Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> 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.




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.


> 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.


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...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/james-mattis-...

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...

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...


> 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.


What you're forgetting is that the cabinet serves at the pleasure of the President, they are not counter parties to him. They carry out direction from the President. They can be fired and replaced very quickly.


> 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.

Without further evidence that this is a stable pattern, you appear to be succumbing to this: https://www.xkcd.com/605/


Why should we not consider that he called for a "ban on Muslims entering the United States" for months prior to his election? This is what he ran on so of course we have reason to suspect this will be a pattern.


> 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.

It's useful to look at what Hannah Arendt said about the Nazis.

https://twitter.com/charlesarthur/status/824551572520796161

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CykynrCXEAAJOSE.jpg:large

Trump is saying what he needs to be true for him to start building his walls; deporting people; etc.


People have been screaming that the Republican party is the Nazi party since the days of Reagan. So far history has held this up to be absolutely not true. Forgive me if I'm a bit incredulous and give Trump the benefit of doubt until proven otherwise.

Here's another way to look at it:

"I know you've taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It's the threat of not just the way of doing business, but in their minds it's threatening the game. But really what it's threatening is their livelihoods, it's threatening their jobs, it's threatening the way that they do things. And every time that happens, whether it's the government or a way of doing business or whatever it is, the people are holding the reins, have their hands on the switch. They go bat shit crazy."

-Moneyball

I don't understand how people who can understand and believe in things like quantum and multiple realities think that the only outcomes our world are strictly binary: Nazism or Progressive Liberalism.


>I don't understand how people who can understand and believe in things like quantum and multiple realities think that the only outcomes our world are strictly binary: Nazism or Progressive Liberalism.

That's a bit of a strawman, I think; no-one I've heard of, who thinks Trump is a fascist, arrived at that conclusion by saying "well he's not a progressive liberal so all that's left is nazi". It's been more like (whether correct or not) "his policies and views are similar to the historical policies and views associated with fascism, so he could be a fascist."


That's fair, let me go into more detail.

I know a lot of people who fervently believe that Trump is the second coming of Hitler. If you dig around on Twitter it won't be long before you find this sentiment practically everywhere. It's not "could be a fascist" it is "actually is a fascist and we need to actively resist".

This is not unique to Donald Trump. W Bush is the most recent example where Bush=Hitler was practically a slogan for liberals. Again, people claimed the same thing. "Policies and views are similar therefore" and went straight for the extremes. They didn't go for the benefit of the doubt at all, despite there being a lot of evidence that Bush was in no way at all a Nazi. I think it's fair to argue that it's a tenant of faith for liberals that all conservatives hate gays, hate minorities, hate women, etc. That these people exist in the Republican party is impossible to deny. To tar and feather the entire Republican party as this way is how we get to this binary world view.

As far as Donald Trump is concerned, I think if you've really dug into Donald Trump and done your homework on him, I think that calling him a fascist is grossly unfair. Let's take this article from 2000:

http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/9/28/read-donald-trump...

"Do you think gay people should be allowed to serve in the military?"

"Yes, if a gay person can be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher or take another position of responsibility, why can't they serve this country in the military? “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has clearly failed. Gay people serve effectively in the military in a number of European countries. There is no reason why they can’t serve in the United States. Frankly, the state of our military is a wreck. Military pay is a joke, military benefits are ridiculous, and we can’t attract the kind of quality people we need to have an effective fighting force. The Pentagon is wasting millions on weapons they don’t need instead of focusing on the military needs in the changing world situation. The truth is, our nation defense is in the weakest state since Pearl Harbor. I favor a total reorganization of all branches of our military, and I would address the gay question more forthrightly within that reorganization."

"Are you running just to beat Pat Buchanan?"

"I used to like Pat. I was on Crossfire with him. I thought he was a nice guy. Then I read the things he had written about Hitler, Jews, blacks, gays, and Mexicans. I mean, I think it’s disgusting. That speech he made at the ’92 Republican convention was a disaster. He wants to divide Americans. Clearly, he has a love affair with Adolf Hitler, and that’s sick. Buchanan actually said gay people had chosen “satan[ism] and suicide.” Now he says he welcomes gay people into his campaign. The guy is a hypocrite."

Note that these views are not in a vaccuum. If you go back and read his views before the 2016 election, you get the picture of a Donald Trump who reads like a liberal. Nothing like a fascist at all. And yet many people have practically jumped at characterizing Trump as the second coming of Nazi Germany. The reasons why are a much longer discussion. I'm not saying any of this disproves that he is a Nazi. I'm saying that this decreases the likelihood that it is true. This is why I say people are expressing a binary worldview. From what I can see, many are not expressing that there could be a third possibility. Or fourth. Or a myriad of options.


>I think it's fair to argue that it's a tenant of faith for liberals that all conservatives hate gays, hate minorities, hate women, etc.

Well, to paraphrase your next sentence: "that these people exist in the Democratic party is impossible to deny, to tar and feather the entire Democratic party as this way is how we get to the binary world view."

In particular, I am a liberal in a rural Pennsylvania county that voted 75% for Trump, and I know that my conservative neighbors do not hate gays, minorities, and women. (Most people I've talked to were responsive to his position on coal mining; I'm not sure what will happen in four years if those jobs don't come back.)

>This is why I say people are expressing a binary worldview. From what I can see, many are not expressing that there could be a third possibility. Or fourth. Or a myriad of options.

You mentioned Twitter; if Trump being a Nazi is one bad option, and there are x-1 other good options, I think it's only natural that the kind of people who like to tweet are going to tweet about what they think is the most dangerous one.


>Well, to paraphrase your next sentence: "that these people exist in the Democratic party is impossible to deny, to tar and feather the entire Democratic party as this way is how we get to the binary world view."

That's fair, I should have included that point as well.

>You mentioned Twitter; if Trump being a Nazi is one bad option, and there are x-1 other good options, I think it's only natural that the kind of people who like to tweet are going to tweet about what they think is the most dangerous one.

I mentioned twitter mainly because it's what comes to mind first. Here's a tumblr example:

"I have seen a lot of people talking about the issues that were removed from the White House website. What I have seen little discussion of (or any, tbh) is what’s gone up in their place. There are exactly six issues now listed:

America First Energy Plan

America First Foreign Policy

Bringing Back Jobs And Growth

Making Our Military Strong Again

Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community

Trade Deals Working For All Americans

Just those headings should be terrifying enough: between the focus on state violence and the coded “America First” white ultranationalism, this is an unabashedly, literally fascist platform."

https://shotfromguns.tumblr.com/post/156267047201/i-have-see...


I'm going to diverge from the topic, but do you really think those jobs will return given the cheapness now of solar and natural gas? The market without strings won't revive coal.


>do you really think those jobs will return given the cheapness now of solar and natural gas?

In the county and state where I live (Somerset County, PA) the majority of coal production is metallurgical, so we are more sensitive to the demand for steel than to the price of natural gas.

That demand is on an uptick, so there are 4 new mines planned for PA (2 in my county)[1]. But there was a similar spike in demand back in 2008, which didn't end up making much of an impact on employment. For example, PBS coals, whose headquarters I drive past every day, had ~600 employees in 2008 when they were bought by Severstal (a Russian steel company), who planned on adding ~150 more jobs.[2] In 2014 they were acquired by Corsa Coals (from Canada), who laid off about 130 miners in 2015.[3]

TLDR: no I don't think those jobs will return.

[1] http://www.coalage.com/news/latest/5510-4-new-met-mines-plan...

[2] http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1531216/russian_steelm...

[3] http://triblive.com/business/headlines/7530395-74/mines-coal...


Trump was a master manipulator. He barely had a policy dirrction. Ironically it's conservatism that loses in the long run.

Be in no doubt that such missteps will form the hadokens by which conservatism's will be k.o ed by the libs.


Sure. All the KO's in the House[0] Senate[1] and gubernatorial[2] elections have them shaking in their boots.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Represe...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_gubernatorial_el...

Have you seen the 2018 Senate elections map in particular?


> 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.

1. It's not a draft, it's an issued order.

2. People did start protesting immediately.

> It's limited to seven countries.

Well, the initial 90-day ban in the order is. The order itself is much broader.

> The ban on entry from these countries is 30 days

90 days.

30 days is the timeline for the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to decide on information that countries (not limited to those covered by the 90-day ban) must provide in the future in order for immigration to be allowed from their country.

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

No, all countries period must provide the additional information once it is determined what that information is, within 60 days of the rules being issued. A list of countries (again, not limited to those in the 90-day ban) will be maintained, and entry from those countries will be banned; the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security are to recommend countries based on non-compliance, but the order neither indicates that non-compliance will consistently result in inclusion on the banned list, or that the list will be restricted to non-compliant countries.


Let's see what happens in 30 days, then. My hopes are not high.

Also, if this really were just to reduce investigative burden, why not halt all refugees from all countries for 30 days?


> why not halt all refugees from all countries for 30 days?

Refugees from all countries have been halted for 120 days by the order. The refugee provisions are different than the general immigration ones.


It appears that they only want Muslims from countries that are either known state funders of terrorism or are being farmed for Cocaine.


There were protests last night in New York City: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/new-york-tru...


I'm afraid that even protests won't carry much weight against the tone-deaf bunch of corporate-funded cadre of bigoted politicians this electoral cycle has ushered into power on a narrow but fanatic power base. The first occasion for actually affecting matters will not arise before the next Congressional electoral cycle. The whole world is stuck with these people doing whatever meets their fancy for the next two years at least... and even then changing course will depend on the dejected silent majority somehow snapping out of their apathy and voting to say that enough is enough — that same silent majority whose apathy led to the fanatics getting their way a few months ago.

Needless to say, I'm not optimistic.


There are massive protests going on in Philadelphia right now, where President Trump and the entire Congress of Republicans are meeting to plan their strategy for the year.

It might be the largest street protest in Philadelphia's history.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/TrumpinPhilly?src=tren

[edit:grammar]


There are fairly large and violent protests against Trump. His supporters are regularly attacked. This has been true ever since he was a serious candidate.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/riots-break-out-wash... http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/inauguration-2017/anti-trum... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/hillary-supporters-c... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/0...

In addition to violent (and some non-violent) protests, you also have direct action targeting his supporters. People who support Trump, or are mistakenly believed to support him, or just random passerby, are being assaulted (and in some cases, kidnapped or shot).

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spenc... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/04/facebook-liv... http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/police-releas...

Do these things count as "anything that matters"?


I'm pretty sure Spencer got punched in the face because he's a Nazi.

As for the rest of it, it's a little hilarious to act like the non violent protests aren't the majority of activity. Just the Women's marches (which aren't just about Trump but are obviously responsive to his presidency) were more in number, both location wise and participation wise, than any violent actions that have happened. If you want to limit it to immigration protests, the non violent protests yesterday had higher participation than the totality of anti-Trump violence (http://dcist.com/2017/01/theres_a_rally_planned_at_white_hou... ).


Millions of people showed up to supposedly protest Trump, yet Hillary Clinton couldn't consistently rally even a thousand people without help from A-rank celebrities.


You can't just punch people in the face because they're Nazis. There's no way to do that that doesn't lead to an escalating violence cycle.


My comment is an analysis of the motivation for the punch not an analysis of punching as a tactic.


> You can't just punch people in the face because they're Nazis

Sure you can.


> Do these things count as "anything that matters"?

No. Those aren't protests, they're vigilantism.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: