2 ms·

> It baffles me the level of cognitive dissonance that must be happening in the brains of the people that support the Trump administration and how much they hav

> It baffles me the level of cognitive dissonance that must be happening in the brains of the people that support the Trump administration and how much they have to repeat to themselves that this nationalistic moron is somehow not a racist. How does this particular issue trace back to Trump exactly? It's not as if the US hasn't been known for capricious deportations, particularly as relates to the Islamic world, for the past decade or two. It's also worth pointing out we have a one-sided explanation from the student himself. It's entirely possible that some rather damning evidence has been left out, so how about we pause for a minute before we jump on the outrage train?

tombert 7y ago
> Though Ajjawi’s situation is rare among Harvard undergraduates, in 2017 four graduate students faced similar challenges due to a then-effective travel ban instituted by the Trump Administration. I don't know this kid's particular case, but the travel ban has been directly mapped to stuff like this. It's ridiculous. > so how about we pause for a minute before we jump on the outrage train? Why, exactly? Can you give me an exact amount of time I should wait before reacting? I find it pretty irritating that whenever people want to discuss a potential direct consequence of something a politician did, people immediately act like it's unfair to start talking about things until we have "all the facts". Even if this particular case is an outlier, and that the kid is secretly the next Ted Bundy, does that mean we shouldn't be discussing potential negative consequences of bad legislation?
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > I don't know this kid's particular case Perhaps it's best to withhold outrage until you do. > I find it pretty irritating that whenever people want to discuss a potential direct consequence of something a politician did, people immediately act like it's unfair to start talking about things until we have "all the facts". I find it irritating when someone takes a one-sided account of a developing situation and reflexively uses it to attack their villain du-jour. > does that mean we shouldn't be discussing potential negative consequences of bad legislation? You weren't discussing bad legislation, just calling the sitting President a racist for the deportation, for which we don't have full details, which has also been a common feature of a number of prior administrations. You're not discussing anything, you're ranting and attacking.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>How does this particular issue trace back to Trump exactly? Well, I'm feeling lucky, so I think I'll pick; 'The increase in frequency directly following his election campaign promises and attempts as President, to institute a ban on muslims travelling to the US.', for $200.
- IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
  The ban was on specific countries. Pass on the kool aid. People be thirsty. No $200 for u

tombert 7y ago

> Though Ajjawi’s situation is rare among Harvard undergraduates, in 2017 four graduate students faced similar challenges due to a then-effective travel ban instituted by the Trump Administration. I don't know this kid's particular case, but the travel ban has been directly mapped to stuff like this. It's ridiculous. > so how about we pause for a minute before we jump on the outrage train? Why, exactly? Can you give me an exact amount of time I should wait before reacting? I find it pretty irritating that whenever people want to discuss a potential direct consequence of something a politician did, people immediately act like it's unfair to start talking about things until we have "all the facts". Even if this particular case is an outlier, and that the kid is secretly the next Ted Bundy, does that mean we shouldn't be discussing potential negative consequences of bad legislation?

mieseratte 7y ago
> I don't know this kid's particular case Perhaps it's best to withhold outrage until you do. > I find it pretty irritating that whenever people want to discuss a potential direct consequence of something a politician did, people immediately act like it's unfair to start talking about things until we have "all the facts". I find it irritating when someone takes a one-sided account of a developing situation and reflexively uses it to attack their villain du-jour. > does that mean we shouldn't be discussing potential negative consequences of bad legislation? You weren't discussing bad legislation, just calling the sitting President a racist for the deportation, for which we don't have full details, which has also been a common feature of a number of prior administrations. You're not discussing anything, you're ranting and attacking.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

>How does this particular issue trace back to Trump exactly? Well, I'm feeling lucky, so I think I'll pick; 'The increase in frequency directly following his election campaign promises and attempts as President, to institute a ban on muslims travelling to the US.', for $200.

IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
The ban was on specific countries. Pass on the kool aid. People be thirsty. No $200 for u