
First they came for the Iranians - aaronyy
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3167
======
throwaway2131
I am an Iranian CS student. I had a fully funded PhD admission at one of the
US universities. I was admitted for the Fall 2016 semester.

I am currently in Iran due to my visa not being issued despite the 7 months I
have waited for it. I was able to defer my admission to Spring 2017 semester,
but then _this_ happened.

I am quite sure that I will never be able to attend this program. I had very
high hopes for my future because of this admission.

I was very sad today after hearing this news. I have to come up with a new
plan for my life, since it never occurred to me that I would not be able to
attend.

Edit: Thanks for all the support from the HN community.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
On behalf of my fellow Americans, please allow me to offer you our deepest
apology. Please know that most of our country doesn't hate or fear you. We
will continue to do everything we can to fight this policy and others like it.

~~~
StavrosK
> We will continue to do everything we can to fight this policy and others
> like it.

You say that, but I'm afraid the implication might be "short of doing anything
that matters". Where are the protests? Why aren't people in the streets? Don't
make the same mistake Germans did under Hitler. The government relies on each
step affecting few enough people that nobody will be bothered enough to march,
and after a thousand little steps, you have a totalitarian government.

~~~
guildwriter
There were already many different large scale protests across the nation
several days ago. Those took months to organize and set up. Logistics alone
makes another immediate large scale protest unlikely. The exception is unless
there is clear and demonstrable malfeasance like in the case of S. Korea's
president.

If Trump's draft executive order had said something like "permanent ban of all
Muslims" then I have no doubts people would start protesting immediately.
Careful reading of the draft though shows the following:

1) It's limited to seven countries. Notably missing Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,
Afghanistan.

2) The ban on entry from these countries is 30 days to "reduce investigative
burdens".

3) After that point all countries on that list need to provide additional
screening info in order for visas to be accepted.

4) If the countries do not agree to provide said info after 60 days from
notification, all nationals from that country will not be allowed entry unless
under certain circumstances. Compliance will reverse this.

5) More countries may be added to this list based on recommendation by
SecState (Tillerson) and SecDef (Mattis).

6) On a case by case basis, visas may be granted to nationals from banned
countries.

I wouldn't call any of the above great, but calling this the precursor to
Kristallnacht is a reach. Instead of losing your mind over everything
objectionable that Trump does, it might be best to conserve your strength.
Remember that fatiguing the people you want to support you with a constant
state of emergency is a real thing. Proportional responses are best.

~~~
StavrosK
> If Trump's draft executive order had said something like "permanent ban of
> all Muslims" then I have no doubts people would start protesting
> immediately.

That's why it doesn't say that. You start with seven countries, then add five
more ("I didn't protest the first seven, why would I protest five?") then a
few more, and pretty soon, you got all Muslim countries. It's barely been a
week and it's already seven, I imagine the entire set of Muslim countries
can't take more than a month or two.

> The ban on entry from these countries is 30 days to "reduce investigative
> burdens".

For now, yes. That gives the government a month to extend the duration, if
they want to.

> After that point all countries on that list need to provide additional
> screening info in order for visas to be accepted.

It takes months to organize a protest, how long do you think it will take a
country to institute "additional screening" for the single other special
snowflake country that demands it? Meanwhile, none of those countries'
residents can travel (or return) to the US.

> If the countries do not agree to provide said info after 60 days from
> notification, all nationals from that country will not be allowed entry
> unless under certain circumstances.

And that doesn't bother you?

> Instead of losing your mind over everything objectionable that Trump does,
> it might be best to conserve your strength

Conserve your strength for what? There won't be a single incident that's worse
than this. Germany didn't go from Socialist utopia to Kristallnacht in a day.

~~~
guildwriter
If he adds more, then that's a different situation. Right now is all I know.
I'm not going to assume the worst until Trump actually displays a pattern of
behavior.

One of the things I noticed is you passed over the people who are responsible
for implementing and reporting to the President on this: Tillerson and Mattis.
Neither of these men is anything remotely close to a Nazi. Mattis has far too
much integrity, Tillerson as well.

[http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21711926-rex-
til...](http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21711926-rex-tillerson-
probable-next-secretary-state-could-be-one-more-
competent?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/oilydiplomacygiverexachance)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/james-
mattis-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/james-mattis-
secrtary-of-defense-trump.html)

Mattis is unlikely to support a full ban on all Muslims as he is on record
saying that we need our Middle Eastern allies. It's one of the reasons he's
against the move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Tillerson strikes me as far
too ethical a player to subscribe to the notion that we need such an approach.
If he's that fair minded at Exxon Mobile, I doubt much will change when he's
SecState. Remember he's backed by people like Condaleeza Rice, someone I
hardly consider a Nazi.

If you're worried about Trump deciding to just add all the countries, I doubt
he will. Trump is known for not being a deep policy wonk (unlike Obama and W)
and mostly an instinctual leader. He can get away with this because he relies
heavily on his subordinates for advice and gives them a large amount of
leeway. This is not necessarily a bad leadership style and in this case, I
think we're pretty safe considering the people who need to make these
decisions.

Should Trump add every majority Muslim country in the world to the banned
travel list, or it extends for a period of time that is significantly longer
than he initially established, I think going nuts is probably warranted. That
would be a single incident worse than this. There's four years of Trump, if
you don't agree with him it might be best to not exhaust your people too
early. Remember what Kasparov said:

"The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It
is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth."

[https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/808750564284702720?lan...](https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/808750564284702720?lang=en)

Mostly that list reads as countries full of people that probably don't like us
much and have reason to for better or for worse:

"What all seven countries also have in common is that the United States
government has violently intervened in them. The U.S. is currently bombing —
or has bombed in the recent past — six of them. The U.S. has not bombed Iran,
but has a long history of intervention including a recent cyberattack."

[https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/trumps-muslim-
immigratio...](https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/trumps-muslim-immigration-
executive-order-if-we-bombed-you-we-ban-you/)

~~~
StavrosK
> If you're worried about Trump deciding to just add all the countries, I
> doubt he will

I hope you're right.

> That would be a single incident worse than this.

You're assuming he wouldn't be adding them little by little, which would be
many small incidents, each about as bad as this one.

> There's four years of Trump, if you don't agree with him it might be best to
> not exhaust your people too early.

Yes, but you also need to take care to not wait too long before you act. I'd
err on the side of protesting on this one.

> Mostly that list reads as countries full of people that probably don't like
> us much

I'm not sure many countries in the world are crazy about the US right now.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), we don't ban travel based on who likes whom.
There haven't been any US terrorists who came from Iran, so what's Trump's
intention with this move?

> What all seven countries also have in common is that the United States
> government has violently intervened in them. The U.S. is currently bombing —
> or has bombed in the recent past — six of them.

This move isn't going to mend any fences either.

------
salimmadjd
Trump is ostensibly using the 9/11 play card to justify banning few muslim
countries [0]. This is obviously a lie, since most of 911 hijackers were
Saudis and his executive order is not banning the Saudis. I'm guessing on the
strength of the Saudi lobby in DC [1] AND/OR Trump's potential business
conflict in Saudi Arabia [2].

[0] [https://www.scribd.com/document/337545704/Draft-Executive-
Or...](https://www.scribd.com/document/337545704/Draft-Executive-Order-To-
Limit-Entry-of-Muslim-Refugees-and-Immigrants)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_lobby_in_the_Unit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia_lobby_in_the_United_States)

[2]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-t...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-
trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Saudi-Arabia)

~~~
semi-extrinsic
It's a bit more interesting wrt. most 9/11 hijackers being Saudis: I think
it's pretty much confirmed at this point that it was a deliberate choice by al
Qaida, attempting to deteriorate US-Saudi relations.

But as long as Saudis are omitted from this regulation, it's pretty
ineffective. Then again, how much of "terrorism legislation" is actually
preventing terrorism, as opposed to extending the powers of police and
prosecution, or just being populist "I'm doing something"?

~~~
Melchizedek
Regardless of the hijackers motives, Saudi Arabia is by far the worst country
when it comes to exporting and supporting terror. Iran is an island of sanity
by comparison, and there are _no_ Shia terrorist organizations nowadays
(Hezbollah are not terrorists - they don't blow up random civilians).

~~~
nir
I suppose Rafic Hariri isn't "random" as he was after all Lebanon's
democratically elect Prime Minister when Hezbollah assassinated him, but how
about the 21 people who also died in that bombing?

I personally know a man who lost his wife (mother of their 3 kids) when
Hezbollah bombed the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires. 85 civilians
were killed, but then again mostly Jewish so not exactly "random" either.

It always amazes me how many Western activists approach the world like a
Hollywood movie. If Saudis are bad, and Trump is bad, then obviously their
Shia rivals must be good!

~~~
mmrezaie
That is true but 21 to thousands that just die in Yemen or by Isis is not even
considerable. I think we should compare them and not going to say that one is
not bad at all. They are both are fundamentally against human freedom and
liberal ideas, but one is so far worst.

Although I think if only west could stop buying their oils then they both will
suffocate. There is not a single country with rich oil in the Middle-east that
uses the money from oil for their people. They all have first and second class
citizens.

------
mikeash
Holy shit:

> U.S. permanent residents (green card holders) who are outside of the United
> States may be barred from reentry.

That's huge. I don't mean to diminish the importance of banning new immigrants
and visitors on a religious basis, that's bad too. But banning people who have
already legally immigrated from re-entering the country is completely nuts.
There are no doubt people who have lived in this country for decades who
happen to be abroad at the moment and are now stuck away from their homes for
an unknown period. There will be people who have lived in this country for
decades who will be faced with an illness or death in the family and will have
to make a choice between going to visit or retaining their ability to stay
where they live.

~~~
KKKKkkkk1
But this is not new. If you leave the US for more than 6 months, you can
potentially lose your green card at the discretion of CBP regardless of where
you're from.

~~~
guptaneil
OP is not talking about people away for 6 months. These are American residents
who might be traveling for a week and suddenly find themselves homeless. If
you think that can't happen to you, I have a bridge to sell you.

~~~
macintux
I went to sleep on election night and woke up homeless.

------
tabeth
I abhor Trump, but something about this statement irks me:

> To the Trump regime, I make one request: if you ever decide that it’s the
> policy of the US government to deport my PhD students, then deport me first.
> I’m practically begging you: come to my house, arrest me, revoke my
> citizenship, and tear up the awards I’ve accepted at the White House and the
> State Department. I’d consider that to be the greatest honor of my career.

Given the pedestal that you (presumably, by the amount of points this has
gotten) are on, there are more actionable ways to be useful, rather than be a
martyr. No mention in the post on how to stop Trump. For example, telling your
readers how they can take action to stop Trump. I'll share some of my own
thoughts on how to do this. Feel free to respond to this if it's not
exhaustive enough.

To follow my own advice, if anyone sees this:

1\. Call

    
    
      - Local congresspeople (http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/)
    
      - Senators (https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/)
    
      - Local officials (https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials)
    

2\. Participate

    
    
      - Get involved in local elections (this is a decent start - to become informed locally http://www.npr.org/stations/)
    
      - Protest
    
      - Attend town hall and city council meetings (see npr)
    

3\. Share

    
    
      - Tell your friends 
    

4\. Vote ([https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote](https://www.usa.gov/register-
to-vote))

5\. Volunteer

6\. Stop reading and start doing one of the other things.

~~~
matthewbauer
This is the executive's power. There is literally nothing that can be done
about it for the next 4 years besides try to change Trump's mind (or pray he
does something impeachable).

~~~
coldtea
> _There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years_

Actually mass protests to the level of e.g. the French May of 68 might very
well bring down a government.

But that is for a determined population.

~~~
tajen
Except in France, May 68, De Gaulle (conservatist) wasn't ousted, he even came
back in favourable position after 3 days off the grid: He threatened to use
the État d'Urgence against the strikers, dissolved the Assembly and the new
election yielded 353 of 486 seats in his favour. People, at the end, voted for
security.

~~~
coldtea
In De Gaulle's case yes. But this has not been the case in every mass protest
movement in all countries (plus, France voted, which is much larger than
Paris, where the demonstrations were mostly held).

------
HeavenBanned
My father successfully brought over two of our relatives from Iran during the
Obama presidency (thanks Obama). They were a doctor and a professional soccer
player. However, the other application for his older sister and my mother's
brother has been processing for nearly 20 years. She's nearing her 70s. And my
mother's brother has all but lost hope.

Looks like it's not going to ever happen under Mr. Trump.

Oh well. I wouldn't say it's as urgent as having PhD-level brains here...but
it's too bad. We're doing the process right. We're doing it legally. We're
following all the proper procedure and making sure that nothing is overlooked
or done to cheat the process.

My father (who voted for Trump) is in complete denial: he thinks "The people
around Trump told him to do that."

Very sad.

~~~
jasonmp85
That penultimate paragraph. Jesus Christ.

~~~
moomin
I'm reminded of something I read by people who were in the cultural
revolution. They always convinced themselves that Mao had bad advisers and
they'd get purged soon. Took decades to twig that the problem was Mao himself.

~~~
coredog64
It isn't just Mao. "If only Stalin knew" was a popular refrain.

------
corndoge
_" Today, we learned that Trump is suspending the issuance of US visas to
people from seven majority-Islamic countries, including Iran (but strangely
not Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Wahhabist terrorism)."_

And yet, from the very source linked in the article--

 _" Details about the forthcoming executive orders are still unconfirmed. But
here’s what we can say with high confidence."_

If you trust AP, then sure, it's likely that it will happen. But it's still
important to draw a distinction between "has done" or "is doing" and "is
expected to do". Articles like this, posted before any official announcement,
are merely adding to the Trump hysteria.

~~~
matt4077
I'm not sure why AP is the subject of your scorn here. They're accurately
reporting the document that was leaked, and it's in the publics' interest to
learn about such actions as soon as possible. Such leaks are sometimes
intended as trial balloons, for example, and the reporting may stop the worst
from happening by allowing the public to react at a time where the
administrations still has a face-saving way out. That may actually be what is
happening with the similar leak of Trump's intended reinstatement of torture
as official US policy.

The uncertainty expressed in the piece does not mean that the AP is unsure if
the document is real. They usually get such material from sources they know,
and have experience with. They are firstly hedging against the possibility of
the administration changing its mind, and – specifically for the current
flurry of executive actions – there is a lot of legal uncertainty because it
isn't always clear how they are to be interpreted, if they fall within the
executive branches' authority, and how they fit into existing laws.

~~~
corndoge
The AP was not the subject of my scorn.

------
fdschoeneman
It's unclear what Trump is trying to accomplish here. It seems stupid and I
feel bad for the people whose lives it diverts or puts in hold. But the Nazi
comparison either trivializes the Holocaust or unfairly hitlerizes Donald
Trump for what may be a legitimate concern over technology transfer to a
country that actively opposes US interests. There are plenty of countries that
suspend student visas without going on to murder millions of people, and
indeed we did exactly that under Jimmy Carter for much longer than thirty
days. Standing up for students and education and science is an important duty
for a professor, and I hope he'll continue with it, but this kind of hyperbole
doesn't seem helpful.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
The language neither trivializes the Holocaust nor does it unfairly hitlerizes
Trump. It describes what is going on in a way more of the general population
can understand.

There have been many populist governments around the world over time. Hitler
wasn't the first to do that sort of thing. Unfortunately, not everyone
remembers all the names or knows the history - so comparing him to a lesser-
known leader (which he might be more comparable too) just doesn't work. It is
like reading a literary reference to a book you've never read - it is easy to
miss the context, even after the reference is explained.

So we use Hitler because we understand the Holocaust (and the like) was far
too horrible for words to describe and we'd like to avoid going near anything
of that manner. We draw comparisons between the early Hitler days and now
because we notice them. Coincidentally, it follows a general pattern of
authoritarian and fascist leaders and it scares the heck out of us.

And you think, surely, that can't happen here. This is the United States,
after all. And at the same time, Trump is up there talking about how we should
be using torture and waterboarding more because he's convinced it works. And
we aren't sitting here appalled because we've started to become immune to his
rhetoric. He's been saying this sort of thing for months. What else are we
going to be sensitized to?

Furthermore, what does it mean for me when I go to visit family back in the
states? If I get a tan and look "middle eastern", will I get harassed? Are
they going to bring up that a portion of my family is Syrian, even though my
grandmother was born in the US to immigrant parents? What of my family that
still lives there? I know this stuff isn't an issue right now, but I'm afraid
of what happens if it escalates. It isn't like we can trust the things that is
being said from the top at this point.

This "unhelpful" hyperbole is the only thing we really have to be able to
express this stuff to others.

~~~
matt4077
There's a german saying: "It did happen and therefore it can happen again".
That could be extended to "It did happen, and therefore it could happen
anywhere".

I'm also reminded of Hannah Arendt's theory of the "banality of evil". She
basically warned against considering the Holocaust as the result of a singular
set of circumstances, describing it instead as a process of many steps, by
many (often unremarkable) people, with each step small enough not to trigger
significant reactions.

The US is obviously still far, far away from death camps. But the changes in
what is politically accepted are already gigantic if you step back. That's a
process that has been going on since long before Trump, maybe since Nixon or
at the very least GWB. And it includes not just the federal government but
also, for example, recent developments in North Carolina.

As a somewhat tangential factoid, that may help to break the shell of the
Nazi-cliche and give it back some meaning: I was recently at a festival in
Poland and, in the midst of the usual atmosphere created by the beats of
electronic music and the somewhat unusual diet that goes with it, I stumbled
upon a plaque commemorating the place as the site of "a concentration camp for
children aged 6 to 12". You really start to wonder: how much has to happen to
a person until they get to the thought, "yeah, those 6 to 12 year olds, we
really need to do something about them"?

~~~
fdschoeneman
There's certainly value in being mindful of the Holocaust, and of the great
capacity for evil, even if banal, inside of us all, and to acknowledge and
fight against it each day. But I remain unconvinced that calling those I
disagree with over legitimate policy concerns Hitler is either a) fair or b)
particularly useful.

------
helpfulanon
What's more worrisome is how fervently anti-science the new administration is.
Academics may eventually be persecuted in the US across the board - as they
are already at the EPA, USDA etc - and regardless of citizenship.

I firmly believe anyone with a brain should begin making contingency plans to
regroup somewhere like Australia or Japan, outside of the reaches of far-right
populism. An Erdogan-style academic purge may be on the agenda and sooner than
we think

~~~
cavisne
when it comes to Islam Japan goes well past "far right populism". It's not a
coincidence there's less than 70k Muslims in Japan.

~~~
Vintila
Genuine question, is there an anti-muslim immigration policy in japan or some
other force at play?

~~~
gspetr
That does not seem to be the case:
[http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16347/is-
islam-b...](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/16347/is-islam-banned-
in-japan)

------
aphextron
This is completely unacceptable, and truly crosses the line. I have many
Iranian coworkers and friends here in the bay area. The thought of branding
them as terrorists and revoking their work or student visas is absolutely
unbelievable. I think the Trump administration and the GOP are in for a rude
awakening if they think these policies are going to stand.

~~~
danenania
"I think the Trump administration and the GOP are in for a rude awakening if
they think these policies are going to stand."

I hope you're right, but at least for the next 2 years, who/what is going to
stop them?

~~~
aphextron
>I hope you're right, but at least for the next 2 years, who/what is going to
stop them?

The courts. It's our only option. There are multiple pending lawsuits against
Trump already. A civil rights group filed suit against him on day one for
breaching the emoluments clause of the constitution.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/liberal-watchdog-
gro...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/liberal-watchdog-group-sues-
trump-alleging-he-violated-constitutional-
ban/2017/01/22/5e8b35c2-e113-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html)

------
jekdoce
Advice from a high-level staffer for a Senator:

There are two things that everyone concerned should be doing all the time
right now, and they're by far the most important things.

You should NOT be bothering with online petitions or emailing.

1\. The best thing you can do to be heard and get your congressperson to pay
attention is to have face-to-face time - if they have town halls, go to them.
Go to their local offices. If you're in DC, try to find a way to go to an
event of theirs. Go to the "mobile offices" that their staff hold periodically
(all these times are located on each congressperson's website). When you go,
ask questions. A lot of them. And push for answers. The louder and more vocal
and present you can be at those the better.

2\. But, those in-person events don't happen every day. So, the absolute most
important thing that people should be doing every day is calling. You should
make 6 calls a day: 2 each (DC office and your local office) to your 2
Senators & your 1 Representative.

Any sort of online contact basically gets immediately ignored, and letters
pretty much get thrown in the trash (unless you have a particularly strong
emotional story - but even then it's not worth the time it took you to craft
that letter).

Calls are what all the congresspeople pay attention to. Every single day, the
Senior Staff and the Senator get a report of the 3 most-called-about topics
for that day at each of their offices (in DC and local offices), and exactly
how many people said what about each of those topics. They're also sorted by
zip code and area code. Republican callers generally outnumber Democrat
callers 4-1, and when it's a particular issue that single-issue-voters pay
attention to (like gun control, or planned parenthood funding, etc...), it's
often closer to 11-1, and that's recently pushed Democratic congressmen on the
fence to vote with the Republicans. In the last 8 years, Republicans have
called, and Democrats haven't.

So, when you call:

A) When calling the DC office, ask for the Staff member in charge of whatever
you're calling about ("Hi, I'd like to speak with the staffer in charge of
Healthcare, please") - local offices won't always have specific ones, but they
might. If you get transferred to that person, awesome. If you don't, that's ok
- ask for their name, and then just keep talking to whoever answered the
phone. Don't leave a message (unless the office doesn't pick up at all - then
you can...but it's better to talk to the staffer who first answered than leave
a message for the specific staffer in charge of your topic).

B) Give them your zip code. They won't always ask for it, but make sure you
give it to them, so they can mark it down. Extra points if you live in a zip
code that traditionally votes for them, since they'll want to make sure they
get/keep your vote.

C) If you can make it personal, make it personal. "I voted for you in the last
election and I'm worried/happy/whatever" or "I'm a teacher, and I am appalled
by Betsy DeVos," or "as a single mother" or "as a white, middle class woman,"
or whatever.

D) Pick 1-2 specific things per day to focus on. Don't go down a whole list -
they're figuring out what 1-2 topics to mark you down for on their lists. So,
focus on 1-2 per day. Ideally something that will be voted on/taken up in the
next few days, but it doesn't really matter - even if there's not a vote
coming up in the next week, call anyway. It's important that they just keep
getting calls.

E) Be clear on what you want - "I'm disappointed that the Senator..." or "I
want to thank the Senator for their vote on..." or "I want the Senator to know
that voting in _____ way is the wrong decision for our state because..." Don't
leave any ambiguity.

F) They may get to know your voice/get sick of you - it doesn't matter. The
people answering the phones generally turn over every 6 weeks anyway, so even
if they're really sick of you, they'll be gone in 6 weeks. From experience
since the election: If you hate being on the phone & feel awkward (which is a
lot of people) don't worry about it - there are a bunch of scripts
(Indivisible has some, there are lots of others floating around these day).
After a few days of calling, it starts to feel a lot more natural. Put the 6
numbers in your phone (all under P – Politician. An example is McCaskill MO,
Politician McCaskill DC, Politician Blunt MO, etc...) which makes it really
easy to click down the list each day.

~~~
palidanx
Is it worth calling a senator who doesn't represent you? For example, there
are some proposals being pushed by senators in NC I don't agree with, but I
don't live in NC.

~~~
barsonme
Not really.

Typically the first thing interns will do is at minimum gather your zip, if
not address. Congressional offices receive a fair amount of out-of-district
phone calls and non-constituent phone calls will get you a "Thanks for your
concerns, have a nice day!"

And, tbh, I sort of disagree with GP's comment about calling every day.
Offices might have a high turnover rate, they might not. The offices most
definitely do keep track of who calls and they know who the repeat callers
are. A lot of time the repeat callers tend to have mental issues (unsure how
else to phrase that)—congressional offices get lots of weird phone calls.

I mean yeah, call about issues. It's the best way, other than a face-to-face
conversation. (Assuming, too, that the legislator has their CM or an aide with
them to take your contact info.) But calling every day will put you on the
"ugh, not this guy" list.

------
misingnoglic
This is the first time in my life that I don't feel safe in my own country.
There is literally no difference between me (someone born in the US whose
parents came here from Iran in the 90s), and people my age living in Iran
right now who want to come to the US for a better education.

------
amasad
The ban on Iranians has nothing to do with terrorism. I might be wrong but I
don't think there are any real Shiite terror group. And yes I don't think it's
fitting to call Hazbollah as a terrorist group -- the same label that you'd
give Al Qaeda or ISIS. I honestly can't think of a time where a Shiite group
was responsible for indiscriminate killing.

~~~
thowfaraway
Hmm, Iran actively supports ~100 Shiite terror groups in Syria and Iraq. If
you speak Arabic, here is an article in Al-Hayat.

[http://www.alhayat.com/Articles/9542195/](http://www.alhayat.com/Articles/9542195/)

And of course Hezbollah in Lebanon.

~~~
amasad
Al Hayat has a pro Saudi bias. But even if we left that aside the article
opens with the claim that Iran sponsored militias equal in atrocities that is
of ISIS -- which is obviously false.

Not sure if you speak arabic or if you're from the middle east but hate for
Shiites from Sunnis are more extreme than their hate for Israel -- in fact
many clerics actively ask for genocide against them.

------
CptJamesCook
People seem more upset that Trump is not letting people into the country than
that Obama has been dropping bombs on 6 of these countries.

I'm not wild about the Trump immigration ban on these countries, but I really,
really hope he ends these wars.

~~~
PopsiclePete
You can be mad at both things, or none. You don't have to pick or choose one
over the other. I can be hungry and thirsty at the same time, or I can be
tired and also have a mean sun-burn. The two issues are pretty unrelated.

~~~
CptJamesCook
I agree. But I am far more outraged at our government getting involved in
foreign wars and dropping bombs all over the world than I am in them not
letting people into the country from countries we are bombing. I think most
people would have the same feeling if they thought about it carefully.

------
namirez
This is the draft of the executive order. Section 3 explains how the US entry
ban could be extended indefinitely. [http://documents.latimes.com/read-draft-
copy-president-trump...](http://documents.latimes.com/read-draft-copy-
president-trumps-executive-order-immigration-and-refugees/)

------
csomar
Wow. This is more hostile than I ever imagined. Banning 70 million people from
Iran when there is no terrorism link for the country is, at best, idiotic.
(Iran is anti-ISIS and apart from its conflict with the US has no precedent of
terrorism)

I'm really speechless.

~~~
gspetr
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-
sponsored_terro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-
sponsored_terrorism#State_Department_Report)

In July 2012, the United States State Department released a report on
terrorism around the world in 2011. The report states that "Iran remained an
active state sponsor of terrorism in 2011 and increased its terrorist-related
activity" and that "Iran also continued to provide financial, material, and
logistical support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle
East and Central Asia."

This is not a report from a Republican administration but Obama's
administration.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
That is likely for theirbsupport of Hamas for their role in trying to expand
their hegemony in the Middle East and their conflicts with Saudia Arabia and
Israel. Iran is not a part of global jihad.

~~~
gspetr
Does any of this sound like it supports your viewpoint?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_thought_and_legacy_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_thought_and_legacy_of_Ruhollah_Khomeini)

Since his death, politics in the Islamic Republic of Iran have been "largely
defined by attempts to claim Khomeini's legacy", according to at least one
scholar, and "staying faithful to his ideology has been the litmus test for
all political activity" there.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_thought_and_legacy_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_thought_and_legacy_of_Ruhollah_Khomeini#Muslim_and_non-
Muslim_world)

Khomeini strongly supported the spread of Islam throughout the non-Muslim
world.

    
    
        We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry 'There is no god but Allah' resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.
    

... `We have often proclaimed this truth in our domestic and foreign policy,
namely that we have set as our goal the world-wide spread of the influence of
Islam and the suppression of the rule of the world conquerors ... We wish to
cause the corrupt roots of Zionism, capitalism and Communism to wither
throughout the world. We wish, as does God almighty, to destroy the systems
which are based on these three foundations, and to promote the Islamic order
of the Prophet ... in the world of arrogance.`

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
As the current President of the Us exemplifies, there's a huge gulf between
rhetoric and actions.

Personally, I have no fear of Iran or Iranians committing violent acts on US
soil.

Also, if this ruling stands, it unfairly affects people from Iran who aren't
even Muslim (not that it should matter). In LA, there is a very large
community of Persian Jews who would be cut off from their family.

------
dmode
It's amazing that some nations are deemed terrorist by American government,
which itself is responsible for the deaths of most innocent civilians over the
last century. Starting with dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, funding
Mujhadeen on Afghanistan, installing Shah in Iran, toppling Saddam Hussein,
Indirectly funding terrorism in Kashmir, and all the mess in South America.
What's the best guess ? 10 million innocent civilians killed ?

~~~
guildwriter
Still not as many as Russia did during the same time period. Stalin alone
blows that total right out of the water. Mao and the Khmer Rouge are right
behind him.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes)

None of this takes away from the morally questionable actions of the US. But
saying the US is responsible for the most innocent civilian casualties in the
last half century is not true.

~~~
junto
I'm not sure we should make it a competition!

------
akssri
This is just too sad. Iranians at grad school often struck me as incredibly
smart - be it students or faculty.

The recent breakthrough in TSP approximation was due to an Iranian; the woman
who won the Field's prize earlier was one too! They are a tiny nation but are
very well represented.

They were already at the receiving end of the stick under Obama, having to
deal with the sanction and single entry student visas.

These policies make no sense considering their distinctions as immigrants;
it's an affront to one's humanity TBH.

------
fowlerpower
What I don't get is, it is obviously against everything we stand for and for
sure not in line with our constitution to discriminate based on religion.
After all, religious freedom was one of the reasons they founded our country.

Given all of that I don't understand why we can't sue? Take this to the
Supreme Court? They didn't use any religion in the executive action but it is
so clearly targeted at one individual religion that it could easily be struck
down...

~~~
guildwriter
The argument that it's clearly targeted at one individual religion doesn't
stick that well. If that were true there were a lot of countries that are
predominantly Muslim that were left off the list.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country)

Arguing a racial thing is a bit difficult as well as there were plenty of Arab
countries that were left out.

An interesting commonality is this:

"What all seven countries also have in common is that the United States
government has violently intervened in them. The U.S. is currently bombing —
or has bombed in the recent past — six of them. The U.S. has not bombed Iran,
but has a long history of intervention including a recent cyberattack."

[https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/trumps-muslim-
immigratio...](https://theintercept.com/2017/01/25/trumps-muslim-immigration-
executive-order-if-we-bombed-you-we-ban-you/)

Therefore I think it's easy to argue that the common factor isn't necessarily
race or religion, but considered hostile status with the US.

~~~
turc1656
Great point, guildwriter. To extend that thought - it never ceases to amaze me
the expectations people have regarding America. For example, if we were at war
with China, Russia, whoever - no one would be shocked if those countries
denied our citizens entry until the conflict was over. But reverse it and
there is outrage.

Similarly, I have no expectation that I would ever be able to, for example,
travel to another country on "vacation" and just stay indefinitely after my
visa expired. I would never think that would fly. I fully expect that at some
point I would be facing either serious charges or a quick deportation,
possibly with the stipulation that I was never allowed to return - or that
violating the visa a second time would mean a jail sentence. Yet here in
America, that's just people "trying to live the American dream", rules and
laws be damned. Violating the sovereignty of a nation should always be taken
seriously.

~~~
cooper12
Maybe because American citizens aren't tripping over themselves to immigrate
to those countries? Also history has proven time and time again that prejudice
against immigrants from American war enemies was always based on xenophobia
and racism rather than legitimate security concerns. [0][1]

Regarding your second paragraph, what bizarro-America do you live in? That's
exactly what happens to people who overstay their visas. You last sentence
also betrays your own xenophobia: you associate people looking to "live the
American dream" with wanting to violate the sovereignty of American.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
German_sentiment#United_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
German_sentiment#United_States) [1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans)

------
Gargoyle
There is this section in the draft order, which presumably could allow for phd
students to enter the US as being in the national interest.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or
pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) ofthis
section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case
basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration
benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise
blocked.

------
misingnoglic
I really can't believe this. First the US goes into Iran, and destabilizes the
popular government (see: 1953). Now, after literally no threat from any
Iranian immigrants, they ban them. Good thing my parents came here before, I
guess??

~~~
turc1656
The threat isn't directly from Iranian immigrants but the the nation itself. I
would like to remind you that the Obama administration's state department
declared Iran to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism. That's not
something to take lightly.

~~~
misingnoglic
Obama's position clearly states that the Iranian government is the issue.
Trump's clearly says "We don't want your kind in our country"

------
amasad
I had trouble loading the page, here is a google-cache url:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3167)

------
mistermann
This is obviously extremely unfortunate for those involved, I predict it will
be very short lived but we'll have to wait and see.

One thing I like about this sort of controversy though is perhaps some day,
some people might start wondering who these mullahs are and how they came to
be. Now that _type_ of conversation would be rather uncomfortable, and I
suspect is somewhat of an underlying cause of a lot of the hand wringing we're
seeing from various government agencies.

EDIT: Interesting I've got two downvotes already, do people think the
interesting history of the leadership of Iran is some sort of a conspiracy
theory?

~~~
steveax
Conspiracy theory? No. Conspiracy? Yes. I often wonder what the Middle East
and Iran would look like today if the CIA and the Brits had not overthrown the
democratically elected Mosaddegh government.

~~~
mistermann
I wonder what the _world_ would like like if western nations hadn't meddled so
much in other's affairs.

That would actually make a really good TV series: "What the World Would Have
Looked Like - Episode 3: Germany Wins World War 2". Of course there are
numerous theories for each, but that's ok, just state that at the beginning
and say this is just one of many _possible_ theories, it's just for fun. I'd
watch that type of show for sure.

~~~
dummkopf99
Germany is a western country.

~~~
mistermann
As is Sweden.

------
JumpCrisscross
Does the President have the power to unilaterally impose exit-visa
requirements?

~~~
grey-area
This is a good question. Obama claimed the president has the power to
assassinate american citizens without trial and Trump is claiming further
powers over immigration, science and the media. None of these things should be
the sole purview of the president, this is why rule via executive orders is so
dangerous. It would lead to the end of the republic.

The American republic now resembles the late roman one, complete with populist
consuls and rioting factions.

~~~
guildwriter
This is being exacerbated by the increasing factionalism within the US itself.
I'm starting to understand better and better why Washington warned us of
political parties in his farwell address

"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless
ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of
the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a
wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public
administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and
false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments
occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and
corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through
the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country
are subjected to the policy and will of another."

~~~
Amezarak
Washington's farewell address was a political speech. He was unequivocally a
federalist, and his speech was aimed at suppressing anti-federalism. He
basically believed there should be only one party - his and Hamilton/Adams'
party.

That's why very soon afterwards federalists in Congress passed laws allowing
the President to imprison people for reporting truthfully what was happening
in Congress (out of the fear it would generate outrage in the populace) and
even for mere criticism of the President. For much of his tenure as Vice
President under Adams, Jefferson lived in fear of his safety and was even
afraid to speak out in private letters, as he believed federalists were
reading his mail looking for something to ruin him with. Early America was
incredibly factious, with rebellions and armed private militias and mobs
perpetrating violence (and threats of violence) on their political opponents.

Politics hasn't changed much over time. Read Washington's speeches like you
would Trump's or Obama's.

~~~
chillacy
That's an interesting take, that's the first time I've heard of that
interpretation. Is that the view of any specific authors?

I feel like Washington is extremely venerated, which makes me a bit
suspicious. It's not quite a cult of personality like Stalin but nobody's
perfect.

A accounts seem to imply that Washington was a reluctant leader who didn't
want to get involved in politics: [https://www.quora.com/Why-did-George-
Washington-refuse-a-thi...](https://www.quora.com/Why-did-George-Washington-
refuse-a-third-term-as-President)

~~~
Amezarak
The letters of most of the major figures of the time are publicly available,
as are the newspapers of the era via Google Books and other free, online
resources. I highly recommend reading as much as you can. That's a lot of
reading, so if you want a shortcut, I'd recommend the book "American Aurora."
It is essentially a selection of newspaper articles, Federalist and
Democratic-Republican both, and letters, concatenated to form a narrative. You
should, however, keep in mind that it is intentionally slanted towards the
Democratic-Republicans.

> I feel like Washington is extremely venerated, which makes me a bit
> suspicious. It's not quite a cult of personality like Stalin but nobody's
> perfect.

The cult of personality around Washington was quite deliberately engineered
and some of his contemporaries - some even nominally his friends - privately
lamented that someone (in their eyes) so awful would be, for all ages,
venerated as a great man and a hero, but they regarded it as necessary that
the nasty infancy of the country would be glossed into something more noble.
(I do think his contemporaries judged him _too_ harshly, but things always
look different centuries later.)

------
danans
The strength of this professor's protest comes from that fact that he puts
skin in the game via his request to be deported himself before his students
are. Self-sacrifice sends a powerful message, and in my recollection, many
consequential protests from history have been grounded in it.

~~~
cronjobber
It's cute signaling. It won't happen. Even if it would, he'd settle in nicely
into his new professorship at Technion.

------
wyager
It always surprises me how countries don't offer automatic citizenship for
people either working towards or who have already received advanced degrees in
scientific/engineering fields. Surely there are few better ways to achieve
technological superiority, either for economic or military reasons. It also
tends to filter out religious extremists, if that's your justification for
immigration restrictions in the first place.

~~~
selimthegrim
False - many of the 9/11 hijackers had engineering degrees. Engineering
education especially in a lot of those countries actually makes one less of a
critical thinker and more vulnerable to accept dogma without objecting.

~~~
wyager
Interesting, I did not know that. Thank you. Interesting argument wrt
educational dogma in the Middle East. I know it's a problem in Indian higher
education.

------
throwaway883443
> First they came for the Iranians

No, first they came for the immigrants, muslims, women, and leftists with this
guys good conscience. Then Trump was elected on those premises and came for
the Iranians. But somehow he's surprised when it affects him personally?

~~~
gspetr
Following your logic: they literally came before Trump was elected, so they
must have done so during Obama's term.

Was Obama the one who came for "immigrants, muslims, women, and leftists with
this guys good conscience"?

------
aussieguy123
If the worst happens and students get deported, the universities should find a
way to at least allow the students to finish their degrees remotely over the
internet. Then they can gift Australia or another country their skills.

------
spangry
I think this is the most troubling part of the draft order, given it seems
unlikely the Iranian government would be predisposed to co-operating
(especially if the 'requested information' is designed to pander to a
xenophobic constituency, rather than protect the US from the
communists/terrorists/lizard people):

 _(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of
this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary
of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such
information to start providing such information regarding their nationals
within 60 days of notiﬁcation._

 _(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section
expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries
recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit
the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on
diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, and C- 2 visas for
travel to the United Nations) from countries that do not provide the
information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this order until
compliance occurs._

EDIT: In Section 3

------
thowfaraway
It would be healthier for everyone if there was less speculative outrage. This
doesn't affect anyone in the country. It just says if you are trying to get a
visa from a country where we think there is a terrorism risk, that country
needs to be able to provide screening info on the person, or else we won't
provide a visa. It is targeting Syrian refugees, not Iranian PhDs.

~~~
scrollaway
That's a really loose interpretation of what this is.

It must be comfortable not being affected. You get to speak on everybody
else's behalf and tell them they're not affected either.

------
tvural
In case anyone else didn't know, this is what the title references:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..).

------
finid
Including Iran on that list baffled me, too.

------
mmrezaie
How come this post went from "the top" to "where I cannot find it anymore"!?

~~~
dang
Users flagged it heavily, and a moderator downweighted it.

~~~
mmrezaie
Why flagged it? Something this important!

------
jlarocco
> This time, it’s taken just five days, since the hostile takeover of the US
> by its worst elements

Stopped reading there. I don't agree with his immigration policy at all, but
we voted and Trump won fair and square.

------
Breefield
This is the strength we need. Respect.

------
zeroer
"This time, it’s taken just five days, since the hostile takeover of the US by
its worst elements"

Really? This is they way you see it?

------
cancancan
The more things change, the more they stay the same.[1]

In his 2007 interview[2,3] general Wesley Clark spoke about the plan to take
out 7 countries in 5 years (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,
Iran). Bush went to war with Iraq. Obama ravaged Libya and Syria. Six of those
seven countries are on the Trump's visa ban list. At least he has no plans for
new wars, for now I guess.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd6vR1J0_6A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd6vR1J0_6A)

[2] interview transcript:
[https://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weigh...](https://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid)

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfx2vtq_HDM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfx2vtq_HDM)

------
notgood
The came for science agencies too:
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2017/01/25/trump_is...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2017/01/25/trump_issues_gag_orders_on_science_agencies.html)

------
andrewclunn
I can see the point of a broad stroke policy that does not make exceptions, in
that it makes enforcement that much easier. Of course whether there's an
actual goal here or this is just posturing to make good on the "tough on
immigration" campaign talk is anybody's guess.

~~~
chillacy
If anything it would shine light on how our laws are for the most part
unreasonably strict and don't reflect reality. Like speeding laws (autodriving
cars are programmed to break them) or drug laws in some states.

[https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp/1594035229)

------
stefantalpalaru
This is bad, but the alternative was worse:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/5945ho/hillary_ju...](https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/5945ho/hillary_justified_bombing_iran_in_a_june_2013/)

[remember not to vote on Reddit if you land with an external HTTP Referer or
you risk being banned for 3 days on the whole site for participating in a
"voting brigade"]

------
Lucadg
Every country is a platform. When it attracts the best users it succeeds. When
it doesn't, or even worse rejects them, it's bound to fail.

------
pknerd
>not Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Wahhabist terrorism.

I read it and it seems Author was OK with it if KSA was banned by Trump.

Author is biased or innocent as he has no idea of terrorism promoted by Iran
in Syria and Iraq.

~~~
tobltobs
Cheap strawmen

------
redleggedfrog
<sarcasm>Those PhD's should be for 'mericans, not furners.</sarcasm>

------
threeseed
Such a cynical yet poorly thought out policy.

Firstly, many people involved in terrorist incidents are natural born citizens
of allied countries. So are we going to ban all French or Belgium citizens
given they have been shown to harbor terrorists ? It's clear that Trump/Bannon
desperately want a Muslim ban as opposed to a Iran/Iraq/etc ban.

Secondly, this is going to alienate moderate Muslims who Western intelligence
agencies have unanimously and categorically stated are the only people capable
of solving this problem of radicalisation. It's often their children or
friends or community members who are being radicalised. Why should they help
the US government when they are encouraging the public to hate them purely
based on their religion ?

~~~
boona
> many terrorists involved in incidents are natural born citizens of allied
> countries.

Stated differently, the majority are made up of muslims that have been in the
western world for more than one generation and have still not assimilated. If
feel that you're making a stronger case for limiting muslim immigration.

> this is going to alienate moderate Muslims who Western intelligence agencies
> have unanimously and categorically stated are the only people capable of
> solving this problem of radicalization.

Would it not be wise for the west to wait until moderate muslims get their
house in order before opening their borders?

All that being said, I don't support a unilateral ban on muslims, I think it's
stupid. What I think is even more stupid though is how the left is trying to
compare Trump to Hitler. Especially considering that we wants to give greater
access to the press of diverging viewpoints and is building a larger building
to accommodate those people, while Obama only gave media access to outlets
that presented him in favorable light and severely limited access to the only
conservative news station (FOX). He wants the average citizen to have greater
access to firearms which is our final defense against a tyrannical government,
while the left have been fighting to take away peoples 2nd amendments rights.
He wants to de-regulated the economy by quote "75%", while the left want to
take greater and greater control.

I'm not saying that leftists are like Hitler, because I don't resort to school
yard name calling, but saying that Trump is like Hitler is just the left going
absolutely bonkers when it comes to losing the election, and seeing public
opinion shifting away from the politically correct non-sense that's been
pluaging public discourse.

I use to be a leftist, but I hate what the left have become, I don't even know
what they stand for anymore, and behavior like this just pushes me further and
further away.

~~~
otalp
>What I think is even more stupid though is how the left is trying to compare
Trump to Hitler

Right, you're going to get those comparisons if you praise China for the
Tiananmen Square massacre, praise dictators like Kim Jong Un and Putin,
suggest a national registry for everyone of a particular religion, suggest
banning people from entering based on their religion(which is what he
initially said, before tracking back after criticism), develop a culture of
anti-intellectualism, frequently boast about IQ and genes, and deny statements
you made when there is undeniable proof that you made them.

Let's not forget the only major politician to bring up Nazi comparisons-
Trump, when he compared US intelligence to Nazi Germany.

>we wants to give greater access to the press of diverging viewpoints

The only new "news" outlet he wants to give access to is breitbart, a site
which has had headlines like "Would you rather your daughter have Cancer or
Feminism" and "Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the
close". These are not diverging viewpoints. These are the only piles of
rubbish that actually support Trump, which is why he is more comfortable with
them than the New York Times. What left leaning news outlet has he given more
precedence to?

> He wants the average citizen to have greater access to firearms which is our
> final defense against a tyrannical government, while the left have been
> fighting to take away peoples 2nd amendments rights

I'm not sure how background checks take away the right to own guns, nobody on
any side can take away the people's right to own guns without a judiciary
decision. The only way a politician can take away the guns of citizens is by
pushing forward something unconstitutional like Stop and Frisk, which Trump
supports.

In the age of nuclear weapons, guns are not useful in overthrowing a
tyrannical government. Nothing is, but what comes closest are modes of
unsupervised communication to organise people. Of course, Trump is a supporter
of mass surveillance.

>He wants to de-regulated the economy by quote "75%"

I'm not sure what you mean, but the biggest problem with the economy today is
the unparalleled levels of inequality. Trump of course wants to drastically
cut taxes for the rich.

It's understandable to dislike Obama or Clinton. I don't like a lot of their
policies either. But Trump carries over everything that is bad about them and
adds a whole lot more. He is not a reasonable alternative.

~~~
boona
> you're going to get those comparisons

Comparisons are one thing. There are a lot of leftists who truly believe that
he's a Hitler figure, and as I've shown in my last comment, that's hardly the
case.

> The only new "news" outlet he wants to give access to is Breitbart

[Citation Needed] It's clear that it's more than just that one outlet, which
is a great reversal from the policy of the last 8 years.

> I'm not sure how background checks [etc]

Don't be coy. The left have been clamping down on guns for years, and many of
them would like them to be outright banned. Hillary Clinton wanted to make gun
manufacturers liable for anything that happens when using their guns,
essentially destroying the civilian gun industry. The candidates also fought
over which candidate was most hated by the NRA.

> the biggest problem with the economy today is the unparalleled levels of
> inequality

I love that the left like to accuse everyone else of being unscientific, but
that they've become the greatest deniers of all. But even if it were true,
what's the left's proposal? That we give all that money and power over to the
government, the same one that they complain (rightfully so) is in an unholy
alliance with corporations and special interests? What do you think the
incentives are for those people in power are?

> In the age of nuclear weapons, guns are not useful in overthrowing a
> tyrannical government.

Hopefully gun owners will be willing to depose of a government before it gets
to the point where they've become so evil that they're willing to nuke their
own people.

------
soheil
This is part of the game that must be played to win against the government of
Iran, people of that country have been treated like pawns in a chess game for
long, certainly this is not something new. While the outrage is
understandable, policy should not be made based on how it makes people feel.
Iran is a country that deserves so much more, but it is seized by a ruling
elite that does not share its values. I wish people who show so much outrage
against Trump would acknowledge the above and in that new light instead show
their support for the people of Iran in this unfortunate situation that they
find themselves in.

~~~
EGreg
They used to have a democracy until they tried to nationalize their oil
industry. Then the CIA and British intelligence engineered a coup and
installed a Shah that gave good oil prices.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution)

~~~
refurb
Jesus Christ. This comes up every time. Read up on Mossadegh. He would have
been overthrown regardless of what the UK or US did. He was seriously
unpopular at the time.

"Engineered a coup" was more like Diem in Vietnam. Tacit approval more than
orchestrating something that would otherwise never would have happened.

~~~
EGreg
Prove that Mossadergh wasn't popular! Mossadegh enjoyed massive popularity at
different times during his political career, but his position as Prime
Minister was never due to a nationwide poll (he was PM on two separate
occasions). Please show however that he "would have been overthrown without
the CIA engineered coup" LOL.

Also show me when a popular government was able to successfully nationalize a
resource where Britain or USA had favorable terms or interests, and nothing
bad happened. Even Britain's own declassified documents show that this coup
was an alternative to _military action_.

Even when China tried to block the opium trade they got the opium wars.

Or show me where they were able to successfully take away a foreign
corporation's ability to enjoy unfair tax breaks like the United Fruit Company
did, leading to an overthrow of Guatemala's government.

That's what state capitalism does. Read Smedley Butler

[https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/115545.Smedley_D_But...](https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/115545.Smedley_D_Butler)

