How do you square away your relationship with Y Combinator, which has been by all means positive, with the eager collaboration of its leadership with the most anti-immigrant administration in history?
I've made an egregious error. The Y Combinator leadership has expressed a lot of firm, unequivocal opposition to Donald Trump personally, and I have little doubt that they oppose his anti-immigration policies. Ironically it's because I use no social media, so I don't see these battles play out. I sincerely always liked the organization and its leadership, and I think I was victim to a particular drive-by accusation. Also, it seems like most of the venture capital leadership elsewhere, including powerful S&P500 chief executives, have eagerly collaborated, but it is wrong to generalize.
Ah, got it. No worries! I was just a bit confused because the YC leaders I know have been public advocates for (legal) immigration, for reasons that are not hard to understand: YC helps many startup founders come to the U.S.. Many with Peter's help!
Also, feel like specifying how its collaboration has been "eager" or how it in any relevant way is related to the plight of migrants, instead of just tossing out some accusatory virtue signalling?
Everyone can safely ignore all accusations of “virtue signaling” because it is 1) a manipulative play designed to make you feel like a schmuck for having principles and 2) it is hypocritical in that is does exactly what it suggests you are doing.
No, virtue signalling is a very real thing that's usually easy to see and define. Having principles isn't quite the same as smugly but cheaply signalling some moral stance. I have no idea what you mean with your second statement. Pointing out a case of virtue signalling isn't itself virtue signalling.
Can't speak for the incoming four years, but a look at deportations by year under Trump, Biden and previous to that, Obama show illegal migrant deportations during Trump's first term were lower than they were during every year of Obama's presidency except one, sometimes greatly lower. They were also only moderately higher than they were during the four years of the Biden administration.
A shot of hard facts after being bathed in hyperbole. Oops.
They mentioned nothing about any metrics at all and if you're discussing a politician's stance, having at least one useful, relevant metric is a good idea. That's all I pointed to.
The original comment talked about anti-immigrant sentiment of the new administration. Trump said that immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country. How many citations of Trump and his aides would it take to make you believe that they're anti-immigrant?
It's like you read my response and failed to understand a thing.. I specifically mentioned concrete figures because politicians say all kinds of random shit and Trump is particularly prone to hyperbole, but if you're going to measure the actual deeds and trends behind words, you need to look at metrics, and for all Obama's soft words on immigrants, his admin actually deported more of them than Trump's, it's a noteworthy detail, and a valid measurement, though it's far from the only worthwhile thing to keep in mind about his stance on migrants.
I too think Trump says grotesque things on many fronts, and his words about immigrants are partly in that range, but it's tedious to see the often unfounded accusations progressives casually throw at him and those who support him without even always knowing what the fuck they're talking about.
It’s almost like Trump knew that the actions he proposes are controversial at least, illegal possibly, so he tries to scare the illegals so that they leave of their own free will, saving him a trouble.,,
do you think people that know the existence of organ harvesting, human trafficking, Darién Gap would be scared by words? interact with a few see what they are running from will get a few interesting stories to say the least
No, because you’re pointing to a phrase with a verb and object but no subject. What’s the subject in the actual sentence he said? To whom is he referring?
A very similar play book to the one used by the Conservative Party in the UK. They were somehow deemed the "anti-immigration party" of the two major ones, despite having been resposible for some of the highest immigration rates of any era. There's nothing better to distract from rampant inequality and a rapid transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super rich than a boat load of immigrants, that were somehow granted visas by the same government that supposedly reviles them. Without the racial tension, who else is there to point the finger at for the countries woes?
Seriously? That's your take on a specific reference to hard numbers? Has Trump derangement syndrome simply made some people lose their capacity for reason? I don't believe Trump is specifically pro-immigration.
I think he leans more to whatever the hell benefits his popularity with the people most likely to support him in any given moment and part of that revolves around harping about illegal immigrants, though the actual numbers in terms of deportations are worth looking at and they show a tendency during his previous administration that didn't reflect the extremism of his talk, So far. It's possible that the next four years show us something far worse.
Google searches are free and it's very easy to find the annual deportation quotas by presidential term. Do a little research if you're going to emotionally invest in a politician's claims.
