities protesting when Washington bailed out the big banks during the financial crisis? That issue had much more significant ramifications on the average American but the elites didn't care because doing something about it would have hurt their stock portfolios.

andrewstuart 10y ago

I look fondly back on George W Bush, that clever, subtle, wise and compassionate President.

googletazer 10y ago
At least he was funny, thats about it. Anybody else saw that video where a lady describes how she works three jobs to make ends meet and he nods and declares it to be "exceptionally American"? So much for GW compassion

facepalm 10y ago

I have high respect for CodingHorror, which is why I am confused about some of his claims. Perhaps HN can help me understand a few things: - why do people claim it is a muslim ban, when really it seems to be a ban on countries that the US is fighting a war with (except Iran)? Whether there is a causality between "at war with the US" and "Muslim" seems to be another question? - what is the proper US stance on Immigration? Is the "good" line that there should be no borders at all, and everybody should be able to enter at will? Because the wall, crazy as it sounds, seems to be aimed at illegal immigration. So why not fight for better immigration laws, rather than against the wall? I have read the memes about Jews who were denied entry to the US and then died in the Holocaust. Fair enough, and as a German, I am actually extra concerned about that. I was always very pro asylum laws, because I thought what if one day there is no US to flee to, if shit hits the fan? Still, the examples also show that immigration to the US was never as open as people seem to think. I am not sure if the temporary ban or the wall are useful measures - I am not a fan of Trump's politics as such (not all of it anyway). But I still think criticism should be reasonable. It seems reasonable for example to ban people from a country you are at war with from entering. Maybe people are just in denial about being at war? It is only droning, not real war? To be honest it reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton not having sex. I am not sure illegal immigrants from Mexico are hurting the US - maybe they benefit everyone by providing cheap labor. But then, why not change the immigration laws, rather than pound on an arbitrary measure for enforcing the existing laws?

whorleater 10y ago
> why do people claim it is a muslim ban, when really it seems to be a ban on countries that the US is fighting a war with (except Iran)? Whether there is a causality between "at war with the US" and "Muslim" seems to be another question? Because it omits Christians from the ban? Because it bans legal visa holders and (initially) permanent residents, who, I repeat, went through the immigration process legally and now are suddenly banned based on the country of their origin? Because, Rudy Giuliani, the White House Adviser, literally admitted on live television that Trump tasked him to find a legal version of a "muslim ban"? How else are you supposed to see it, "it's not a muslim ban, it's just a ban on people who happen to be muslim specifically because their religion"?

comice 10y ago

"We lead the free world. And we do it by taking the higher moral ground, doing what is right before doing what is expedient." It's at this point that you know for sure Jeff is ignorant of American government policy. His heart seems in the right place and he's taking some important steps. But along with it I think he needs to educate himself. Can't fix problems you don't even believe exist.

andriesm 10y ago

Jeff makes the point that we are on the verge of a Nuclear DOOMSDAY - Common be serious. Don't make such extraordinary claims without providing extraordinary evidence. Ridiculous.

ryanx435 10y ago

1) it's a temporary ban. 2) it doesn't target muslims, it targets people from failed states 3) it is a continuation and more intense version of previous travel bans passed by the Obama administration 4) isis has repeatedly said that they are actively sending sleeper agents to Europe and America posing as refugees

throwaw181ay 10y ago

> We lead the free world i sincerely hate when people from anywhere say that. During the second half of the 20th century, the american government was directly or indirectly responsible for at least half of the conflicts on that planet. Americans need to wake up, they are as much the beacon of tyranny than they are the beacon of the "free world". It's just that most Americans don't care about what their own government does abroad. And it didn't start with Bush II. > And we do it by taking the higher moral ground, I absolutely hate that too, this is so arrogant. There is really a disconnect between how some Americans view themselves and how the rest of the world see them for what their government actually is: playing war-games on a constant basis and selling the PAX AMERICANA as something just. I'm sorry but i'm extremely disappointed by Jeff here, this is just wrong and insulting for the rest of the world. For all the bad that Trump does, I hope that at least it will tone down this sense of superiority coming from Americans, because that's the source of many problems. > how negligent and dangerous Trump is as the leader of the free world. You're not the leader of the free world, not according to most of the rest of the world, because of your foreign policy post WWII. You supported dictatorships, rigged democratic elections, trained death squads in south america, killed millions in Vietnam, spoiled their land with agent orange, invaded countries like Iraq that did nothing to you, all in the name of "freedom" ... freedom for whom?

grzm 10y ago
Please stop creating throwaway accounts to post purely political rants.
- googletazer 10y ago
  Why does it matter? He (mostly) isn't wrong in his political rant
  - grzm 10y ago
    Because HN is a community where people have discussions with each other. Pseudonyms are fine. The community benefits from consistent accounts that others can relate to as members of the community. Otherwise there are effectively no users and no community, which is a very different place.

1ris 10y ago

> how negligent and dangerous Trump is as the leader of the free world. A torture-endorsing leader of the free world is like the meat-eating leader of vegetarians. Trump is simply not part of the free world, and therefore not it's leader.