Our Humanity
from the this-is-not-a-game dept
Over the last few months, we've had a very, very small, but still vocal group of folks in our comments who have gotten angry every time we've been critical of Donald Trump -- even when we were making nearly identical complaints about him as we did about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That group of people probably won't like this post very much, though I do hope they'll read it with open minds. We're not a political blog. We cover technology and innovation, as well as the legal, economic and policy issues related to those things. Over the years, that's included issues related to civil liberties and civil rights. We don't see these things as being separate. They are all connected and intertwined. We've even spent plenty of time discussing immigration, though focusing on high tech and entrepreneur immigration.
But I don't think there's any need for me to try to justify why I'm making this post on Techdirt today. This is about humanity. And if you want to complain in the comments that you don't want to read this on a "tech" site, well, then maybe take a second and think about what this says about you. Basically my entire family came to America between around 1890 and 1920 -- most of them escaping religious persecution elsewhere. My great grandmother had to hide in the bottom of a boat to escape from where she lived. Many came through Ellis Island, and were welcomed into America. My grandfathers built up businesses here. One fought bravely against Nazis (literally) in World War II for the US in Europe and North Africa, and came back to the US and built a company that (among other things) was a huge supplier for the Boy Scouts of America. While they may have struggled at times, my family came to America and was embraced by America, thrived in America and has always loved America. My wife is an immigrant. Her family moved here when she was young to give her and her siblings a better life. And that's what they found. America embraced them and they embraced America back. They're all US citizens.
All weekend long, I've been reading all sorts of accounts about President Trump's executive order. Some of it has been thoughtful. Some of it has been hysterical. Some of it has been painful. Some of it has been ridiculous.
But it all comes back to one thing: this is about our humanity.
The "excuses" that some have been spewing for the executive order make no sense. They say this is about "safety," yet there is no evidence that the people being kept out were a risk to our safety. As many have noted, not a single terrorist attack has come from people from those countries. They say this is about "extreme vetting" but ignore that refugees already go through a ridiculously long and thorough "extreme vetting" process that can take years. They say that this is just an "inconvenience" to a "small group" of people, ignoring that they are basically upending the lives of entire families -- families including those with permanent resident status, who have been valuable, contributing members to our country for years and years and years.
This is madness.
They say that this is necessary to protect us at home, but even ignoring everything above, it's hard to see how this doesn't make us less safe. How can anyone read this essay by Kirk Johnson and not realize how much harm we're doing. Johnson has devoted a big part of his life to helping Iraqis who literally put their lives at risk to help Americans, and then were ignored by America. Read what he's written and ask yourself what foreigner will sign up to help America again in the future?
@realDonaldTrump @POTUS pic.twitter.com/EAuvKgcvNE
— Kirk W. Johnson (@KirkWJohnson) January 29, 2017
They say this is about "the rule of law," but then explain why Customs and Border Patrol are literally ignoring court orders and refusing to even speak to members of Congress? They say this is about stopping threats at home, but that doesn't explain at all why the White House failed to have the relevant experts review the executive order before it was put in place, or why multiple national security experts have noted this will clearly make us less safe. And, of course, nothing explains why the White House directly overruled Homeland Security saying this wouldn't apply to permanent residents (and then required DHS to later come out and try to clarify).
Again, this goes back to a story about basic humanity. And our country massively failing.
I know there are lots of people speculating on a variety of things around all of this. There are explanations that this is part of a "shock doctrine" move to sow chaos and confusion and deligitimize organizations before the really bad policy is put into place. And perhaps that's true. It's certainly something to watch for. But, as someone who tries to look at every policy proposal based on a "does this make sense" or "does this make the world a better place" metric -- and not on a "does this help my team" scale -- it must be stated that the executive order Donald Trump signed late last week, that was put into effect over the weekend is not just a disaster. It hasn't just created a constitutional crisis with parts of the executive branch ignoring the judiciary. It's not just a policy that is impacting millions of lives.
It's simply inhumane.
This is about humanity, and anyone who has any sense of humanity has a responsibility to speak up about it and to say that this is not right. If you get angry about this post, and think you need to insult us and attack me or this site, I would only recommend that you first take stock of your life, and think about what message you are sending out into the world when you do so.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil liberties, decency, donald trump, humanity, immigration, refugees, safety, security
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Really....? Let's break it down:
Steve Bannon is this administration's Karl Rove. The chief strategist of the Trump campaign and administration. More than that, President* Trump just reshuffled the US National Security Council, downgrading the military chiefs of staff and giving a regular seat to Bannon.
Wikipedia: Neo-Nazism
Under Steve Bannon's leadership, the above is pretty much the mission statement of Breitbart.com. Few would deny that Bannon is a neo-Nazi. Er, sorry, "Alt-right."
Wikipedia: Alt-right
President* Trump has been entirely consistent with Bannon's ideology. Declaring Mexicans "rapists and murderers." Declaring the US-born judge on his business fraud case biased because of Mexican ancestry. The whole Muslim ban thing, which he's following through on. His history of discriminating against blacks in his rental properties. False claims of millions of illegal immigrant votes. Etc. etc.
And just a reminder: Donald Trump's ex-wife said Trump kept a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed. In the article, Ivana Trump also told a friend that her husband's cousin, John Walter "clicks his heels and says, 'Heil Hitler," when visiting Trump's office.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At this point it's the extraordinary claim that Trump isn't running a white supremacist administration that requires extraordinary evidence.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
- Tony Benn, British Minister of Parliament for 47 years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is why you shouldn't demonise even the most "confirmed" socialists; fundamentally, they're decent, well-meaning people, though they can be somewhat misguided at times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets keep Techdirt that way.
No one except children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers to form a platform which is ultimately harmful to society at large.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
try reading the article next time
several times, Mike points out the absurdity and hollowness of the administration's talking points.
try reading the whole thing next time before you comment based only on the pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one except children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers to form a platform which is ultimately harmful to society at large.
Really? Because that seemed to be the basis of the entire platform of the President of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In other words, HRC (and all democrats) run a MUCH better emotional campaign then any opponent has ever.
The day before the election people were EMOTIONALLY convinced Trump was literally Hitler and STILL voted for him. Emotions mean nothing - you have to attack with reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You keep harping on one talking point because it is the only thing you have.
Do not wag your finger at others claiming your maturity when you are acting out and throwing tantrums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I imagine your entire life is one fascinating display after another of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or allow me to rephrase it another way:
Trump[ is a clear and present danger to national security, and so are his 'advisors'. He is planning a coup right now, along with his friend Bannon.
Every American should be trying to get rid of this person as a terrorist. Because he is almost in a position to terrorise the world, if he has not already done so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consider Prime Minister Erdoğan of Turkey. Whether or not the attempted coupe against him was real, he's used it as a pretext for a coup of his own. He didn't stop at arresting thousands of soldiers, from 103 generals and admirals to five bus loads of students from a Military High School:
He's also removed 3000 judges, from the bottom to the very top of the judiciary. Plus prosecutors. 7,899 police officers, 614 gendarmerie officers, 47 district governors and 30 regional governors.
Mayors were fired. And thousands of civil servants. 15,200 teachers were suspended. The licenses of 21,000 teachers in the private sector were also cancelled. All deans of state and private universities were fired. 626 educational institutions were shut down. A travel ban was placed on academics, preventing them from leaving the country.
229 charities and foundations, 19 trade unions, 15 universities and 35 medical institutions were ordered closed. Large numbers of television channels, radio stations, daily newspapers, magazines and publishing houses were shut down.
Those numbers have grown considerably in later purges. They're also going after CEOs, seizing their assets.
It's a coup by the guy already holding the highest office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Coup might not be the best word
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not when the country's laws don't allow you to "solidify power" that way.
Erdoğan's mass arrests and mass firings by the thousands of anyone else with any form of competing power goes far beyond the law. Small wonder he started by arresting all the judges. It's the "solidification of power" of someone with no intention of giving up that power once their term ends or once in danger of being voted out. It's a coup by an elected official.
Fortunately it's harder for Trump to do that. A good example is Jeff Sessions asking AG nominee Sally Yates in 2015 if she'd resist 'improper' Presidential orders:
https://youtu.be/sXDt3WA07zc
Senator Sessions: "Do you think the U.S. Attorney General has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that is improper?"
Sally Yates: "I believe they have an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution,”
She did, and was fired for it by Trump yesterday. The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to vote on Sessions' nomination today to replace Yates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Rubbish. Clinton reflected the status quo, the low risk option versus the unknown. Bringing in concepts such as "nice", "love", and "hate" is childish. And your entire second paragraph is contradictory. You seem to be saying that emotions are vitally important...but not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the "Trump is gonna be a better president for me" idea is demonstrably illogical for the vast majority of Trump's voters.
No, the Trump voters voted emotionally. They voted against a woman who has made some mistakes and they just didn't quite like for some reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The way I see it is that at least some people care - even if they don't have the energy or time to proactively care for everything, and everybody. Nobody can do that. I wish we could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one except children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers to form a platform which is ultimately harmful to society at large.
The only thing about this that harms society at large is this insanely selfish and ultimately fear filled executive order.
Also, none of the articles on this site have ever been without emotion. They certainly use facts to back up their opinions, but that has never removed emotion from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yet you just used an emotional argument, and made a broad and unsupported statement about harm to "society at large".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Its unsupported here because I'm not writing a book on the subject - I encourage you to read some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What about free movement? Do I now need a permit to go to the grocery? When did this happen and why.
Again with your "everyone is ignorant but me" statement, do you ever get tired of being the only person who understands anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? Seems like religion has done pretty well over the centuries, using ONLY that to convince people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TRUMP CAN DO NO WRONG
It doesn't matter that 99%ish of the folks coming from those countries just want to escape the mayhem.
It doesn't matter that we caused most of the issues. That was Obama/Bush/The Liberal weenies, and not TRUMP.
It doesn't matter that some of the people locked out were green card holders that have been living here.
TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.... TAKE THAT MIKE!
Ok, TRUMP can't help it if he has MORON syndrome.
I'm hoping he ends up being better then the Clinton gangsters in the long run. he just needs to staple his mouth shut. IMHO, executive orders should be banned. Obozo's EO's were all crap also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TRUMP CAN DO NO WRONG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TRUMP CAN DO NO WRONG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TRUMP CAN DO NO WRONG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TRUMP CAN DO NO WRONG
Trump's in quite a hole already. There's zero practical hope that he can redeem himself even to the point of being the 2nd worst president ever. It's a fun fantasy to imagine the turnaround it would take for him to even be considered "not bad" after a start like this, but just a fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One immigrant is the same as another?
1817 = 1917 = 2017?
You see that as nonsense? Then you think like a child.
No non citizen has a right to enter a country and every government has a duty to control its own borders. And every country (not just Trump's America) does just that.
I don't support this order either, but don't be absurd. It's not a radical departure from past behavior. It is a temporary halt to some immigration while processes are revamped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
duty?
You can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No-one is "revamping processes." The refugees he's turned back have been VERY thoroughly vetted. This is about a white supremacist administration trying to keep the illegal promises it made pandering to the alt-right.
Accepting refugees - or tourists - or business travellers - does not in any way conflict with a nation's duty to control its own borders. All those turned back were entering through proper channels, fully subject to American immigration and visitor policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And instantly any point you are trying to make is discarded. In the past, responses to racism were met with denials and apologies. Now, the correct response is
GFY - Look in the mirror - lefties are the racists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Usually people who say this are just desperately looking for an excuse to avoid confronting an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really....? Let's break it down:
Steve Bannon is this administration's Karl Rove. The chief strategist of the Trump campaign and administration. More than that, President* Trump just reshuffled the US National Security Council, downgrading the military chiefs of staff and giving a regular seat to Bannon.
Wikipedia: Neo-Nazism
Under Steve Bannon's leadership, the above is pretty much the mission statement of Breitbart.com. Few would deny that Bannon is a neo-Nazi. Er, sorry, "Alt-right."
Wikipedia: Alt-right
President* Trump has been entirely consistent with Bannon's ideology. Declaring Mexicans "rapists and murderers." Declaring the US-born judge on his business fraud case biased because of Mexican ancestry. The whole Muslim ban thing, which he's following through on. His history of discriminating against blacks in his rental properties. False claims of millions of illegal immigrant votes. Etc. etc.
And just a reminder: Donald Trump's ex-wife said Trump kept a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed. In the article, Ivana Trump also told a friend that her husband's cousin, John Walter "clicks his heels and says, 'Heil Hitler," when visiting Trump's office.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At this point it's the extraordinary claim that Trump isn't running a white supremacist administration that requires extraordinary evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again with the racism and hitler references
GFY
"Few would deny that Bannon is a neo-Nazi"
Well few would deny that Roger Strong has molested a young immigrant boy who is only 8 yrs old. Few would deny that there have been hush payments to keep Roger from being arrested. Few would deny that rumor mongering with slanderous accusations is a valid argument.
"Declaring Mexicans "rapists and murderers.""
Oh, off spouting half truths again. You know this is a not true so I wont waste my time explaining it to you again. But I'll give the readers a hint: the FBI says that some people in the US are child molesters. Roger Strong is in the US. Therefore the FBI says that Roger Strong is a child molester. See anything wrong with that argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
You're missing the point: I'm not doubling down and going full retard with the Nazi references. Trump and chief strategist Bannon are doing that. I'm just the messenger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
Trump and Bannon are not Nazis and have never claimed to be. Repeating your lie doesn't make any more true.
You claim Neo-Nazism is "pretty much the mission statement of Breitbart.com". I claim that some people might say Mr. Strong has a thing for underage boys. The only difference here is that Breitbart's Jewish reporters have made some pretty convincing arguments otherwise (about the Breitbart thing)
And if you are getting offended about the tiny handful of pedo comments, think about all of the conservatives that have been maligned as racists for the past year by your ilk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
He posed very good points. While Trump hasn't gone full white supremacy/fascism it won't take long if people don't protest. Read your history books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
And if you are getting offended about the tiny handful of pedo comments
I assure you, nobody is "offended" by your continued insistence on making yourself look childish and foolish. Enlightened as to your true nature? Yes. Offended? Nah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
No one went to war because someone said, "Hey we are Nazis and fascists." They finally did because the behaviors of those sorts began to repeatedly spill over their borders.
You wouldn't even have to know what a Nazi is to be the equivalent of one. Loudmouthed racist, jingoist, authoritarianism can come in different flavours.
But the most hilarious thing with Trump is that he apparently can do any old egregious thing but he can't be labeled with that thing because _he didn't claim to be that thing_. On the other hand, he can say all sorts of things with which he also cannot be labeled because _he was just saying that_. He didn't do it. Yet. Must be nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
Just had to requote that last paragraph. 👍👍👍
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
"If it steps like a goose, and talks like a German...." :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
I'm minded of the Martians in Mars Attacks... "We come in peace..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
While denying that Trump called Mexicans "rapists and murderers."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
A half truth is a full lie.
You know you lied about this. Just admit it. If you believe that, then by your own logic, you must believe that the FBI has called you a child molester.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Overheard at the National Security Council:
"Mein Führer, I can walk!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
1) Mexico does not "sent its people" anywhere
2) Those that attempt to immigrate are not filtered based upon ability/knowledge/whathaveyou
3) No - they are not sending me
4) Those who attempt to immigrate have the same distribution of "problems" seen in the general populations everywhere.
5) wut ???
5) The amount of drugs/crime has not increased, it has gone down
6) They are not (all) rapists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Context applies to the whole thing. He was referring to illegal immigration in that whole quote. Illegal immigrants tend towards the less educated, and therefore the less able.
#3 I can't disagree.
#4 Wrong. Those who are motivated to emigrate don't just up and say "Gosh! My comfy middle-to-upper class is just so restricting!" They're almost always either poor or persecuted. And yes, that's an argument in favor of taking them, assuming they've been vetted.
#5 Wut indeed.
#5(2) Total crime levels changing has nothing to do with a given population being a disproportionate source of crime.
#6 You're agreeing with Trump here. Literally. Context again.
Frankly, Leigh had a better point on that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They're not all rapists, just most of them! I assume that some of them might not be rapists."
Oh yeah, so not racist... /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
into the trash this opinion of yours goes*
Techdirt has gone to shit in the past few years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have tons of black friends?
If you answer no, you're a racist! If you answer yes, you're a racist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please stop crying wolf. One of these days a real racist candidate is going to show up, and warning about him won't do any good because people like you have spent decades wasting the relevant terms and stripping them of any and all actual meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course people cry wolf. The wolves never left us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Read my follow-up above. (Which someone has now made the First Word.) (And I can't believe I forgot to include Trump's birther claims years after Obama's birth certificate was released and authenticated.)
It's not "crying wolf." The real racist candidate has arrived.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As is almost always the case these days, solid data demonstrates quite clearly that racism is simply not a factor here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But ALL candidates do that. Some even while quietly stoking fears among other crowds.
On the other hand they DON'T make the blatent public anti-Mexican "rapists and murderers" claims. They DON'T hire a neo-Nazi as their chief strategist and then put him on the Security Council. They DON'T promise an anti-Muslim ban and follow it up with bans on refugees from Muslim nations (that they don't have investments in.) They DON'T declare judges hearing their cases to be biased against them because of the judge's ancestry. They DON'T have a long history of birther claims singling out the black guy.
So no, I don't buy your apologetics. The wolf is here. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you completely miss the places in the article where he refutes almost every single point you just made?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Consider: the author of that article does not claim racism is not involved or that Trump doesn't have racist tendencies, in direct contradiction to your assertion that "racism is simply not a factor here". So you are already in disagreement with the article.
Consider furthermore: one semi-anonymous blogger is not the final word on what constitutes racism.
Consider in summation: stop harping on one goddamn article as though it proves you are the smartest person in the world and everyone who disagrees with you is tragically uninformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you take a position that runs contrary to observed facts, and double down on it in the face of the evidence, is that not the very definition of "tragically uninformed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mason Wheeler wrote:
By which you mean he wrote things that agreed with your feelings.
The data don't support "Trump is not a racist."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/22/peoples-views-about-race-mattered-mor e-in-electing-trump-than-in-electing-obama/?utm_term=.651bd5bcb7f1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Calling Trump anyting yet is a bit premature, since he has barely been seated yet. But so far "the wall"-gate and "refugee"-gate are as extreme proposals as you can get them without coming out the closet as a follower of an ultra-nationalist religion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Gate?
You mean like how Trump decided to start constructing the wall that was approved by Senators Biden, Obama and Clinton?
"refugee"-gate?
You mean like how Trump put a temporarily put in place a halt based on country (not religion), just like Obama and Carter?
The wailing and gnashing of liberal teeth is hilarious, but utterly misguided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: -Gate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: -Gate?
The refugee-situation Trump is addressing is a scandal internationally because Europe and middle east is swamped because of the syrian war. Even refusing the small number of refugees US takes is very unfortunate since it sets a very problematic precedent for other nations to follow suit and ignore UNHCR.
Also, his way of of framing the temporary ban is a "no-entry" and a complete temporary ban on refugees from a certain country which only Carters Iran-ban came close to and Carters ban had humanitarian exceptions as opposed to Trumps religious exceptions.
Your framing is specious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: -Gate?
So no, not JUST like Obama and Carter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
One of these days a real racist candidate is going to show up, and warning about him won't do any good because people like you have spent decades wasting the relevant terms and stripping them of any and all actual meaning.
Tell me Mason, if we're just "crying wolf" right now, what kind of chucklefuck does it take to warrant the real thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe someone who takes out a full-page ad calling for executions as part of a crusade against five innocent black young men?
Or someone who leads a fact-free assault on the legitimacy of the nation's first black president?
Or someone who instructs his property managers not to rent to black people?
....
Oh, wait..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read the article I linked to, where the author looks at actual hard data and facts (as opposed to emotionally-charged rhetoric) that shows over and over again that there is no evidence of racism going on here.
Based on the data available, he estimates that around 3% of voters have racist political leanings. After pointing out how suicidal it would be to throw away the support of voters that outnumber them by an order of magnitude, he follows up with this:
Other interesting things that the data shows: compared to the voting demographics of the last two Republican candidates...
So you kinda have to ask yourself, what do all those minorities know that you don't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-polarization-analysis-idUSKBN13I10B
Slightly less of the black vote than GWB. Considerably less of the Hispanic vote than Bush Sr. or Reagan. Lowest portion of the Asian vote in the entire time that demographic has been tracked.
Stop relying solely on one single interpretation of the numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pointing out that he made major gains among all ethnic groups except whites is not. It shows that what happened is exactly the opposite of what you would expect from a white supremacist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe someone who takes out a full-page ad calling for executions as part of a crusade against five innocent black young men?
Or someone who leads a fact-free assault on the legitimacy of the nation's first black president?
Or someone who instructs his property managers not to rent to black people?
If these are not the acts of a racist, what are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) The act of someone who leaps before he looks, going off the handle on an issue that he doesn't have all the facts on. (Like Donald Trump does all the time on all sorts of issues.) If those five had actually done what they were accused of, it would have been completely right to execute them.
2) The act of someone who will believe the worst about his political opponents. Remember that racism isn't treating people of other races badly, it's singling them out for bad treatment, treating them differently because you believe that they are inherently different. Remember this is the same guy who accused Ted Cruz's father of killing JFK, among (many!) other things. If Cruz had been black, and Obama white, people would call him racist for the JFK nonsense and just a weirdo for the birther conspiracism. But it appears he's simply an equal-opportunity offender.
3) The act of a businessman trying not to lose a massive amount of business, because when it happened (remember, this one is not recent) approximately 1/3 of his tenants would have moved out if a black family moved in nearby.
Next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) NO. Just no. Racism had everything to do with it. The very same day a black woman was raped in Brooklyn by two men who then threw her from the roof of a four-story building. It received little media attention and no full-page ads from Trump.
Trump's four-newspaper offensive demanding their execution came BEFORE they (kids: 14, 15, 16) had any trial. If you believe that he would have made the same demands if the victims and er, other victims races were reversed, then you probably believe his inauguration crowd figures.
2) He stupidly smeared Ted Cruz, and then quickly dropped it. With Obama he was still repeating the same racist lie years after it was conclusively disproven. (Obama's birth certificate was released and authenticated by Vital Statistics in mid 2008. Birth announcements were found in two local papers in early 2008, placed there by Vital Statistics, not the family.) And Obama was not a political opponent at the time.
Obama met both common meanings (a US citizen at the moment of birth, born on US soil) of Natural Born Citizen. Meanwhile McCain met neither. (A US national but NOT a US citizen at birth, born in Panama.) (No, an overseas military base is not US soil.) And yet somehow Trump had no problem with McCain. Heck, even the case for Sarah Palin being born outside the US was better than it ever was for Obama.
Ted Cruz doesn't meet one of those Natural Born meanings, having been born in in another country. In other words the very thing Trump accuses Obama of. But Trump had no problem with that either.
The only thing setting Obama apart was skin color. Given Trump's record vs. blacks - let alone his later connection to white supremacist publisher Steve Bannon - it's not hard to make the connection.
3) A few might have moved out. And...? He'd gain an ever larger market as non-whites could move in. So it wasn't so much about their racism it was about his.
And here he is, 50 years later, still pandering to the racists over everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which is a good fable, or allegory when it fits.
But so is:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist."
The problem is, if Trump is a real Nazi, we need to speak out early, and loudly, in the hopes that he can be stopped before too great a consolidation of power occurs.
Of course, if we speak out too hysterically and are wrong, you argue we'll have wasted our voices. That is also wrong. We can protest the next Nazi just as well, even if we're wrong about this one. But are we?
I see nothing in Trump's history, recent actions, or words to counter the accusation that is is a modern Nazi, and he absolutely fits the definition of a fascist.
We'll only know for certain in the future, but I'm confident that this is a time to look to Martin Niemoller's poem and not Aesop fable for guidance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is, he's not a Nazi. If you truly think we have ovens and death camps set up somewhere in the United States and are loading people into them, you need serious help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I'd say actually doing the stuff the Nazis are infamous for having done is a pretty good standard for being correctly compared to them.
There's a reason Godwin's Law is a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just to be clear:
Wikipedia: Neo-Nazism
Under Steve Bannon's leadership, the above is pretty much the mission statement of Breitbart.com. Few would deny it, and the neo-Nazis make it clear they don't.
Wikipedia: Alt-right
So, are you
a) Denying the neo-Nazi more-than-influences in Trump's administration?
b) Saying that it's improper to trigger Godwin's Law even when talking about actual neo-Nazis?
c) Saying that it's improper to trigger Godwin's Law over neo-Nazis as opposed to traditional Nazis?
d) Saying that even neo-Nazi is too strong a term, and instead we should use Bannon-favored terms like "white nationalist?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you can't. That's the whole point of the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. People don't tend to always respond the same way to the same stimuli; they learn and adapt.
In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that that's a big part of why Trump is President today. The hardest of the hard-line Democrats have been crying wolf over false racism for so long that everyone else is sick of it, and when Hillary made the ridiculously tone-deaf mistake of doubling down on it, essentially calling half the country racists and "a basket of deplorables" for disagreeing with her policies, it backfired tremendously.
People who knew they weren't racists bristled at being lumped together with the KKK and the Nazis, and they turned "we are The Deplorables" into a rallying cry, to symbolically reject this nonsense once and for all by rejecting the person at the forefront of it. If she hadn't said that, a lot of people who ended up voting for Trump would have probably stayed home.
It's kind of sad to see that Democrats still have not learned their lesson from that! They've wasted the last few months flailing uselessly, tilting at racist windmills instead of working to accomplish anything actually productive in this time when they need to be productive and effective more than ever!
I've heard it said that every organization works to perpetuate the problem to which it is the solution. Might I suggest two corollaries to this observation?
First, an organization that solves a real problem is (as a general rule of thumb at least) a good organization that is doing good in the world. So this observation applies to "the good ones" too.
Second, civil rights groups are good organizations.
Unfortunately, they're still run by people. People who have a great deal of their personal identity and social status bound up in being valiant crusaders who fight racism. They've become victims of their own success now, and the one thing they can't do, because it would make them redundant, is admit the simple truth that's obvious to almost everyone else: that they've won! They won decades ago!
Racism in the USA is as dead as disco. Now, lest you misunderstand, remember that disco is not 100% extinct. There are still a few people around with horrible taste who think it's cool, but that doesn't mean it's not something that everyone knows is a relic of the past. And so it is also with racism.
Keep in mind that the guy you're accusing is 70 years old! Even if it's true, biologically speaking, he's on his way out, and most likely sooner rather than later. (I wonder if anyone has actuarial data on former Presidents, BTW; it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the stress of the job takes several years off your lifespan.)
Please stop obsessing over something that hasn't been a real problem in a long, long time, so we can focus on the issues of today and actually accomplish something in spite of all the headwinds. If we're going to prevent the Trump administration from wrecking what little prosperity we have left after the last two Presidents, we need to stop wasting our energy and focus!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(Please note that I'm not denying in any way that what happened to James Byrd was a serious tragedy. I do deny, though, that it has any relevance to this discussion. Please don't go derailing the conversation.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> are still a few people around with horrible taste who think it's cool, but that doesn't mean it's not something that everyone knows is a relic of the past. And so it is also with
> racism.
That's only true for a very narrow and limited definition of racism.
By my analysis, the core idea of racism is the idea that the ill-defined collection of characteristics which we label as "race" is an appropriate basis for categorization.
_That_ idea is still going strong - and as long as we _think_ in terms of those categories, we will never be free of racism.
Even if you think that definition is overly broad, there are plenty of other possible definitions in the range between that one and any definition by which racism is "something that everyone knows is a relic of the past".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As historic as it is, these types of shorthands usually describe a cultural and social context that is often neglected.
Obama is not "black" culturally. Nor is he socially. Thus, he barely represents such a stereotype.
What Bannon is doing is propaganda, showing very biased facts supporting only one side and pretending it is reality. Business conservative/regressive as he is, he seems more the classic dixiecrat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it is an indefinite halt to others. You can tell this by reading [the actual executive order](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-fore ign-terrorist-entry-united-states):
> (c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No non citizen has a right to enter a country and every government has a duty to control its own borders. And every country (not just Trump's America) does just that.
I don't support this order either, but don't be absurd. It's not a radical departure from past behavior. It is a temporary halt to some immigration while processes are revamped.
You're correct, that no one has a right to enter a country -- but all of the people being turned away DID have that right, because they ALREADY HAD visas or green cards or other permanent resident status. And this is NOT about controlling the borders, because there was nothing in this order targeting "out of control" borders.
And, sure, some other countries may have idiotic policies like this, but if that's your metric, you're really setting a low bar for the US.
And, finally, yes, if you were even remotely familiar with the history of immigratin policy you would recognize that this is a massive and very radical departure from past behavior -- with every indication that it is not temporary, and no "processes" are being revamped.
Don't be that guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Funny that... will you come back and say you were wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wonder how he chose those countries...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No non citizen has a right to enter a country
Back in World War II, when Sir Arthur "Yearnin' for a Burnin' German" Harris and the Allied air command was pulverizing (and incinerating) German cities (something that caused more civilian casualties than the two nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), the common sentiment was that civilian casualties were okay. If they hadn't wanted to be targeted as part of the Axis war machine, they shouldn't have elected a fascist government. In short, they got what was coming to them, and they were responsible, as citizens, for the actions of their government.
I can certainly see obvious arguments for such a conclusion. Not certain it's right, but I could make an argument in support or opposition without much mental gymnastics.
There seems to be an equally obvious corollary though; No state is composed of 100% approval. No action gets unanimous consent, and some people are always on the losing side of an election.
And therefore, if you believe that people vote with their citizenship (similar to voting with your dollar) and are responsible for the results, supporting the free movement of people is necessary. Otherwise citizens become hostages; "You have to support our state, our war, not because it is right or just or moral, but because you have no choice, and you might live if we win- but if we lose, you won't. Even if you don't like it, want it, or support it, you have nowhere else to go."
I could make a bridge here by referencing some big names and pretentious (but significant) quotes, Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Let's not and say I did.
But it's simple self-interest. Don't put your enemy in death ground. It costs you more than you'll ever get out. Don't force them to defend their position to the death- it's much more profitable to make them your friend. They might be your enemy now, but you don't have to like them to make money selling to them hand over fist. And they might be your enemy now, but there always might be a worse one further down the line you could use a hand against.
And to do that, you need to give the a way out. A way to stop being your enemy- while continuing to be, because most people consider that an unacceptable price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two points
Personally, I skip over the ongoing articles about stingrays, FBI e-mails, and such.
2) But more importantly: this is your site and you can write about whatever you want. If people don't like the articles, they can skip over them or go to another site.
And if people want to argue politics, there are plenty of sites to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two points
The Internet has given a printing press to anyone who wants one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its To Be Expected
1. I am not a Donald Trump supporter.
2. I am not a US citizen.
3. I probably agree with 50 to 60% of Donald Trump's positions. I listened to a speech he gave on Chinese trade and agreed with 4 of his 5 points (down to 3 now as one no longer applies). I agree with his position that the US has been allowing other NATO countries to not spend their required share.
4. I do not agree with his position on immigration.
The blaming of identifiable groups is an old political trick to make all of your problems someone else's fault. Its playing the victim to get sympathy and to give your supporter's someone to hate. Yes, it was used in Germany in the 20's through 40's.
I think Donald Trump has boxed himself into a corner. He promised to make all of these changes in the first 100 days without understanding the complexities of implementing policy or running a country. His white house group is not experienced in governing. Despite what they say, running a country is not like running a business. Its a lot easier to criticize the zoo from the outside. Once you are in charge of it, you find out that a lot of things are the way they are for a good reason.
It looks like the establishment GOP are very happy to let him fail so they can get rid of him.
The evil side of me things that he wants civil unrest and chaos to justify making the US an authoritative state. Once he does this, the press will no longer be an issue for him.
His immigration positions seem out of step. The last labour figures for the US that I saw had unemployment under 5%. That's basically full employment. The employment is not spread evenly across the country, and a lot of people need better jobs, but a least they have a job. Who is going to build the wall or harvest the crops or do manual labor or ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its To Be Expected
Trump has had a lot of business failures across a lot of industries. When Trump's casino group went bankrupt (the 4th time) and the creditors took over, they kept Trump and his name involved. They recognized something important:
While he's a lousy businessman, he's an excellent promoter.
It's long been said that the qualifications needed to run a successful election are very different from the qualifications needed once elected. Trump is simply the ultimate expression of that principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these people! You who gave them the power to make your decisions for you! While I'll admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me nothing short of deliberate.
You have encouraged these malicious incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workspace with dangerous and unproven machines.
All you had to say was "NO." You have no spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company. I will however, be generous. You will be granted two years to show me some improvement in your work. If at the end of that time you are still unwilling to make a go of it... You're fired.
That will be all. You may return to your labors."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't remember where i heard that from unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well...
This is going to generate a lot of traffic.
I highly doubt that. I expect it will generate lots of people telling me to "stick with technology" or something of that nature. I didn't write this because of traffic.
I wrote it because I'm human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
Trump won because:
1. Hills was a crook.
2. Nobody actually believed Trump would win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
Trying to silence someone speaking out about a humanitarian issue, because it will get in the way of your enjoyment of tech issues, at a blog which you were not forced to read and where you don't expend any effort to write - that is callous and perhaps inhuman.
So, if what you are saying is "shut up Mike about this issue and get back to tech blogging", then yes, you might be in-human. And if you're saying that the reason Trump won is because in-human people were called out on it, then, while that sucks, it doesn't change anything.
But, if you are saying that someone thinks disagreeing with Mike on this particular makes you in-human, that is different and I've not yet read anything that suggests other points of view may not have validity or come from a different view or priority of humanity. And if you are saying that Trump was elected because people ignored the very real, though different, expressions of humanity of their fellow citizens, then, you'd be right but confusing since that's a good thing - assuming Trump is what's required to improve how we interact with our fellow citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
by that alone, they have PROVEN they have NO PRINCIPLES they will not sacrifice for useless optics...
secondly, mikey's shakey-voiced polemic on his all-american immigrant family may explain why HE feels so strongly about thst, but it doesn't mean shit to the rest of us...
depending on how pedantic one wants to get, we are ALL immigrants, so that factoid is meaningless...
i am not going to bother with the research (bet i know what the answer is), but did techdirtia get all weepy and pearl clutchy and mobbing airports (wtf ?) when saint obama did the same for iranians for six months ? ? ?
yeah, all t-rump has done is shown that a LOT of libtards have NO PRINCIPLES, AND are massive hypocrites...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
who?
I recall plenty of peeps back in the day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
"NOT A FUCKING PEEP" in all caps, no less?
Mike and Techdirt had pretty much an endless stream of criticisms of the Obama administration, particularly around the issues of:
- transparency
- intolerance of whistle-blowers
- state-sanctioned espionage
- intellectual property matters
- asset forfeiture
- The TPP
Mike didn't rely on just his family history. He also did the normal Techdirt Cost/Benefit analysis, and found real costs, but no benefits to Trump's EO. Don't act like he was a victim of his emotion, he STILL provided the analysis and rational argument.
And RE Obama and Iranians, that is a false equivalence. A specific case of a refugee in Kentucky was found who had been involved in IEDs on US soldiers. So Obama ordered a a re-screening on ALL the then-recent admissions. This slowed down the process for other applicants. No ban. No specific countries. No religions mentioned. Didn't apply to green carders. Again, false equivalence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
He won - get over it -
I would like to know why he is trying to start a civil war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
exactly why Trump won.
I guess I'd say that's debatable.
Otherwise, why would he be calling for investigations into illegals voting? Even he's not sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Implying that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints is by definition in-human
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
"Implying that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints is by definition in-human"
is exactly why Trump won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
It's you who is trying to introduce your alt-right politics into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
Or maybe the slightly earlier past where none of us had any damn business being here. Talk about terrorists and people having no right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
Expect that when someone in government screws up, it is gonna get commented on, R or D, liberal or conservative, left or right. Label them all you want (to me that is like rain on a duck) it doesn't remove the action. Or my derision, when that action is bad or anti democratic or anti social or against some class, any class, of people.
But you have a bicycle to ride, and it appears to be pretty wobbly, so...peddle harder...that way, maybe you can get out of the neighborhood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asking
Let's hope Trump has a life changing moment that wakes him up to his humanity and ours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asking
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Asking
... Muahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Asking
Seems pretty obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Asking
Because they encourage the citizens of other countries to dislike the USA. Which strengthens Moscow's influence with them.
Like Imran Khan?
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1310571/will-fight-sharifs-corruption-till-last-breath-imran/
Actu ally the evidence I have seen is that it is mostly Americans who dislike these things - and especially the type of Americans who dislike Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asking
So far, the immigration ban and the alienation of the Mexican president are two things I'm sure the Russians love.
I doubt if they care much about either,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Asking
I've been asking myself why the Russians were gleefully happy when Trump was elected
It was much simpler than your reasons - it was because Trump seemed likely to be more friendly towards Russia than Clinton.
No need for complicated analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Asking
Yeah, and this is why the US is going to get our asses handed to us in the next 20-50 years: As a society we're functionally incapable of looking more than a couple years out, strategically speaking.
China and Russia are playing long games with the US, and the US hasn't figured that out.
Tactically, having a "friendly" US president is moderately useful.
Strategically speaking, the US beginning taking action to withdraw from the international community and begin the voluntary process of alienating its Allies and Neighbors is absolutely priceless to Russia and China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Asking
China and Russia are playing long games
Well the ambition of global communism is long dead for both - so what exactly are these "long games" supposed to be achieving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Asking
All 3 of which become easier for them to accomplish if the US role in world affairs is diminished.
Again, this is all speculative and opinion, and therefore easily shredded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Asking
Are you being willfully obtuse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Asking
Actually i find it kind of funny that people think political and economic flavors are really the main thing driving governments. Communism, lol. They weren't even good socialists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Challenge Accepted
Criticizing Trump's policy here is ok. It was a bit hamfisted and is being tweaked towards being less stringent. It is also temporary.
However, many people acting like this is the Worst.Thing.Ever.
Would hide their eyes from the google results of this query:
"Libyan refugee boat capsizes"
People actually died because of the policies and actions of one of our latest set of Presidential candidates. Yet many (nearly all) of her voters did not, or do not give a shit about that. But are screaming their heads off because literally dozens of people have been inconvenienced......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Challenge Accepted
At the present time, there are exactly four pages returned by a search on "Libyan refugee boat capsizes", including this page.
You might wish to explain your concerns more directly.
More people have been affected than that. My guess is that you are only counting those actually at airports. That ignores the people already in the US who can no longer leave and the people who were not yet at an airport when this came down. It also ignores the concerns regarding the executive branch ignoring the stays issued by the judicial branch, as is outlined in the post, and appears to be a point of bi-partisan concern (e.g., Evan McMullin's tweets).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Challenge Accepted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Challenge Accepted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrisy
In this case, as in many, there were only crickets chirping. Hypocrisy in its purest form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocrisy
Real Fact: "In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee -policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocrisy
For all Obama's many many faults, he never got into a pissing contest about popularity at his inauguration. He may not have always been honest, but he didn't tell bold-faced lies as "alternate facts".
Most importantly, he didn't ban people of certain religions from entering the country. Obama and Trump had very different faults- how can you compare when "Obama did the same thing" and how does that make it right anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hypocrisy
Countries which he has not banned people from include (In order of Islamic population percentage from wikipedia's list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country#Table) Maldives, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Tunisia, the Western Sahara, Morocco, Tajikistan, Mayotte, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Comoros, Niger, Algeria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Senegal, Kosovo, Gambia, Mali, Jordan, Turkmenistan, and Egypt. These are all countries with 90%+ Muslim populations.
If we go for a simple 50%+ add another 20 or so majority Muslim countries to the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy
What you really meant to say is: he only bans Arab muslims, except for those Arab Muslims with which his companies do direct business with. This is probably even worse.
There is no reason to include Iran but not Saudi Arabia, for example. Not one terrorist or terrorist plot on our soil has originated from Iran; but Saudi Arabia is where most of the money, people and terrorism comes from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy
If your client had an employee who behaved badly would you look the other way to keep the money flowing or would you challenge them? The shift to renewables is stemming the flow of money to KSA, and should eventually reduce the funding for terrorism. A girl can dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy
Got that list sorted in order of number of Trump hotels in the country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocrisy
Cool story brah... tell it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocrisy
But more importantly, even if Obama did, that doesn't make Trump right for doing it. When I was growing up, it was never an acceptable excuse to say, "but Bobby did it, why isn't he in trouble!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocrisy
Obama was doing the exact same thing
Are you saying that we can expect Trump's policies to be in line with Obama's? And that's fine with you?
Then what in the fucking fuck were you stupid motherfuckers complaining about for 8 years then? Are you stupid or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No doubt the memos have already gone out to ISIS and al-Qaeda cells to select operatives from countries where Trump owns hotels, secure in the knowledge that no security measures which threaten to inconvenience his customers will be entertained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this the same executive order....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee- policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.85672de56163
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
Uh, then go read it again. Those seeking asylum can be exempted from the ban, but only if they are a member of a "minority religion", which means Christians and Jews but, oddly, not atheists....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
"(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, 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. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization."
"Upon resumption" means that AFTER the ban ends, minority religions will get prioritised in cases in which they claim asylum from religious persecution.
There is no exemption from the ban based on religion.
There is no religious test DENYING entry.
(Atheists should certainly get to claim religious persecution)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
So I am a Muslim and I want to leave Iraq because I'm not considered Muslim enough by the leaders. Well, though luck man, just be quiet there and die will you?
So I am a Christian and I want to leave Iraq because... COME IN BROTHER IN FAITH!
Sure, nothing wrong here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
That's unconstitutional, plainly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
This is false.
My comment conflicts with what you stated by not being false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
@GristleMissile
From https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-t rump.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
Yes, that is indeed the section of the executive order which I already quoted. I'll quote from the proceeding comments which you seemingly didn't bother to read, with some extra bolding to help you out:
"Upon resumption" means that AFTER the ban ends, minority religions will get prioritised in cases in which they claim asylum from religious persecution.
There is no exemption from the ban based on religion.
There is no religious test DENYING entry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
Can you see how that doesn't do a good job in refuting Dark Helmet's assertion that there is a religious test in Trump's EO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
I corrected a falsehood, and went no further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
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
Found the problem Dark Helmet - he thinks Muslims are a minority religion.
Be patient. They're simple minded, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....
These people are just pure comedy. Trump would be as well if he didn't have so much power in his hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
I don't give 2 shits what you're running from, only what you bring to the table.
Guess you missed the whole message about "humanity", huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
countries dont exist any more ?
there are no borders, no wars, no separate economies, all just one happy tribe ? ? ?
gee, i must have missed that...
you ARE delusional...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
Looks like you rejected the whole message about humanity too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
And when is this going to start?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
Sometime after they've gotten rid of Medicaid, health care coverage, public education, assistance for first-time home buyers, etc etc etc?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
If there is one citizen who is unwillingly unemployed, the gates shut until there are openings
Hmm. But what if the immigrant is coming here to open a business that will employ those citizens who are unemployed.
It's not as if there is a limited number of jobs and giving one to an immigrant means more can't be made for Americans.
I don't give 2 shits what you're running from,
Well, that's kinda the point of my article. IF that's really true, I'd urge you to take a step back and ask yourself what kind of person "doesn't give 2 shits" about people in trouble?
If you have no intention of melding, please stay where you are, and try to improve that.
Melding, huh? You do realize that the culture here that people "meld" into is made almost entirely by immigrants, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
Well, that's kinda the point of my article. IF that's really true, I'd urge you to take a step back and ask yourself what kind of person "doesn't give 2 shits" about people in trouble?
I think a realist, there is likely always going to be an abundance of folks who could use a helping hand. You do the world no favors drowning yourself trying to rescue others.
"Ships don’t sink because of the water around them. They sink because of the water that gets in them." unknown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
Mike wrote:
to which Haywood responded:
A person who doesn't give two shits about people in trouble is not a "realist", but something else entirely. Don't blame pragmatism for your selfishness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
This seems predicated on some bizarre zero-sum concept of the economy. Immigrants, by and large, are not penniless good for nothings who just line up for welfare as soon as they're in.
They come to build a life for themselves and their families.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
But that that were so. Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall immigrants looking for a handout, with a very few pensioners mixed in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
You're making that up.
A more interesting look at the issue:
Wall Street Journal: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups
...including Google, SpaceX, Tesla, Uber, Cloudfare and more.
And it doesn't even count second generation immigrants. For example Apple, founded by the son of a Syrian refugee and the son of Polish immigrants.
Which isn't at all surprising. When I was in high school it was the immigrants - from Asia, Russia, the Philippines, etc. - who did their homework and got the highest marks. They got the work ethic from their parents. Later I've worked for immigrants who set up businesses here.
We all know people with grand plans to improve their lives. They're going to move to the west coast. Or to Canada if the Republicans or Democrats win. They're going to save up, quit their jobs and go back to school. They're going to run for office and fix things. But most never do. They're stuck in the inertia of their own lives, unable to drop or stop making new commitments even in the long term. Or unable to save, or to put in the extra effort. Or just too nervous about taking a leap into a new life.
Immigration acts as a filter. You get only the people who DO the things they said. Who got over their fears. Who put in the extra effort and made the big leap.
These are the kind of people you want as citizens. The kind who ALSO tend to start businesses and create jobs. It's one reason why for immigration is a good deal for the countries they head for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
So, enlighten us... How did you identify which of the people lined up in the Social Security office were immigrants, as opposed to pensioners?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
Gee, I wonder why this guy's mind went straight to German sausage, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
You just took out a big ol Sharpie and labeled yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
First, because it is just anecdotal. But more importantly, because we have reams of data we can turn to on these very questions. Universities, states, the nation - they all have data that deals with the very issues you are trying to summarize: how and in what ways immigrants affect jobs, taxes, and the economy.
So to use the most unreliable data when much better sources are available seems...just lazy.
I wish I could rate your argument as -1 "insightful".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
"Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall immigrants looking for a handout, with a very few pensioners mixed in."
From what you've written you don't sound at all like someone who spends enough time hanging out at Social Security offices to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy. So either you've missed sharing some vital info with us that would make your claim a lot more believable, or you're making shit up to strengthen your utterly amoral argument. Feel free to clarify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
Even if most welfare recipients were immigrants, it doesn't mean most immigrants are welfare recipients.
Now, to unpack the astounding racism of your post, that you could tell by looking who were immigrants, is, well, breathtaking.
Let's be clear on what you were actually saying:
> Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall [darkies] looking for a handout, with a very few [old white people] mixed in.
Be sure to wash that white hood of yours before your next meeting, ya hear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for writing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America
I'm a Canadian green card holder that's been hassled for YEARS coming home, and I'm white.
As beautiful as this article is, maybe Americans need to realize that half of you are racist assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Mike, I disagree on one point:
I absolutely cannot see this making any sense on the "does this help my team" scale either. Unless that team is a sadistic street gang betting money on less privileged people killing each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unless that team is a sadistic street gang betting money on less privileged people killing each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All in Time - Its about trust
Why is it that everyone and now Techdirt included, wants to jump to conclusions and Trump bash. We have a paid-for liberal media to do that we don't need anymore jumping on the band wagon. A 90 day waiting period is nothing in the grand scheme unless Americans are just dying to be in the club with out countries where Muslims are blowing themselves up in public places. Yes, I said Muslims because unfortunately, that's who is doing it. Not Christians, Not Hindus, Not budhists,......Muslims. I know the liberal media would like to distort that fact or bury their head in the sand trying to figure out how to rewrite history and spin it, but the facts are its Muslims.
I don't know about you but I am not eager to read about the numbers of people killed at a mall because a Muslim decided to blow themselves up in the name of an Archaic religion. Its bad enough we had San Bernadino and Florida shootings, let's not be so eager to embrace the suicide bombing club just quite yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All in Time - Its about trust
Remember, some centuries ago the Catholics were the ones spreading terror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
Pull your head out of the sand there is no hating going on here just COLD HARD DATA and FACTS. I know you liberal haters don't like it because its not politically correct, however no one gives a shit about PC when their families die. Statistics don't lie they're just inconvenient truths for your PC liberal loving Asshats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
11:58am: re-read your history dipshit
12:10pm: We are talking about current events right????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
I didn't hear about it in the Times either!
I'm so excited for Donald Trump. He's gonna make us so good. Christians are under attack!
Abortion is the devil!
Keep fighting for justice good christian warrior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
bigblock n me r gonna run fer office and fix america great again
we can learn so many things from tramp!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
Perhaps since the mid 20th century that has flip-flopped a little, but throughout most of the history of major religions it was Christianity that was the clear and apparent "bad-guy".
Now does that make one religion bad and one good? Absolutely not. Just the flow of history. People are what make religions appear bad or good- not the religion itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
And you keep using the word liberal but I don't think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ye olde worlde wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff
dipshit
It's 2017. Who the fuck still says dipshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All in Time - Its about trust
Well I guess we don't call school shootings and stuff terrorist attacks. It doesn't really fit with our narrative that the muslims are the terrorists. But who needs reality?
Me and 383bigblock will just keep sucking ol' Trumps dick ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist _attacks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
There is only one terrorist attack listed in the last 10 years that happened in the United States.
Would you like to try again? You seem like a smart guy. I'm sure you've got another wiki link in you friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
Sadly sorting by date doesn't work due to someone not using a sort friendly date format. By my count approximately 50% of terror attacks in the US during the past decade were jihad related. "Patently false" stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
can you use a link that is not wikipedia? it has too many libfacts on there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
>thanks for puttin dat libcuck in his place
>can you use a link that is not wikipedia? it has too many libfacts on there.
nor with my proceeding comment pointing out that terrorist attacks in the US do not at all match the earlier AC's comment that the majority of terrorist attacks in the last decade have been by domestic white people.
I backed my shit up with links. I await y'all's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
...barely literate rambling with words made up by people with the mentality of a 6 year old.
That's sadly the level of some of these comments - the AC clearly rabidly on one side, to the point where he has to come up with childish names to dismiss the people he considers to be on the other "team". From my experience, that means he'll either be incapable of understanding actual nuanced factual citations, or he'll dismiss the source because it doesn't back up he prior assumptions (as, it seems, he already has).
My reaction that is "why bother, since it's clearly a waste of time trying to have an adult conversation". I suspect Roger's reaction was something similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
Top Threat to the United States is Domestic White Supremacist Groups. Not foreign threats. According to the FBI.
Fuck you GristleMissle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
I'll sum it up for you. The Cato Institute analysis of terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 found that foreign nationals from the seven countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia – have killed no Americans.
Fuck You GristleMissle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All in Time - Its about trust
Not relying upon good sources for information
--his top advisor isn't intelligence or military sources, reorganizing the NSC
He doesn't wish to have or accept the real facts of a situation
--inauguration crowd size despite photo evidence, Muslims dancing in the streets on 9/11, his hand size in photos, etc...
He is making policy changes without looking at the long term consequences
--travel ban, deregulation of industry (mixed results here), border wall, silencing of executive branch organizations
He doesn't even try to avoid the appearance of shady dealings or corruption (not saying he is corrupt but it is hard to tell)
--not releasing tax returns, not separating himself from his businesses entirely, picking business insiders to be heads of industry oversite/advisory/enforcement groups
He also blatantly lies about things that are easily verifiable and then won't correct himself unless people make him (I'm not talking about just messing up facts or old memories)
--look at his speeches, his press secretary, advisor Conway, he did change his take on Russian hacking but many more things he won't admit he was wrong on or correct his subordinates.
Like its said trust is not given its earned. Soo far his track record is looking pretty bad for earning any trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
If you're sitting their professing your trust of Obama then you've lost all credibility. The man lied, manipulated, misled, etc, etc. I guess I need to get pair of those Liberal Glasses so that I too can see the world like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
All the lies that Donny T has told are ok because Obama lied! REMEMBER? He lied all the time. So it's ok when Trump lies.
I'm gonna break your liberal glasses and give you a nice pair of conservative ones. That way you'll see the world the way it should be.
I like how Donny T is staying in all his businesses. Think about it when he makes a ton of money it'll all come back to us! I agree with bigblock383. So many good ideas coming from Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
Jimmy Carter. (There were others, but you asked for one. There's one.)
And as for non-anecdotal information about Trump's shady business dealings and problems with his foundation, David Fahrenthold at the Washington Post has a fine collection of well-sourced and detailed articles for you. You can Google it, or go to https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-a-fahrenthold/?utm_term=.0fe63e184cb7
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
Nor is anyone telling Trump to. Presidents since Lyndon Johnson in 1963 have put their business holdings into a blind trust. It's not just about not using their position to enrich themselves; it's about not letting other governments influence them via the threat of harming their overseas businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
No, Jimmy Carter WAS told to divest of it 100%.
And he did.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3796484/president-jimmy-carter-gave-up-his-peanut-farm-and-richard-nixo n-sold-most-assets-to-avoid-conflicts-of-interest/
Looking up and down the comments on this page, it's clear you are either the world's best troll, or the world's worst debater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
I guess that's why Trump bothers you because he doesn't need bilk America to make his money like the others.
There's no evidence of this whatsoever. (Hint: Trump saying this doesn't make it true. From we've heard from him so far, it's a good bet that whatever he says is provably false)
If we could only see the darned tax returns of his ... wonder why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
Just because someone points out facts about one person and not about another doesn't make them any less true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All in Time - Its about trust
And I wouldn't mind except I have yet to see a good reason why we need this ban. What's the justification? What's the benefit? It's not like terrorists are using their green cards to get into the U.S. to blow things up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All in Time - Its about trust
Jane, you ignorant slut, Those were both perpetrated by US citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the distant past his ancestors were the ones running, emigrating and then immigrating into a land that received them with open arms. Sadly, it seems he and his kin failed at evolving and are stuck in the Middle Ages.
I can only pray the world survives this piece of shit of human he is. No offense intended towards the shit but I can't find anything worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All Too Familiar...
Liberties are, indeed, all intertwined, and must be defended as part of a whole. You cannot be free in one venue if your freedoms are arbitrarily restricted in another - that's just not how freedom works, whether you're a radical progressive or a libertarian or anyone in between. I appreciate your writing on them as part of a whole. Keep it up. Also: any time you can speak truth to power, please do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Too Familiar...
(See "I explain a few things".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All Too Familiar...
That is a ridiculous inference. Preferring to keep only veggies in the veggie drawer (tech in the techdirt blog) and disliking having the meat tossed in there with it isn't 'bullying.' It's like complaining about someone's white papers being posted on their Homestuck fanfic blog or vice versa.
Of course dubbing this post 'not belonging' on techdirt shows an incredibly narrow view of what topics it's concerned with, and plenty of objections here are stupid, emotion-based, and rife with alternative facts, but calling complaining about a blog's contents 'bullying' the poor bloggers is just completely out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give Mike a break
Oh, wait. No he didn't.
Hypocrite much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give Mike a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Give Mike a break
After all, he made the EXACT SAME post after Obama shut down Iraqi immigration for 6 months during his presidency.
Except, of course, he didn't do that, as many have explained above. Don't push fake stories to support your beliefs.
And if you don't think I've criticized Obama repeatedly, you haven't been reading this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trump follower TZ is doing exactly that further up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: humanity
I have a nephew in the Border Patrol at Nogales, AZ. I have seen first-hand the path of illegals: discarded trash of every sort littering the landscape. So first comes the illegal entry into the country, then the trashing of it as you pass through. If that isn't enough, then find someplace that will give you food and shelter and probably money as well. And you didn't have to do one damn thing to earn it. Well, gee........isn't that what criminals do? They steal from others and give nothing back except hurt.
There is NO humanity in allowing our country to be overrun by those that only come here to take what they can get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: humanity
I think Firewing is right. If we can't kill the immigrints who come to this country then how can we protect ourselves?
The right thing to do is kill all immigrants and leftist pussies so us true americas can fight for what is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: humanity
There is NO humanity in allowing our country to be overrun by those that only come here to take what they can get.
Did the native Americans think that way when your ancestors arrived I wonder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: humanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: humanity
"Did the native Americans think that way when your ancestors arrived I wonder?" Right from the get-go they were helping the colonists. I often wonder if they could have sneak-peeked a few centuries ahead would they have behaved any different? I don't believe they would have. Compassion was hard-baked into their communal way of life.
If you get the chance, read "Bury my Heart at Wounded knee", by Dee Brown. But be prepared to weep buckets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: humanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: humanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: humanity
I have a nephew in the Border Patrol at Nogales, AZ. I have seen first-hand the path of illegals: discarded trash of every sort littering the landscape. So first comes the illegal entry into the country, then the trashing of it as you pass through. If that isn't enough, then find someplace that will give you food and shelter and probably money as well. And you didn't have to do one damn thing to earn it. Well, gee........isn't that what criminals do? They steal from others and give nothing back except hurt.
Ah, my favorite type of nonsense argument. It's the "I have a semi-distant relative who saw a thing" anecdote, which I now take to be a perfect example of what the broader reality is, even when the data and facts disagree with me.
Anyway, if you're going to use Mexicans coming across the border as your argument, you do realize that net migration between Mexico and the US has been negative the past few years (as in, more people are going back to Mexico than coming to the US). But who cares about that, your nephew saw some litter and you're positive it's because Mexicans are stealing from US taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: humanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Built on immigration
Basically my entire family came to America between around 1890 and 1920
People have said that the US was built on immigration as if that was somehow a good thing.
I wonder what native Americans feel about that one?
Some of them may wish that there had been a much more comprehensive immigration ban for the last 500 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Built on immigration
By 1890 the genocide against the natives were already done basically. So, yes, one could say that immigration became a good thing but the colonization was terrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Built on immigration
Humans anywhere else migrated there, whether sooner or later.
It is my opinion that it's the more industrious among them that migrate, and these characteristics correlate with those that drive progress. Courage, adventure, sacrifice, curiosity, hope.
Stayers always go on about the glory of having been born somewhere, the Mayflower, or the importance of their ticket in the lottery of birth. But how much pride can they have in their homeland if they never actually chose it, or made any effort to be there?
Nothing wrong with having been born somewhere great like the USA. It just makes it possible that either you DO love your country, or you're just lazy and lucky. Can't say that for migrants - they all sacrificed to be where they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morality
If you ever stop calling out this kind of inhumanity and go vanilla on me I will be the one moving to other sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know people are going to say there is no proof that something like that is going on ... etc etc.. I'm not so sure it would be a wise idea to even tell Americans if it were that bad. Every redneck with a truck and shotgun would be out looking for bad guys.
I'm not sure where I stand on this. I'll have to give this some more thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I couldn't help but to notice everyone avoiding it like the plague.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know people are going to say there is no proof that something like that is going on ... etc etc.. I'm not so sure it would be a wise idea to even tell Americans if it were that bad. Every redneck with a truck and shotgun would be out looking for bad guys.
Yeah, gonna go with Occam's Razor on that one. It might be true that the government isn't providing evidence in support of their actions here because they fear a 'furriner hunt by good ol' muricans'... or they might not be providing the evidence because they don't have it to release.
Out of the two options the latter strikes me as much more likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While the former is simply ludicrous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supporting DJT
1. Proven DJT lies - not a few, a lot.
2. Proven illegal actions and massive civil violations
3. Decades (plural) long history of misogyny, bigotry, racism, eletisim, selfishness, sexual assault, oath violation, contract violation, bankruptcy (financial), bankruptcy (moral), narcissistic and transference disorder.
You are essentially asking people that support this sort of person to display deportment incompatible with their icon.
That isn't going to happen.
In fact, they consider traits of compassion, understanding, charity, honesty, veracity, insight, intelligence, empathy, honor and duty as signs of a weak person and revile them, frequently calling them "special snowflakes" and less repeatable characterizations.
The only solution to these sorts of people is to simply not engage with them. Upon identifying them, smile politely, nod agreeably, back away slowly, and hit the exit. A longer term solution entails finding a country that would be willing to force them into the mental health system and court ordered medication compliance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Supporting DJT
Do you need help finding the door?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here we go again...
Sorry, those of you that fail history lessons. Trump is the exact person that comes after the pendulum swing that Obama created. The person that comes after Trump will be what comes after the pendulum that Trump swings.
Just as George Washington said... this bullshit is going to happen if you keep letting your politics rip set us apart. The anti-Trump crowd has gotten so shrill that they are now louder than the anti-Obama crowd.
This place wants to become nothing other than an echo-chamber. I hope that is does not, but I am certain that it will. And down the tubes this place will go. I will keep sitting here and watching each side ignore the sins of their own or soft pedal them, while shrieking loudly at the smallest of trespasses by their foes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's take the emotion out of it...
But the media and Dem leadership are long on emotion and short on facts. They do this to whip the emotional left into a frenzy which apparently is going to be a weekly thing now. They don't care that these protestors are violent, assault people, destroy property and probably end up with a criminal record thus hurting their employment chances.
There is a reason the left is called low information voters. They get all their news from 1 place, the liberal media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
Not quite. http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/
False. (And you mean Iraq, not Iran. They are two different countries.) http://wpo.st/l1iX2
Entirely different. http://www.snopes.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranian-immigrants/
... ahem ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
Stop being obtuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
You also are still going with the fallacy that there is only 1 solution and that we have jobs and money for millions more people. Watch the video and get back to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
/əbˈt(y)o͞os,äbˈt(y)o͞os/
adjective
1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
Ah, so 1 country is ok, its just a little bigoted. But 7 is too many. Is 3 ok?
Except, again, what Obama did with that one country is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than what Trump did with the 7 countries. One involved revamping the review process of a specific group of refugees -- no ban, no block. The other involved a blanket ban that was so broad it covered green card holders, people who already had been through "extreme vetting" and were on their way to the country, those who were dual citizens or citizens of allies who just happened to have been born in a blocked country... and more.
To say they're the same, or that the only difference is the number of countries suggests someone being willfully ignorant.
Stop playing for your team and start playing for humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
You have got to be doing this deliberately, the idea that you really can't see a difference between 'temporary slowing of immigrants from one country and 'complete stop of immigrants from seven countries' is just something I find hard to buy.
That's 'broadening it a little' in the same sense that driving a semi through a BB hole 'broadens the hole a little'.
If you think the EO is defensible then defend it on it's own merits, don't try to make absurd comparisons to something that's 'connected' only to the extent that both deal with immigration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
Probably because you added that particular goalpost after multiple people have pointed out how the comparison doesn't hold up.
Once again, if the think the EO is defensible then defend it on it's own merits, stop pointing to other actions by previous presidents with 'Well he did it too!'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
And yet again we have the economics of the situation that has not been addressed. Did you watch the video? Do you think we can import 3 billion people in poverty or would it be better to help them where they are? Or do you only see 1 solution to a problem?
But yea, keep dodging the issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
First, nobody has addressed the Cuban ban.
Oh this is just too good. You were bluffing.
Obama ended the 'Wet Feet, Dry Feet' policy(at the last minute to be sure, but last minute's better than never), and the policy itself was in place well before he became president, he was simply continuing a policy that had been in place for 12 years as of 2017, when it was finally ended, and even then it wasn't a ban, it was basically an 'agreement' between the USG and Cuba that if people trying to cross from Cuba to the US were caught at sea they would be returned to Cuba or a third-party country, whereas if they made it to land before they were caught then they had a chance to gain US citizenship.
Two, obviously I think it is fine for a sovereign nation to control its borders. Just like I think it is fine that you lock your doors and windows. Though I question why you haven't opened your home to the local homeless?
Red Herring and False Dichotomy. Defend the EO on it's own merits or admit that it has none.
And yet again we have the economics of the situation that has not been addressed. Did you watch the video? Do you think we can import 3 billion people in poverty or would it be better to help them where they are? Or do you only see 1 solution to a problem?
Red Herring, The EO has nothing to do with the economy or 'helping people where they are'. Defend the EO on it's own merits or admit that it has none.
But yea, keep dodging the issues.
Oh yeah, I'm totally the one dodging the issues here. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
So no discussion of economics or other solutions? Guess when you have nothing to add you dodge it.
I notice you have yet to suggest a single solution to homelessness and pollution. Why haven't I called you out on this? Because it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
I don't need to get involved in an economics discussion because the EO has nothing to do with economics. Seriously, you've thrown out so many red herrings it's like you're trying to start a fish market.
I have stated the ban is fine, and it is temporary, it is not race or religion based.
Absolutely, that's why it most certainly doesn't contain language discussing how religion will have an impact on the priority of those affected that only applies to minority religions. That's about as nonsensical as saying that a particular policy isn't 'race based' because it doesn't penalize one race specifically, it just gives every person not of that race preferential treatment.
You and the others have had nothing material to say except parroting the lies about the motivation of the ban.
Says the person that's brought up red herring after red herring(Economics! Obama! Cuba!), tangent after tangent to avoid defending the EO on it's own merits. But by all means, tell me which 'lies' I've been parroting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
Ah, I needed a laugh today, so thanks for that. After throwing out a fish market's worth of red herrings and accusing me of 'dodging the issue' and 'parroting lies' you're now reduced to 'Nuh-uh, you're stupid!' as your argument.
Gotta love the classics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
If you cannot or will not even acknowledge the difference between Obama's Iraq refugee screening and Trump's all-out immigration ban, then you are not mature enough to understand even basic economic concepts, and certainly not worth having a whole debate about them with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
Again, for like the 5th time, Trump's order was not race or religion based or it would have covered lots more countries. It was based on a list of countries currently known as hotbeds for terrorists. In fact, it was a list put together by Obama's administration. Second, it was a very short term ban and not a permanent one so no, it was not nearly an "all out ban". Also, Trump and presidents before him, have made temporary immigration orders due to circumstances at the time. Trump's is different than other, not worse, but different, because each situation is different.
Finally, everybody seems to want to call names and not discuss the fallacy that there is 1 solution for any given problem and that we can afford to bring the worlds poor (3 billion or more) here. But go back to your name calling and tantrums and keep losing.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost -900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
Nice (and obvious) wordplay there. That it isn't listed as permanent doesn't magically change it from 'stopped' to 'slowed', the rate went from it's previous one to zero for at least three months, that's a stop, not a slow.
The 'bringing them here' thing angle is a red herring, the EO is explicitly about 'terrorism' concerns, it has nothing to do with 'Well our economy can't handle them, so regretfully we have to turn them away', so bringing that up in defense of it is a waste of your time and mine.
Once again, with feeling(Third time's the charm perhaps?) If you think it's defensible then defend it on it's own merits, stop trying to pretend that it's something that it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
I have defended it, any country can control immigration and in fact every last one does. Are they racists?
I am pointing out what the President of just a few weeks ago did to the delight of the left but when Trump does it, it is just deplorable. You guys are being suckered by your leadership. The continued demonization w/o discussion of the issues is why you are losing and apparently want to continue losing.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost -900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
If it mentioned the $20 trillion debt as the justification for the stop of immigration from seven countries(and if seven countries is bad for the economy then clearly a lot more immigration needs to be stopped) then it could be argued on those grounds, but it doesn't, so doing so is a waste of time.
A ban does not have to be permanent count as such. It went from more extra screening to a complete stop from seven countries. If you think it's defensible then defend it on it's own merits, stop trying to pretend that it's something that it's not.
I am pointing out what the President of just a few weeks ago did to the delight of the left but when Trump does it, it is just deplorable.
No, he didn't, as multiple people have pointed out at this point which means you have no excuse and are simply lying to defend your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
And yes, I would slow most immigration now until we find a way not to go broke. An economically crippled US is not good for anyone. We are in dire straights and need to take drastic measures to right the ship. There are a handful of billionaires and if we stripped them of their wealth, we would not make a dent in the national debt. Oh, and many of the billionaires are leftists so no chance the left will ever actually tax themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...
I have defended it several times and yet you ask for me to defend it?
You've 'defended' it by comparing it to something Obama did which wasn't even close in scope, brought up economics when it has nothing to do with economics, brought up something Obama ended and which also wasn't remotely close in scope... if I continue to ask for you to defend it on it's own merits it's because so far you've done a really bad job at doing so.
Since it is a non-race/religion based temporary ban, are you ok with it? If not, justify YOUR anger, after all, it is the left throwing a tantrum about it.
As I noted above it is religion-based, or at the very least has a religious based component for it, but in general no, I still wouldn't be in favor of it even if that weren't true because I have seen no evidence that it's necessary.
The immigration process was already incredibly complex, with multiple levels of scrutiny, such that I've argued before that only the terminally stupid terrorist(and while terrorists in generally certainly fit into the 'stupid' category there's stupid and then there's 'pulls the pin on the grenade, throws the pin and drops the grenade' stupid) wannabe would try to enter the country via that route, meaning the only people likely to be impacted weren't threats to begin with.
There are a handful of billionaires and if we stripped them of their wealth, we would not make a dent in the national debt.
Given you could only do that once that's a ridiculous idea for several reasons. No, you want to see more taxes coming in you don't go after the individuals, you go after the companies. Tax breaks and incentives for smaller companies to get more people willing to start up companies and boost things at the bottom, close the tax loopholes at the top and make it so companies can't so easily dodge local taxes while at the same time getting the same treatment as local businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is about humanity"
M & M, you are inane, trying to link
politics with tech.
This is no place for the latter and thus
I am deleting my account after being a devoted
(daily) reader for some seven years.
I am very sad to leave. Thanks for the
great tech coverage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
politics with tech."
If you don't understand how the two are inexorably linked, you obviously haven't been paying attention to anything they've posted in the past (which has been quite nonpartisan), so it's highly questionable as to whether or not you're actually a reader.
This is a polite way of saying goodbye and good riddance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incredible
I'm sorry to say, that over the last year and a half, that's changed. Doesn't mean I'm going to stop reading. I read a lot of news sites that I disagree with. But it really does feel like the end of an era.
For you to be extremely concerned, and talk about our humanity when Trump passes this order, and not mention that Obama used virtually identical language in an almost identical order is hypocritical, and severely disingenuous, to say the least. As one of the last spots for actual journalism on the internet, I have a hard time believing you were unaware of that.
Techdirt used to be special. It had a liberal bent when being a liberal meant something. But there's a huge fucking difference between being an Aaron Swartz liberal, and being a Clinton liberal.
I'm holding out hope that you guys come back to your senses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incredible
For you to be extremely concerned, and talk about our humanity when Trump passes this order, and not mention that Obama used virtually identical language in an almost identical order is hypocritical, and severely disingenuous, to say the least. As one of the last spots for actual journalism on the internet, I have a hard time believing you were unaware of that.
Because it's not true. I'm going to assume you decided to save your sanity and not wade through the comments, but that particular bit has been brought up and shown to be false. Obama's order involved one country and merely instituted a temporary increase in security screening, slowing down immigration. Trump's covers seven countries and involves a total stop to immigration for it's duration.
Here's the link if you're curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incredible
So given that we have written numerous posts in praise and defence of Aaron Swartz, and virtually none (if any) in praise of Hillary Clinton (amidst many criticizing her) I have to wonder what website you are talking about, since it sure aint this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this site really never took a partisan stance
But lamenting that the tedious cesspool of Tweedledum-versus-Tweedledee politics that the US was founded on has reached an excremental new low, and suddenly that is considered “partisan”?
“Partisan” ... you use that word ... I do not think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incredible
And there's where one can only laugh at your worldview.
Bernie Sanders is a liberal. "Clinton liberal" policies are those of a pre-2008 Republican. A traditional conservative. Even Ronald Reagan is to the left of Clinton and would be tarred and feathered by Republicans as a RINO today.
The closest you could get to a credible denial is her support of same-sex marriage. But even Dick Cheney supported it before she did. George and Barbara Bush and other pre-2008 Republicans support it too.
Wikipedia defines alt-right - now controlling the Republican Party - as "a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is it that polarises people in regards to President Trump?
So what polarises you?
Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made? it was just recently pointed out that President Trump has started doing just that - a politician who is keeping his word.
Has the novelty of this caused such an internal ruckus in people that they can't look at the man and see the reality of what he has previously promised? A politician who is actually keeping his word. Unheard of? Well maybe not, but for such a role that he now functions in, it appears to be so.
This article by Mike talks about humanity and what is happening in the USA now. Yet, this same attitude was fully evident in the USA during the 70's and 80's. It has been evident during even earlier times in the USA.
But one salient point is missing, most of the planet has no such sentiment. Being humane to others is not the focus of most nations. Look at all the relief work done and in essence it is fruitless.
We should be trying to help other, whether it be in our local neighbourhoods, our cities and towns, the unemployed, the underemployed, the sick, the week, the mentally and emotionally distressed. There are some who make this a priority to help others in their local areas of influence.
But improvements depend on making changes in the lives of people and if human nature doesn't change, then any help given will be essentially wasted.
Whether or not President Trump's initiatives work or fail, only the future will tell. You can scream and rant all you like for either side, but if you don't actually do something, all your words are meaningless chatter.
If you think something needs to be done to help someone then put your time, effort, resources and money into it and show everyone a better way. This is irrespective, of political, philosophical, religious or social viewpoints.
All that the protest marches against President Trump has done is to highlight that a bunch of malcontents have no answers and are just imbecilic. If they want to show the way then actually do something constructive and show everyone that it is a better way.
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made?
What happened to “Lock Her Up”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made?
If that is all of your response, then you haven't thought hard about you and your actions.
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made?
One last thing, Davy Ollie Grammy Sammy: Calling someone named Lawrence "Lawrie" after repeatedly rolling out your own ridiculous names just makes you look extra stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made?
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it because he has actually carried out the election promises made?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is it that polarises people in regards to President Trump?
"So what polarises you?"
Speak for yourself. When (if) Trump manages to a) build an unscalable wall along the entire US southern border and b) get the Mexicans to pay for it, and c) oh yeah, the swamp-draining thing, which so far does not appear to be going well. Until Trump does actually deliver on all his promises, I'm going to maintain the view that he's not competent to hold the Office of President.
The "grab 'em by the pussy" thing did it for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is it that polarises people in regards to President Trump?
But one salient point is missing, most of the planet has no such sentiment. Being humane to others is not the focus of most nations.
I guess being different from the rest of the planet couldn't be related to why people want to come to America...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...why people want to come to America...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't the first time we (as a nation) have done this.
Following a decade of anti-Chinese violence starting in 1872, The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 forbade Chinese immigrants for originally 10 years, but was renewed in 1892 and made permanent in 1902 until it was repealed in 1943.
so this isn't exactly "Unpresidented".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Refugees from the First and Second Opium Wars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Way to miss the point
This current issue is about a group that does not assimilate. Yes, some do. But a vast amount do not. You are talking about a group that holds extremely backward and intolerant views on women and gays. A group in which some of the younger members can be and have been radicalized fairly easily.
This is about being humane. To your fellow citizens. It's not racist or xenophobic to think of Americans first. So, how about you cut the dramatics. They cause a loss of perspective. We have anough Fundamentalist Christians here don't we? Explain clearly why it's more imporatant than the quality of life and our culture to import millions more fundamentalists into America (or any other secular Western country).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way to miss the point
This current issue is about a group that does not assimilate. Yes, some do. But a vast amount do not. You are talking about a group that holds extremely backward and intolerant views on women and gays. A group in which some of the younger members can be and have been radicalized fairly easily.
This is a load of absolute bullshit. The same thing has been said about EVERY major wave of immigration, including my own relatives. What you're talking about is revisionist history. After immigrants do assimilate (and they almost always do by the 2nd generation) peopel forget about how they insisted that they did not.
Each new wave of immigrants tend to cluster in areas with people from where they came from -- which totally makes sense. If you were travelling to a brand new place with a different language/culture/foods, wouldn't you seek out at least some people who you were more comfortable with?
There were complaints in the 19th century about Chinese and Irish immigrants and the fact that they wouldn't assimilate. I mean there was a whole freaking political party dedicated to the fact that the Irish were a problem because they wouldn't assimilate (research it...).
Ditto for Jewish and Italian immigrants in the early 20th century, followed by Latin American immigrants. And today it's still being used against all kinds of immigrants.
And it's almost never true.
And, indeed, while you insist that this group "does not assimilate" the data actually says current immigrants are assimilating faster than any group before them. https://thinkprogress.org/new-study-demolishes-3-pernicious-myths-about-first-generation-immigrants- in-america-73e498b5c0ff#.sohzz9t2t So you're just totally and completely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Way to miss the point
But of both these groups, and also Italians and Irish, and other Europeans who came to this country, which ones believe in stoning women and hanging gays? This is the base belief of those who come here from the Muslim faith.
What's the chance these people will assimilate, Mike? Maybe by the 2nd or 3rd generation, their offspring will. But for now? At least, your people, and all of the other peoples you and I have mentioned could generally be trusted to put the Constitution above their religion and Sharia law.
I don't see that with this group. And they don't see it in Europe either. Groups of young Islamic men spitting on women who travel on trains alone in Europe? Mike? I've driven through the south of Birmingham in early 2001--16 years ago--and passed through miles and miles of women in black hijabs (sic). Why is that, Mike?
Where's the adherence to English values in the UK, Mike? And the same can be said of a substantial minority who come here to the US.
Where is your humanity, Mike? For those who are citizens in the country that your kin gave their loyalty to? You want to come here? Leave that intolerant, that violently intolerant shit at home.
Anyone who doesn't is as totally full of shit as those who advocate for those intolerant dirtbags to come here claiming it is inhumane not to allow just any old maniac in, because humanity. Nonsense. No. Specifically, full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
I have known many Chinese-Americans from when I lived in San Francisco, Mike. Young and old. And, guess what? They still don't assimilate. Marrying outside of their race is not acceptable, though it is done, but with a lot of guff from their society. The same could be said of many Jewish people. They have told me directly: the push is to marry within the Jewish or the Chinese society within America. Do some branch out? Sure they do. But a huge majority do not.
LOL for a whole variety of reasons -- made even funnier if you knew anything about me and my life, my family and my friends -- of all of which prove that the statement above is almost 100% stereotypical hogwash. Sure, some people marry within their cultures, because cultural connections often are part of a community, and so that's the people that you meet. But that doesn't mean they don't assimilate.
But of both these groups, and also Italians and Irish, and other Europeans who came to this country, which ones believe in stoning women and hanging gays? This is the base belief of those who come here from the Muslim faith.
Italians and Irish were most frequently Catholic. Catholics don't exactly have a history of being accepting to gays and women, do they?
And, for what it's worth, when Italians and Irish first came over to America, they too, were encouraged to marry within their own communities. That's pretty common, but not a sign of a refusal to integrate.
What's the chance these people will assimilate, Mike?
Extraordinarily high. How many Muslims do you actually know? I know many and they're all highly integrated into American society, just like all of the Jews, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Indians and Germans I know.
Maybe by the 2nd or 3rd generation, their offspring will.
Again, this is no different than EVERY OTHER IMMIGRANT GROUP BEFORE. When my great grandparents moved here, you know what they did? They joined a local community group that was made up of people from the old world, where they came from. Because when you're in a new place, of course you want to see familiar faces and have people you can rely on to help you out as you build your new life.
And, yes, of course they kept speaking their native tongues. But so what? They also became Americans.
At least, your people, and all of the other peoples you and I have mentioned could generally be trusted to put the Constitution above their religion and Sharia law.
Oh lord. You're totally ignorant are you. Any time I see someone raise the bogeyman of "Sharia Law" it's clear that they've been brainwashed. The fears about "Sharia law" are no different than the fears about Judaism for Jews when they immigrated, or Catholicism when the Irish and Italians came, or Chinese/Confusionism when the Chinese came. You're scared of "different" and you interpret it stupidly.
Seriously: EDUCATE YOURSELF. Go look at the fear mongering about Catholics 100 years ago. It's nearly identical to the insane fear mongering about "Sharia law" today.
Try this: do some research on Al Smith and how people freaked out that he might run for President and be controlled by the Pope rather than the Constitution. It's the same superstitious nonsense that you spout about "Sharia Law."
I don't see that with this group.
Because you've been brainwashed by the ignorant.
And they don't see it in Europe either.
I've traveled extensively in Europe. What you're claiming is not reality.
I've been there too and didn't see anything like that. Were there some people wearing their traditional clothes? Sure. So what? When I walk in almost any city in the world I can find some people wearing traditional clothes. So what?
Where's the adherence to English values in the UK, Mike?
Pretty much everywhere.
Where is your humanity, Mike? For those who are citizens in the country that your kin gave their loyalty to? You want to come here? Leave that intolerant, that violently intolerant shit at home.
Again, you're spewing myths and fantasy. Yes, some people retain aspects of their culture from where they came from -- as they should. The idea that they brought with them "intolerance and violence" is laughable. There's simply no evidence or data to support that.
The only intolerance I see is from you.
You're an ignorant fool and I hope you educate yourself. Get out of your bubble and maybe go meet some real people, not the myths in your mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
Mike,
the only thing your statement says is that in your personal interaction you have not found it to be true. The almost 100% is hyperbole and itself is hogwash.
I grant you know some, just as I do and some are highly integrated and many are not. I have been at events hosted by Moslems (family and extended family events) and there is a distinct and obvious separation between those who are devote Moslem and those who are not.
We have entire areas where they do not integrate, they take over. You can believe or not, you just have to walk in those areas over a period of time and see the difference.
That so. Even despite the warnings that have come from people who have left Islam (by becoming secular or otherwise)? Even despite the warnings that come from those who lived as minorities in countries that had Sharia Law and now are integrated into western society? Your ignorance show, so as you say, so apply it to yourself
And how much of this was into the very enclaves that you say are not a reality?
The same can be said for you, Mike. You are just as much in a bubble and need to get out and meet real people. The unwashed, the poor, the hungry, the embarrassed unemployed, the mentally ill, the drug addicts, are people too. How often do you rub shoulders and see their lives or do you just see them and ignore them as background in your daily life?
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
You just deleted them all.
I wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
Here in Canada a small group of Muslims called for sharia courts for their own people. They were shouted down - marches even held to protest them - by a much, MUCH larger group of Muslims who had had enough of that crap in the old world and wanted no part of it here.
(The upshot: They pointed out that Jews have private religious-based courts recognized by the Ontario government. Canadians went "Wait.... what?" and those courts were shut down.)
You said the same of Jewish or the Chinese society within America. Many cities have a "Little Italy."
And....? You get that with every wave of immigrants. It fades out in a couple generations as people assimilate, and "Little Italy" or "Chinatown" becomes more of a marketing theme.
The more common word for "enclaves" is "ghettos." With the group inhabiting it forced in by others.
While almost every country in the western hemisphere has birthright citizenship, until recently European countries did not. France brought in a lot of workers from it's holdings in Africa as maids and other workers. Soon they had kids, and then grand-kids. None of whom had citizenship. They weren't allowed to assimilate. They grew up knowing that they weren't even second class citizens. So ghettos formed and riots started.
We don't have that problem in North America. The kids born here automatically become citizens. They're allowed to assimilate. Even keeping their language and culture, they're first-class citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way to miss the point
Perhaps you could explain why it's only the fundamentalists being affected here (rather than the people fleeing the fundamentalists and/or people who have already assimilated into your culture). Or, why the lives of non-fundamentalists are fair game inorder to stop being afraid for a moment (even though the countries that have actually sent dangerous individuals to you are not covered by the ban).
The primary issue is this - it's not the fact that you're supposedly trying to ban the people who pose a threat. It's the fact that the action is so broad they're affecting people who are genuinely fleeing danger - or those who have already spent their lives living productive lives in the US to the benefit of your country. Plus, the fact that this just makes your country look so bad in the eyes of the world that it actually strengthens your enemies at home and abroad.
You're meant to be better than "let's destroy the lives of innocents because we're scared of fundamentalists". That's the humanity that the article is talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Way to miss the point
How stupid does that sound? Devout Muslims believe these things. Even moderate Muslims believe these things.
As for the people who are "genuinely fleeing danger?" For one, how about you push for an end to the US's push for destruction in the Middle East? That then ends the need for these people to flee from anything. Why is that not your first idea?
And for another, how on earth do you know who is fleeing genuinely from danger? It appears clear that thousands of young Muslim men are fleeing "from danger" into European countries, and molesting European girls and women. These are fighting-age men.
Something is not right here. It is inhumane to push for huge amounts of an intolerant and possibly violent group of aliens to our western culture into our lands. It is inhumane to disrupt the cultures of Islamic peoples far far away.
That inhumanity should be your focus, not bringing the intolerance and foreign values to our shores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
restless94110 wrote:
REALLY?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007.
The Pew Report is considerably more detailed, and it does offer a less radical picture than I had previously understood to be true.
But this may be a factor of the difficulty of getting to the United States by Muslim immigrants, as suggested by others, as opposed to the closeness of the European countries. In other words, that difficulty takes money and time and thus more economically advantaged Muslims can come here.
Thus, Pew measures this group, and less so the young, male, poor Muslims, although Somalis of this class are apparently being given special advantage to come here by the departing Obama Administration.
The full report is found here:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-a round-the-world/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way to miss the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Way to miss the point
So let me ask you THIS question. Name me 5 things about Sharia law that you feel can assimilate into American culture.
You know, rock and roll? Freedom? Tolerance? Our culture.
What 5 things about Sharia law, the base belief of ALL Muslims, will assimilate into Western and American culture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_hip_hop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
Here in Canada a small group of Muslims called for sharia courts for their own people. They were shouted down - marches even held to protest them - by a much, MUCH larger group of Muslims who had had enough of that crap in the old world and wanted no part of it here.
(The upshot: They pointed out that Jews have private religious-based courts recognized by the Ontario government. Canadians went "Wait.... what?" and those courts were shut down.)
One can list plenty of horrific Old and even New Testament directives that the vast majority of Christian are nevertheless opposed to. But they're still, as you put it, "the base belief of ALL Christians."
However... There are parts of Sharia law that have already assimilated into American culture.
As for things that can still assimilate into American culture, how about:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way to miss the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way to miss the point
https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/29/randazza-what-shall-we-do-with-the-dago/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Way to miss the point
Another fallacious straw man bit of nonsense.
Italians were Catholics by and large and were part of the rich Latin/Roman culture that American culture springs from.
This is not at all the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
*snort*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Way to miss the point
Dear sir,
For the benefit of the obviously ignorant, please detail your expert knowledge of Islam and Sharia law and the basic fundamentals of the requirements as detailed in the Koran and hadith. This will allow us to make a comparison with what the OP has said and be able to check the veracity of the OP's ideas and concepts.
From your comment, can we take it that you are a leading Islamic Koranic scholar?
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're so wrong...
And no matter how you're trying to spin this, if you don't put your country first then you're nothing more than a traitorous scum.
So why are you surprised when you're called for your support of traitors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The right and obligation to control our population
That will mean twice as many houses, roads, cars, schools, hospitals, and prisons. Twice the demand for power and water. Twice the demand upon our sustaining ecosystems.
America is full. There are no more vast uncharted spaces to settle.
America has the right - and indeed the obligation - to control its population, for the sake of future generations - of all races, creeds, and colors.
Fred Elbel
Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform - CAIRCO org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The right and obligation to control our population
-Snowflakes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The right and obligation to control our population
Hi CAIRCO. You linked to your site, so I went there to have a look and found:
So, yeah, tell me again how your concern is about population growth and infrastructure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Zach wrote:
You must have skipped this part of the article:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think key here is that being critical of Trump (who appears to have serious mental issues) isn't a bad thing. The bad thing is how you are critical of him. Too often, the tone (as I did above) is about the person and not the policies. That will always get you in trouble.
Also, bans on people entering the US from certain countries is not all that ommon, but it has happened. Japanese were banned (by law) in 1924. You can see some other bans in the past by following this link:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/times-banned-immigrants-170128183528941.html
F inally, you have to face certain realities which few want to look too closely at. One of those is the questions of huge increase in Muslim populations around the world outside of normal areas, and the impact of all of that immigration. While some Muslims do choose to integrate into the societies of their new homes, many of the more recent "refugees" seem to expect to import their way of life into their new countries. This includes a life clock set by multiple prayer periods in every day, Muslim banking, Sharia law, and the treatment of women mostly as chattel and not as people.
If you spend some time in the UK, as an example, you will see some of the problems this creates. You end up with a society inside a society that is non-integrating and does not feel beholden to the laws of the land or the traditions of their adopted country. You get enclave style living situations where people group together and try to enforce their religious "laws" on everyone in the area. You get women walking around covered in sheets to try not to offend the menfolk.
Given a few more generations of near unlimited immigration, the UK will effectively become a Muslim nation. For some, that has the look of a sort of trojan horse attack. The "refugees" and immigrants overwhelm the system and at the end of the day, end up controlling the place. Political correctness and reasonable accommodations are things that make it even easier for this sort of silent take over to occur.
In the US, there are a few great fears. There is the threat from the South, with parts of the southern US becoming almost provinces of Mexico and Central America, and the threats from non-integrating immigrants from Muslim nations. That fear is what Trump campaigned on, and it's real enough for enough Americans that he got elected. People also don't want foreign wars and conflicts to get exported to the US.
Most people's humanity stops at the point where they realize that it's hurting them more than it's helping others, or where they see that they aren't helping people up, but rather being stepped on and used as a doormat to a better quality of life.
You aren't wrong Mike, but you are not considering at what point humanity is self defeating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well you're off to a great start so far.
The person matters. Everything Trump does is about who he is. Sure, that's true of everyone, but his ... disorder absolutely determines every policy he will make. His behavior is reckless, impulsive. He is driven by a constant need for attention and adultation, and by vindictiveness towards anyone who fails to praise him.
And most of us, looking back, acknowledge that those bans were mistaken and immoral, not in keeping with who we are, or at least who we aspire to be as a nation.
"Normal areas" -- Tell that to my Irish Catholic immigrant ancestors. And by your implicit definition American Jews are not in their "normal areas".
"But these immigrants are different than everyone before". Not so much. No. Read this article at Popehat, or just read up in the comments, where this has been discussed repeatedly.
Bullshit fearmongering. I bet you believe there are also Muslim "no go" zones in English cities.
I live in Southern California, which used to be a territory of Mexico. In my L.A. apartment building live people from all over the world, speaking a variety of languages. And you know what? It's fine. We're fine. We've made it work. In fact, much of it is pretty damn awesome, and the state is thriving.
And by the way, Trump didn't win here in California. He lost, by a huge margin. By your logic, shouldn't we Californians be most fearful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Trump lost the border state of New Mexico, and didn't exactly pull off a landslide in Arizona (48.7% for Trump vs 45.1% for Clinton). And he lost Nevada (not a border state but still southwest). In fact, he did worst in states with greater demographic diversity.
So what does that tell us about the fear you speak of? What is it that scares those people? What do they fear they might lose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? California is a mess. Cities going bankrupt. Over burdened school systems. Huge issues with drugs, crime, and poverty, and the "shining jewel" of the tech world is a place where normal people can't even afford to live.
If you call that working out fine, then yup, you are fine. Just remember that you pay some of the highest taxes in the nation to pay for all of those non-taxpayers shipping their money out of the country (including the big corporations).
""Normal areas" -- Tell that to my Irish Catholic immigrant ancestors. And by your implicit definition American Jews are not in their "normal areas"."
You miss the point entirely. Ireland didn't have a plan to turn the US into an Irish state. Your ancestors integrated in the US, became citizens, and didn't suddenly demand the government to give them special laws or allow them to take 5 breaks a day to "pray". They became "Irish Americans".
For some, moving to a new country means becoming part of that society. For others, it means bringing your entire society with you, and forcing it upon your new home country. I respect their right to be whatever they want to be, to the point where I have to change what I already was to in order to make their unbending way of life work.
"Bullshit fearmongering. I bet you believe there are also Muslim "no go" zones in English cities."
Thanks for trying to paint me as an extremist while ignoring the point. I didn't mention any no-go zones, I was talking about places where Sharia Law is effectively the law, and is enforced by zealous people who couldn't leave that shit behind in their home land.
Based on your statements, I assume you have no problem of women as chattel, unable to get a divorce from even a physically abusive relationship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you can't be bothered to do so, it's the Wahabbists you should worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? California is a mess. Cities going bankrupt. Over burdened school systems. Huge issues with drugs, crime, and poverty, and the "shining jewel" of the tech world is a place where normal people can't even afford to live.
Well, if we didn't have to subsidize you, we'd be nicely in the black. California is a net donor to the FED, fam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our Humanity
First, Our Humanity and Donald Trump cannot be used in the same sentence. Secondly, I don't think that you will find a Trump supporter with an open mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Humanity?
Muhammad established the belief among his followers that God had commandeered all Muslims’ purposes and property for His efforts and that all Muslims had a responsibility to fight for the faith. Everyone—men, women, and even children—had an obligation for military service in defense of the faith and the ummah that was the community of God’s chosen people on earth. It is essential to understand that the attraction of the Islamic ideology more than anything else produced the manpower that permitted Muhammad’s small revolutionary cadre to evolve into a conventional armed force capable of large-scale engagements.
And here is a link to the article although there is a lot more out there you should study so you have a clear understanding of what the world is up against.
http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-warrior-prophet.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Humanity?
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Humanity?
Here is some basic information on the threat of islam:
Islamic terrorism and ISIS
http://www.cairco.org/issues/islam-terrorism-isis
Earlier, someone asked about the relationship of immigration-driven US population to our sustaining environment. Here is one resource:
Environment and the consequences of immigration-driven population growth
http://www.cairco.org/issues/environment-immigration
Fred Elbel
Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform - CAIRCO org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Humanity?
No, no one asked about this. Unless you're talking about yourself in the third person again. And forgot your own name.
And there's no need to link again to your turdfest of a website. We've been there, and it's pretty clear that it's not "the environment" you're concerned about. It's keeping (or rather, making) America exclusive to white Christians.
No thanks. Actually, strike the "thanks". Just no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Humanity?
FIFY
I'm a Christian, I'm white, I'm conservative and can't stand Trump. Everything he stands for is completely contrary to everything I stand for, starting with traditional community values of honesty and decency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Humanity?
How is this different from Christianity? Plenty of similar quotes are in the Bible. Modern Christians are just as bound by them. (And like most Modern Muslims, disagree that they're bound by them.)
"Spreading Christianity" was a major driving factor in the Christian conquest of the New World, Africa and Asia, with the occasional genocide as required. Not to mention countless pogroms - even after WWII and the Holocaust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“No non citizen has a right to enter a country
Back in World War II, when Sir Arthur "Yearnin' for a Burnin' German" Harris and the Allied air command was pulverizing (and incinerating) German cities (something that caused more civilian casualties than the two nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), the common sentiment was that civilian casualties were okay. If they hadn't wanted to be targeted as part of the Axis war machine, they shouldn't have elected a fascist government. In short, they got what was coming to them, and they were responsible, as citizens, for the actions of their government.
I can certainly see obvious arguments for such a conclusion. Not certain it's right, but I could make an argument in support or opposition without much mental gymnastics.
There seems to be an equally obvious corollary though; No state is composed of 100% approval. No action gets unanimous consent, and some people are always on the losing side of an election.
And therefore, if you believe that people vote with their citizenship (similar to voting with your dollar) and are responsible for the results, supporting the free movement of people is necessary. Otherwise citizens become hostages; "You have to support our state, our war, not because it is right or just or moral, but because you have no choice, and you might live if we win- but if we lose, you won't. Even if you don't like it, want it, or support it, you have nowhere else to go."
I could make a bridge here by referencing some big names and pretentious (but significant) quotes, Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Let's not and say I did.
But it's simple self-interest. Don't put your enemy in death ground. It costs you more than you'll ever get out. Don't force them to defend their position to the death- it's much more profitable to make them your friend. They might be your enemy now, but you don't have to like them to make money selling to them hand over fist. And they might be your enemy now, but there always might be a worse one further down the line you could use a hand against.
And to do that, you need to give the a way out. A way to stop being your enemy- while continuing to be, because most people consider that an unacceptable price.