r.e. recent immigration policy changes, practically speaking: Anybody here, or know someone, who's stuck in an airport/country they expected to leave today, and needs a sandwich/a ride/a place to stay/a friendly ear? Seems like we're going to need a network of care to look after the stranded.
At least, that worked pretty well for me. I was going to go protest, but we apparently shut down ORD and now they're not even letting cars approach the airport.
- http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-admi...
- https://www.aclu.org/news/federal-court-grants-stay-challeng...
It's up to her whether she wants to risk it obviously (personally I'd be hesitant), but being able to get back in with a green card as of this writing is not out of the question, because I'm aware that it has actually happened today. (If it changes 5 minutes from now don't kill me...)
Tread carefully. I would not go back if I were you. And don't miss the other comment regarding the news on Iran's end.
So if you were on a plane to the US before the order, but landed after it, and were detained with the threat of being sent back, you can stay.
It does _not_ mean that visa holders, including those with green cards, can travel back to the US in the next 90.
At this point, trying to help individuals is valuable and important, but it's still shuffling deck chairs on the titanic. We have to push trump out of office.
I thought this perspective was pretty interesting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/posteverything/wp/201...
It would be more encouraging if mouthpieces to the rank and file like Fox News or talk radio turned against him.
It's equivalent to saying: Republicans control most of the food grown in America. They can just starve the cities to death.
Or: Republicans control most of the energy producing states and corporations. They can just starve the cities of energy, including natural gas, coal (30% of all US power), and oil (Texas).
Or: most of the military is Republican. They control the nukes, they can just glass all the cities. Or start striking the cities with cruise missiles and artillery fire until they capitulate.
If you think starting a civil war is a good idea, you're in for a rude awakening about the vast carnage to follow.
Any mayor who "shuts down economic activity" in their city is essentially holding their own constituents' well-being hostage and would only further polarize the country and further empower Trump to take extreme actions.
There are 0 Trump supporting search engines or Facebook equivalents.
The only way to effectively get change is to change the attitude and beliefs of those who support what you are fighting against. In this case, those Trump supporters. I'm sorry, but short of Trump doing something silly (likely I know) and him being impeached, you are stuck with him until the next election. You have until then to convince his supports that he is not the answer they were looking for. You also have to have a credible alternative who they can get behind.
People who populate Hacker News are almost by definition educated and analytical. They are people who are able to identify falsehood and participate in a logical discussion. They tend to believe that information is valuable and of a sense that "information should be free".
Please don't discard your values and call for censorship just because things are happening that you don't like.
Be yourselves, stand up and have calm and sensible discussions, present your facts, support your facts with evidence. Understand that overcoming the negative attitudes that have invaded our society will take time, but in the end, the truth always wins, even if those who have changed their view, may not ever admit that they have changed.
However, now that I think about it, this type of censorship has already happened. A while back on Reddit, the CEO himself modified a comment from a user from a Trump supporter. As in directly went into the database backend and switched the text blob there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/5ektpc/rthe...
I didn't follow what happened afterwards, don't think he was punished or fired or anything. Maybe someone else knows. Anyway just as I was saying it was theoretical what-if. I remembered that case. It is scary in way also because posts on the social sites could be used in a court cases as evidence. Makes one think...
> You have until then to convince his supports that he is not the answer they were looking for. You also have to have a credible alternative who they can get behind.
Good point. I think without self-analysis and reflection more than name-calling and blaming, we'll just have Trump for 8 years. And then another Trump and so on. If name calling and public smearing had worked, he wouldn't have even got off ground in the Republican primaries. Throwing more labels at Trump supporters over Twitter and Facebook will surely not be a winning strategy, because otherwise he would have been back in his tower by now, licking his wounds in defeat.
Another way of looking at him is as a symptom. Something was already happening in this country planted probably a decade ago, that lead the the conditions of him winning.
Given that I, a not very well networked person, know of people supporting Trump at both google and facebook, I'm afraid that that's wishful thinking. It's not a large percentage, but they're there.
But even if so, what'd be the way to use that fact? I don't think the way to deal with Trump is to go blow-by-blow with Trump (he'll drag you down to his level, and beat you with experience, and all that).
It is kind of insane to me that nobody in the general mainstream media is making a bigger deal out of the fact that the POTUS is generally signalling public policy and overall decision making via twitter (not exactly the securest of platforms) to both the media and apparently his own party. And he accesses this account over what is reportedly a completely unsecured Samsung Galaxy S3 (too old for security updates).
If his twitter account were hacked the results could be literally catastrophic in terms of the damage that might be caused to the subject of the tweet before it came to light that the tweet was not legitimate.
Shadow ban!
> If his twitter account were hacked the results could be literally catastrophic in terms of the damage that might be caused to the subject of the tweet before it came to light that the tweet was not legitimate.
Agree, wish there was more talk about that. That is scary. He distrusts the press, I can see why. But what are the procedures for him to deny quickly something that was posted there by a hacker. "Lol, launching nukes to China". What is the turn-around time for an urgent TV / radio address saying "oops someone guessed my password and trolled everyone" before China launches anything back.
Further, both China and Russia have the ability to detect that long range missiles are being hurled at them.
There are an awful lot of crazy notions being floated in this thread. The unnecessary hysteria is getting out of control. It's like the old Reagan days times ten (we were all supposed to be dead in the 1980s because Reagan was going to get us killed in a global nuclear war).
You boycott places that voted for Trump.
I think something along the lines of 'nonviolent insistence' needs to go along with the nonviolent resistance. By actually taking care of somebody left in the cold by USGov policy, we can show that the US people are made out of better stuff than might be thought if you only look at the actions of the government.
On what grounds? His immigration actions are well within the ambit of the law.
Just because you don't like him?
What the United States President is doing right now is illegal and unconstitutional.
Trump won't be impeached for this, but with Bannon running the show --- he just replaced (literally) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence on the NSC Principals Committee --- it's just a matter of time before he does something that leaves Congress with no choice.
Do you know anything about that and it's legality? How does it differ from Trumps ban?
Anyone telling you that these are comparable actions has an agenda you should be suspicious of.
As far as the legality, I believe that's being challenged in court as we speak.
As good as reason as any. Morals are a perfectly fine qualification on a person.
And is there anyone remaining that likes him?
And that's just on the law enforcement side on US soil. Let's not name drones doing executions without due trial or outright lying about WMD in Irak ar the UN.
Without denying that the remaining 90% of USA is awesome, USA being that way is not new, we've known for years that we don't know how to democratically react to that, but it's now the pace of those decisions which is accelerating.
Maybe we need to create a new ideal of where we want to go, and start drafting a type of constitution that the XXII century will aspire to: A democracy which would be resilient to terrorism and militarization of state.
Give as much money as possible to the ACLU. On "Adam Ruins Everything" he explains that sometimes money is the most effective way to contribute to charity is money. (Try to balance your giving with the EFF as well).
EDIT: link https://action.aclu.org/donate-aclu
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Politics are completely on-topic here when (and only when) the story in question is relevant for some other reason. This is evidenced by the fact that many of the best stories, and best discussions, which lead to the best educational experiences for all of us, are first-and-foremost about a political issue.
Posting a scribe about your campaign to destroy party X because they wronged you in another life? Off-topic. A discussion about how we can help victims of capricious state violence? That's the main reason I come here.
Tech isn't getting involved in politics. Politics got involved with real people.