
#Resist - nvr219
https://www.meetup.com/pro/resist/?cta=1
======
rick_perez
I also care about democracy. I hope that in the future, the DNC doesn't
collude with the mainstream media to destroy any real chances of a third-party
in this country.

Since they haven't apologized to the American public for doing so and instead
keep doubling-down on emotional rhetoric, I don't want them anywhere near the
white house.

I really hate Trump. But I hate that you pushed me to vote for him because the
alternative meant that this politically correct toxic culture would continue
to saturate all parts of our society.

I support resistance. The resistance against the anti-fascists who are beating
people up in our streets and threatening someone with violence for speaking
their mind. If their idea is ridiculous, have a civil debate and stop using
violence in an attempt to win an argument.

~~~
Latty
What a nonsense - the violence has been minimal, and no more than the usual
violent idiots you get in any situation, from any group.

Also, I would buy you not wanting to vote for a DNC candidate because of the
way they handle their primaries or whatever, sure. The idea you'd be willing
to vote for a GOP candidate after their blatent disregard for the public,
truth and democracy is laughable.

If you are claiming you want to punish the DNC by withholding your vote from
them, sure, fine. Rewarding the GOP for the way they acted? A joke. Completely
undermines your point.

This just reads like so many of the comments I've read recently - focusing on
the very small negatives of 'the left' while completely ignoring the huge
issues from 'the right'. It's such a nonsense.

------
legostormtroopr
Is there also a #support page for people who are in support of the current
action?

Or a #not_a_us_citizen hashtag for people outside the US who are sick of
hearing about US politics?

Or is this just another rich big-city, blue state startup trying to tell us
what our political opinions should be?

~~~
nvr219
> Is there also a #support page for people who are in support of the current
> action?

No

------
hueving
I'm surprised a company would take such a rash action not particularly based
on facts. Did the executive order mention Muslims in any regard? Did the
executive order ban countries where the majority of Muslims immigrate from?
Did the executive order ban all countries with a majority Muslim population?

This highlights the importance of open source and distributed architectures
for these social tools we depend on. I have no choice but to use a tool and
support a company taking a terrible political stance in order to attend
programming and hiking meetups I'm interested in.

------
navs
Noticed there's nothing for New Zealand so I impulsively requested one. If
anything positive could come out of 2016, it's renewed civic responsibility.

------
revx
This is a great example of a tech company stepping up to create space for
political action in a way that doesn't silence anyone and brings people
together. Bravo!

~~~
throwaway420
How is this bringing people together?

The email advertising this movement repeated false claims about the government
banning people on the basis of religion. Spreading hysteria and fear and
inaccurate facts is not the way to win the argument.

~~~
Kaedon
Is this the line you're referencing? "But after the recent executive order
aimed to block people on the basis of nationality and religion, a line was
crossed."

How are these false claims? The executive order directly mentions religious
grounds and allows "minority religions" in the 7 listed majority Muslim
countries to be allowed in while prohibiting the rest.

~~~
throwaway420
I read it and I believe your interpretation is false.

It DOES NOT allow minority religions in while excluding the rest.

It does instructs the applicable departments to simply prioritize people
facing religious persecution. Prioritizing people through the safety checks
and paperwork who are at the most risk should be the EXACT purpose of a
refugee program with a humanitarian basis to it.

~~~
patch_collector
Not specifically religious persecution -- it's if you're part of a 'minority
religion.' Which seems silly to me. Yes, assessing their level of danger
should be part of any vetting and prioritization, but it should be an overall
thing. If a person is in more danger (due to political ties, or maybe they
helped US forces) than someone who's in a minority religion but otherwise
safe, shouldn't the first person have priority?

It's good to go about helping the most vulnerable people. Unfortunately, the
proposed methodology in the EO was ham-handed at best, and unconstitutional at
worst.

~~~
throwaway420
I think there's fair room for critiques on this implementation and their
methodology for selecting priority.

If more than a small number of protesters brought up these kinds of rational
arguments, I think many on the right would be far more receptive to seriously
listening.

Instead, you hear about a "Muslim ban" and people calling Trump literally
Hitler and most people on the right are sick and tired of these kinds of
arguments and aren't going to be receptive.

------
p3t3rp4n
Ati luat repede ideile romanilor :)

