Basically The Entire Tech Industry Signs Onto A Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Exec Order

Legal Issues

from the we-need-to-stand-up dept

Mon, Feb 6th 2017 3:23am — Mike Masnick

I've been quite clear how I feel about Donald Trump's awful executive order that places a blanket ban on people entering the US (even if they had valid visas) from 7 countries, including a permanent block on Syrian refugees. Tons of people have been protesting this decision, and multiple courts have ruled against it. There has been some discussion over whether or not the tech industry was really going to stand up against this move, and some of the early statements about the executive order were a bit weak. However, late Sunday night, basically the entire technology industry (plus some companies from other industries as well) signed onto an amicus brief calling the order illegal and unconstitutional (technically, it's a motion asking for permission to file the amicus brief, with that brief attached).

The brief was filed in the Ninth Circuit appeals court, which is one of the first appeals courts considering the executive order, after a federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on enforcing the exec order. On Sunday, the appeals court refused to reverse the lower court, keeping the TRO in place. However, it also gave both parties (the lawsuit itself was filed by the state of Washington) a very quick turnaround time to file written arguments to be considered.

Given that incredibly short time frame, the fact that 97 companies -- including some of the world's largest -- but also some tiny ones, like the Copia Institute (the think tank arm of Techdirt), were able to come together and not only get a detailed amicus brief together, but also get sign on from all of those companies (on Super Bowl Sunday, no less), is impressive. Having been through the process in which amicus briefs with multiple signers has been done before, normally there's lots of hemming and hawing from different companies and nitpicking over certain choices. It takes a lot of effort. Update: Another 30 companies have signed on as well.

But this issue was so important and so core and fundamental to our basic values, that basically the entire industry came together and signed onto this. You name the company, and it's probably signed on. There are the big guys: Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple (despite a false Washington Post article that claimed none of them had signed on). There are lots of other huge names as well, including Twitter, Snap, Uber, Airbnb, Lyft, Dropbox, Cloudflare, Box, eBay, GitHub, Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Medium, Mozilla, Patreon, Paypal, Pinterest, Reddit, Salesforce, Spotfy, Stripe, Wikimedia, Yelp, Y Combinator and many, many more. Update: Among the notable companies in the "late" sign on, were SpaceX, Tesla, Slack, Pandora, Adobe, HP, Evernote, Udacity and more...

I highly recommend reading the full amicus brief -- which makes an economic argument, a moral argument and a legal argument all wrapped up in one.

Immigrants make many of the Nation’s greatest discoveries, and create some of the country’s most innovative and iconic companies. Immigrants are among our leading entrepreneurs, politicians, artists, and philanthropists. The experience and energy of people who come to our country to seek a better life for themselves and their children—to pursue the “American Dream”—are woven throughout the social, political, and economic fabric of the Nation.

For decades, stable U.S. immigration policy has embodied the principles that we are a people descended from immigrants, that we welcome new immigrants, and that we provide a home for refugees seeking protection. At the same time, America has long recognized the importance of protecting ourselves against those who would do us harm. But it has done so while maintaining our fundamental commitment to welcoming immigrants—through increased background checks and other controls on people seeking to enter our country.

[....]

The Order effects a sudden shift in the rules governing entry into the United States, and is inflicting substantial harm on U.S. companies. It hinders the ability of American companies to attract great talent; increases costs imposed on business; makes it more difficult for American firms to compete in the international marketplace; and gives global enterprises a new, significant incentive to build operations— and hire new employees—outside the United States.

The Order violates the immigration laws and the Constitution. In 1965, Congress prohibited discrimination on the basis of national origin precisely so that the Nation could not shut its doors to immigrants based on where they come from. Moreover, any discretion under the immigration laws must be exercised reasonably, and subject to meaningful constraints.

There's much more in the full brief, and hopefully the court allows it and recognizes how momentous this is. I've never seen anything that so many tech companies have gotten behind (including things like SOPA), and this happened so fast that it is literally unprecedented. A whole bunch of people put in a tremendous effort to actually get this done (including more than a few having to miss the Super Bowl to get this done...). Andy Pincus from Mayer Brown deserves a specific shoutout for being the main lawyer putting the brief together.

We shall see what happens from here, but having basically the entire tech industry rise up in a single voice to say that this order is not right is nice to see. In this day and age, it's easy not to speak out and to just sit on the sidelines. But this is important, and when it mattered all of these companies spoke out.

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: amicus brief, donald trump, executive order, muslim ban, tech industry, travel, visas
Companies: apple, copia institute, facebook, google, microsoft, netflix, snap, twitter

234 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 2:57am

The mists are clearing, I can see it now...
... the entire thing will be brushed aside and/or mocked by the WH and numerous others who support the EO as just whining by the tech companies who...

A) ... care more about 'looking like they're doing something'/'standing up to Trump' than they do about public safety.

B) ... are only doing this because it threatens their profits by impacting their ability to work with and draw in people from other countries who might foolishly ignore that strong, decisive action must be taken to combat the terrorist-communist-refugee problem that threatens the very core of the US itself.

C)... don't actually care that Trump's EO is identical in every single respect to the one Obama signed, they're only objecting because a republican did it this time.

D) Some of the above.

E) All of the above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:14am
  
  Re: The mists are clearing, I can see it now...
  I imagine the WH pathetic excuse may also be:
  F) ...don't know anything about the true dangers out there that this law was to prevent. That there is specific evidence that the WH was told that this prevented. That if the WH told those secrets, the 'bad guys' would use it against America.
  G) ...don't care about hiring Americans and only want to muddy the purity of the American race by hiring foreigners (Answer written by Bannon)
  H) ...are activist companies who clearly don't love America because of their preference to hire outside it. so WH will sign a new executive order adding a 100000% tax to any company that does business in the US and does not hire Americans (Trump businesses except from this order).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:04pm
    
    Re: Re: The mists are clearing, I can see it now...
    I) They just want a large market of terrorists to whom to sell encrypted devices and services.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:14am
  
  Re: The mists are clearing, I can see it now...
  Obama never banned anyone from the country. He simply issued an EO that required the full visa vetting process for people traveling from seven countries. Then later in 2015, he signed into law a bill that allows the president to designate countries, based on sound evidence, which are likely to have citizens or residents attempt to come to America for the purpose of applying for asylum without going through the proper visa process or countries which are far more likely than other nations to have active terror cells (even if those cells do not seek to target the USA in any form). Those designated countries then have a five year rolling window during which anyone who has visited those countries during that period are not eligible for automatic issuance of traveler or tourist visas and must instead go through the visa application process.
  
  Basically, that law changed nothing for single-nationality residents of the designated countries but did require that people with dual-citizenship with that country who had visited the county in the previous five years or who had visited the country in the previous five years would always be required to apply for a visa prior to travel to the USA even if we would normally permit them a 30 or 60 day tourist or traveler visa at a port of entry. So in effect, it only affects persons with nationalities from NATO nations, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand who had visited those designated countries in the five years prior to their application for entry into the USA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:20pm
  
  Re: The mists are clearing, I can see it now...
  F) Blame Google exclusively, because Google is the internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr Evil, 6 Feb 2017 @ 3:59am

Sigh
And now Techdirt has went political...... If the major tech companies sign on, we KNOW that the issue they support is pretty much against the interests of America and Americans. Oh, wait.. Google redefining facisism to be right wing (it's always been left wing), Microscrew increasing spy activities while laying off Americans to allow foreign workers to be brought in.. And.. Well, at least the Supreme Court will be busy undoing Obamas ..cough.. Legacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:06am
  
  Re: Sigh
  Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]
  
  From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:31am
  
  Re: Sigh
  "And now Techdirt has went political"
  
  Yeah, the site should refrain from commenting on major issues relating to the tech industry, especially ones that involve most of the industry taking a particular stance. :rollseyes:
  
  It's amazing how many people think that political commentary is something now here. Nothing has really changed from my viewpoint, except that the increased anti-tech attacks from major political parties over the last decade or so have become more prominent, and there's really no way to spin the activities of politicians and the legal system as non-political.
  
  "If the major tech companies sign on, we KNOW that the issue they support is pretty much against the interests of America and Americans"
  
  One of my favourite things is people using the results of decades of technological advancement to attack the entire tech industry as being worthless or even against your own values. The amount of mental gymnastics required for that to make any logical sense is breathtaking. It's not quite as out-loud hilarious as the people who use the fruits of open and free technology to argue that open and free technology will never be as successful as proprietary tech, but it's a close second.
  
  "Google redefining facisism to be right wing (it's always been left wing)"
  
  No, it really hasn't. Perhaps Google could help you spell it correctly so that you could find the correct history and definitions of the word? Plus, even if that lie were, true, how the hell are Google directly and solely responsible?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Paul Clark, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:57am
    
    Please Head North
    On behalf of all of the Canadian IT workers, if you don't feel welcome in the US, head north. We would be happy for the jobs and financial benefits of having the tech companies here. Plus, with NAFTA you get access to the US market and with our agreement with Europe, access to the European markets as well.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:32am
      
      Re: Please Head North
      Fat chance, the immigration laws in Canada are more strict than America which is NOT attract those businesses, plus a lot of people don't want to live in a place that is that fucking witches titty cold.
      
      The only thing the businesses want is access to more labor markets for labor expenses. It is just convenient to sign on for it to score political points for the sheep brains.
      
      It is flat out telling how quick people in this forum are to call businesses blood sucking cunts that need to be socialist regulated and then to throwing their necks out in a rush to suck their dicks like they are being altruistic all of a sudden.
      
      It is all an act folks... the same reasons the business talk up keeping American jobs for public adoration is the same reasons the "we don't play in politics" tech industry.
      
      I have been here more than long enough to see through all of this bullshit. It's sad that most you cannot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Roger Strong (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Please Head North
        
        plus a lot of people don't want to live in a place that is that fucking witches titty cold.
        
        They're tech workers. They can figure out how to work a thermostat.
        
        BTW, it hasn't occurred that by shaking your pom-poms for more government regulation of tech sector workers, YOU are the one demanding to be "socialist regulated?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Eldakka (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Please Head North
        
        They can figure out how to work a thermostat.
        
        Well, until a blizzard knocks out their internet connection so that their Nest thermostat stops working.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Derek Kerton (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Please Head North
        "Fat chance, the immigration laws in Canada are more strict than America which is NOT attract those businesses"
        
        If I can muddle through the bad grammar, I think you're spouting 2 separate doses of nonsense just in that first sentence.
        
        1) Immigration laws in Canada are NOT more strict. You need a citation for a claim like that. And certainly with the current administrations, Justin Trudeau tweeted a red carpet welcome to immigrants
        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/28/justin-trudeau-tweets-welcome-for-refug ees-after-trump-issues-executive-order/
        While our President has tweeted what amounts to:
        "Hey immigrants. Fuck you."
        That's not a legal comparison, but it speaks to the administrative atmosphere in each nation.
        
        2) You write "...America which is NOT attract those businesses". If you are arguing that the USA does NOT attract startup businesses, I must ask "why do you hate the USA so much"? Your negative opinion is wrong and pessimistic about your country. I recently saw this startup data about the hot auto technology sector
        https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/auto-tech-startups-2016-recap/
        Have a look at the charts, which show you are terribly wrong. The USA obviously has attracted the LION'S SHARE of startup businesses...at least up until President Trump's reign.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Please Head North
        "1) Immigration laws in Canada are NOT more strict. You need a citation for a claim like that. "
        
        My wife is Canadian, I am American. I can tell you first hand that it is indeed more expensive, and takes longer to gain permanent residency in Canada unless you are either running from persecution, or highly skilled. If your highly skilled, or hold an advanced degree, and have enough points, then Canada wants you. If you are running from persecution, and make good headlines, then Canada wants you. Aside from that, good luck.
        
        http://torontolife.com/city/life/dear-americans-moving-canada-hard/
        
        https://www.thestar.com/opin ion/commentary/2015/05/25/canada-takes-a-step-back-on-immigration-policy.html
        
        http://www.straight.com /news/645271/if-bill-c-24-passes-canadian-citizenship-will-be-harder-get-and-easier-lose
        
        Lets talk about total Immigrants for a minute. The US has 46 or so million immigrants total (that's almost 20% of all the immigrants on the planet), Canada around 8 million. Canada has a higher immigrant to citizen ratio, but that is easily explained by the massive population of the United States. If the total number of immigrants is any indication as to the difficulty of immigrating, it's no contest.
        
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/12111108/Mapped-Which-country-has-the-m ost-immigrants.html
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_ by_immigrant_population
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Roger Strong (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Head North
        
        _The US has 46 or so million immigrants total (that's almost 20% of all the immigrants on the planet), Canada around 8 million
        
        So the US has ten times the population, but only accepts five times the immigrants. That sure sounds like it's easier to immigrate to Canada.
        
        Canada has also resettled well over double the US's Syrian refugees. (Again, despite 1/10th the population.) The last big flood of refugees was the Vietnamese boat people; the US settled 402,382, while Canada settled 100,012.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 4:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Head North
        "So the US has ten times the population, but only accepts five times the immigrants. That sure sounds like it's easier to immigrate to Canada."
        
        How so? What does the current population of a country have to do with anything? The simple fact is; The U.S. has accepted many times more immigrants over all than Canada. Full stop.
        
        Just because a given situation like the Syrian Refugee's has occurred and Canada has decided to take in more than the U.S. doesn't make it easier to immigrate to Canada. Using your own example, the Vietnamese boat people; the U.S. took in many times more than Canada. Should that then mean that it's easier to immigrate to the U.S.? I don't think it's fair to look at a particular situation and base a decision on that. If we look at immigration as a whole, the answer is obvious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Roger Strong (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 6:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Head North
        There are no doubt more people applying to immigrate to the US too. More competition. The best bet being on a ratio similar to the countries populations. Canada resettles twice as many immigrants per capita, so it's likely easier to get into.
        
        I included the boat people to show that Syria isn't a one-time situation. Canada still resettled well over twice as many refugees per capita as the US.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2017 @ 5:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Head North
        Again, please explain what "per capita" has to do with anything? Per the numbers in 2013 (link below) The United States has more immigrants than the entire population of Canada. The per capita ratio means nothing when it comes to the ease of getting into a country, it just demonstrates their ability to support said immigration.
        
        https://www.google.ca/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idi m=country:CAN:AUS&hl=en&dl=en
        
        http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-un ited-states
        
        https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm
        
        My family and I have gone through the immigration process on both sides. Have you? We've been through interviews, background checks, border crossings, work visa's, green cards, you name it. I've spent years weaving through both systems, writing the checks and paying the tolls. In my personal, first hand, up close and personal experience, it was much MUCH easier navigating, getting approval of, and moving to the U.S. ... ironically enough, FROM CANADA, than it was moving TO Canada FROM the U.S.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 8 Feb 2017 @ 3:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please Head North
        "What does the current population of a country have to do with anything?"
        
        It has a tremendous amount to do with how much a nation is capable of doing. That's why we almost always compare countries on a per capita basis. In the current context of immigration it matters because:
        
        - a country has a certain number of people to process immigrants that work for the gov't. A bigger country would have more
        
        - a country will have a certain number of churches, social groups, and programs to house immigrants and refugees. A bigger country would have more.
        
        - a country will have a certain size tax base to pay for the programs to evaluate, and set up immigrants and refugees. A bigger country will have more.
        
        - a country will have a certain number of towns and population centers to send immigrants and assimilate them into the population. A bigger country will have more.
        
        - a country will have a certain amount of housing available, and a bigger country will have more.
        
        - a country will have a certain amount of supply of available jobs for immigrants so they can accept them without causing a short term over-supply of labor. I know this is getting complicated, but a bigger country can handle a bigger shock to the supply of labor without destabilizing the economy.
        
        - a country will have a certain supply of language and skills training for refugees. A bigger country will have more.
        
        So, just that. And a lot of other things I didn't get around to mentioning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 9:43am
      
      Re: Please Head North
      Head north to Vancouver, where you can exchange your Master's degree in IT/programming for a great job paying as much as a Starbuck's barista. Don't worry, only 125% of your paycheque will go towards rent. Also don't worry about calculating overtime as IT workers are legislatively exempt from overtime pay.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - GristleMissile (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Please Head North
        "Also don't worry about calculating overtime as IT workers are legislatively exempt from overtime pay."
        
        That's also the case in the US https://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/fs17e_computer.pdf
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:58am
  
  Re: Sigh
  "it's always been left wing"
  
  This statement shows why your right/left dogma is such a ridiculous endeavor.
  
  a=b
  b=c
  
  therefore a=c
  
  This works in math - it does not work in your right/left dogma.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hij (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:09am
  
  Re: Sigh
  Since you seem to be new here you may want to go back and read through some of the older articles. Techdirt has always been political. The writers here have always written about court challenges, legal issues, and government practices. In fact a large number of articles have focused on the practices of the executive branch and have generally been unflattering to all presidents. So, yeah, it has been quite political and relatively consistent in pushing for openness, accountability, and strict interpretation of the law.
  
  I have not always liked or agreed with what has been written but have respected the thought and attention given the majority of articles here. Really, you do not have to be that forthright to appreciate a differing opinion.
  
  If you do not like what was said then feel free to loosen up the ole brain cells and form a rebuttal. Otherwise you are still welcome to just complain and moan that the site is *still* political. Just do not be surprised if folks do not take you seriously.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:37am
    
    Re: Re: Sigh
    Agree here, TD has always had politics involved.
    
    People do need to at least put a little bit of meat on their posts. My person favs are the assclowns that do nothing other than call me names or stupid. No rebuttal, just names.
    
    I try not to let it get to me, but I would like that slap a bitch in the face over the internet button to be invented soon. I don't have a problem with people that disagree, that's just life, I just don't like people that just disagree and have nothing to show for it other than name calling.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 3:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Sigh
    Since you seem to be new here you may want to go back and read through some of the older articles. Techdirt has always been political.
    
    It has not often strayed into mainstream political issues.
    
    It has tended to concentrate of political issues that relate to copyright/patent/trademark or security.
    
    As such it has thrown useful light on these issues by putting forward the viewpoint of those who understand the technology against politicians who almost always don't.
    
    I Mike's first post on this topic he more or less admitted that he was straying for his usual stalking ground.
    
    _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._
    
    I'm sorry Mike - it really isn't about humanity.
    
    It's about reacting to Trump.
    
    If you were concerned about humanitarian issues surrounding immigration then there has been plenty to write about ever since Techdirt started.
    
    The fact is that so long as you have any set of rules that prevent some people entering the country then there will be regular cases of inhumanity when "jobsworth" officials apply those rules.
    
    I find myself signing petitions against such deportations (from the UK in my case) on a regular basis.
    
    So why speak out about this particular one now?
    
    Really there is no point when you have no particular expertise to add to this debate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 10:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sigh
      It has not often strayed into mainstream political issues.
      
      Many of the issues are related, and the fact is that the issues we DO follow certainly have become mainstream. SOPA became mainstream. Net neutrality became mainstream. Mass surveillance became mainstream.
      
      I'm sorry Mike - it really isn't about humanity.
      
      Wow. I didn't know you could read my brain and why I write what I write. How do you do that?
      
      It was about humanity. I wrote about it because I couldn't not write about it, because it's a disgrace and I have a platform.
      
      If you were concerned about humanitarian issues surrounding immigration then there has been plenty to write about ever since Techdirt started.
      
      There is no more annoying and cynical a ploy then someone saying "you can't write about this because you didn't write about some other horrible thing." That's ridiculous and you know it.
      
      The fact is that so long as you have any set of rules that prevent some people entering the country then there will be regular cases of inhumanity when "jobsworth" officials apply those rules.
      
      This also makes no sense. The issue here is that this was a MASSIVE upheaval impacting hundreds of thousands of people, and completely overturning decades of precedent and history, potentially destroying a careful diplomatic balance, alliances and industries.
      
      It's kind of a big deal.
      
      So why speak out about this particular one now?
      
      Because it's a big deal and I chose to. Until you're my boss, you don't get to tell me what I can and cannot write about.
      
      Really there is no point when you have no particular expertise to add to this debate.
      
      Heh. Okay... Again, maybe look at this very post and see if you still think that's true. I have expertise in some areas, and one of them is knowing tech companies and their positions on policy issues and how certain things impact them.
      
      But, nah, some random dude named Richard says I have nothing to add. Guess I'll pack up now...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 7:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
        Many of the issues are related, and the fact is that the issues we DO follow certainly have become mainstream. SOPA became mainstream. Net neutrality became mainstream. Mass surveillance became mainstream.
        
        Yes - but all those were tech issues that have become so important that the mainstream took them up or mainstream issues where tech knowledge and understanding should be game changers.
        
        . I wrote about it because I couldn't not write about it, because it's a disgrace and I have a platform.
        
        which puts you basically in the same boat as the celebrity critics. Personally I would rather hear the opinions of experts on immigration policy and/or those who understand the legal niceties of what is and isn't constitutional.
        
        As for the inhumanity of it - well I can think of many worse examples of inhumanity, a surprisingly large number of which have been perpetrated by governments or citizens of the very same nations that are affected by the ban.
        
        There is no more annoying and cynical a ploy then someone saying "you can't write about this because you didn't write about some other horrible thing."
        
        Yes - but if your going to do that then you do have to have a reason that isn't just personal bias. If you find it annoying then that is probably because it has touched a nerve somewhere.
        
        The issue here is that this was a MASSIVE upheaval impacting hundreds of thousands of people
        
        If you look more carefully you will find that most of that was caused by exactly the same issue that I raised - namely the fact that politicians make sweeping generalisations which then get interpreted by "jobsworth" functionaries in ways that have horrible and unintended consequences.
        
        This is not qualitatively different from business as usual at the US border - just bigger - and because it is bigger then some of the problems have been fixed quicker than they would have been if only a few people had been affected.
        
        Again, maybe look at this very post and see if you still think that's true.
        
        Actually I'm not objecting to this post initially I was answering the commenter who claimed that all this was really just normal business for techdirt. I did then go on to say that (with the first post) I thought you had strayed outside the area where you were adding significant value - that is all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 8 Feb 2017 @ 3:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
        I have to admit, I just skimmed Richard's comments for lack of interest.
        
        But I DO have to thank him for exposing me to the term "jobsworth". That's actually a nice bit of learning for me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:50am
  
  Re: Sigh
  Google redefining facisism to be right wing (it's always been left wing) holy lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 7 Feb 2017 @ 6:24am
    
    Re: Re: Sigh
    Where "left-wing" = "Boogeyman." Now it makes sense, doesn't it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:34am
  
  Re: Sigh
  
  while laying off Americans to allow foreign workers to be brought in
  
  Citation?
  
  Look. Remember when the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas? One of the mission specialists was born in India and a payload specialist was Israeli? You might ask, "Why did they come to America?" Both countries have a space program.
  
  Later India launched a lunar orbiter followed by a Mars orbiter. The question often asked is, "Why are they doing that when they haven't solved poverty?
  
  It's simple: You can only hold the interest of the best and brightest in the aerospace industry for so long working on their 12th weather satellite or 23rd commsat. After that you either give them exciting projects or you lose them to America's far more exciting aerospace industry.
  
  It's the same for western countries like Canada. When the Avro Arrow project was shut down the engineers didn't migrate to other Canadian aerospace projects. 26 senior Avro engineers went to the US and created the Gemini spacecraft.
  
  The computer tech industry is the same: The best and brightest go where the most exciting projects are. With Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon and the rest in America, that's where they go.
  
  This brain drain creates far more jobs for America than it takes. The best and brightest leaving other countries for the US - with Microsoft and others assisting - is hurting other countries to the benefit of the US.
  
  And here you are declaring it anti-American. I just wanted you to know how utterly wrong you are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:41am
    
    Re: Re: Sigh
    So the Disney layoff that has been more than enough in the news is not Citation enough for you already?
    
    I don't have a problem with people asking for Citations if the issue is a bit more rare, but please keep up with reality. They laying off of Americans to import cheaper labor or to outsource labor is a long and old story by now.
    
    Hows about ya git wif da program?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sigh
      "Citation?"
      
      https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-repl acements.html?_r=0
      
      http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/article81676692.html
      
      http://www.brei tbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/12/13/exclusive-claim-carnival-forces-u-s-workers-to-train-for eign-replacements-before-christmas/
      
      http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/03/after-pink-slips-ucsf-tech- workers-train-their-foreign-replacements/
      
      http://www.computerworld.com/article/3094484/it-careers/cli nton-its-heartbreaking-when-it-workers-must-train-h-1b-replacements.html
      
      ....and for the ultimate citation, I just left a company where I was training my replacement. Luckily, the replacements were horrible and it went straight into chaos. Meanwhile, all the experienced people started latching onto more honorable companies. Now they are left with a bunch of half trained replacements that are doing more damage than good.. serves them right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
        You Sir are a Champ for going the extra mile, however I have learned long ago, they don't really care. They just ask for them as a poor excuse to dismiss others.
        
        I only take the time to provide citations for more rare things... if they need a citation for something that has been in the news often, then there may be no helping those them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 6:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
        "I have learned long ago, they don't really care. They just ask for them as a poor excuse to dismiss others."
        
        Notice how no one modded my comments up when I provided the citations he was asking for, yet his comment was considered "insightful"? I would argue that supports your above statement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:22am
  
  Re: Sigh
  Yes, the hugely successful US-based multinational companies that make vast contributions to the US economy and international importance are awful.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
trump vader, 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:26am

WRONG
the entire corproate slave using industry signs off against trump...

Lets be clear if you want to use slave labour the list of those companies is FOR YOU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:44am
  
  Re: WRONG
  It is amazing that liberals, who hate the rich with every fiber of their being, worship tech leaders. Zuckerberg started his site to degrade women. Yet they love him. They somehow think these guys are doing this for humanity instead of cheap labor. Just look at what Facebook tried to do in India.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:46am
    
    Re: Re: WRONG
    Yeah, it's amazing what those people who only exist in your head believe.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David, 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: WRONG
      I haven't yet found out what the Trump trolls' end game is supposed to be.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        They are tools, being used to promote confusion and distrust among those who are not easily bullshitted into compliance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        It has finally dawned on me why you guys are so against the 2nd amendment. People project their beliefs and attitudes on others. They think everyone is like them. The left is so filled with hate, rage and violence that they think the right must be too. Never mind you never see the right burn down cities.
        
        The left also trots out the racist, sexist, bigot, mysoginist and other terms. They do this because again, they feel this way and think everyone else must as well. You never hear the right talking about race, gender, etc because they moved past that long, long ago. The left focus on it daily. Just look at Chelsea Handler speaking down about Melania not speaking English well. Someone who can speak multiple languages and is an immigrant. I though the left liked immigrants? Look at the protestors at Berkley assaulting and pepper spraying women. I thought the left weren't sexists? Your tantrums and insults belie your true attitudes and beliefs.
        
        The end game is winning 900 elections since Obama took office. Your ideology is seriously flawed and people are realizing that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "Never mind you never see the right burn down cities. "
        
        No, they tend to just go into abortion clinics and churches and gun down whoever they see. Or, maybe both sides have their fringe groups and whining about one "team" while ignoring the corruption and violence in your own "team" is the wrong thing to do, even if you are dumb enough to think that politics is a team game with only 2 sides?
        
        "The left also trots out the racist, sexist, bigot, mysoginist and other terms"
        
        Yes, among many other terms which are applied using the correct dictionary definition. Sadly, people being accurately described as such take offence and whine about it rather than addressing their bigoted actions. They're not always correctly applied, true. But, for example, describing a person who has openly boasted about denigrating women and committing sexual assault as a misogynist is accurate, no matter how much he whines about the label.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        When are you going to learn that name calling isn't working? There are poodle here pointing that out to you. You guys have stepped it up to violence, rioting and assault now but that isn't going to work either. People will not be oppressed by your hate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        You know I am starting to think you honestly don't know what a liberal is. Please, in your own words, describe exactly what you feel are the top ten concepts a liberal believes.
        
        I'll even make it easy on you. I'll even let you ignore the reality that each human is on an infinite spectrum with the ability to hold multiple conflicting beliefs. If you had to pretend all of liberalism exists as a single individual, what does that individual believe?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        The same could be asked of you about a conservative. But actions speak louder than words and your hate and violence are deafening.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        No problem. I'll happily provide my generalized list when you provide yours.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        You didn't answer the question.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        These guys never do. Sometimes I hope that it's due to them being goaded into looking into the reality about the things they claim, and slink away ashamed when they realise how wrong they were.
        
        Sadly, I think the truth is that they never realise how full of shit they really are. If someone's dumb enough to think there's only 2 possible political opinions, and believe that everyone on the other "team" all think the same thing, they might not be capable of handling reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        It is funny how liberals decry team politics while staunchly taking a side. It's as if their mirrors don't work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "staunchly taking a side"
        
        Please describe show I did that. Also describe how you came to label me with that word, given that there's more than 2 you could have chosen.
        
        Partisan politics does cause a lot of hallucinations, it seems. I prefer verifiable facts, which you're not showing you've ever looked at.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        Have you read your own history?
        
        Pot meet Kettle!
        
        It is damn clear that you harbor a great deal of hypocrisy there chap! Whether or not the label he called you by is accurate or not is beside the point here, it is pretty damn clear that you at the very least are fighting against his side, which puts you on a side of some kind, which leads people to believe you are part of some team. Don't like it? Provide clarification, you are the one bitching about the labels so it is YOUR job not his.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        Actually since the accusation is name calling, the accuracy of said label is precisely the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        Well, before this turned into another partisan AC whining about the liberals in his head, I did point that out. It's not unfair or name-calling if the reason you're being called misogynist (for example) is because you do display a strong hatred of women or deem them lesser beings than men. It's only unfair if you don't exhibit that behaviour.
        
        The label might hurt, but it's not wrong to apply it if it's accurate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "The label might hurt, but it's not wrong to apply it if it's accurate."
        
        Hey, so you do agree with me?
        
        You also need to understand that what you perceive to be misogynistic is not necessarily so either. There are multiple forces in the world calling things racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, and or insert your favorite bias here when they are in fact nothing of the sort.
        
        Example, calling any person by a racial epithet does not make one a racist. It MIGHT BE a racist action, but a single action does not make one a racist.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        It MIGHT BE a racist action,
        
        So racist is an applicable word?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        Sometimes yes, but it appears you have intentionally missed the boat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        So it's not racist when you do it? Gotcha.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        If he acts racist, it's really the fault of the mean old liberals for calling him one. The actions and language have nothing to do with it, apparently.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "It MIGHT BE a racist action, but a single action does not make one a racist."
        
        I'm not a racist, I just use racist language and act racist?
        
        Yeah, not buying that, sorry. People who are not racist treat those of other races equally and do not use racial slurs.
        
        If you object to a label, and the person applying it is justified in doing so by what you display, it's your job to prove that the label doesn't apply. At least understand why you appear to be a racist, rather than whine about people being mean to you because they accurately call you what you appear to be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "Have you read your own history?"
        
        No, but I wrote it. Which specific comments do you think are not consistent? Citations, please.
        
        "Whether or not the label he called you by is accurate or not is beside the point here"
        
        Why? If he's lying about me to avoid conceding a point rather than honestly but inaccurately labelling, that's pretty relevant.
        
        "it is pretty damn clear that you at the very least are fighting against his side"
        
        Define "side". I agree with quite a lot of right-wing viewpoints, just not the extreme ones. I also dislike a lot of extreme positions that can get labelled as "the left" by the dishonest, too. It's called a political spectrum not a 2 team only sport for a reason.
        
        "puts you on a side of some kind"
        
        I'm on the side of facts, logic and reality. It's a shame that some people think this means I should be opposed without reason.
        
        "Provide clarification, you are the one bitching about the labels so it is YOUR job not his."
        
        I've explained why it's stupid to pretend there's only 2 possible labels, and the poster is clearly in that mindset. If I'm wrong, he should explain his actual position rather than whining about "liberals".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "Yeah, it's amazing what those people who only exist in your head believe."
        
        Here is a good one. The Occupy Wall street protests were a pretty good indication of this.
        
        A little about me on this position. As an independent, but clearly see that Class Warfare is being waged in largely a one sided fight. The Super Rich have been waging if for longer than any of us have been alive. There have been times when the poor attempt to wage it, but they are not nearly as successful as the rich about it. Additionally, when they do wage it upstream the news get bent out of shape over it and trots out the class warfare labels.
        
        It is my opinion that it is perfectly reasonable for people to generally believe that those of a more liberal inclination do not like the rich. I am one of those whom holds this liberal value and I do not have the same feeling from my conservative friends when I speak to them about it.
        
        You response leads me to believe you are a liberal that did not like the label of liberal being applied to you. I am very centrist, I hold liberal, conservative, left, right, and libertarian views. You can call me all of these things, my ass does not chafe. Well I hope its not!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "The Occupy Wall street protests were a pretty good indication of this."
        
        What "this" are you referring to now? Sorry, there's so much bullshit here from so many ACs I'm losing track of what these people are supposed to have believed or not.
        
        Also, OWS is a bad example if you're trying to treat "liberals" as a hive mind - they were truly ground roots protests, with no central organisation and attracted a lot of agitators who were there to cause trouble rather than help the cause of the protests.
        
        "You response leads me to believe you are a liberal that did not like the label of liberal being applied to you"
        
        I don't care what name you choose, but people like you do seem to hallucinate a fictional version of my beliefs rather than what I actually say. I find that people who jump straight to that particular name are people who don't care about real discussion and are only interested in politics as a team sport, where everything is acceptable so long as you can "beat" the other "team".
        
        No matter what labels you choose, that's idiotic and damaging. But, you've been arguing for so long about labels, you can't address the actual points raised here. You got personal instead of addressing the facts at hand. That's the problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "The Occupy Wall street protests were a pretty good indication of this."
        
        What "this" are you referring to now? Sorry, there's so much bullshit here from so many ACs I'm losing track of what these people are supposed to have believed or not.
        
        Also, OWS is a bad example if you're trying to treat "liberals" as a hive mind - they were truly ground roots protests, with no central organisation and attracted a lot of agitators who were there to cause trouble rather than help the cause of the protests.
        
        "You response leads me to believe you are a liberal that did not like the label of liberal being applied to you"
        
        I don't care what name you choose, but people like you do seem to hallucinate a fictional version of my beliefs rather than what I actually say. I find that people who jump straight to that particular name are people who don't care about real discussion and are only interested in politics as a team sport, where everything is acceptable so long as you can "beat" the other "team".
        
        No matter what labels you choose, that's idiotic and damaging. But, you've been arguing for so long about labels, you can't address the actual points raised here. You got personal instead of addressing the facts at hand. That's the problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "Define "side". I agree with quite a lot of right-wing viewpoints, just not the extreme ones. I also dislike a lot of extreme positions that can get labelled as "the left" by the dishonest, too. It's called a political spectrum not a 2 team only sport for a reason."
        
        On this one... you just have to get over it and stop fight so much about it. Who really cares? Most people just want to be able to frame which side someone is one for expedience. It is a nature habit for just about everyone that walks, shits, and eats. Yes, it hurts us a lot, but mainly because people get so damn defensive about it, and instead of calming down, they make themselves into a hypocrite instead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "Who really cares?"
        
        The people who whine about "leftists" and "liberals" in every political thread sure seem to. To the point where they use it to avoid addressing reality in any meaningful way.
        
        "It is a nature habit for just about everyone that walks, shits, and eats."
        
        Again, you don't want to lift the human race above the level of wild animals. That says something about you, and it's not pretty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "When are you going to learn that name calling isn't working?"
        
        There's a difference between name calling and verifiable facts. It's not my fault if calling you out on your documented actions results in a label you dislike. Perhaps you should stop committing said actions if that bothers you so?
        
        "You guys"
        
        Again, this isn't a team sport. Stop proudly displaying your ignorance, and deal with reality.
        
        "People will not be oppressed by your hate."
        
        No hate, I merely pity you and the horrific actions you support because someone said they were playing on your side.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        When are you going to learn that name calling isn't working?
        
        Name calling worked well when you were calling Obama a Kenyan, or Hillary a criminal.
        
        It worked perfectly fine for that orange fucktard when he called Mexicans rapists.
        
        So take your "wah! they're calling me names" horse shit and go fuck yourself with it.
        
        Quit whining like a bitch and tell all those fucking winners of yours to figure out how to repeal Obamacare. After all, you had 7 years to figure out a plan. Go do some fucking work, winner!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        The Obama family (maybe not President Obama, but the last generation) is Kenyan. Hillary is indeed a criminal, and Trump is indeed a "fucktard". I don't think he was saying it wasn't true, I think he was saying that it's been established lets move on? .. just my thoughts....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "The Obama family (maybe not President Obama, but the last generation) is Kenyan"
        
        So? The accusation was that Obama himself was Kenyan, which is a lie. He was born in America and not raised by the Kenyan side of his family but rather the American side, and was raised in the US.
        
        In other words, "some of Obama's family is Kenyan" is true. "Obama is Kenyan" is a lie. Stop defending the lie just because you can think of a way to spin things so it sounds true.
        
        "Hillary is indeed a criminal"
        
        Which crime was she convicted of?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 4:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        You sure are quick to jump to the defense of Hillary and Obama, but not Trump?
        
        "So? The accusation was that Obama himself was Kenyan, which is a lie. He was born in America and not raised by the Kenyan side of his family but rather the American side, and was raised in the US."
        
        "In other words, "some of Obama's family is Kenyan" is true. "Obama is Kenyan" is a lie. Stop defending the lie just because you can think of a way to spin things so it sounds true."
        
        Is that not what I said? Are the people in your head telling you something different? I suggest you read what I wrote a little more carefully, your arguing my exact point. I said the exact same thing.
        
        "Which crime was she convicted of?"
        
        Since when do you have to be convicted to be a criminal? I suggest you look up the legal definition of criminal, here, I'll link it for you.
        
        "1) n. a popular term for anyone who has committed a crime, whether convicted of the offense or not. "
        
        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/criminal
        
        It is commonly accepted that Hillary broke the law. The FBI determined that they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute her, but that doesn't make her any less of a criminal.
        
        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clinto ns-email-controvers/
        
        http://time.com/4394178/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-investigation/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 4:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "You sure are quick to jump to the defense of Hillary and Obama, but not Trump?"
        
        Well, yes. The claim that Trump is a "fucktard" is supported by a wide array of evidence, while the accusations against the others are either questionable or demonstrably false. I'm not going to defend people against true accusations.
        
        "Is that not what I said?"
        
        Not exactly. But, your reaction to me daring to question you is telling.
        
        The original claim was "Obama is Kenyan". You tried countering that with "some of Obama's family is Kenyan". These are not the same thing. I'm sorry if trying to explain why rattled your tiny little cage.
        
        "The FBI determined that they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute her, but that doesn't make her any less of a criminal."
        
        Sorry, I was using a definition of criminal that included the presumption of innocence before being found guilty in a court of law. Speculation and rumour are good enough for you it seems, I sincerely apologise for having higher standards.
        
        But, bear in mind that by that measure there's more than enough evidence that Trump is also a criminal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 6:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "Well, yes. The claim that Trump is a "fucktard" is supported by a wide array of evidence, while the accusations against the others are either questionable or demonstrably false. I'm not going to defend people against true accusations."
        
        I would say the same regarding both Obama and Hillary.
        
        "Not exactly. But, your reaction to me daring to question you is telling."
        
        Yes exactly. That is exactly what I said. My reaction was; That is exactly what I said, no more...no less. Why you making things up?
        
        "Sorry, I was using a definition of criminal that included the presumption of innocence before being found guilty in a court of law. Speculation and rumour are good enough for you it seems, I sincerely apologise for having higher standards.
        
        I was using the definition. Not some moral understanding or interpretation. I didn't define the word, I simply looked it up before I used it.
        
        Look; Legal expert after legal expert has gone on record to say she broke the law. Those same legal experts went on to say that there is no way she will ever be convicted. It didn't take 5 minutes to find a dozen or so legal experts opinions on the matter, but below is a link summing them up. I agree she will never be convicted, but she did break the law, and that makes her a criminal.
        
        http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-fact-checked-trumps-claim-that-virtually-every-single-le gal-expert-say-clinton-committed-a-crime/
        
        "But, bear in mind that by that measure there's more than enough evidence that Trump is also a criminal."
        
        I think I read somewhere that the average American breaks at least 4 laws a day. So technically, we are all criminals. I was referring to the fact that Hillary is as crooked as they come. She broke the law, then tried to hide it and lied about it just like her husband did. Does/Would Trump fall into the same category? As with most politicians, I would say the answer is yes. That's why I didn't disagree with the "fucktard" label.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 7:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "I would say the same regarding both Obama and Hillary."
        
        ...and that would be fine since "fucktard" is a silly word with no real meaning other than "I think that person is an idiot", and thus subjective. The other assertions are specific and objective claims.
        
        "I was using the definition"
        
        No, you were using *a* definition. You chose the legal rather than colloquial or non-legal dictionary definition, presumably because it fits your bias. That's fine, I did the same.
        
        But, until Clinton is found guilty in a court of law, she's not a convicted criminal, just as Bush and Cheney are not. This again is debatable, depending on your chosen definitions of certain words.
        
        "below is a link summing them up"
        
        ...which is a story with 4 cherry-picked links with people saying that she "may have, in fact, committed a crime" and 4 different cherry-picked links saying she might not be convicted. It's also well out of date based on the information currently available on that specific case. It doesn't really prove anything, other than that in April 2016, some handpicked examples thought there might be something to the assertion that she was guilty.
        
        That's the problem. There's lots of noise out there about whether Clinton is guilty, just as there is noise about any high-profile person who has been accused of wrongdoing - and especially someone who has been so constantly attacked as Clinton. This is why the "innocent until proven guilty" standard exists.
        
        "So technically, we are all criminals"
        
        Exactly why I prefer to keep the discourse to those who have been convicted and not merely accused.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        ""fucktard" is a silly word with no real meaning other than "I think that person is an idiot", and thus subjective."
        
        It is a silly word. But I think it fairly describes all the people in question. That is of course my opinion.
        
        "No, you were using *a* definition. You chose the legal rather than colloquial or non-legal dictionary definition, presumably because it fits your bias. That's fine, I did the same."
        
        I don't understand why you assume I'm bias. If you mean I don't like any of the politicians in question, then you would be correct. I believe we deserve better than any of them. I was referring to the word "criminal" in a legal sense, so I looked up the word in a legal dictionary. Why in the hell would I use "criminal" in the legal sense, then use a"colloquial or non-legal dictionary definition"? How in the world would that be biased?
        
        I've read hundreds of stories, opinions, statements, so called facts from both sides. I've trolled liberal, conservative, wing nut left and right, mainstream left and right, and self proclaimed centrist news outlets. I've read dozens of opinions from legal experts from both sides of the isle. I can honestly say that unless absolutely everyone is lying, she broke the law. I can honestly also say, she will absolutely never be charged.
        
        Even politifact, who's (In my opinion) love affair with Hillary is well established, did a good breakdown of what actually happened. She broke the law, and then covered her ass by deleting emails. They even point out that because she deleted a large portion of the emails, we may never know the full truth. You stated my source may be a bit biased, fair enough. I could post hundreds if you like, but they all lead back to the same conclusion. Again, politifact does a good job of breaking it down.
        
        My favorite quote;
        
        "Cox said the fact that Clinton’s staff -- rather than a State Department federal records officer -- chose which emails to destroy is "honestly breathtaking." Her private employees don’t have the authority to decide what does or doesn’t count as a federal record. Further, when she was making these choices, she was acting as a private citizen, not a government employee."
        
        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she -follow-all-rules/
        
        http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/10/joe-scarborough/scarbo rough-clinton-told-state-department-staff-no/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        sorrykb (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        
        I can honestly say...
        
        You've not honestly said anything here. You've been disingenuous and deliberately obtuse.
        
        I don't understand why you assume I'm bias.
        
        For the eight millionth goddamn time, the adjective form of the word is "biased".
        
        Also, he's not assuming.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        You did a great job presenting your case.. I'm convinced!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        I think I read somewhere that the average American breaks at least 4 laws a day. So technically, we are all criminals.
        
        So the term has no meaning. Are you deliberately throwing the argument or just not realizing that you're talking in circles?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Roger Strong (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 6:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        
        The original claim was "Obama is Kenyan".
        
        It's also worth mentioning that Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico. If Obama is a Kenyan because his father is from Kenya, then Mitt Romney is a Mexican.
        
        John McCain was born in Panama. No, an overseas base is not US soil. He was born an American national (that is, subject to American law) but NOT an American citizen. (He got his citizenship when Congress changed the rules 11 months later.) So while Obama met both popular "natural born citizen" definitions, McCain met neither.
        
        But they have the correct skin color, so Steve Bannon's alt-right white-nationalist crowd - including Donald Trump - didn't call them Mexican or Panamanian and make birther claims about them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 8:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        You sure are quick to jump to the defense of Hillary and Obama, but not Trump?
        
        Why would he?
        
        Trump is a fucktard. How is that not obvious at this point?
        
        What exactly needs defending?
        
        My post was calling out the whiny bitch who complains about name calling, while defending someone who does exactly the same thing. There's plenty of name calling going around - want to complain? Then as far as I'm concerned you have nothing else to add, and want your "safe space."
        
        The twatter-in-chief pulls no punches. So neither will I.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        sorrykb (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        It is commonly accepted that the quality of AC trolls on techdirt has declined significantly, to the point that their comments are indistinguishable from the ravings of glue-sniffing InfoWars cultists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        sorrykb (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        Actually, that's unfair. It's not just ACs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        Wow those people in your head sound pissed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        They aren't just in my head, the are on the news burning cities because they don't like speaker. If conservatives don't like a speaker they don't attend. Pretty simple solution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        Your made up head people sound very violent. You should really calm yourself down before you act on those violent impulses you seem to have.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        My favourite thing about all this - it's quite common for a lot of the violence at those kinds of things to be caused by people who weren't part of the group protesting. They're quite often caused by outsiders, the kind that cause the fringes on the "right" to cry false flag" if ever their "side" commits violence. Perhaps not in whichever case he thinks he's referring to, but quite often.
        
        So, even if he wasn't lying about conservatives not attending events they disagree with, he's still not proving that the violence was caused by "liberals", nor is he addressing reality if he thinks that "liberals" agree with violence caused by their "side".
        
        Another problem with partisan politics - once you've chosen a "team", you have to support everything they do. Dissent is not allowed, lest you become though as of part of the other "team". So, lie upon lie is piled on to pretend that everything bad has to be caused by another "team" and not the one you think you belong to... and since there's only 2 teams, no bad action can ever be admitted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "My favourite thing about all this - it's quite common for a lot of the violence at those kinds of things to be caused by people who weren't part of the group protesting. They're quite often caused by outsiders, the kind that cause the fringes on the "right" to cry false flag" if ever their "side" commits violence. Perhaps not in whichever case he thinks he's referring to, but quite often."
        
        Your shit stinks... do you make these same considerations for all other sides you oppose? I bet you don't!
        
        You are correct about the partisan politics, however you appear to be very guilty of them from what I am reading in your posts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        Lets take a chapter out of the kindergarten teacher playbook: How about you do a single post discussing the issues you have with this opposition only using "I statements" to back your beliefs and considerations.
        
        Discuss why you feel you are correct in your specific belief. Can you do that without attacking others?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "I bet you don't!"
        
        I bet I do. But, that's back to partisan bullshit, and that gets nobody anywhere. Do you have any facts to back up your assertion?
        
        "you appear to be very guilty of them from what I am reading in your posts."
        
        What specifically do you have a problem with? Cite the sentences you dislike, and I'll explain why you're wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "No, they tend to just go into abortion clinics and churches and gun down whoever they see."
        
        Yea there is NOTHING inflammatory about that at all.
        
        There is no innocent side here, I have seen it all, what drives me crazy is that you act like your side does not stink or has some looney moral superiority over the other. There are some things I like about the Democrates, Republicans, Left, Right, liberal, conservative, and libertarians but there are also some things I do not like.
        
        Your problem if being hypocritical about it. By all means, point out where things are wrong, just don't be defensive like some kid that just got hit by a buick! It's hypocritical to lambaste one side while defending the other for similar transgressions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        You are dealing with the most prolific team player here. He always complains about team politics but clearly had a team himself. The left is self destructing and burning down cities in anger. Yet they say love trumps hate. They assault and pepper spray women. Them claim these masses are a fringe. No, there are way too many yup be fringe.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        Agreed. The "other team" must be completely dehumanized. Otherwise showing that Humanity exists on a spectrum means that shades of grey exist. That a person you strongly disagree with on Issue A may be your strongest ally on Issue B.
        That if a person sees the "other team" as human, they must actually discuss the issues at hand and the substance of the issues instead of the broad brushes that partisan discussions seem to devolve to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "Another problem with partisan politics - once you've chosen a "team", you have to support everything they do."
        
        I'm not sure I agree with you here. Just because some take a hard stance on a particular issue, and strongly identify with a "side" on it, that doesn't necessarily mean they support ALL the core values of that side.
        
        Example; I am strongly in support of the 2nd, I identify strongly with the Right on that issue. However, I strongly agree with the Pro-Choice, which would have me identify more to the Left.
        
        IMO Very few of the comments on this site really feel like people taking a hard line on a position simply because it identifies with their "side". More so the are using the "Left and Right" as a target, however misguided, for their opinion or statement depending on what side of the fence they are currently standing.
        
        It's like there is a magical list of Right, and Left issues. On one topic, everyone lines up according to what they think and throw rocks at the other side. But on the next topic, the teams are re-picked, and some that were standing on one side throwing rocks are now on the other and vice versa.
        
        I'm not sure why, but I find the whole thing fascinating.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "I'm not sure why, but I find the whole thing fascinating."
        
        I think most of your post is spot on, but I don't think it is very fascinating at all. I think it is sad. Am I guilty of the same? I am sure I do when viewed from a certain angle, like everything else in the world a little perspective goes a long way.
        
        I think most other people fail this singularly important point. Perspective... the same perspective that tells a business to contribute to or get behind a certain cause is the very same perspective that tells a business to do this or that to maximize profits. I do not like any business contributing to politics or charities because I cannot trust their motivations, plus I would rather get a discount on my product instead.
        
        The other issue is expediency. People are constantly looking for the lowest common denominator. It's how they get through life with the least amount of mental strain. This means that those magical left vs right lists are indeed figments of our little sheep brains. However, because they are so easily reduced to a common denominator it just makes it easy to say you guys for expediency which subsequently the others take to mean offense.
        
        Could we rise above this? Not a chance, we can't even get along over our favorite alcohol, sports team, or which person we are fucking that likes to fuck another.
        
        We are miserably little piles of secrets and biases. We all unreasonably hate something or another, and we may not even know why other than it is unknown to us and we are afraid of that unknown.
        
        The same way that many people without firearms experience are afraid of them the same way that people without immigration experience might be afraid of foreigners.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "I'm not sure I agree with you here"
        
        Ah you misunderstand me. In reality, of course, nobody agrees with everything people they associate do, even if you strongly define themselves as part of the same team.
        
        My point was that some people who play partisan politics do have that mindset, and it gets rather silly. In their minds you *have* to agree with everything, otherwise that makes you part of "the other", and since there's only 2 teams that makes you the enemy.
        
        "It's like there is a magical list of Right, and Left issues"
        
        It gets fun when you start discussing things like vaccines. Fringe elements on both sides adhere to the anti-vaxxer idiocy, even though it's widely and clearly debunked. But, talk to someone on the "right" about it and they'll attack "liberals" as believing it, and vice versa. It's bi-pasrtisan stupidity, but people who are to indebted to their "team" will attack the other "team" without addressing the loons on their own "team".
        
        You're right, it is fascinating.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "but people who are to indebted to their "team" will attack the other "team" without addressing the loons on their own "team"."
        
        The key word is "addressing". Just because they are not addressing them, doesn't mean they don't know they exist.
        
        If I attack Hillary for being a criminal, that doesn't automatically mean I am in approval of that maniac Trump. Nor should I be compelled to say something bad about the fringe on the "Right just because I'm attacking the fringe on the "Left".
        
        You can disagree with one side without pointing out the other is just as crazy. Normal people would agree it's already assumed... and the fringe, well, you'll never convince them of anything no matter how many times you post. Your wasting your time if you try.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        Oh you mean the "protesters" that Bannon paid to set fires? See I can make up things too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "It has finally dawned on me why you guys are so against the 2nd amendment."
        
        A couple of things ....
        1) TD is against the 2nd ????? - I must be naive or something, what did I miss over the past many years?
        2) The post to which you responded does not mention the 2nd, so why bring it up?
        3) People project, agreed. Sorta like what you are doing ... no, wait ... exactly like.
        4) " You never hear the right talking about race, gender, etc" .... lol - wut ????
        
        ok - again with the r/l bullshit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "1) TD is against the 2nd ?????"
        
        No, this is sadly the problem with obsessively partisan politics.
        
        When he says "you guys", he's referring to "liberals" or "the left" or whatever he's been taught to refer to as the opposition to his "team". Presumably, he's decided that Techdirt and any commenters who question him must be on the opposing team, and furthermore must all agree with each other.
        
        Therefore, since people disagree with him on arbitrarily banning people from the country, they must also disagree with him on guns and support any action he personally finds objectionable. The world he's created in his head is too simplistic and fragile to support such nuances as "some liberals also own guns" or "these 2 issues are unrelated so you can agree on one but not the other".
        
        I hope that helps you parse the foolishness.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "When he says "you guys", he's referring to "liberals" or "the left" or whatever he's been taught to refer to as the opposition to his "team"."
        
        That is a HUGE misconstruction!
        
        Take it from someone that uses the term YOU GUYS. "You Guys" specifically applies to all people with the same mindset that the poster is projecting. Only in your feeble brain does it devolves into a "left or liberals only" label. Why are you so defensive about it? Are you really a leftist or liberal or something that is anti conservative?
        
        Stop being so but hurt because one of your ideologies made someone think that you also associate with another one. It is basic nature to classify things by groups and to begin the association game. You are doing it in your own post whilst bitching about it being done to you. Hypocrite!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        ""You Guys" specifically applies to all people with the same mindset that the poster is projecting"
        
        So, rather than engage the other people in discussion involving facts about their actual positions, you decide to label them all and pretend they all believe the same thing. Figures.
        
        "Are you really a leftist or liberal or something that is anti conservative?"
        
        No. I'm sorry that you're incapable of understanding nuance.
        
        "It is basic nature to classify things by groups and to begin the association game"
        
        I tend to try and be above base instincts and address things at a higher level. Why can you not be so?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        Hey look, I am not trying to defend labeling, just making it clear that it is going to happen and to keep fighting about is is pointless. If you don't like it, fine, but it is going to eat you alive.
        
        "No. I'm sorry that you're incapable of understanding nuance."
        
        I understand nuance more than you can probably understand much of anything else.
        
        "I tend to try and be above base instincts and address things at a higher level. Why can you not be so?"
        
        Base instincts are the foundations of peoples survival mechanisms. Sure it is admirable to try to rise above them, but do not be so obtuse as to act as though you are trying when it is clear you are not.
        
        Feel free to accuse me of anything you like! Hopefully you can get better rest at night that way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "just making it clear that it is going to happen and to keep fighting about is is pointless"
        
        I was simply noting that it's happening and musing about why.
        
        "I understand nuance more than you can probably understand much of anything else."
        
        Well, you've failed to demonstrate that here, from my point of view.
        
        "Base instincts are the foundations of peoples survival mechanisms."
        
        Yes, and at some point they develop higher intelligence and try to, say, feed themselves without destroying the world around them or procreate without simply jumping on the first mate they see. I prefer a world where more people do that than not.
        
        "Feel free to accuse me of anything you like!"
        
        No thanks, I'll stick to verifiable facts, and given that I can't see your posting history I'll stick to what's demonstrated in the thread I'm looking at. I just see someone who decided to jump into a conversation with nothing to add except false musings about me as a person.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "Yes, and at some point they develop higher intelligence and try to, say, feed themselves without destroying the world around them or procreate without simply jumping on the first mate they see. I prefer a world where more people do that than not."
        
        You may one day understand that very few develop a higher intelligence. You should also know that it is the few that are capable of leading humanity and it is the majority that foolishly believe they can.
        
        The history of the World Governments is on display for all. Government, despite everyone's opinion that it is needed, has visited more death, destruction, and pestilence upon people than all war and disaster combined.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 12:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        So, because it's hard, we shouldn't try?
        
        "Government, despite everyone's opinion that it is needed, has visited more death, destruction, and pestilence upon people than all war and disaster combined."
        
        You said this in another thread, and I pointed out how stupid it was then. Please don't repeat debunked rubbish.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 2:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        https://youtu.be/hiVQ8vrGA_8
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 2:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        This sums up the left perfectly. They are heading full on dictator. They cannot and will not tolerate dissent. They are resorting to violence since the verbal attacks haven't worked. Who knows what comes after the violence if assault and vandalism doesn't work.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        This sums up the left perfectly. They are heading full on dictator. They cannot and will not tolerate dissent.
        
        Irony isn't lost on you guys, that's for sure.
        
        Marked as funny. Fucking hilarious, actually.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        OGquaker, 6 Feb 2017 @ 10:35pm
        
        WRONG
        'Never mind you never see the right burn down cities.'
        
        http://www.meetinghouse.tokyo/
        
        These maps were generated by the OSS and AIG insurance in 1943, and executed by General Curtis LaMay.
        The OSS was disbanded before WWII ended; to many collegiate pinkos, and LaMay ran for US President as a leftist, if you are correct.
        My old friend, a B29 navigator over Korea, tells me that LaMay burned 50% or more of 106 Japanese cities, and almost every standing building north of the 38th parallel. He was holed up at the same tiny Canadian AFB during both Kennedy assassinations, they wouldn't let him annihilate 'Communist'(a thing).
        God help Asia.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        You really think they have the capacity to plan for an endgame?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        "You really think they have the capacity to plan for an endgame?"
        
        No.
        The Trumpster does not even know what is in the executive orders he signs. President Bannon on the other hand ....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - sorrykb (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        
        I haven't yet found out what the Trump trolls' end game is supposed to be.
        
        The end game is to make people so exhausted from arguing with inanity that they just give up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Elain, 8 Feb 2017 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: WRONG
        1) desensitizing the general population to hatred
        2) confusing the hell out of the general population
        3) convincing the general population that marginal whackjobs like themselves, who actually believe that the craziest of Trump's far-right platform proposals are practical, are a way bigger menace than they really are
        4) controlling the general population's self-perception via the endless, mind-numbing repetition of numbers 1,2 and 3.
        
        Have I left anything out?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:11am
    
    Re: Re: WRONG
    "It is amazing that liberals, who hate the rich"
    
    The above statement would logically exclude anyone of monetary success from being liberal. This is obviously incorrect.
    
    and liberals worship tech leaders? ... lol, that's rich.
    
    liberals think what?? wow ..... of course money grubbing MBAs have nothing to do with it, neither do dividend demanding share holders or hedge fund assholes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:22am
    
    Re: Re: WRONG
    Oh god, not the "liberals" sh*t again. You idiots remind me of the wackjobs in the McCarthy era that thought commies were the blame for everything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: WRONG
      Hey maaaan! Liberals are modern day comunistas. They must be assimilated into the correct reality!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 7 Feb 2017 @ 6:25am
    
    Re: Re: WRONG
    Wrong, wrong, wrong.
    
    Read and heed: https://medium.com/@wendycockcroft/what-is-a-liberal-socialist-c6de6584f304#.kfdcp5k50
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kallethen, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:32am

Uniting the country

We shall see what happens from here, but having basically the entire tech industry rise up in a single voice to say that this order is not right is nice to see. In this day and age, it's easy not to speak out and to just sit on the sidelines. But this is important, and when it mattered all of these companies spoke out.

AHA! So THIS is how Trump will bring us all together! It all makes sense now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 6 Feb 2017 @ 9:02am
  
  Re: Uniting the country
  You mean "make America great again" is a plea to be impeached?
  
  Let him first start on the job he has been elected for I say. Currently he is still confusing himself with a putschist, but he has been elected to enforce the law, not overthrow it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:04am
    
    Re: Re: Uniting the country
    "You mean "make America great again" is a plea to be impeached?"
    
    Possibly his "vision" of wtf that means differs from someone else's ? ... Nah, that can't be.
    
    "Let him first start on the job he has been elected for I say."
    
    When is he going to start ?
    
    "he has been elected to enforce the law, not overthrow it."
    
    Seems he is not doing his job then
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tin-Foil-Hat, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:02am

Trump Won't Care
Trump cares about Trump. At this point it's about winning. Anyone who disagrees is an opponent, including the media, judges and now the tech industry. His supporters will need to agree with 100% of what he does or they'll be the enemy too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- timmaguire42 (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:05am
  
  Re: Trump Won't Care
  Subtle, but well done tin-foil-hat wearer!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:23am
  
  Re: Trump Won't Care
  Honestly I think this is him finally butting heads against reality. He came in thinking he could run the government like he does his businesses - as an omnipotent CEO who answers to nobody. Nobody could question him, or second guess his opinions and thoughts. He was given the power by his father originally and never had to win it rightfully. He never has had to prove himself worthy or win the approval of others.
  
  Now he is realizing that he is not the CEO. He does not even have even a fraction of the authority he had in his previous job. He is now several levels down in decision making power. He has to consider how his actions may be judged by others and he has to play politics with others to get them to back him.
  
  He is also now aware that he is being manipulated by his advisors and he hates that the media are showing him as weak by announcing that he was manipulated.
  
  He has people of equal power to himself who can say "No" to him and others who have the power to negate any of his actions.
  
  He hates that. So he lashes out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:50am
    
    Re: Re: Trump Won't Care
    One hundred and forty characters at a time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David, 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Trump Won't Care
      Every single of those hundred and forty characters standing for 1 IQ point.
      
      All of them whimpering to get away from here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Trump Won't Care
        trump iq of 140?
        I think not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:49am
    
    Re: Re: Trump Won't Care
    You seem to treat him as a victim of circumstance. In general I would have thought people would realise how hollow his spiel was during his campaign... In reality people heard what they thought they wanted and assumed the rest would be shot down. I don't see Trump as very likely to get all of his politics through since specific economic decissions are out of his hands. But since he is running the "better lie than lose face" as well as "vilify the person disagreeing" to the max and congress knows it, he can certainly manipulate and bully his way to a lot of nonsense from the republican representatives who fear for their political carreers after 2018...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
timmaguire42 (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:04am

Let's see, companies with a history of abusing the visa process to increase profits by underpaying their workers have banded together to protect their business model of abusing the visa process to increase their profits by underpaying their workers.

Which part of this is supposed to make me do a fist pump and shout, "yeah! Right on!"?

Seriously, which part?

Mike? Which part?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:55am
  
  Re:
  Nice co-mingling of two separate issues ...... coo-doze.
  
  Corporations abusing the rules
  
  vs
  
  Government abusing the rules
  
  I imagine that your fist pumping might be encouraged by others who have themselves successfully influenced this or other blogs into agreement with your bullshit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wait? Seriously? Are you so feeble brained to not understand that most of everything governments do are because of business forces in the nations and world? Governments are saturated as fuck with business lobbyists...
    
    How fucking stupid to you need to be to not understand this plain and simple fucking fact that has "been" since recorded history?
    
    There is only 1 source of rules, that is government. In both cases abuse of the rules are the fault of the government only, because they are the ones that were created to stop the abuses... regardless of the source!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Face-Palm
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
LyleD, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:06am

It shouldn't surprise anyone who reads Techdirt that Mike doesn't like Trump but I'm kinda surprised he's jumping in with 96 other companies big and small on this particular issue with a high-horse moral amicus brief..

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/316871-trumps-immigration-ban-is-clumsy-bu t-perfectly-legal

The president’s authority to declare such suspensions can been found in section 212(f) of the INA, the pertinent part of which reads as follows:

"(f) Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:18am
  
  Re:
  The law was changed in 1965 to ban discrimination based on nation of origin. That section may or may not apply depending on how the court reads the very convoluted laws. Because the section wasn't explicitly amended, there is a discrepancy between the older law (what you quoted) and a new law. Typically, the newer law would take precedence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - LyleD, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry, I've only got the original law to base facts on;
    
    https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006/0-0-0-2364.html
    
    Could you link the updated one please?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are you the same guy who tells others to go do their own research?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - LyleD, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I rarely post here. But when I do I like to link to facts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yea, facts don't work on a lot of people, especially here at TD, but you are a fucking 'Hoss' for posting the link.
        
        Just like those alt-facts they like to accuse others of having, they have a few of their own.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your "facts" are bad opinions and you should feel bad for trying to pass them off as such.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - LyleD, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    I get it now.. You're referring to this; https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg911.pdf
    
    SBO. 2. Section 202 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66. Stat 175; 8 U.S.C. 1152) is amended to read as follows: "(a) No person shall receive any preference or priority or be dis-criminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence,
    
    Looks like a different thing to me that is about visa quotas.. Bit of a stretch to apply it here imo. The original law is quite clear about what it refers to;
    
    the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation
    
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:26am
  
  Re:
  Just because a person has the legal authority to do something, it does not mean they can't be challenged in court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Pretty much.
    You can pass illegal laws, and they'll sit there on the books until someone gets around to challenging them, and the court points out, "Yeah, you can't do that."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That problem exists in all sides.
      
      Laws, whether legal or illegal "will" be passed. I have seen both legal and illegal laws be continued and blocked without much regard to legality.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Until they pass a law saying you can't ... and you go to jail ... and you get 50 lashes ..... and .... and
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re:
  _Whenever the President finds_
  
  Apparently wherever and however the president "finds" something.
  
  President is also supposed to institute things in an orderly fashion, and make sense within the order, and it should be reviewed properly.
  
  And I would like to say i am amazed that others are contrary or throwing epithets around because _someone might want to support and encourage good behavior in entities with whose behavior one has disagreed in other cases_. As if they now _have us fooled_.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It might be that there is a difference between "the exercise of arbitrary power" and "the arbitrary exercise of power."
    
    Congress has handed the President of the day a piece of the former. It's entirely up to the President whether it is used. As with all other powers, the Courts have the responsibility to ensure that, if it is used, it is not abused.
    
    Looks like the incumbent prefers the latter approach.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tin-Foil-Hat, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:07am

and another thing
Why are you feeding that right wing troll? Anyone that starts a sentence with 'the left' will not be contributing to the conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:30am
  
  Re: and another thing
  I question them because I find that in general forcing them to think and answer their own beliefs either makes them run away because their comments are false and the Troll does not want to show that, or it shows the public how shallow their closely held beliefs are. Either way negating their power.
  If a Troll comes back and shows they truly love wrestling in the mud, then it is easy to just get up and leave them to play with themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:09am
  
  Re: and another thing
  noting that you contributed nothing either... must be a seasonal thing....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:09am

So glad our corporate overlords are here to save us from democratically elected government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:59am
  
  Re:
  Please define what "democratically elected government" means within the context of the last election.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    The same definition it always has been. Free and fair elections were held in accordance with established laws and accepted regulations. This produced a representative government.
    
    Only extremists like Donald Trump and John Lewis would question its legitimacy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "A republic, if you can keep it"
      
      I have long grown tired of people calling America a fucking democracy... it is not. It is a constitutional republic.
      
      If I had one wish, it would be that every time someone uses an important word incorrectly a Dictionary would magically appear above their head, fall, and knock them the fuck out!
      
      A lot people do not know this, but your state is NOT REQUIRED to even give you a vote on who is to be president. I wish the vote for president would be taken away from the voters because it has corrupted their idea of government. Many think they can just vote in the president they like and things are fucking great. You still have Congress and the House, plus your State and local people that impact you even more that you keep ignoring.
      
      fukwits!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Watch out for that dictionary hovering over your head.
        
        A constitutional republic is just one form of democracy, there are other forms of govetnments and democracy, but it is still a democratic form of government. Therefore: people who refer to the United States of America as a democracy are not wrong, but that statement is not specific as to which form of democracy exits in the US.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Roger Strong (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also: While not all democracies are republics, not all republics are democracies. Plenty of communist states and dictatorships have been republics.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Roger Strong (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 9:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The US is indeed a democracy. It's also a republic. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
        
        Your opening quote, in context:
        
        A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
        
        His statement means one thing: The US is not a monarchy. That's what "republic" means: No monarch.
        
        Being an indirect democracy doesn't make it any less of a democracy. MOST democracies are indirect.
        
        You sound like the last AC to make the same claim here. That is, like a six-year-old who just learned to swear.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yea, don't let a dictionary tell you otherwise!
        
        What a tool!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Roger Strong (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm going by the dictionary definition. Sorrykb even quoted it below for you.
        
        Check out Wikipedia: United States: Government and politics
        
        The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy...
        
        "Tool." Is that your term for folks who shun "alternative facts?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's funny you you constantly harp on semantics and imagine we don't understand our form of government, as if it made any difference at all.
        
        But yes, too many people don't mind other elections enough at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - sorrykb (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Anonymouse Coward wrote:
        
        I have long grown tired of people calling America a fucking democracy... it is not. It is a constitutional republic. If I had one wish, it would be that every time someone uses an important word incorrectly a Dictionary would magically appear above their head, fall, and knock them the fuck out!
        
        Watch your head.
        
        democracy (noun)
        
        1 a: government by the people; especially rule of the majority. b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
        
        2: a political unit that has a democratic government ...
        
        (Source: Merriam-Webster)
        
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Given the wide spread gerrymandering and disenfranchisement, you think "Free and fair elections were held"
      
      Is that what ya call it now-a-days.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:05am
  
  Re:
  corporate overlords
  
  As opposed to Trump, a common man?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dalane K. Braunschweig (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:11am

Why is this all of a sudden a problem
Why after so many Presidents have done this "travel Ban" is it a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:23am
  
  Re: Why is this all of a sudden a problem
  Ugh, are people STILL spouting this already debunked nonsense?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:25am
  
  Re: Why is this all of a sudden a problem
  Because previous orders were targeted in response to specific events, and narrowly tailored (such as Obama's Iraqi restriction, which only delayed visa processing without affecting existing visas or Carter's Iran ban, which was in direct response to terrorist activity from that country. None of the countries on Trump's list have been involved with recent terrorist activity).
  
  This ban is not only not in response to any specific recent action, in its initial form it caused a huge amount of difficulty for many legal residents of the US, and its scope is questionable. The companies here didn't just decide to question Trump just because, they're doing so because it's having a measurable impact on their businesses for no apparent good reason.
  
  There's a lot of issues, but the main one seems to be that not only is it affecting people who have already been vetted at length, it's also not in response to any event that would require immediate action over and above what was being done by his recent predecessor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:29am
  
  Re: Why is this all of a sudden a problem
  Because so many presidents haven't done something like this.
  
  The typical example brought up is the 'ban' that under Obama, and ignores that it wasn't a ban, it merely slowed the process by requiring increased security checks rather than stopping them entirely, and applied to people from one country as opposed to seven.
  
  If you're aware of other, similar actions though I'd be interested to seeing them, as so far the one that's been brought up time and time again in defense of the EO is the one I mentioned above, and besides both involving immigration of people from other countries they basically have nothing to do with each other.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dalane (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 9:38am
    
    Re: Re: Why is this all of a sudden a problem
    Here is a link to travel "bans"
    
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/democrat-presidents-impose-immigration-restrictions-35 8-republican-presidents/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 10:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why is this all of a sudden a problem
      Here is a link to travel "bans"
      
      You seem to (deliberately?) miss the fact that what is listed in that post and what Trump did are fundamentally different. As TOG clearly pointed out in his comment that you're responding to.
      
      Which raises the question: are you deliberately misrepresenting things, or are did you just not realize that your statement here was already debunked?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 4:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why is this all of a sudden a problem
      Thanks.
      
      That was actually kinda funny, they went through the effort to collect all of Obama's EO's on the subject, missed the biggest difference between his and Trump's, and then acted outraged that 'the mainstream media and liberals across America' were unfairly going after Trump's EO, which of course is absolutely (not) the same thing because it also deals with immigration.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 6:50am

Wonder how many of them had H-1Bs get caught up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:17am
  
  Re:
  I would really like to see those numbers. I am pretty sure TD would not be interested in following up that juicy bit of data on our behalves?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Because it is irrelevant. It may suit you you for whatever reason, but imagining some "American" is going to get a job now denied to someone else has zero to do with the reason for the ban.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, but it's still good to point out when the bootleggers and baptists start getting together to shit on everyone.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew A. Sawtell, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:00am

The I.T. Sector see this as a 'Canary in the Coal Mine' Scenario...
... with these 7 countries as a 'testing ground' for future visa restrictions... like H-1Bs. This sector that has been such an 'irresistible force' in the past (i.e. 'offshoring literality 12 miles off the coast of California' if H1-B quotas were not expanded http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/20/business/la-fi-tn-seacode-was-first-to-try-to-put-foreign-wo rkers-on-a-cruise-ship-20130319) have finally met an 'immoveable object' in Donald Trump - who looks to be actually backing his campaign platforms. For more than a few Americans that have their livelihoods crushed over the last few decades - this event could not have happened soon enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kal Zekdor (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:13pm
  
  Re: The I.T. Sector see this as a 'Canary in the Coal Mine' Scenario...
  So, let me get this straight. American workers aren't able to compete with foreign workers. They demand that the government step in to regulate the private sector, forcing companies to hire American workers, regardless of the costs involved. In order to effect those demands, these people vote for the party which espouses laissez faire capitalism, and to which the very idea of regulations is anathema.
  
  ...That chain of logic broke somewhere.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matthew A. Sawtell, 7 Feb 2017 @ 5:50am
    
    Re: Re: The I.T. Sector see this as a 'Canary in the Coal Mine' Scenario...
    Hm... "... aren't able to compete with..." meaning being paid less in a day than a minimum wage hour (http://anonhq.com/apple-pays-chinese-workers-1-85hour-to-work-in-unhygienic-conditions-for-a-12-hou r-shift-6-six-days-a-week/)? Then yes. "... aren't able to compete with..." meaning that train the H-1B than is taking over your job here in U.S. (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements.h tml)? Then yes.
    
    So... after years of watching the GOP and DNC espousing the 'benefits of free trade', it is not surprising the amount votes gained by a populist candidate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
restless94110 (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:38am

More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
The obvious reason that all of those tech companies jumped into the fray so quickly is they are scared to death they may have to pay American tech workers good wages.

Trump is legally entitled to limit immigration entry, as have almost all other Presidents in living memory and before.

Instaad, the writer of this article is so blind to the reality of the order and the laws of the land and so intent on virtue signaling his moral outrage, that he misses the obvious, which, by the way, Tech Dirt has spoken out about countless times.

Both the writer of this piece and those companies intentions can be summed up by Shakespeare: Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:45am
  
  Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
  "The obvious reason that all of those tech companies jumped into the fray so quickly is they are scared to death they may have to pay American tech workers good wages. "
  
  Citation? Also how does this have anything to do with the Muslim ban?
  
  " Trump is legally entitled to limit immigration entry, as have almost all other Presidents in living memory and before."
  
  Just because someone may or may not have the legal ability, that in no way prevents a challenge on that authority. All actions by a consolidation of power in a single politically elected individual or body (as the president/congress are) should be challenged. Power without an equal challenge is totalitarianism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:21am
    
    Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
    oh please...
    
    Have you not kept up with the news? the immigration thing is like a castle. If one of the corners of that castle is dug out, then there is a fear that the weakness could lead to the compromise of the entire castle, which means... even if they are not directly affected YET, they very well could be.
    
    Had you any gray matter upstairs you might be able to see how these issues are linked. They HAVE to protect all forms of immigration to prevent the erosion of another. There are all sorts of slippery slopes, unintended consequences, political tropes, and just plain baggage that comes along with everything.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
      So much for not calling people names...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
      You and your ancestors may freely leave at any time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 3:01pm
    
    Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
    What Muslim ban? The vast majority of the world's Muslim's are not banned in the slightest.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Kal Zekdor (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
      ...and the vast majority of the people banned are Muslim.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:03am
  
  Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
  Virtue signaling is on my right wing nubjob bingo sheet, thanks!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - restless94110 (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 10:32am
    
    Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
    Odd since right wingers seldom if never virtue signal. Only the cognitively dissonant regressives do that. Every day, 24/7.
    
    You're doing it right now, in fact, because all it takes is 10 seconds for you to find hundreds of examples of it.
    
    Start with the article this thread is a part of.
    
    Count the number of times that you can find "inhumane."
    
    Hope this helps you, but I doubt it will.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
      Sorry but I got distracted by all that projection you were doing there.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - restless94110 (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
        Another dead giveaway of the regressive left:
        
        Snark (though that seems to be a despicible desease of almost all Gen-X)
        
        and Ad hominem fallacy.
        
        Scanning these comments, I notice you seem to have the need to respond to every single ever-lovin' one of them.
        
        How 'bout you take a short vacation. Try to relax. Dropping the snark would be best for you, and all regressives (and all Gen-X for that matter), since no one, and I mean no one, thinks it's smart or effective.
        
        Then try your best to not do the ad hominem thing. For one, it's a logical fallacy. And for another? See the above on snark.
        
        There. Fixed it for ya. Come back in a month or three, when you've regained your senses.
        
        I recommend the same for the writer of this article.
        
        Virtue signalling causes cognitive disonance. Companies want to drive down wages. They don't give a shit about being "inhumane."
        
        Wake up. Listen to the gigantic sucking sound.
        
        Of Americans with 50,000-dollar student loans taken for degrees in computer science who are being totally fucked by all the companies filing amicus briefs in this case.
        
        Pull the virtual signalling nonsense from your eyes.
        
        See ya when you talk less and think more, AC
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        sorrykb (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
        >Pull the virtual signalling nonsense from your eyes.
        
        That you can't genuinely manage to be anything other than a shit human being doesn't mean that's true of everyone else. Don't project your insincerity onto us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wendy Cockcroft, 7 Feb 2017 @ 6:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
        This is the dreaded liberal socialist: https://medium.com/@wendycockcroft/what-is-a-liberal-socialist-c6de6584f304#.kfdcp5k50
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:05am
  
  Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
  The obvious reason that all of those tech companies jumped into the fray so quickly is they are scared to death they may have to pay American tech workers good wages.
  
  Ah, the cynics have arrived.
  
  Having been a part of this process, I can tell you first hand that your claim as to the reasons companies signed on is absolute and total bullshit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:44am
    
    Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
    The problem is that neither do you Mike.
    
    Businesses have their own motivations for doing a lot of shady shit, including some very good looking shit too, but for the wrong reasons. Businesses are out for profit, they are doing what is best for their bottom lines, and if they can "look good" doing it they sure as fuck will try!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
      Yes, Mike is completely unaware of businesses doing shady shit. Like ISPs, for instance.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - sorrykb (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 1:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
        And yes, Mike, who runs a business, is completely unaware of what businesses do. Got it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 1:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
      Now you give yourself away. Because it is abundantly clear your either never read the OP or are wilfully lying about its contents.
      
      Mike is specifically referencing TD's direct involvement in this process. So yes he would know exactly what the reasons are for the other companies to be signing onto this document. He helped write the darn thing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
  "Trump is legally entitled to limit immigration entry..."
  
  You put the word 'legally' in the wrong place. What you mean to say is 'Trump is entitled to limit immigration entry legally'. As multiple courts have clearly stated, he has not done that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tracyanne, 6 Feb 2017 @ 4:02pm
  
  Re: More Cognitive Dissonance from Tech Dirt
  >>>>Trump is legally entitled to limit immigration entry, as have almost all other Presidents in living memory and before.
  
  According to the the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 all Presidents up until Lyndon B Johnson were so entitled. unfortunately for your argument, and Trump LBJ signed The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 into law, and this statute supersedes any preceding statues regarding Immigration, and what a President, and any other person can do.
  
  The 1965 Act was introduced into the House of Representatives by Representative Emanuel Celler, which voted 320 to 70 in favor of the act, while the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 76 to 18.[9] In the Senate, 52 Democrats voted yes, 14 no, and 1 abstained. Among Senate Republicans, 24 voted yes, 3 voted no, and 1 abstained.[10]
  
  In the House, 202 Democrats voted yes, 60 voted no and 12 abstained, 118 Republicans voted yes, 10 voted no and 11 abstained.[11] In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill.
  
  Most of the no votes were from the American South, which was then still strongly Democratic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 7:43am

Please update this story to reflect that legal immigrants are not banned. The visas revoked earlier in the week have been reinstated and green card holders and legal permanent residents are not affected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kallethen, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:00am
  
  Re:
  I would not say they have not been affected. While they may have had their visas/green cards/etc reinstated, those people are out any money they had to spend to get here the first try. Now they'll have to purchase new flight tickets, etc. This puts significant financial burden.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 9:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    Further, the fact that they were targeted in the first place is still news.
    
    "I fixed it, let's just forget it was ever a problem!" -- every company that finally gets around to updating a security vulnerability
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 8:28am

Terrorists vs. Political" Opponents
Terrorists vs. Political" Opponents

Trump said: “We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country and love deeply our people,”

Reich Citizenship Law of September 15, 1935:
Article 2
1. A Reich citizen is a subject of the state who is of German or related blood, and proves by his conduct that he is willing and fit to faithfully serve the German people and Reich.

Search:
Nuremberg Laws political opponents

"meant that political opponents could also be stripped of their German citizenship."

"political opponents could not serve as teachers"

"Police rounded up thousands of political opponents, detaining them without trial in concentration camps."

"German law excludes Jews and other political opponents from civil service"

"Decree directed at eliminating political opposition from the Communists"

"instantaneous and cruel assaults on their political opponents."

"already purged of many political opponents –gave dictatorial powers to Hitler. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:48am
  
  Re: Terrorists vs. Political" Opponents
  Wait, so if Hitler said to "love thy neighbor as you do yourself"... we should start fucking shooting them?
  
  Don't go Godwin on us here. Even the worst people in the history of the world had good things to say from time to time.
  
  ---
  And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
  
  My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
  
  Can you tell me who said that? A member of the Democratic National Party, which is completely in line with Trumps "“We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country and love deeply our people,”"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Party of Hell No!, 6 Feb 2017 @ 9:08am

Tech companies ban together to join suit against US ban on visitors from SEVEN countries.
Maybe if the tech companies could convince us this would kill their business model by using actual numbers generated by technology showing how many "Tech" workers are actually going to be inconvenienced, by showing us how many are actually H-1 visa holders from these seven countries. I think they protest a bit to much. Anyway they can replace them easy enough with "Tech" workers from India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia - for example - if "Tech" workers from Muslim countries is important to them. Or is it not part of who "Tech" companies are" to fire tech workers all the time and replace them with other workers - which is usually how the H-1 visa program works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: Tech companies ban together to join suit against US ban on visitors from SEVEN countries.
  "Oh, we're only trampling over some people's civil liberties, it's not really a big deal. They're just protesting too much."
  
  Well, that's a relief. I thought there was a problem or something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Party of Hell No!, 7 Feb 2017 @ 8:52am
    
    Re: Re: Tech companies ban together to join suit against US ban on visitors from SEVEN countries.
    "We're?" Whose this we're? I am not trampling on anyones civil rights? What "civil right" is being trampled on?
    
    Do you really think these protesters are H-1 visa holders in the streets and airports protesting? Have you ever met anyone holding one of these visas? These are not people who want to draw any unnecessary attention from the authorities and threaten their visa status.
    
    The people I am saying are "protesting" to much are the "Tech Companies." Lets not look under the curtain we may find these companies are not holier than thou and may be more like Trumps corporations in hiring and firing H-1 visa holders.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BillG (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 9:27am

The main article is in error
These companies and even this article are in error, there is no ban and this is legal for the President to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 10:00am
  
  Re: The main article is in error
  The courts seem to suspect otherwise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 11:11am
    
    Re: Re: The main article is in error
    Yea, I know... it's the very first time in history a court got something wrong or made a "political" decision instead of a "legal" one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Roger Strong (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The main article is in error
      So the growing collection of judges across the country are making "political" decisions while your politician is not.
      
      [...]
      
      Are you OK?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 10:01am
  
  Re: The main article is in error
  All those people who were turned back were hallucinating. The judges who overturned Trump's executive order as illegal were imaginary, as was Trump's Twitter hissy-fit in response.
  
  Alternative facts. Brought to you by the alt-right. Consult your doctor if you experience side-effects.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 10:23am
  
  Re: The main article is in error
  2+2=5
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re: The main article is in error
  Well since bill said it, it must be true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: Re: The main article is in error
    We were never at war with Eastasia.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 1:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The main article is in error
      ^ A universal stamp of approval!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tracyanne, 6 Feb 2017 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re: The main article is in error
  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 says otherwise.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 12:36pm

this is so messed up
i don't know where to begin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tracyanne, 6 Feb 2017 @ 3:09pm

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
This is the first time I've seen any mention of the 1965 Immigration act, in any reporting on the travel ban. Based on that act Trumps Travel Ban is simply illegal.

It would also explain why Obama never issued such a Ban, in spite of his insistence, erroneously, that the 7 countries named are the source of Terrorists in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:20pm

So what happens if an Orlando, Boston or San Berandino attack happens because the EO was stopped?
Think the public at large will give a flying rats ass about anything other than "the EO could have stopped this but was stopped because of a judge" and will demand something be done.

Really, this is giving Trump a gift.

He can go to his supporters and go "I tried, but the activist progressive judges blocked me" if the block is upheld.

And if it's overturns, he can go "I am protecting you".

Win-win for him.

Seriously, do people not see the trap that Trump set out for them? No matter how this goes down, Trump wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:47pm
  
  Re: So what happens if an Orlando, Boston or San Berandino attack happens because the EO was stopped?
  Between 1975 and 2015, foreign nationals from Trump's seven countries killed exactly zero Americans on U.S. soil, according to an analysis of terror attacks by the Cato Institute. Muslim Americans with family backgrounds in those seven countries have killed no Americans over the last 15 years. The 9/11 hijackers were from a variety of OTHER countries.
  
  Of course your hypothetical attack could certainly happen. But even if it does, Trump is still wrong. You don't tear up the Constitution and override the judiciary on a rare hypothetical. While it sounds like a cliché, it's the truth: That would be letting the terrorists win.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2017 @ 5:48pm

What will president bannon do next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 7:09am

How nany can we take?
The countries affected habe population of 212 million which is 2/3 the size of the US. So how many can we take? Do you know how muchi will cost to feed, clothe and house here vs In their own country? How any more could be helped with the cost differential? Why do you only see one solution to a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 7:31am
  
  Re: How nany can we take?
  "Why do you only see one solution to a problem?"
  
  Why do you wilfully misrepresent the problem? Who the hell has even suggested that the entire populations of those countries are transported and housed in the US?
  
  The issues are: 1) people who are already legally living in the US are being negatively affected - and its their employers who are complaining here. These are people who are already contributing to your society, so they're feeding, clothing and housing themselves.
  
  2) People who are genuine refugees fleeing persecution (some to the US, the majority not) are being falsely painted as dangerous and
  
  3) The list of countries presented by Trump's EO neither addresses the countries who are actual dangers (none of the countries have been involved in recent terrorist attacks on the US) and there's no reason for it to have been rushed through regardless.
  
  Do you have an objection to those points, rather than the fiction you presented?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 7:58am
    
    Re: Re: How nany can we take?
    Didn't suggest bringing everyone, melt pointing out there probably many more than we can handle.
    
    The people already here were a mere handful affected and they worked to get them through.
    
    They are not being painted as dangerous only that some may get through. Why cant make decisions on present dangers rather just looking at the past?
    
    Why not have a discussion without being so angry? Just maybe your opinion isnt always the right one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 8:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: How nany can we take?
      "Didn't suggest bringing everyone"
      
      Well that's certainly how it sounded.
      
      "The people already here were a mere handful affected and they worked to get them through"
      
      But were still screwed by the executive order, some of them actually born in the US (people with dual nationalities were also affected). Again, that's the major problem - it's not people who are in those countries these companies are complaining about, it's the ones already in the US legally and how they've been treated.
      
      "Why cant make decisions on present dangers rather just looking at the past?"
      
      You can. Which specific dangers are present now that weren't present when Obama was in office and are so urgent that they can't be debated in the normal manner? If these countries have not been responsible for terrorism on US soil and present no new immediate danger, then why the executive order?
      
      "Why not have a discussion without being so angry? "
      
      When presented with an honest argument, I can do so quite easily. Why not try presenting one? I do notice you didn't address most of what I said.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: How nany can we take?
        I addressed every point you made but I see you are unable to have an adult conversation. You read to respond rather than to understand. You assume you are right and quick with the insults. Scroll up watch the YouTube video posted. You are exactly the person being described.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How nany can we take?
        "I addressed every point you made"
        
        Not really. You've sidestepped most of it, and concentrated on whining about how I choose to respond to you instead. Do you have anything of substance to offer?
        
        Let's start with explaining what present danger you believe is so necessary that the EO was required and demanded that the rights of legal residents be infringed. If you can't explain this, then why should past actions not be part of the equation?
        
        "You read to respond rather than to understand"
        
        What am I not understanding? You offered no direct answers, so I cannot respond to them, so explain what I missed.
        
        "Scroll up watch the YouTube video posted"
        
        I don't watch them at work, sorry. Are you capable of making your own argument, or do you depend on whatever pretty video makes them for you?
        
        But, again, you've ignored any points I've made in favour of trying to attack me personally. Sorry, I deal with verifiable facts, it's up to you to present them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How nany can we take?
        I will reply 1 more time as you continually ignore my responses by pretending I didn't reply.
        
        Here is an article addressing the current threat. While you choose to be reactive, I can't think of a single case where that is a better strategy to being proactive. Also, unless you have a seat in the national security briefings, your belief is based on your opinion. I am basing my opinion on warnings such as these. Also, the list was approved under Obama so he must have agreed.
        
        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-27/fbi-chief-warns-terrorist-diaspora-will-be -coming-to-the-west
        
        Next, watch this video to see why we cannot save the world through immigration. The cost to transport people here, clothe feed and house them is far greater than helping them in place.
        
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE&t=5s
        
        The list was not race or religion based or there would be 40 other countries on it. So trotting out the tired name calling and labeling isn't working. If that is the only argument you have, then you don't have an argument.
        
        As for the handful of people temporarily affected, so be it. The safety of thousands out weigh the temporary inconvenience of hundreds. Those hoping to immigrate will have to wait. Citizenship and immigration is a privilege and not a right.
        
        http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/facts-on-trumps-immigration-order/
        
        So your "opinion" is not based on facts, but rather knee jerk emotional reactions to the "red team" doing something you don't like because your liberal media told you not to like it.
        
        Now watch this video to see the dangerous path the left is on. Name calling isn't working so now you guys have moved to protests, violence and assault. You beat and pepper spray women, you torch muslim immigrant cars and put them out of work. You smash windows of business that are run by liberals (i.e. Starbucks). The regressive left is heading to an ever bigger, more powerful government and that always leads to oppression and death. It doesn't tolerate dissent and your attitude shows you are well down that path.
        
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiVQ8vrGA_8&t=23s
        
        http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/limo-tor ched-in-dc-protests-belongs-to-muslim-immigrant-may-cost-70000-in-damages/article/2612747
        
        https://www .washingtonpost.com/local/2017/live-updates/politics/live-coverage-of-trumps-inauguration/protesters -smash-windows-police-use-chemical-spray-to-deal-with-crowds-near-franklin-squareay-used-at-franklin -square/?utm_term=.e081f66d2217
        
        The next time the liberal media tells you to throw a tantrum, take a day or to and get the facts before you do. Do it for yourself if not for the people you are injuring and will eventually lead to killing.
        
        Finally, don't change tactics, keep up the labelling, 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 ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2017 @ 6:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How nany can we take?
        Finally, don't change tactics, keep up the labelling, name calling and tantrums and keep losing.
        
        What a whiny little bitch you are!
        
        Who's paying for the wall? Where's the repeal of Obamacare?
        
        Or is posting that link and calling yourselves winners where your plans end?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How nany can we take?
        "I addressed every point you made but I see you are unable to have an adult conversation. You read to respond rather than to understand. You assume you are right and quick with the insults. "
        
        Welcome to the comment section of TechDirt.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 9:12am
  
  Re: How nany can we take?
  Do you know how muchi will cost to feed, clothe and house here vs In their own country? How any more could be helped with the cost differential? Why do you only see one solution to a problem?
  
  How interesting - what's your take on abortion, given the potential for a population increase that can't be supported?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2017 @ 6:47pm
    
    Re: Re: How nany can we take?
    Funny that people voted this insightful considering it was made by someone who most likely supports killing the unborn. How humanitarian of you. You likely know my stance on abortion. You also should know that my stance on the immigration problem is due to the $20 trillion national debt. We are broke. Any chance of helping anyone depends on us being even able to help ourselves.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 7:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: How nany can we take?
      No actually we don't know your stand on anything, that's the downside to not commenting under a set name, barring writing style as a loose identifier one AC is the same as another as far as knowing who you're talking to.
      
      You don't even need to create an account, simply fill in the 'Name' field in the comment box and use the same name when you comment.
      
      However, this is going off on a tangent, the other AC asked you a question, and I'm also curious as to your answer. If the US can't support immigrants because 'We are broke', and that's justification to turn them away, does that argument change when applied to potential children that also can't be supported?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Feb 2017 @ 6:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: How nany can we take?
      You also should know that my stance on the immigration problem is due to the $20 trillion national debt. We are broke. Any chance of helping anyone depends on us being even able to help ourselves.
      
      So let's create more people here to alleviate the debt.
      
      Great fucking plan.
      
      And please tell me - what's the difference between killing the unborn, and leaving children in war-torn countries to die?
      
      You know, since you value life so much...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
heymanj, 7 Feb 2017 @ 8:11am

Why tech companies oppose the EO
The opposition by the tech companies is because they're afraid H1B visas are at risk, nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Feb 2017 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: Why tech companies oppose the EO
  The opposition by the tech companies is because they're afraid H1B visas are at risk, nothing else.
  
  This is not even remotely true -- and I know because I was engaged with the process and spoke to many of the people involved. This was mainly driven by employees of companies, AGAINST the wishes of management who didn't want to make waves. But, nice try.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justme, 7 Feb 2017 @ 8:57pm

Anyway. . .
I don't really care why they came together against this executive order, i commend them for doing so!

And completely off topic like most of the comments, it never fails to crack me up when the fox news fans attack others for being partisan :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]