Welcome, ACLU

The ACLU, in their official communications and advertisements, have been actively and explicitly anti-Trump. Witness their current 'pinned tweet' for example: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/825805289572151298

I don’t really mind that, but let’s not ignore that the ACLU intentionally earned their reputation as an opponent of this administration (and to some extent, of every previous admin, as well)!

[1] http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate...

[2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0712/A-florist-cau...

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in...

The A.C.L.U. has has about 250,000+ members, a $15-20 million annual budget (hardly a startup mentality), an extensive network of state affiliates and local chapters, backed up by a national office with headquarters in New York, a legislative office in Washington and regional offices in Atlanta and Denver.

There are fifty-one affiliates - every state except North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho, plus 3 in California, and one in D.C. (not sure about state offices anymore, I think that is correct), - have their own staffs and their own boards, plus at least one representative on the national board, which sets policy for the whole organization.

The state affiliates do make independent decisions about which cases to take and which local legislation to lobby for or against. They frequently take cases in areas where the national organization has not yet adopted a policy. But they also get smacked down when they run afoul of national board.

It is the national board sets a "policy" agenda and then seeks out cases to pursue that agenda. That board meets for a weekend four times a year to iron out the policy.

That natl/local split accounts for some of the diversity, but in truth it is mostly partisan organization based on board membership.

That's long been true, though I'm sure sometimes more than others. I agree with what you say, but AFAIK they always have been associated with the left.

> The left protest about Trump, but they're strangely silent about King Raedwald's invasion of Northumbria in AD 616[1]

It's a bizarre way to argue in favor of being politically detached.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/5r6zw0/the_left...

While I don't object to many of these organizations, I take my privacy very seriously and I wasn't aware when I donated that my personal information would be given/sold out the way it has been.

1 http://twitter.com/paulg

EDIT: I changed "conservatives" to "people who identify as conservatives" to clarify. Some replies below referred to the philosophical conservatism, which is somewhat different.

"A man who identifies as a woman" is a disingenuous statement--it is leading with some sort of made up notion of what their gender should be ("a man who..."), which is a false framing in the first place. Transgender women are women. They are not men with a qualifier.

Moving on: transgender bathroom rights matter. Access to public bathrooms is necessary for access to public spaces and is furthermore generally an indicator of free unencumbered movement in public. Therefore, state-sponsored humiliation tactics are indicating a stance that trans people are not welcome in a public space. This is problematic, and furthermore is certainly a matter of civil liberty. The ACLU should take those cases and it's important to stand up against steps to marginalize and "other" groups of people. As public space is necessary to exercise certain rights in the constitution, particularly the first amendment, this matters at a very deep level.

To give a clear and specific example: a friend of mine is no longer safe visiting his family in North Carolina, as he is trans. He must either choose to violate the law in public to fit in (he passes as a man), or by following the law out himself or put himself at risk. He no longer has the liberty to visit his family like you or I do, without additional--potentially severe--legal or physical risk.

https://www.aclusocal.org/en/cases

I love the EFF, but they don't cover voting rights, disability rights, immigration rights, racial justice, etc.

If you aren't a progressive, you might still consider getting involved and employing those same tools to help your preferred party/organizations. The ideal of higher political involvement through digital tools is very bipartisan in my opinion - notwithstanding disenfranchisement efforts by the right, which I like to view separately from conservatism itself.

http://www.progcode.co/#about

I know folks in America who thought the same way, even on the left. I hope they feel pretty fucking stupid right now.

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969

There's no satisfying anybody about this: not the readers who want more politics, not the readers who want less, and certainly not the partisans on an issue.

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13522433

There's a lot more politics on HN right now than there usually is, which is appropriate since it reflects what's going on right now.

---

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969

When there's a deluge of political stories, as in the last couple days, users heavily flag most of them. But there have still been plenty of major threads spending plenty of time on the front page. That's the status quo for HN: most politics are off topic, but not all. It's a delicate balance and an important one. Letting politics overrun this site would kill it.

I think this counts as an interesting new phenomenon.

* Indonesia 204,847,000 (87.2%)

* Pakistan 178,097,000 (96.4%)

* India 172,245,158 (14.2%)

* Bangladesh 145,312,000 (90%)

* Nigeria 75,728,000 (47.9%)

If Indonesia suddenly became plagued by radical Islamic terrorism then it would be on the list too.

The seven countries targeted by the immigration ban have been either failed states or antagonistic to the US for the past 30 years, it is quite plain to say that it makes sense for Trump's companies -- and various other companies across a wide swath of industries -- to refrain from conducting business there. To say that other Muslim-majority countries aren't on the list due to conflict of interest is to deny this simple logic.

Plenty of other Muslim-majority countries have kept a lid on their populace by maintaining adequate internal security within their borders and providing valuable counter-terrorism intelligence to to the US, meanwhile the seven "countries of concern" have not.

Start ups are extremely "people" based entities. If you think the ACLU doesn't fit in with the YCombinator landscape -- given recent events -- then I'm not sure what I can really say to paint a more vivid picture to make you understand.

- YC would undoubtedly like to ensure there are no barriers to immigrant founded startups that they would like to invest in

- ensuring that there are fewer barriers to employment by immigrants in invested startups

- generally trying to build a better more open world (which is in line with the UBI initiative [0] as well as the stated interest in investigating new concepts for city design [1])

[0] - https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/31/y-combinator-announces-bas...

[1] - https://www.wired.com/2016/07/y-combinators-plan-build-new-c...

I don't support Trump, but Altman and PG lack balls, are cowards and hypocrites.

The concern about HN becoming too political or not political enough is as old as HN. There are at least as many users complaining that we're suppressing all the political stories and what not. I wrote more about this at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13522433 if anyone's interested.

Discussing politics is not the same as having an agenda.

> Right or wrong, this used to be mainly about startups.

I don't recall such a time and I've been here quite long.

> Now its become a highly political message board

This is most likely a reaction to real world developments involving a large number of HN participants.

Just like HN isn't a San Francisco local affair and yet when BART has issues you can expect it to be upvoted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7774764

From the hundreds of Big 4 employees who now can't return home or travel overseas, to the 110,000 answers submitted to StackOverflow from the now banned countries, this affects the industry.

I was very happy to see YC do their part in what will be a 4-8 year (at least) battle of attrition and will. The ACLU is one of the best advocates for the people, in a country where corporate and religious lobbying trumps most.

There are no vacuums anymore, if there ever were (which I doubt). If something is 'about' startups then it is by necessity also about the politics those companies are involved in, especially considering in the US companies are persons with certain rights of expression.

Thanks to the intertwining of capitalism with our representative democracy by way of lobbying, our everyday lives are politicized. Should we suppress these notions or engage with them?

I'm fine with YC supporting the ACLU in some way (financially or whatever), but... are they going to release an app or service? What's the angle here?

You can't really fully isolate business from politics, because politics, by definition, affects business. Businesses can tolerate that to some degree, but when the disruption becomes too severe, straightforward pragmatic business decisions start being inherently political.

Because it relates to the public doings of YC, which are always on-topic (overriding the "no politics per se" rule).

The president of the United States just signed an order legally barring hundreds of millions of people from entering the US on the basis of their country of origin, which is in fact unprecedented.

> This topic now is yet another gathering point for all unhappy with the election results.

Accurate.

> It's probably a good thing that liberals, in general, avoid firearms, otherwise there might be fighting in the streets already.

Classy

Increasingly - and assuringly IMO - it's difficult to coherently distinguish "groups involved in politics" from other groups (ie, there is no other type of group).

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/20/president-obama-will-headl...

Everybody who has a different viewpoint than me is a <insert label>!

Jokes aside I think YC should be able to help them utilize technology to connect people and advance their message.

It's jeopardizing rule of law which reeks of fascism. This weekend, the rule of law was jeopardized though the:

- surprise invalidation and revocation of visas; people who had followed every law were still being detained and deported

- detention of permanent residents

- refusal to follow court orders

We could instigate far more stringent border restrictions (maybe no new visas to anywhere) and I wouldn't call it fascist. It's the implementation (without warning or judicial oversight) which is fascist. We're supposed to have 3 branches of government, not a dictator.

I'm guessing that if you polled the approval of "ban all Muslims, including legal permanent residents", you may end up with lower numbers.

EDIT: this doesn't even mention that, at a certain point, it's necessary to draw the line at fundamental rights that cannot be voted away. Thankfully we have organizations such as the ACLU who fight to protect that line.

That's insane.

Also I'm happy that this is happening and did not realize such a thing was possible. Does ACLU count as an early stage startup?

PS: no need to downvote, jeez, I'm just pointing out a curious observation

None of the flagged comments (at the moment) are constructive. There's one other dead comment that hit another filter, it hasn't been flagged.

I hasten to add that I think this order is designed as perfectly as possible to piss of liberals and entrench Trump supporters.

I mean the left is very good at pretending Obama wasn't an evil disaster for say Pakistanis or you know the rule of law. Just my opinion we need to get rid of executive orders and allow people to vote more directly. Politians should be lowered to civil servants rather than gravey train shoe ins. Wait and see if Trump does force through a two term limit for congress!!!

But this is exactly why half of America is in utter shock about what's happening: their discussion circles involve one "side", and the other isn't acceptable.

Who's doing the "virtue signaling"? I thought that would be Trump's lackeys who keep insisting to their xenophobic fans that this is what they got when Trump asked for a Muslim ban that might pass legal muster.[0] Of course, that being what they're going for doesn't make it legal, or even likely legal: certainly Bush, and even Obama sometimes struggled to do "national security" in a manner consistent with the constitution.[1]

[0] http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316726-giuliani-t...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama

They are an unqualified, categorically "good" organization that is deserving of your donations. I'm personally of the opinion that a charitable act should not be diminished or castigated because one picked this time to donate and not other times.

Put another way, if a guy shows up to volunteer at a soup kitchen, I'm going to thank him for his time, not shout at him, "Where were you when we had the flood of Katrina refugees to feed!"

We're not meant to sit here stroking our chins and purring about the good deeds of our favorite companies. YC has an incredible position in Silicon Valley, built over a decade with the help and influence of people like us.

To whom much is given, much is required. I'm glad YC is helping ACLU out this winter. But ACLU took in more money in 1 day last week than NILC, the National Immigration Law Center, spends in a year. After they get done patting themselves on the back for the ACLU win, they should start figuring out how to help the smaller organizations that don't have ACLU's built-in advantages.

We're not here to feel sympathy for Y Combinator or Sam Altman. Most of us will never meet any of these people and, candidly, can't fathom the amount of financial success and security their position has brought them. More power to them! But they exist to us as abstractions, and rightly so, and any pressure we can bring to bear to more fully enlist them in the cause of shoring up our institutions and the rule of law is legitimate.

Push harder. Thanks for that comment.

Here's a tip for you: Complaining about people taking action because you think they should have taken action is stupid. The ACLU is not a be-all end-all shield for everything you don't like and randomly picking your person moral crusades and demanding answers for why the ACLU isn't your personal army is naive and childish.

The ACLU is getting involved now and people are getting involved with the ACLU are doing so because they believe this administration represents an existential threat to the existence of the United States. They don't think that your personal crusades represent as much of a threat.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but you are contributing the problem of the left. "You want to make the world better? Fuck you, I think this stuff is more important!" is insanity.

On veterans, several YC alumni, after working on the healthcare.gov rescue team, went on to help start the US Digital Service (https://www.usds.gov/) and Nava (navahq.com), which are working on the VA backlog. Both organizations are hiring.

Within the broader tech community, companies like Nuna are working on Medicaid and the VA backlog. On policing, DJ Patil--former Greylock Data Scientist and one of the founders of Color, FFS--launched an initiative around police data and criminal justice during his time at the White House: https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/13/dj-patil-criminal-justice/

And, of course, Code for America in SOMA does lots of work with local governments and you can apply to be a Fellow: https://www.codeforamerica.org/

There's a lot more to do, and not all of these efforts are as well-known as they should be. But if you're looking to help, people in tech are working on these problems.

Edit: Ya'll are cynical Jedis.

Companies are throwing their hat into the ring on this issue because there is a clear and present threat with an immense amount of power. You can point to it and say "look, this is going to cause things that I'm not okay with, and I will stand against it". It's finally cut and dry. Evil exists and it can be fought.

Screw cynicism, that's the easy way to deal with these events.

>Why weren't we funding the ACLU to help these people?

Well, I think that's easy to answer. People care more about causes when it affects them personally.

For better or for worse, few of us are strict utilitarian maximizers. I haven't quite settled how I think about it, myself.

I strongly disagree that this is purely for marketing. As someone working for one of the aforementioned companies, we are all aghast at how quickly this administration has jumped to eroding everything we believe in. These companies' moves are motivated by very real horror at the US going down a dark path.

The worst you could say about these actions is that they are self-interested, as the Muslim ban affects a lot of my coworkers in a very negative way that, say, inner city violence in Chicago does not. But it's definitely not so cynical as to be mere marketing moves.

How is this not obvious to the people here on HN? How do the people on here who constantly get holier than thou about demographics in tech not see the obvious machinations? Seriously, look around your office right now and then ask yourself again why top tech companies care more about immigrants than other oppressed groups.

What do you think is more likely, that Google genuinely cares about the immigration of farmers from Libya, or that they have a couple physics PHDs from Iran driving huge amounts of search revenue?

Corporations don't have morality, they have profit motives. YC doesn't give a shit about immigrant rights any more than the unjust deaths of african americans around the US, they care about attracting certain demographics to apply as founders.

From an activist friend:

"Hearing leftists be like "ugh these protesters are so passionate about protesting now but I didn't see them protesting at BLM marches three years ago!" is one of those things that makes me wonder whether the left has been infiltrated by the CIA or whether the death-wish is native."

Further, the ACLU is a civil liberties advocacy organization and is not well-equipped to handle complex socioeconomic issues such as gun violence or homelessness or health care. It is outside the stated mission.

I'm getting tired of seeing this sentiment. It's popped up constantly over the last few days. Just because people don't protest or support every single cause doesn't take anything away from support of this cause. In fact, people getting outraged enough to get involved for a change may be a good thing for other causes as if people see results they will be more likely to mobilise for other causes in the future.

https://www.aclu.org/feature/aclu-response-ferguson

Ferguson and related issues are important and the ACLU did respond in important ways I referenced above.

However, we're now seeing an umbrella of issues targeting an even larger number of groups of people.

To answer/satisfy your concern/question is impossible without inaction. The cases you mentioned already happened and are in the past. In essence you are proposing that YC does not act to help solve this current issue, because worse issues happened in the past, and YC did not act then, so it does not deserve to act now (at least, without being accused of hypocrisy and selective outrage). This mode of argumentation results in nothing happening to solve the current issue, just by virtue of there existing past worse issues. I don't think you are really in favor of this.

As for the marketing argument, sure, I can agree this playing a minor role in this decision. But not a major one. There is not much evidence I am aware of, or that you pointed out, signaling that YC does not act in good faith. Though absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence, this alone is not a solid basis for posing that any action that YC takes is purely profit/PR-driven.

Likely, this decision was not instigated out of marketing motives, but like any good decision for a for-profit company: it aligns with marketing motives.

Another angle to look at motives for problem solving: Is the crime of having a less than glamorous motive worse than the outcome of solving the problem? Donating to non-profits makes me feel good. Is this egocentrism worse enough to stop donating?

And asking the question why there is so much support now might not be popular, mainly because the answer is not really pretty.

I do, however, believe that there are some objective reasons for the current wave of support. Some I can think of:

- The events currently unfolding affect a lot more people directly.

- The threat has changed from being systemic but disorganized to intentionally organized. The official stance has shifted as well from being apologetic to "damn fucking right, we're going to eradicate you". (sorry about the language)

- People feel utterly helpless regarding politics in general. They might tell themselves (rightfully or not) that they can talk themselves out of trouble (if they even get into trouble being a good citizen and all). But they feel there's nothing they can personally do to stop DC from messing with their lives, so they put their trust into the hands of organizations like ACLU.

Also, I can personally say, my stance (as a European) went from an amused, uneasy "geez, America, get your shit together" to being actually concerned about western civilization.

The ACLU will hold his actions accountable to the law, and backing it is in the best economic and social interests of the US

What answer are you looking for?

Whether we do things because it looks good or is right is an interesting question. But to me, it is similar to the question of "are we kind because it makes us feel better? or because its right?".

The reality that many people are waking up to is that social progress is not guaranteed and a passive approach is not enough.

I share your cynicism regarding many of the marketing moves by the companies you mentioned. At the same time, the fact that doing the right thing builds goodwill with a hopefully-majority highlights the importance of making our views and voices heard.

I might wish for a more high-minded motive form these companies. I also wish that it hadn't taken shock events to make the loss of rights feel real for most of America (though to be honest, I'm guilty of this too.)

But I'm excited to see people mobilizing, and will take the good outcomes where I can find them these days. Progress here could require an uneasy coalition.

Now that Trump is the face of this disease, there is no pretense. The face lines up with the actions. This allows everyone to freely mobilize on their issues without feeling like they are stepping on toes. Classy, wingtip toes, that is.

Now, I'm not a Trump hater - I don't think he's Hitler. In fact, I do thank him - he did drop the pretense on his own. But I also am enjoying seeing America radicalized in a way that I hoped would happen with the Snowden disclosures fell.

Would you prefer that the wealthy tech companies didn't donate to the ACLU? That they refused to ever support any good causes?

This is a pernicious idea and should be put to death. Trying to step up and do something should not make you a target. Reserve your wrath for the many billionaires who don't do anything about any issue.

I read an article about this phenomenon a while ago, but I can't find the link. It's essentially the fallacy that trying to fix a problem makes you responsible for it—so if you can't completely fix it, you shouldn't try at all.

There are too many worthy issues. An organization like ycombinator or like its investments (Airbnb, Uber, etc) aren't altruistic by design, but can choose to be when they see fit. That's not bad. Right now it fits because there's either some PR to be gained (like Lyft) or some looming threat to fight (H1B visas and immigration). A tactical move like this is still good for everyone even if its motivation isn't philanthropic. It's a win-win. We should look at it more as a strategic investment for the common good.

It's obvious that this is the case. It's also obvious that some people are angry at this, they want America to clearly put their interests above the interests of immigrants, and that's part of why they voted for Trump.

Meantime, don't worry about it. It's normal to feel disoriented when the crowd stampedes where a few had previously blazed a lonely trail, but that's just how people are. Make the most of all this undirected energy.

And we have been funding the ACLU individually. I like that YCombinator is now trying to help them as a org.

This comment is unpopular because you're just being a troll.

Edit: I get you are complaining about the recent swell of funding. And YCombinator probably skews immigrant. So I retract my troll comment. But know there are some white devs here who have supported ACLU and BLM. There's no easy answer. Racism is deep in the US (and actually most countries). It's not a zero sum game. Fighting Muslim racism (I know it's a religion) doesn't mean that we forget about other people of color. People have to unlearn the racism that their parents taught them.

Edit2: But black voters didn't turn out to vote for Hillary in support of Mexicans and Muslims. Why should we now help you? Serious question.

Isn't this like complaining about Habitat for Humanity not doing enough to prevent forest fires?

Thank you for your comment. Trump is anti-establishment (sort of: he's reshaping the establishment with his own insiders, I'm not saying he's any less corrupt) and he's anti-globalism. Don't lie to yourself: that's what this is about. The police state and surveillance state abuses are out of control, Obama dropped over 100,000 bombs on 7 countries, we're consistently throwing constitutional and human rights under the bus, Wall Street and the Fed are permitted to loan each other 16 trillion in secret loans and when it was revealed, the worst that happened was a finger wave from Bernie Sanders, 20 trillion in debt and a necessary, impending economic correction due to overspending (in the same exact way if you were spending way more than you earned for years and years, there's no getting away from that)... and I could go on and on. Please give me a break about Trump, he's a deeply flawed character but I'd like people to start being more honest and respectful to the realities we live with as our civil liberties and constitutional rights are consistently eroding as average, humble people are struggling to afford a middle class lifestyle, and it is magnificently disingenuous to pay lip service to the, and let us be honest, mainstream media which is owned by a small group of over-sized corporations, who play Trump out to be the Devil on Earth. But the real problems existed before and without Trump.

This will be entirely unpopular but I really don't care anymore about what being liberal has become. I care about the fact that we have a torture camp in Cuba, about what I mentioned above and more like it. I care about constitutional rights. Equal opportunity. Human rights. World peace. Environmentalism. Nobody in mainstream politics is actually for those things and it's really bothering me. If someone wrote this during the lead-up to Nazi Germany--you'd look back in retrospect and say they were right--I hope that is not the case for me. But I see just a few good people out there: Glenn Greenwald, Tulsi Gabbard, Edward Snowden, etc., who really hang out on the fringes of the mainstream consciousness of political thought in America, only once in a while coming into view for moments at a time.

But I do have a question for you, when the interests of those with influence align with the ignored, why would your initial reaction be a negative one?

Perhaps they could've done more in the situations you're describing, but it seems odd to chastise them now that they are. Would you rather they didn't ever help?

Now maybe I'm wrong and you're a Nobel Peace laureate, but it looks a lot to me like someone claiming to care but only criticizing in an unproductive manner.

"You should have engaged in this other thing earlier" is a bullshit criticism. And then the holier-than-thou nonsense at the end about just caring oh so much. Unbelievable.

Be glad they're addressing anything, because they're a tech blog that should focus on tech issues, not every social justice issue on the planet, which there are already many blogs and campaigns and donation sites for.

The above does ignore the rather obvious 'which issue affects affluent people more?' question.

The tech community/industry thinks that it is a meritocracy, where race (and hence racism) doesn't exist.

Hopefully we are all wrong and overreacting, but if trump has shown one thing it is that you should take what he says literally, and if you pay attention to what he and bannon have said you should be worried, no matter your political leaning or origin.

And that to me means we can't afford to get cynical on people's motives that are reacting to what is going on. So good on YC for doing this now.

In politics, I believe it's important to use the philosophy of "better late than never". Memes take time to diffuse into the population. It is better to encourage more participation in the future by accepting late arrivals. Attacking people that finally decided to participate can easily drive them away.

The answer you're looking for is that now the white-middle class is feeling the possibility of impending disaster, so of course now it's an emergency, and the floodgates of funding have opened.

Please stop with the hyperbole about Chicago. Yes, it has a problem, but it's beaten by St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Cleveland, Newark, and Memphis for per 100k murder rate in 2016. Also, while the national per 100k murder rate has been trending upward lately, it is still lower than approximately 1965 to approximately 2007. [0]

0. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/u-s-cities-experienced-...

I am probably in the very far left-wing on this website in many regards, and what I see in a lot of this effusive and reflexive anti-Trumpism, is a lot of dubious and easily rolled-back gains. At climax radical right-wing activity, the GOP can just throw Donald Trump under the bus, and I think this would completely destroy any of the coalitions currently being built up against him, because the agreement on everything else is vague.

A lot of people really and deeply want to believe that the problem is Donald Trump himself, not the entire institution that props him up. I've seen numerous liberals (as opposed to leftists) on the internet openly and effusively embrace John McCain in his fashionable and phony role of maverick, the man who sang "Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys. It's bewildering.

Another example is the Women's March. A friend of mine mentioned to a fellow protestor how important it was for her to fight for reproductive rights, and this woman's response was that it wasn't even about that, it's mostly just about Trump's disrespect towards women. And if you go on the movement's website, it's true. It doesn't mention planned parenthood or reproductive rights at all. Some people see it as a virtue, I think it is a strategic error.

Moreover, I think everyone on the broad left clearly understood Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" as a dogwhistle for bygone years largely characterized by white supremacy and a vision of the ideal normal nuclear family. The real surprising thing is that a lot of the impassioned, patriotic rallying cries against Trump today, by celebrities who describe themselves as patriots who were proud up until yesterday, are exactly the same: "Make America Great Again". It's just that they pine for the great Obama years instead.

There is almost zero mea-culpa about how it was possible that Trump got elected in the first place, and it's become so important to "stop Trump" that criticizing allies is a huge faux-pas. I don't see this building into a healthy strong movement.

It's a cry for someone or some organization to help guide us back to center. The ACLU just happens to be one of the best positioned organizations to fit this situation.

Every person has a moment when they wake up and decided to step up, usually several. Litigating their decision process after he fact does nothing to help. Just say "thanks and welcome, now let's go wake up some others."

Momentum is important and true or not this kind of stuff serves only as a speedbump.

If only they got as much enthusiastic and monetary support, we'd be a little more equal amongst ourselves.

I think when bad cops get off, it's because of bad (or absent) legal prosecution.

I would just like to say this kind of bait is agains the guidelines

Edit: Not a peep out of the ACLU when the Obama administration permanently ended the Cuban refugee program and many refugees in Mexico are now being deported back to Cuba because there is no chance of them being accepted in the US. 60 day pause on refugees from seven middle-eastern countries identified and signed into law by the Obama administration? MELTDOWN.

Build the thing that needs funding. Then, seek support and apply.

Thank you for writing it out.

The OP is impressive in it's length for managing not to tell me anything about the ACLU at all...

By coincidence I made a site to direct people to various charities on HN when this post came up - it went nowhere of course.

If you're looking for an option to support other charities w/o feeling like you're actually just buttressing a corporation's branding --> https://helpsavetheusa.com/

I tend to stay out of politics, and don't really label people as such, but Trump is a bad guy. I'm happy to donate engineering time to the ACLU.

That's not how most "just a left-leaning political organization"s behave.

Supporting the Constitution is left-leaning? Sign me up!

And yes they don't defend the 2nd amendment because there are already two large organizations focused on that.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/20/president-obama-will-headl...