GreatAgain.gov | Hacker News Reader

GreatAgain.gov

greatagain.gov

64 pointsrandomname2135 comments

If we're going to upvote these things on Hacker News, can we try to stick to comments that are less butt-hurt and more constructive? Yes, the technology industry is reeling from the fact that the preferred candidate did not win.

However, we are supposed to be hackers here, not some whiny intelligentsia. Please take off your sad hat and put back on the hacker hat. Bend the rules. Enact the change that you can from the position you are in. Get involved in any way you can. We cannot change the results of the election, but we can work with the framework and try to improve it for the better. Embrace the suck, and let's step forward in any way possible.

Was going to post something similar myself. No offense, but a lot of my liberal-leaning colleagues/friends/HN users sound like whinier Republicans when Democrats were in power.

Progress used to be made in the US through compromise. I want one thing, another person wants another, we sit down and bash out what's acceptable to both of us and the country is the better for that negotiation.

There are Trump policies that I will fight possibly to my death should they ever be attempted, but there are also a non-zero number I think might be good for this country.

As micaksica suggested, hackers act on the world they have, not on the world they wish existed.

And frankly, it seems to me that the easiest and most peaceful way to avoid the worst of Trump is to encourage the best of Trump. He has to do something, and he doesn't seem to particularly care what, so let's keep him busy.

Already, he's announced several populist, nonpartisan goals which have been slapped down by Congressional Republicans. They're tame, approval-building pieces of legislation and they're infinitely more appealing than most of his campaign focuses.

If Trump wants to spend a year and a lot of political capital forcing through a sensible infrastructure repair bill, I will be writing letters to help him do it. We could fight him at every turn, but I think we'll all be better off if we decide what we can support and make that an easy path to take.

Hi! Former Congressional staffer here. Ten years in DC working on the Hill. There is no more compromise. Period. From any party, from any politician. Every single day is spent doing whatever is necessary to disagree, disparage, obstruct, and humiliate the other party. Compromise be damned: It's all about power, staying in power, and forcing the other part out of power. This is why I left.

The two parties have personally and vindictively attacked one another for so long that nothing gets done. The next 2 years will be spent with Republicans ramming their agenda down the throats of Democrats, precisely the way Democrats did it in 2007-2009. Then, it was payback time. Now it's payback fro the Republicans.

There is no more compromise in Congress, this is why it's so dysfunctional, and why nothing gets done. It does not appear to be changing any time soon, no matter the party in power.

This is the thing that people should actually be "scared" of.

> It does not appear to be changing any time soon, no matter the party in power.

Curious, would you agree or disagree with the statement that a majority of this is driven by the primary process, fundraising requirements, and the political media industry?

If so, those seem like tractable problems we can absolutely work on.

To a certain extent. House elections being every 2 years is a migraine that never ends. House members of both parties fundraise like crazy, and they're constantly dialing for dollars. This means they're constantly a target by the opposing party. Certainly if House members did not have to spend so much time watching their backs, dialing for dollars, and campaigning, it might help.

Curiously the Senate has something of a more collegiate body, even by those who despise one another, they tend to be more polite and respectful behind the scenes. I think this is because they know they have six years to drag things out, fundraise, and build relationships.

Do you think some kind of public financing scheme could help? How much would it have to be to have an effect?

I've heard it suggested that an Australia-style "everyone must go to the polls" system might ameliorate some of these issues by removing the need for GOTV campaigns and requiring candidates to persuade the middle since everyone will be showing up to vote. Any thoughts on this from the inside?

I've seen the word "bigot" thrown about more in the past week than in my entire life. It's incredible how few people seem to understand that the literal definition of bigotry is the complete disregard or ignorance of another person's beliefs, creeds, or opinions.

For those wondering how this got done so quickly, both campaigns had transition offices in DC--funded in part with federal dollars--that got started months ago.

The modern presidency is so complex that a transition can no longer be accomplished effectively in the time between November 8 and January 20. So a bipartisan project created the concept of multiple transition offices that get government funds to operate.

Obviously the Clinton transition office is in the process of winding now right now, and the Trump office is expanding rapidly.

I wonder if anything is done with the losing candidate's transition office.

Like, do they put together a two-page list of the most important, nonpartisan conclusions they reached and hand it off to their counterparts? I'd like to think so, but I'm hardly optimistic.

Sounds like this just ensures lots of jobs in govtech.

Seeing the .gov really makes it hurt.

Anyone know if anything from Digital Service and 18F will get transitioned over? I'll be extra sad if making America great again also means making all the websites ugly and unusable too.

I don't think the outlook is very good, sadly. I suspect many of the nifty extras that came about under Obama will get the axe

I do hope 18F remains and even grows.

My cynical nature tells most people were only at 18F because of Obama. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them leave because Trump was elected.

That seems a bit petty. I can understand not feeling plused about replumbing EPA web infrastructure if the agency has been executively neutered, but it doesn't make the work, benefit to citizens, or cost savings any less important.

And honestly, with a President who seems (perhaps overly) inclined to break things, there may be new opportunities for dragging aging digital infrastructure into the modern era.

The page on Tax Reform[0] seems... interesting. Here's the first paragraph:

> Anyone who fills out a tax form knows how harmful the U.S. tax code is today – punishing hard work, savings, and investment. American frustration with the tax code has prompted two decades of Washington, D.C. blue ribbon commissions and detailed plans to reform the code. These efforts have not changed the tremendous burden Americans face in complying with the U.S. tax code. If a tax code were designed to punish hard work, thrift, and investment, the current U.S. tax code could serve as a blueprint.

Autosummarizer[1] summarizes the first paragraph as follows:

> If a tax code were designed to punish hard work, thrift, and investment, the current U.S. tax code could serve as a blueprint.

Good times, America.

[0] https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/tax-reformeconomic-vision.... [1] http://autosummarizer.com/index.php

Here is the section on Immigration, https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/immigration.html

First point: "Build a Wall on the Southern Border"

So it wasn't a joke after all.

It was never a joke:

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf

I wonder if they have already picked a height for it. Four metres sounds good to me.

As an Immigrant, the list depresses me. It is evident that the person who came up with the list does not consider immigrants as people.

Hopefully take some small solace in the fact that half the country is very pro-immigrant, coupled with the truth that most of the vitriol from the other half is economic rather than personal.

If rural America wasn't hemorrhaging livable jobs, then I daresay we'd see next to no anti-immigration sentiment.

Also, I haven't heard anyone say they are against immigration entirely. Just that they want people to go about it through the proper legal channels.

Immigration in the US is broken on so many levels. I am afraid nothing will be done to resolve that. a personal example is the number of years it takes for someone from India/China to be legally a citizen is vastly different than other countries. I don't think a government that is so vehemently talking about american jobs and workers is going to care about the legal immigrants who are working here. I think it is unfair to the many many people who are paying taxes like citizens without the same rights and benefits.

Why do you say that? Most countries do not allow unchecked immigration.

Personally, as someone who wants to ban guns, I think a wall would be necessary to limit gun smuggling.

I wasn't talking about the wall per-se but the general view about Immigration.

If you are a legal immigrant, that's very different from being an illegal immigrant. Media has spent enormous effort to try to blurry the difference, but it is there and it is huge.

Legal immigration is in the interest of the country and legal immigrants have to meet certain conditions and pass background checks. Illegal immigrants do not do any of that.

Can someone seriously explain to me why this is a bad thing (except the part "Mexico will pay for it")? Isn't it is any country's interest to protect their borders? Mind you, the wall is only stopping "illegal" immigrants; I can't really imagine how a politician could oppose the wall and hence support illegal immigration, support crime. Even Germany is starting to rethink their "open borders" policies...

Any wall has costs out of proportion to any reasonably expected benefits and can be reasonably opposed on grounds of fiscal conservatism alone.

What measures would be better (according to the effectiveness/cost ratio) to stop or at least reduce illegal immigration?

Edit: someone suggested we should instead find and punish those who employ illegal immigrants. I think that's a good idea (but they deleted their comment).

Among others, eliminate the per country limit on the fraction of total visa quotas, aligning supply in each category with demand, reducing the long wait lists for legal entry in many categories from certain countries.

Lots of illegal immigrants are qualified to immigrate in legal visa categories that have ludicrously long wait times because the system is poorly designed (many family-based categories fromy Mexico particularly.)

This focus on the person instead of measures is very, very concerning. Seriously, there's a video feature prominently called "My Dad". Pictures of him everywhere.

I'll stop making fun of North Korea.

Funny you say that, here in NH that was a big criticism of Clinton.

Clinton's campaign: "I'm with her."

Trump's campaign: "Make America Great Again."

Do you remember the Obama campaign? Some cult of personality always exists around charismatic leaders. Fairey's "Hope" poster was an epitome of personality-driven political propaganda.

> Do you remember the Obama presidency?

ftfy

So you can submit ideas here I see. I submitted a plea to embrace climate change from an economic standpoint - "renewable energy technologies will be in high demand, and there is a huge opportunity for whichever nation is first to market." Perhaps the prospect of making zillions in solar panel sales can give them pause.

What's that headline right now? Tesla had more revenue than all of American oil/coal combined?

Edit: Found it: https://electrek.co/2016/11/10/tesla-made-more-money-last-qu...

This is the sort of argument that has a chance of succeeding with the republican majority.

I think you mean a "YUGE opportunity"

The certificate is dated October 31. Assuming Hillary had something similar waiting and ready, I wonder what it was...

The Clinton campaign policy priorities were right there on the campaign web site. They were voluminous, and well thought-out, and written/backed by serious domain experts, and thoroughly ignored by everyone because emailz.

Seriously contrast the stuff there with the pablum here, which boils down to junk like "education is important yo" and "we're going to eliminate excess regulation about, like, stuff".

I weep.

The same was true in 2008, during the primaries. Clinton's site had actual policies, Obama's had hand-waving.

Any idea if there is an archive of it somewhere?

It's all hand waving until it's on paper and going through the legislature's machinery, unless we're talking about executive actions.

Unfortunately those were the pubic positions not the private ones.

And ajross chose to ignore the private positions because they were in "the emailz". How fitting.

You don't need to do this anymore. She lost. We're all suitably punished already.

How about you spend your time making us LIKE your candidate instead, like for example explaining how Trump isn't going to enact racial cleansing or set environmental protection rulemaking back 20 years?

> You don't need to do this anymore. She lost. We're all suitably punished already.

There's a lot to talk still about her e-mails and Podesta's; specially the latter's where we've found truly vomit-inducing stuff that demands an investigation. Law doesn't end with the elections, and that goes for both candidates, with President-elect facing the Trump U case later this month as well (for which I believe there was no wrongdoing, but it is up to the law to determine that).

> like for example explaining how Trump isn't going to enact racial cleansing

Okay I'm going to entertain your headcanon for a second here and ask you what led you to believe the guy is going to enact racial fucking cleansing.

> or set environmental protection rulemaking back 20 years

I disagree with many of his stances on the environment actually. But he's not going to tear down any nuclear plants and substitute them with coal either. Until China entertains the idea of going green you won't be solving any problems anytime soon by killing your economy for small gains. If anything's gonna get us anywhere regarding this problem, it's solar's constantly increasing ROI.

OK, explain how he's not going to deport 11 million people, including many of my friends and neighbors. My son had a play date with one of these folks children just last week. If "ethnic cleansing" doesn't qualify, then pick your own terminology and TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD SAY TO MY KID ABOUT THIS.

Seriously, and in genuine interest here: what do I say? Your friend is getting kicked out? His family are illegals and "we" don't want them? How do I explain this? For the record: I haven't. He hasn't heard the story elsewhere yet, and frankly I don't know what I'm going to say when he does.

Obama is an ethnic cleanser?

"the so-called soft-on-immigration Obama administration deported more unauthorized immigrants during its first six years than the Republican George W. Bush administration did over its full eight."

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/news/poli...

Good talking point. The current situation is indeed bad enough.

But Trump promised to do far, far more than Obama ever has. What do I say to my kid? That Trump didn't mean it and it probably won't happen? (That's my current plan.)

Why not try the truth?

"Son, most people in the world don't have the opportunity you and I have. You see we live in one of the wealthiest nations on the planet and we are very lucky to be here. So, it is only natural that people who are not from here wish to come here. We used to make this easier for them, but over the years that process became so expensive and cumbersome that some of them decided to simply walk across the border. Now they were technically breaking the law when they did that, but it is understandable given the lack of opportunity where they came from. As the law stands they are here illegally.

Now, the Republicans tell their voters that they wish to deport these people, often that doesn't happen because they want them to stick around and work on their farms and factories.

On the other hand the Democrats claim they want to help these people, but right now a Democratic president has deported record numbers of them for some reason.

The truth is these people don't get a vote in our society, so the politicians simply don't care about them. Both sides use them as a political tool to advance their ambitions, and that's wrong. Grow up to be better than them."

Many years ago, I read something from Joel Garreau, who was quoting a DA in southern California, which I will summarize here:

"This whole thing is discombobulated in terms of traditional Democratic and Republican positions.

"Democrats tend to be in favor of the little guy. They also tend to be quality-of-life people. If you look at the long-term implications of unrestricted immigration..."

[Garreau's comment:] Goodbye, zero population growth.

"On the other hand, the Republicans tend to be law-and-order people. They also tend to be pro-business. And they know that if they removed all the illegals, there'd be nobody there to work at a lot of businesses.

"This creates a very, very difficult situation."

Neither side likes illegal immigration very much, neither side really wants to stop it. It's a mess.

So, you're on the "Trump was lying his ass off, this shit would obviously never happen" train too then. Good to know, I guess. And what happens when the voters who took this promise literally find out and demand it? You don't think he'll cave some time before he needs their votes again in four years?

>And what happens when the voters who took this promise literally find out and demand it?

What happened when we demanded Obama close Guantanamo Bay as he promised?

We, as in the US as a whole, didn't. In fact "we" elected, repeatedly, Congresses that actively prohibited it.

Like the Democratic majority he had while first elected?

>If "ethnic cleansing" doesn't qualify, then pick your own terminology and TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD SAY TO MY KID ABOUT THIS.

It's called illegal immigrant deportation. An ethnic cleansing would involve removing all people of a certain racial background. Calling it an ethnic cleansing would not only not cover all illegal immigrants (not even those coming only from Mexico, please look at the Mexican president before making another racist statement like that which I'm sure you did not intend, and I mean that) but it would end up covering a huge amount of legal immigrants, many of those who voted Trump explicitly because of his immigration policies.

I don't know how old your son is, but if he understands what the law represents, you should approach the problem by making him understand that his friends' family came into the country knowing that they would be doing a bad thing that is punished by law. That does not mean that his friend or his parents are bad people, but that they made a mistake and they have to go back to their country for a while until they first ask for permission to live in the US, and then they can come back.

"the emailz" are more than just emails. national secrets and corruption have been exposed in the emails

strongertogether dot gov ?

If strongertogether.gov were going to be the Clinton campaign's transition website, they didn't use SSL certificates from a registrar using a Certificate Transparency server that Google indexes.

Hard to tell from CT logs if there was another website for a Clinton transition-- the existing search tools for CT logs aren't great (best I could do was to get a list of all unexpired *.gov certificates logged, which isn't helpful).

How did you build that list? Do any of them contain the word together?

Found it! It was "together.gov", see https://crt.sh/?id=49224865

DNS records are still up, but don't point to any IP though.

That was fast. I'm actually impressed.

Edit: not from a technological aspect. They probably had the site ready to go already. But from a human coordination standpoint.

Probably because you didn't read the text. There's literally no content here, even less than he had on his campaign website. You're "impressed" with some web geek throwing together a demo site. This election in a nutshell.

No. Technologically it's not all that impressive, it's the human element that is. They moved on this really quickly. It's surprising the coordination to get this done can be done in a day.

Probably half the commenters on this very thread (not me, I don't do web stuff) could have produced a site as good or better in half the time. Are you serious?

Like I said, it's not the technological aspect that is impressive. It's he human aspect. How quickly they coordinated this.

Gah, WHAT human aspect? All this is is a mediocre distillation of junk said on the campaign page. There's no new content. Nothing. You're seriously cheering on an organization that can write a boring summarization of some text in 36 hours (which they didn't, as mentioned the cert is more than a week old).

I can handle fact that he was elected, I guess. But this kind of celebration of mediocrity by his "supporters" who really should know better is just too much.

You would expect this kind of thing to be largely pre-prepared. Most of the content falls out from the campaign documents and the actual elements of the site would exist regardless of president (job portal etc.)

I assume they had it ready to go and live and putting it in to production was simply a matter of registering the domain and pointing the DNS at the server hosting this.

Can't imagine people were happy to sign off on this domain name.

From what I understand a large portion of people would be happy to sign off on that domain name, another large portion wouldn't, and a final large portion would not fall into either camp. Of course the reasons for each are diverse, contradictory, and surprising.

You're assuming these specific people were representative of the nation as a whole.

If people wished to be represented, they would have voted.

The GSA[0] actually administers .gov domains, and I can only assume that with all of Obama's modernizing of Government that they've started to like him a little bit.

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

Now that it's finally over and people won't be able to push for their preferred candidate, can someone shed light on what the email ruckus was all about?

Sure, personal server was used, etc. However, this is a community of tech literate people. We know that email is not and cannot be a secure medium. The only ways I can think of to transmit secure email messages is by making the medium irrelevant (encryption), or by using something else (ie. private 'secure' email-like mechanism).

Had the emails been encrypted, it wouldn't matter if they were stored on top of the hollywood sign. So what gives? Does that mean that the US transfers classified information through totally insecure channels?

from the conspiracy theorist POV, the suspicion was a pay-to-play Department of State, where donations to the Clinton Foundation were used to buy favors with the government. There were many large Middle Eastern donors to the foundation at a time when we made some of our largest arms deals to authoritarian governments there.

Government emails are required to go through official government servers for a multitude of reasons, one of which is transparency of government and the ability to fulfil FOIA requests.

Encryption doesn't solve the problem because the problem is that she was breaking the law and attempting to hide information from the American people

To answer your specific question, the federal government deals with the same security vs. convenience dilemma that everyone else does. There are classified communications systems but they have fewer client devices and are harder to use.

Quite a few of the emails in Clinton's inbox that contained classified information were drafted by other people in other agencies (including CIA, NSA, etc) who either did not realize that a particular piece of info was classified, or who wanted to get it to her quickly through the most convenient medium--they did a risk/reward calculation and hit send.

The other thing to know about classified information is that it does not get unclassified just because it's public. So if I email you a NYTimes article about a classified drone strike program, you now have classified info in your inbox. Again, that explains some of the emails she had in her inbox--forwarding news stories around.

Finally, the amount of classified information is staggering and detailed. Like everyone knows that the government flies U2 planes for surveillance, but their maximum altitude and endurance might be classified. So it's possible to have an email that is mostly fine but includes a few classified details. This complexity is why it has taken so long to review and release all her emails. Every single one has to be reviewed by relevant experts.

In short, people hear "classified information" and immediately think of something like the "NOC list" of covert agents from Mission Impossible. The reality is that immense amounts of information are classified, and it's easy to screw up. There is a reason the FBI said that no prosecutor would bother prosecuting Clinton.

Thanks for the detailed answer, that's very helpful.

The FBI published parts of the Investigation [1]. There is also a seperate one into the Clinton Foundation [2]. And there seams to exist a declassified email+attachement between Petraeus (CIA) and Hillary where they had to edge out a serial [3].

[1] https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton

[2] https://vault.fbi.gov/william-j.-clinton-foundation

[3] https://vault.fbi.gov/david-howell-petraeus - (last pages of 2nd pdf)

You might find this article useful:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clint...

I found this podcast useful regarding the legal nitty-gritty:

http://openargs.com/oa13-hillary-clintons-damned-emails/

The emails aren't usually stored encrypted - they have to be readable, after all. The hard drive could be encrypted, but that's separate from the emails themselves being encrypted.

The main email account of the United States Secretary of State was sitting on a non-government, not-very-well-physically-secured, not-even-all-that-well-electronically-secured email server. That's a really bad lapse (one that could significantly harm the US in various international situations, if any foreign government breached the server). It is also very much against the rules.

Worse is the "optics" of it. It at least looks like she did this so that nobody could use those emails against her during her run for president, because nobody could find them. That makes you wonder what kind of dirt was in them. It also looks like she thinks the rules are for other people, but not for her.

Can anyone find the part of the web site that explains how everything will be paid for, especially the tax cuts?

The standard response you'll get to this question is that tax cuts will, supposedly, cause so much growth that they're revenue neutral

> Share your ideas

https://apply.ptt.gov/yourstory

> President Elect Trump has promised to change Washington, DC and that will start with identifying and recruiting the finest men and women from across the country to serve in his Administration. Any individual who wishes to serve the Administration should utilize this online application in order to participate.

https://apply.ptt.gov/

Race dropdown...

...which is optional? Pretty sure that whole optional section is pure demographic collection popular with many large employers.

That's pretty typical of a lot of government forms in my experience, for collecting demographic information. While it might be tempting to read more into this, I'm not sure it's justified in this case.

That is very normal in the US. Race seems to be atop many forms. Just today I had to rewrite a medical history form being used by a canadian government agency (mostly a 'do you suffer fainting spells?' type of form). They had adopted a form obviously written for a US audience and "race/ethnicity:___" came just after middle names. That's just not asked in Canada without a very good medical reason, for which this agency had absolutely none. It was a rush job.

https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf181.pdf

Interesting. While [1] claims "President Elect Trump has promised to change Washington, DC and that will start with identifying and recruiting the finest men and women from across the country to serve in his Administration.", this website also allows for non-US citizens to apply. Does anyone have the information if the application is open for non-US citizens, provided that they fulfill the requirements to become US citizens?

[1] https://www.greatagain.gov/serve-america.html

Did previous presidents run similar websites where they'd list the stuff they want to change?

Also, from https://www.greatagain.gov/meet-president-elect.html

> "Donald J. Trump is the very definition of an American success story, continually setting the standards of excellence for real estate, sports and entertainment"

How humble.

Obama had change.gov during his transition, but it no longer exists.

"meet the future first lady". hadn't even considered that until now!

Is the following normal? Genuinely curious:

https://www.greatagain.gov/news/help-wanted-4000-presidentia...

Yes, Obama also opened up a jobs portal on his transition site.

Looks like a great way to crowd source popular policy ideas.

For everyone flagging this and trying to pretend it doesn't exist, that's a pretty significant part of why Trump won in the first place.

Engage with it. Understand it. Stop attacking ad hominem and learn to find common ground. You don't have to like it, or even remotely agree on all points, but if you want to see any of the progress you're looking for over the next 4 years then you have to get involved.

I've already started applying for citizenship in my mother's country. Just in case.

Just in case...what?

In case I feel like it's time to get out of the country.

And I think that is certainly your right.

Families who saw what was happening in Germany in the 1930s and decided to leave were likely criticized at the time by those who stayed; in hindsight, this was a smart move. Conversely, if somebody moved out of the US because Reagan was elected...well, that decision probably looks a bit silly now.

I have no more gift of foresight than anybody else here, so I can't say if such a move now would be right or wrong.

But I am left wondering what facts would lead to such a decision today.

This is real.

This will be a true test of America's design. Remember, America is a decentralized set of institutions. In theory DC should have very little effect on my life here in California.

Join with your local communities and make sure your voice is heard. Fight to protect the vulnerable.

We can't sit back and watch this happen to our friends and neighbors:

https://www.facebook.com/shaunking/photos/a.799605230078397....

http://jpupdates.com/2015/11/11/florida-home-defaced-with-sw...

.gov damn it, makes me sad.

That favicon of the White House in front of a red background seems to send a wrong message scaled down to that degree. I hope they fix up some of the design work.

The 'Download video' option under 'My Dad' hit me hard

This was on the front page then disappeared. BIAS JOURNALISM AT HN?

I'm almost certain it was mass flagged and removed automatically.

Most likely it triggered the flame war detector.

(moderator comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12792030)

Otherwise, it would have a "[flagged]" in its title.

Looks like a lot of members are flagging this thread

This is the whitest web page I've seen in a while.

As great as it was wheeeen...?

Well, it should soak up some of the more annoying dos traffic. That's a good thing.

Where's that IoT bot net when you need it.

Ah yes, Ddos ing websites of government officials that you disagree with.

So tolerant. Much liberal.

Take a joke. I was not actually advocating for anything.

Cool.

This is actually going to happen, isn't it?

I need to expedite this british citizenship process

Please don't. If you are coming over here because you can't stomach your country and not for any great desire to contribute to mine I don't want you here.

You realize that most people don't emigrate with the express desire to become a public servant in their new home, right? This person could easily be leaving due to the rhetoric that affects people of color, or women. Sorry that isn't a noble enough of a reason to leave, but that's how it is for some. People don't want to remain somewhere they're not welcome. Related, could you share some of your contributions to your country? Perhaps they can do the same, if you illuminate the opportunity?

Or, just as easily, they are trying to signal value to their perceived tribe and just want to validate themselves with the group.

A public servant isn't the only or the best way to contribute to your own country, unless you show a special talent for it of course.

And in regards to my contributions to my own country? I find it rather presumptuous for you to demand mine without providing your own, however I will give them. They aren't much but, at 23, I am still building the foundations.

Most of my time is currently focused on our small company where we have been building a loss prevention solution for rural areas (we are now hiring, practical data scientists and developers in Hampshire, UK. Our stack is C, PostgreSQL, NodeJS, and some Java. If you have the right to work here and want to, send your CV + intro to contact@telemetricor.com . Note that our main website is currently slightly out of date as we have, over the last year and a half, performed a significant pivot into the incredibly useful TelemetriCop system).

I spend portions of my spare time volunteering at a local animal shelter, and managing a debate group, I used to do more but my actual work is now more intense (and I feel contributes more to our society by mitigating the effectiveness of those who seek to detract from it).

That's a good point I hadn't considered before: if somebody is unwilling to stay and press for positive change in their own country...what exactly do they offer to a new host country?

Fair-weather citizens aren't much of an asset.

Maybe we should build a wall to keep them out

I suspect that simply enforcing a country's existing immigration laws would be sufficient.

I hope that perhaps in 2017, we'll see that happen in the United States.

You do realize the UK Citizenship requirements involve me staying in your country for five years...UNLESS I had a family member who was also a British Citizen not by descent. Like my mother, who was a citizen.

All I am doing here is filling out a bunch of paperwork to prove that.

Also, you don't know me.

Whether you are technically eligible or not does not affect what makes the kind of person I want here.

As for knowing you - frankly it doesn't matter. I set out one of the conditions I consider important for somebody entering my country in response to you demonstrating you don't meet it.

In fact I am most surprised you didn't suggest that you also have a desire to contribute, whether it be specific to one country or not. Not doing so leads me to believe that you really are as shallow as you first appeared.

Are you one of those people who only believe in democracy when your side wins?

I was really devastated on Tuesday (and still am) but submitting ideas here makes me feel a little better. It's likely that there are ideas you have that can be supported by a Republican President so get to work.

How did Trump even got this domain before he was President-elect? .gov is limited for only the US government, nothing else. Before the elections, Trump was not part of the government. But the certificate dates from 1 November 2017.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com