Our Humanity

from the this-is-not-a-game dept

Over the last few months, we’ve had a very, very small, but still vocal group of folks in our comments who have gotten angry every time we’ve been critical of Donald Trump — even when we were making nearly identical complaints about him as we did about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That group of people probably won’t like this post very much, though I do hope they’ll read it with open minds. We’re not a political blog. We cover technology and innovation, as well as the legal, economic and policy issues related to those things. Over the years, that’s included issues related to civil liberties and civil rights. We don’t see these things as being separate. They are all connected and intertwined. We’ve even spent plenty of time discussing immigration, though focusing on high tech and entrepreneur immigration.

But I don’t think there’s any need for me to try to justify why I’m making this post on Techdirt today. This is about humanity. And if you want to complain in the comments that you don’t want to read this on a “tech” site, well, then maybe take a second and think about what this says about you. Basically my entire family came to America between around 1890 and 1920 — most of them escaping religious persecution elsewhere. My great grandmother had to hide in the bottom of a boat to escape from where she lived. Many came through Ellis Island, and were welcomed into America. My grandfathers built up businesses here. One fought bravely against Nazis (literally) in World War II for the US in Europe and North Africa, and came back to the US and built a company that (among other things) was a huge supplier for the Boy Scouts of America. While they may have struggled at times, my family came to America and was embraced by America, thrived in America and has always loved America. My wife is an immigrant. Her family moved here when she was young to give her and her siblings a better life. And that’s what they found. America embraced them and they embraced America back. They’re all US citizens.

All weekend long, I’ve been reading all sorts of accounts about President Trump’s executive order. Some of it has been thoughtful. Some of it has been hysterical. Some of it has been painful. Some of it has been ridiculous.

But it all comes back to one thing: this is about our humanity.

The “excuses” that some have been spewing for the executive order make no sense. They say this is about “safety,” yet there is no evidence that the people being kept out were a risk to our safety. As many have noted, not a single terrorist attack has come from people from those countries. They say this is about “extreme vetting” but ignore that refugees already go through a ridiculously long and thorough “extreme vetting” process that can take years. They say that this is just an “inconvenience” to a “small group” of people, ignoring that they are basically upending the lives of entire families — families including those with permanent resident status, who have been valuable, contributing members to our country for years and years and years.

This is madness.

They say that this is necessary to protect us at home, but even ignoring everything above, it’s hard to see how this doesn’t make us less safe. How can anyone read this essay by Kirk Johnson and not realize how much harm we’re doing. Johnson has devoted a big part of his life to helping Iraqis who literally put their lives at risk to help Americans, and then were ignored by America. Read what he’s written and ask yourself what foreigner will sign up to help America again in the future?

They say this is about “the rule of law,” but then explain why Customs and Border Patrol are literally ignoring court orders and refusing to even speak to members of Congress? They say this is about stopping threats at home, but that doesn’t explain at all why the White House failed to have the relevant experts review the executive order before it was put in place, or why multiple national security experts have noted this will clearly make us less safe. And, of course, nothing explains why the White House directly overruled Homeland Security saying this wouldn’t apply to permanent residents (and then required DHS to later come out and try to clarify).

Again, this goes back to a story about basic humanity. And our country massively failing.

I know there are lots of people speculating on a variety of things around all of this. There are explanations that this is part of a “shock doctrine” move to sow chaos and confusion and deligitimize organizations before the really bad policy is put into place. And perhaps that’s true. It’s certainly something to watch for. But, as someone who tries to look at every policy proposal based on a “does this make sense” or “does this make the world a better place” metric — and not on a “does this help my team” scale — it must be stated that the executive order Donald Trump signed late last week, that was put into effect over the weekend is not just a disaster. It hasn’t just created a constitutional crisis with parts of the executive branch ignoring the judiciary. It’s not just a policy that is impacting millions of lives.

It’s simply inhumane.

This is about humanity, and anyone who has any sense of humanity has a responsibility to speak up about it and to say that this is not right. If you get angry about this post, and think you need to insult us and attack me or this site, I would only recommend that you first take stock of your life, and think about what message you are sending out into the world when you do so.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Our Humanity”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
395 Comments

Re:

Benn is also one of the architects of Britain’s welfare state, which includes our beloved ? and essential ? NHS. While I don’t agree with a lot of his policies (“No competition” is a glaring example) I do appreciate that one because I’ve had to resort to it. So yeah, decent guy.

This is why you shouldn’t demonise even the most “confirmed” socialists; fundamentally, they’re decent, well-meaning people, though they can be somewhat misguided at times.

Anonymoussays:

I’ve always been happy with the news from Techdirt because its pretty emotionally blank – arguments are presented with no meaningless heart tugging anecdotes.

Lets keep Techdirt that way.

No one except children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers to form a platform which is ultimately harmful to society at large.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

try reading the article next time

this piece is more than an emotional ploy and cherry picking, though there are anecdotes offered to back up central argument.

several times, Mike points out the absurdity and hollowness of the administration’s talking points.

try reading the whole thing next time before you comment based only on the pictures.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

The reason why HRC was winning in polls is because people wanting to appear “nice” and of course “love trumps hate” but in the voting booth the people of MI, WI, and PA all chose their own self-interest over individuals unknown to them and in their view hurt their livelihood.

In other words, HRC (and all democrats) run a MUCH better emotional campaign then any opponent has ever.
The day before the election people were EMOTIONALLY convinced Trump was literally Hitler and STILL voted for him. Emotions mean nothing – you have to attack with reason.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

You’re attacking the wrong person. Attack the guy who idolises Hitler.

Or allow me to rephrase it another way:

Trump[ is a clear and present danger to national security, and so are his ‘advisors’. He is planning a coup right now, along with his friend Bannon.

Every American should be trying to get rid of this person as a terrorist. Because he is almost in a position to terrorise the world, if he has not already done so.

GristleMissilesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mattis has strongly stated his opposition to torture last I heard. But I’m curious about this hypothetical Trump coup. How does a guy who’s ALREADY president have a coup? Like, if there was/is/could be a coup, wouldn’t it have already happened and he won? He’s president, there’s no higher office to seize.

Roger Strongsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Coups can be organized by those in the highest office. to gain more power, or to avoid leaving office when their term ends or the polls show they’ll be voted out.

Consider Prime Minister Erdo?an of Turkey. Whether or not the attempted coupe against him was real, he’s used it as a pretext for a coup of his own. He didn’t stop at arresting thousands of soldiers, from 103 generals and admirals to five bus loads of students from a Military High School:

He’s also removed 3000 judges, from the bottom to the very top of the judiciary. Plus prosecutors. 7,899 police officers, 614 gendarmerie officers, 47 district governors and 30 regional governors.

Mayors were fired. And thousands of civil servants. 15,200 teachers were suspended. The licenses of 21,000 teachers in the private sector were also cancelled. All deans of state and private universities were fired. 626 educational institutions were shut down. A travel ban was placed on academics, preventing them from leaving the country.

229 charities and foundations, 19 trade unions, 15 universities and 35 medical institutions were ordered closed. Large numbers of television channels, radio stations, daily newspapers, magazines and publishing houses were shut down.

Those numbers have grown considerably in later purges. They’re also going after CEOs, seizing their assets.

It’s a coup by the guy already holding the highest office.

Roger Strongsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Not when the country’s laws don’t allow you to "solidify power" that way.

Erdo?an’s mass arrests and mass firings by the thousands of anyone else with any form of competing power goes far beyond the law. Small wonder he started by arresting all the judges. It’s the "solidification of power" of someone with no intention of giving up that power once their term ends or once in danger of being voted out. It’s a coup by an elected official.

Fortunately it’s harder for Trump to do that. A good example is Jeff Sessions asking AG nominee Sally Yates in 2015 if she’d resist ‘improper’ Presidential orders:

https://youtu.be/sXDt3WA07zc

Senator Sessions: "Do you think the U.S. Attorney General has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that is improper?"

Sally Yates: "I believe they have an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution,?

She did, and was fired for it by Trump yesterday. The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to vote on Sessions’ nomination today to replace Yates.

Cowardly Lionsays:

Re: Re: Re:

“The reason why HRC was winning in polls is because people wanting to appear “nice” and of course “love trumps hate””

Rubbish. Clinton reflected the status quo, the low risk option versus the unknown. Bringing in concepts such as “nice”, “love”, and “hate” is childish. And your entire second paragraph is contradictory. You seem to be saying that emotions are vitally important…but not really.

Mouseesays:

Re: Re: Re:

Are you trying to say that self-interest at any cost is somehow rational?

And the “Trump is gonna be a better president for me” idea is demonstrably illogical for the vast majority of Trump’s voters.

No, the Trump voters voted emotionally. They voted against a woman who has made some mistakes and they just didn’t quite like for some reason.

Cdaragornsays:

Re:

No one except children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers to form a platform which is ultimately harmful to society at large.

The only thing about this that harms society at large is this insanely selfish and ultimately fear filled executive order.

Also, none of the articles on this site have ever been without emotion. They certainly use facts to back up their opinions, but that has never removed emotion from them.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

I do not recall anyone calling for open borders, perhaps some detail would be enlightening?

What about free movement? Do I now need a permit to go to the grocery? When did this happen and why.

Again with your “everyone is ignorant but me” statement, do you ever get tired of being the only person who understands anything?

killthelawyerssays:

Re: Re: Re:

“No one but children are swayed by emotional arguments and cherry picking individual sufferers” is the emotional wing of the argument. First, you build a strawman by reducing an argument about whether it is necessary to consider the consequences of policy on third party suffering to whether we should build policy off of anecdote. Second, you argue that anyone who falls for your strawman is less than an adult and not worthy of consideration.

Anonymous Trump Blowhartsays:

TRUMP CAN DO NO WRONG

Come on folks, he’s just trying to save our country from the evil Jahadists.

It doesn’t matter that 99%ish of the folks coming from those countries just want to escape the mayhem.
It doesn’t matter that we caused most of the issues. That was Obama/Bush/The Liberal weenies, and not TRUMP.
It doesn’t matter that some of the people locked out were green card holders that have been living here.

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP…. TAKE THAT MIKE!

Ok, TRUMP can’t help it if he has MORON syndrome.

I’m hoping he ends up being better then the Clinton gangsters in the long run. he just needs to staple his mouth shut. IMHO, executive orders should be banned. Obozo’s EO’s were all crap also.

Dougsays:

Re: TRUMP CAN DO NO WRONG

I’m hoping he ends up being better then the Clinton gangsters in the long run. he just needs to staple his mouth shut. IMHO, executive orders should be banned. Obozo’s EO’s were all crap also.

Trump’s in quite a hole already. There’s zero practical hope that he can redeem himself even to the point of being the 2nd worst president ever. It’s a fun fantasy to imagine the turnaround it would take for him to even be considered "not bad" after a start like this, but just a fantasy.

timmaguire42says:

It’s good that this is not a political blog because the politics are too often childish.

One immigrant is the same as another?

1817 = 1917 = 2017?

You see that as nonsense? Then you think like a child.

No non citizen has a right to enter a country and every government has a duty to control its own borders. And every country (not just Trump’s America) does just that.

I don’t support this order either, but don’t be absurd. It’s not a radical departure from past behavior. It is a temporary halt to some immigration while processes are revamped.

Roger Strongsays:

Re:

Nonsense.

No-one is “revamping processes.” The refugees he’s turned back have been VERY thoroughly vetted. This is about a white supremacist administration trying to keep the illegal promises it made pandering to the alt-right.

Accepting refugees – or tourists – or business travellers – does not in any way conflict with a nation’s duty to control its own borders. All those turned back were entering through proper channels, fully subject to American immigration and visitor policies.

Roger Strongsays:

Re: Re: Re:

Really….? Let’s break it down:

Steve Bannon is this administration’s Karl Rove. The chief strategist of the Trump campaign and administration. More than that, President* Trump just reshuffled the US National Security Council, downgrading the military chiefs of staff and giving a regular seat to Bannon.

Wikipedia: Neo-Nazism

Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, anti-Semitism…

Under Steve Bannon’s leadership, the above is pretty much the mission statement of Breitbart.com. Few would deny that Bannon is a neo-Nazi. Er, sorry, "Alt-right."

Wikipedia: Alt-right

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States. White nationalist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused of doing so to whitewash overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.

[…]

Trump’s campaign chief executive Steve Bannon has described his Breitbart News Network as "the platform for the alt-right."

President* Trump has been entirely consistent with Bannon’s ideology. Declaring Mexicans "rapists and murderers." Declaring the US-born judge on his business fraud case biased because of Mexican ancestry. The whole Muslim ban thing, which he’s following through on. His history of discriminating against blacks in his rental properties. False claims of millions of illegal immigrant votes. Etc. etc.

And just a reminder: Donald Trump’s ex-wife said Trump kept a book of Hitler’s speeches by his bed. In the article, Ivana Trump also told a friend that her husband’s cousin, John Walter "clicks his heels and says, ‘Heil Hitler," when visiting Trump’s office.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. At this point it’s the extraordinary claim that Trump isn’t running a white supremacist administration that requires extraordinary evidence.

TZsays:

Again with the racism and hitler references

You get called on your false charges of racism and you decide to double down and go full retard with the Nazi references?

GFY

“Few would deny that Bannon is a neo-Nazi”

Well few would deny that Roger Strong has molested a young immigrant boy who is only 8 yrs old. Few would deny that there have been hush payments to keep Roger from being arrested. Few would deny that rumor mongering with slanderous accusations is a valid argument.

“Declaring Mexicans “rapists and murderers.””
Oh, off spouting half truths again. You know this is a not true so I wont waste my time explaining it to you again. But I’ll give the readers a hint: the FBI says that some people in the US are child molesters. Roger Strong is in the US. Therefore the FBI says that Roger Strong is a child molester. See anything wrong with that argument?

TZsays:

Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

So because you didn’t provide documented proof of your innocence, you are admitting to molesting that child? Didn’t think so.

Trump and Bannon are not Nazis and have never claimed to be. Repeating your lie doesn’t make any more true.

You claim Neo-Nazism is “pretty much the mission statement of Breitbart.com”. I claim that some people might say Mr. Strong has a thing for underage boys. The only difference here is that Breitbart’s Jewish reporters have made some pretty convincing arguments otherwise (about the Breitbart thing)

And if you are getting offended about the tiny handful of pedo comments, think about all of the conservatives that have been maligned as racists for the past year by your ilk.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

I’m conservative; I believe in upholding traditional community values; in the case of America that means “the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” Last time I looked it didn’t mean “White exceptionalism,” sexism, or the rule of church over state. I reject Trump for those reasons.

orbitalinsertionsays:

Re: Re: Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

What does it matter if one claims to be a Nazi or not? Speech and behavior and how one wields their power are pretty damn good indicators.

No one went to war because someone said, “Hey we are Nazis and fascists.” They finally did because the behaviors of those sorts began to repeatedly spill over their borders.

You wouldn’t even have to know what a Nazi is to be the equivalent of one. Loudmouthed racist, jingoist, authoritarianism can come in different flavours.

But the most hilarious thing with Trump is that he apparently can do any old egregious thing but he can’t be labeled with that thing because he didn’t claim to be that thing. On the other hand, he can say all sorts of things with which he also cannot be labeled because he was just saying that. He didn’t do it. Yet. Must be nice.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Again with the racism and hitler references

But the most hilarious thing with Trump is that he apparently can do any old egregious thing but he can’t be labeled with that thing because he didn’t claim to be that thing. On the other hand, he can say all sorts of things with which he also cannot be labeled because he was just saying that. He didn’t do it. Yet. Must be nice.

Just had to requote that last paragraph. ????????????

GristleMissilesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The actual ‘Mexicans are rapists and murderers’ quote:

When Mexico sends its people, they?re not sending their best. They?re not sending you. They?re sending people that have lots of problems, and they?re bringing those problems with us. They?re bringing drugs. They?re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

There is nothing truthful (except number three) about anything in that statement.

“When Mexico sends its people, they?re not sending their best. They?re not sending you. They?re sending people that have lots of problems, and they?re bringing those problems with us. They?re bringing drugs. They?re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

1) Mexico does not “sent its people” anywhere
2) Those that attempt to immigrate are not filtered based upon ability/knowledge/whathaveyou
3) No – they are not sending me
4) Those who attempt to immigrate have the same distribution of “problems” seen in the general populations everywhere.
5) wut ???
5) The amount of drugs/crime has not increased, it has gone down
6) They are not (all) rapists

GristleMissilesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Honestly, I mostly agree with you, but lets try to be accurate here. #2 in your list (yours, not his, since you had the courtesy to give us numbered points) is quite wrong. ILLEGAL immigrants are biased towards the less educated. And yes, he was speaking about illegals. It’s called context.

Context applies to the whole thing. He was referring to illegal immigration in that whole quote. Illegal immigrants tend towards the less educated, and therefore the less able.

#3 I can’t disagree.

#4 Wrong. Those who are motivated to emigrate don’t just up and say “Gosh! My comfy middle-to-upper class is just so restricting!” They’re almost always either poor or persecuted. And yes, that’s an argument in favor of taking them, assuming they’ve been vetted.

#5 Wut indeed.

#5(2) Total crime levels changing has nothing to do with a given population being a disproportionate source of crime.

#6 You’re agreeing with Trump here. Literally. Context again.

Frankly, Leigh had a better point on that one.

Mason Wheelersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You really should read the article I linked to. The author (a journalist who endorsed Hillary, for the record) completely demolishes the racism-ist nonsense that far too many people are hysterically screaming about lately, specifically because he doesn’t want it accusations of racism to be devalued into worthlessness for when an actual racist comes along.

As is almost always the case these days, solid data demonstrates quite clearly that racism is simply not a factor here.

Roger Strongsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The author points out for example that Trump said pro-Hispanic things while talking to Hispanics.

But ALL candidates do that. Some even while quietly stoking fears among other crowds.

On the other hand they DON’T make the blatent public anti-Mexican “rapists and murderers” claims. They DON’T hire a neo-Nazi as their chief strategist and then put him on the Security Council. They DON’T promise an anti-Muslim ban and follow it up with bans on refugees from Muslim nations (that they don’t have investments in.) They DON’T declare judges hearing their cases to be biased against them because of the judge’s ancestry. They DON’T have a long history of birther claims singling out the black guy.

So no, I don’t buy your apologetics. The wolf is here. Deal with it.

Leigh Beadonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mason, we get it: you really like that one article.

Consider: the author of that article does not claim racism is not involved or that Trump doesn’t have racist tendencies, in direct contradiction to your assertion that “racism is simply not a factor here”. So you are already in disagreement with the article.

Consider furthermore: one semi-anonymous blogger is not the final word on what constitutes racism.

Consider in summation: stop harping on one goddamn article as though it proves you are the smartest person in the world and everyone who disagrees with you is tragically uninformed.

Mason Wheelersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

He’s one of the few I’ve seen so far who’s willing to actually look at hard data rather than go all “feelz > reals” and throw around emotional rhetoric that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

If you take a position that runs contrary to observed facts, and double down on it in the face of the evidence, is that not the very definition of “tragically uninformed”?

sorrykbsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mason Wheeler wrote:

He’s one of the few I’ve seen so far who’s willing to actually look at hard data rather than go all "feelz > reals" and throw around emotional rhetoric that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

By which you mean he wrote things that agreed with your feelings.

The data don’t support "Trump is not a racist."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/22/peoples-views-about-race-mattered-more-in-electing-trump-than-in-electing-obama/?utm_term=.651bd5bcb7f1

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

The concept of crying wolf loses its meaning when politics is a spectrum/sphere/etc. in which you can always find more extreme people. Trump was voted in as “not Clinton” more than anything. He was extremely reckless in his campaign rhetorics and most people would love for him to break several of them.

Calling Trump anyting yet is a bit premature, since he has barely been seated yet. But so far “the wall”-gate and “refugee”-gate are as extreme proposals as you can get them without coming out the closet as a follower of an ultra-nationalist religion!

Anonymoussays:

-Gate?

“the wall”-gate?
You mean like how Trump decided to start constructing the wall that was approved by Senators Biden, Obama and Clinton?

“refugee”-gate?
You mean like how Trump put a temporarily put in place a halt based on country (not religion), just like Obama and Carter?

The wailing and gnashing of liberal teeth is hilarious, but utterly misguided.

Anonymoussays:

Re: -Gate?

I am looking at it through international glasses, as liberal as they may be. The democrats approved a fence on a fourth/fifth of the borders lenght. That is not exactly what Trump has been going on about. Get your facts straight!

The refugee-situation Trump is addressing is a scandal internationally because Europe and middle east is swamped because of the syrian war. Even refusing the small number of refugees US takes is very unfortunate since it sets a very problematic precedent for other nations to follow suit and ignore UNHCR.
Also, his way of of framing the temporary ban is a “no-entry” and a complete temporary ban on refugees from a certain country which only Carters Iran-ban came close to and Carters ban had humanitarian exceptions as opposed to Trumps religious exceptions.

Your framing is specious.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

One of these days a real racist candidate is going to show up, and warning about him won’t do any good because people like you have spent decades wasting the relevant terms and stripping them of any and all actual meaning.

Tell me Mason, if we’re just "crying wolf" right now, what kind of chucklefuck does it take to warrant the real thing?

sorrykbsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Tell me Mason, if we’re just "crying wolf" right now, what kind of chucklefuck does it take to warrant the real thing?

Maybe someone who takes out a full-page ad calling for executions as part of a crusade against five innocent black young men?

Or someone who leads a fact-free assault on the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president?

Or someone who instructs his property managers not to rent to black people?

….

Oh, wait..

Mason Wheelersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Read the article I linked to, where the author looks at actual hard data and facts (as opposed to emotionally-charged rhetoric) that shows over and over again that there is no evidence of racism going on here.

Based on the data available, he estimates that around 3% of voters have racist political leanings. After pointing out how suicidal it would be to throw away the support of voters that outnumber them by an order of magnitude, he follows up with this:

But doesn?t this still mean there are some white supremacists? Isn?t this still really important?

I mean, kind of. But remember that 4% of Americans believe that lizardmen control all major governments. And 5% of Obama voters believe that Obama is the Antichrist. The white supremacist vote is about the same as the lizardmen-control-everything vote, or the Obama-is-the-Antichrist-but-I-support-him-anyway vote.

(and most of these people are in Solid South red states and don?t matter in the electoral calculus anyway.)

Other interesting things that the data shows: compared to the voting demographics of the last two Republican candidates…

Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn?t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump?s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.

So you kinda have to ask yourself, what do all those minorities know that you don’t?

Leigh Beadonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Comparing him to the last two candidates — who LOST — is bullshit. Trump has the lowest minority support of any president in decades

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-polarization-analysis-idUSKBN13I10B

Slightly less of the black vote than GWB. Considerably less of the Hispanic vote than Bush Sr. or Reagan. Lowest portion of the Asian vote in the entire time that demographic has been tracked.

Stop relying solely on one single interpretation of the numbers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh, Mason…

Maybe someone who takes out a full-page ad calling for executions as part of a crusade against five innocent black young men?
Or someone who leads a fact-free assault on the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president?
Or someone who instructs his property managers not to rent to black people?

If these are not the acts of a racist, what are they?

Mason Wheelersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

1) The act of someone who leaps before he looks, going off the handle on an issue that he doesn’t have all the facts on. (Like Donald Trump does all the time on all sorts of issues.) If those five had actually done what they were accused of, it would have been completely right to execute them.

2) The act of someone who will believe the worst about his political opponents. Remember that racism isn’t treating people of other races badly, it’s singling them out for bad treatment, treating them differently because you believe that they are inherently different. Remember this is the same guy who accused Ted Cruz’s father of killing JFK, among (many!) other things. If Cruz had been black, and Obama white, people would call him racist for the JFK nonsense and just a weirdo for the birther conspiracism. But it appears he’s simply an equal-opportunity offender.

3) The act of a businessman trying not to lose a massive amount of business, because when it happened (remember, this one is not recent) approximately 1/3 of his tenants would have moved out if a black family moved in nearby.

Next?

Roger Strongsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

1) NO. Just no. Racism had everything to do with it. The very same day a black woman was raped in Brooklyn by two men who then threw her from the roof of a four-story building. It received little media attention and no full-page ads from Trump.

Trump’s four-newspaper offensive demanding their execution came BEFORE they (kids: 14, 15, 16) had any trial. If you believe that he would have made the same demands if the victims and er, other victims races were reversed, then you probably believe his inauguration crowd figures.

2) He stupidly smeared Ted Cruz, and then quickly dropped it. With Obama he was still repeating the same racist lie years after it was conclusively disproven. (Obama’s birth certificate was released and authenticated by Vital Statistics in mid 2008. Birth announcements were found in two local papers in early 2008, placed there by Vital Statistics, not the family.) And Obama was not a political opponent at the time.

Obama met both common meanings (a US citizen at the moment of birth, born on US soil) of Natural Born Citizen. Meanwhile McCain met neither. (A US national but NOT a US citizen at birth, born in Panama.) (No, an overseas military base is not US soil.) And yet somehow Trump had no problem with McCain. Heck, even the case for Sarah Palin being born outside the US was better than it ever was for Obama.

Ted Cruz doesn’t meet one of those Natural Born meanings, having been born in in another country. In other words the very thing Trump accuses Obama of. But Trump had no problem with that either.

The only thing setting Obama apart was skin color. Given Trump’s record vs. blacks – let alone his later connection to white supremacist publisher Steve Bannon – it’s not hard to make the connection.

3) A few might have moved out. And…? He’d gain an ever larger market as non-whites could move in. So it wasn’t so much about their racism it was about his.

And here he is, 50 years later, still pandering to the racists over everyone else.

Derek Kertonsays:

Re: Re: Re:

You’re invoking “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”

Which is a good fable, or allegory when it fits.
But so is:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out?
Because I was not a Socialist.”

The problem is, if Trump is a real Nazi, we need to speak out early, and loudly, in the hopes that he can be stopped before too great a consolidation of power occurs.

Of course, if we speak out too hysterically and are wrong, you argue we’ll have wasted our voices. That is also wrong. We can protest the next Nazi just as well, even if we’re wrong about this one. But are we?

I see nothing in Trump’s history, recent actions, or words to counter the accusation that is is a modern Nazi, and he absolutely fits the definition of a fascist.

We’ll only know for certain in the future, but I’m confident that this is a time to look to Martin Niemoller’s poem and not Aesop fable for guidance.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“The problem is, if Trump is a real Nazi, we need to speak out early, and loudly, in the hopes that he can be stopped before too great a consolidation of power occurs.”

The problem is, he’s not a Nazi. If you truly think we have ovens and death camps set up somewhere in the United States and are loading people into them, you need serious help.

Roger Strongsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Just to be clear:

Wikipedia: Neo-Nazism

Neo-Nazism borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, anti-Semitism…

Under Steve Bannon’s leadership, the above is pretty much the mission statement of Breitbart.com. Few would deny it, and the neo-Nazis make it clear they don’t.

Wikipedia: Alt-right

The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in the United States. White nationalist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused of doing so to whitewash overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.
[…]
Trump’s campaign chief executive Steve Bannon has described his Breitbart News Network as "the platform for the alt-right."

So, are you

a) Denying the neo-Nazi more-than-influences in Trump’s administration?

b) Saying that it’s improper to trigger Godwin’s Law even when talking about actual neo-Nazis?

c) Saying that it’s improper to trigger Godwin’s Law over neo-Nazis as opposed to traditional Nazis?

d) Saying that even neo-Nazi is too strong a term, and instead we should use Bannon-favored terms like "white nationalist?"

Mason Wheelersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Of course, if we speak out too hysterically and are wrong, you argue we’ll have wasted our voices. That is also wrong. We can protest the next Nazi just as well, even if we’re wrong about this one.

No, you can’t. That’s the whole point of the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. People don’t tend to always respond the same way to the same stimuli; they learn and adapt.

In fact, I’d go so far as to claim that that’s a big part of why Trump is President today. The hardest of the hard-line Democrats have been crying wolf over false racism for so long that everyone else is sick of it, and when Hillary made the ridiculously tone-deaf mistake of doubling down on it, essentially calling half the country racists and "a basket of deplorables" for disagreeing with her policies, it backfired tremendously.

People who knew they weren’t racists bristled at being lumped together with the KKK and the Nazis, and they turned "we are The Deplorables" into a rallying cry, to symbolically reject this nonsense once and for all by rejecting the person at the forefront of it. If she hadn’t said that, a lot of people who ended up voting for Trump would have probably stayed home.

It’s kind of sad to see that Democrats still have not learned their lesson from that! They’ve wasted the last few months flailing uselessly, tilting at racist windmills instead of working to accomplish anything actually productive in this time when they need to be productive and effective more than ever!

I’ve heard it said that every organization works to perpetuate the problem to which it is the solution. Might I suggest two corollaries to this observation?

First, an organization that solves a real problem is (as a general rule of thumb at least) a good organization that is doing good in the world. So this observation applies to "the good ones" too.

Second, civil rights groups are good organizations.

Unfortunately, they’re still run by people. People who have a great deal of their personal identity and social status bound up in being valiant crusaders who fight racism. They’ve become victims of their own success now, and the one thing they can’t do, because it would make them redundant, is admit the simple truth that’s obvious to almost everyone else: that they’ve won! They won decades ago!

Racism in the USA is as dead as disco. Now, lest you misunderstand, remember that disco is not 100% extinct. There are still a few people around with horrible taste who think it’s cool, but that doesn’t mean it’s not something that everyone knows is a relic of the past. And so it is also with racism.

Keep in mind that the guy you’re accusing is 70 years old! Even if it’s true, biologically speaking, he’s on his way out, and most likely sooner rather than later. (I wonder if anyone has actuarial data on former Presidents, BTW; it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that the stress of the job takes several years off your lifespan.)

Please stop obsessing over something that hasn’t been a real problem in a long, long time, so we can focus on the issues of today and actually accomplish something in spite of all the headwinds. If we’re going to prevent the Trump administration from wrecking what little prosperity we have left after the last two Presidents, we need to stop wasting our energy and focus!

Mason Wheelersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

A single incident that happened 20 years ago? That’s your “evidence” that racism remains a serious problem in our culture today?

(Please note that I’m not denying in any way that what happened to James Byrd was a serious tragedy. I do deny, though, that it has any relevance to this discussion. Please don’t go derailing the conversation.)

The Wanderersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Racism in the USA is as dead as disco. Now, lest you misunderstand, remember that disco is not 100% extinct. There
> are still a few people around with horrible taste who think it’s cool, but that doesn’t mean it’s not something that everyone knows is a relic of the past. And so it is also with
> racism.

That’s only true for a very narrow and limited definition of racism.

By my analysis, the core idea of racism is the idea that the ill-defined collection of characteristics which we label as “race” is an appropriate basis for categorization.

_That_ idea is still going strong – and as long as we think in terms of those categories, we will never be free of racism.

Even if you think that definition is overly broad, there are plenty of other possible definitions in the range between that one and any definition by which racism is “something that everyone knows is a relic of the past”.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The only way to measure racism is to define race. USA is one of the only countries identifying by race in statistics, just as Northern Ireland is one of the only ones caring about religion as a dominant force.

As historic as it is, these types of shorthands usually describe a cultural and social context that is often neglected.

Obama is not “black” culturally. Nor is he socially. Thus, he barely represents such a stereotype.

What Bannon is doing is propaganda, showing very biased facts supporting only one side and pretending it is reality. Business conservative/regressive as he is, he seems more the classic dixiecrat.

Anonymoussays:

Re:

It is a temporary halt to some immigration while processes are revamped.

And it is an indefinite halt to others. You can tell this by reading the actual executive order:

> (c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re:

No non citizen has a right to enter a country and every government has a duty to control its own borders. And every country (not just Trump’s America) does just that.

I don’t support this order either, but don’t be absurd. It’s not a radical departure from past behavior. It is a temporary halt to some immigration while processes are revamped.

You’re correct, that no one has a right to enter a country — but all of the people being turned away DID have that right, because they ALREADY HAD visas or green cards or other permanent resident status. And this is NOT about controlling the borders, because there was nothing in this order targeting "out of control" borders.

And, sure, some other countries may have idiotic policies like this, but if that’s your metric, you’re really setting a low bar for the US.

And, finally, yes, if you were even remotely familiar with the history of immigratin policy you would recognize that this is a massive and very radical departure from past behavior — with every indication that it is not temporary, and no "processes" are being revamped.

Don’t be that guy.

orbitalinsertionsays:

Re: Re: Re:

Aside from that fact that we don’t need new systems, except reigning in the CBP or such and ending brutal, illegal detentions, what is the point of sudden massive disruption to people who are already perfectly fine to be here? And what about the people from countries he chose to leave off the list? You know, the ones that actually spawned terrorists who attacked The U.S. Unlike the countries on the list.

Wonder how he chose those countries…

Anonymoussays:

Re:

No non citizen has a right to enter a country

Back in World War II, when Sir Arthur "Yearnin’ for a Burnin’ German" Harris and the Allied air command was pulverizing (and incinerating) German cities (something that caused more civilian casualties than the two nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki), the common sentiment was that civilian casualties were okay. If they hadn’t wanted to be targeted as part of the Axis war machine, they shouldn’t have elected a fascist government. In short, they got what was coming to them, and they were responsible, as citizens, for the actions of their government.

I can certainly see obvious arguments for such a conclusion. Not certain it’s right, but I could make an argument in support or opposition without much mental gymnastics.

There seems to be an equally obvious corollary though; No state is composed of 100% approval. No action gets unanimous consent, and some people are always on the losing side of an election.

And therefore, if you believe that people vote with their citizenship (similar to voting with your dollar) and are responsible for the results, supporting the free movement of people is necessary. Otherwise citizens become hostages; "You have to support our state, our war, not because it is right or just or moral, but because you have no choice, and you might live if we win- but if we lose, you won’t. Even if you don’t like it, want it, or support it, you have nowhere else to go."

I could make a bridge here by referencing some big names and pretentious (but significant) quotes, Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. Let’s not and say I did.

But it’s simple self-interest. Don’t put your enemy in death ground. It costs you more than you’ll ever get out. Don’t force them to defend their position to the death- it’s much more profitable to make them your friend. They might be your enemy now, but you don’t have to like them to make money selling to them hand over fist. And they might be your enemy now, but there always might be a worse one further down the line you could use a hand against.

And to do that, you need to give the a way out. A way to stop being your enemy- while continuing to be, because most people consider that an unacceptable price.

John85851says:

Two points

1) I actually wish this site would cover more topics and have more variety.
Personally, I skip over the ongoing articles about stingrays, FBI e-mails, and such.

2) But more importantly: this is your site and you can write about whatever you want. If people don’t like the articles, they can skip over them or go to another site.
And if people want to argue politics, there are plenty of sites to do that.

Paul Clarksays:

Its To Be Expected

Let me qualify my position.

1. I am not a Donald Trump supporter.
2. I am not a US citizen.
3. I probably agree with 50 to 60% of Donald Trump’s positions. I listened to a speech he gave on Chinese trade and agreed with 4 of his 5 points (down to 3 now as one no longer applies). I agree with his position that the US has been allowing other NATO countries to not spend their required share.
4. I do not agree with his position on immigration.

The blaming of identifiable groups is an old political trick to make all of your problems someone else’s fault. Its playing the victim to get sympathy and to give your supporter’s someone to hate. Yes, it was used in Germany in the 20’s through 40’s.

I think Donald Trump has boxed himself into a corner. He promised to make all of these changes in the first 100 days without understanding the complexities of implementing policy or running a country. His white house group is not experienced in governing. Despite what they say, running a country is not like running a business. Its a lot easier to criticize the zoo from the outside. Once you are in charge of it, you find out that a lot of things are the way they are for a good reason.

It looks like the establishment GOP are very happy to let him fail so they can get rid of him.

The evil side of me things that he wants civil unrest and chaos to justify making the US an authoritative state. Once he does this, the press will no longer be an issue for him.

His immigration positions seem out of step. The last labour figures for the US that I saw had unemployment under 5%. That’s basically full employment. The employment is not spread evenly across the country, and a lot of people need better jobs, but a least they have a job. Who is going to build the wall or harvest the crops or do manual labor or …

Roger Strongsays:

Re: Its To Be Expected

Despite what they say, running a country is not like running a business.

Trump has had a lot of business failures across a lot of industries. When Trump’s casino group went bankrupt (the 4th time) and the creditors took over, they kept Trump and his name involved. They recognized something important:

While he’s a lousy businessman, he’s an excellent promoter.

It’s long been said that the qualifications needed to run a successful election are very different from the qualifications needed once elected. Trump is simply the ultimate expression of that principle.

That Anonymous Cowardsays:

“Though, to be sure, the management is very bad. In fact, let us not mince words … the management is terrible! We’ve had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This is plain fact.
But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these people! You who gave them the power to make your decisions for you! While I’ll admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me nothing short of deliberate.
You have encouraged these malicious incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workspace with dangerous and unproven machines.
All you had to say was “NO.” You have no spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company. I will however, be generous. You will be granted two years to show me some improvement in your work. If at the end of that time you are still unwilling to make a go of it… You’re fired.
That will be all. You may return to your labors.”

zbootsays:

Re: Re: Re: Well...

Saying that “My expression of X may seem out of place to you, but it is motivated by my humanity and forces me to discard appearances or decorum and complaints that I shouldn’t say this here just show us where your priorities are” isn’t the same as saying “disagreeing with me means your are in-human”.

Trying to silence someone speaking out about a humanitarian issue, because it will get in the way of your enjoyment of tech issues, at a blog which you were not forced to read and where you don’t expend any effort to write – that is callous and perhaps inhuman.

So, if what you are saying is “shut up Mike about this issue and get back to tech blogging”, then yes, you might be in-human. And if you’re saying that the reason Trump won is because in-human people were called out on it, then, while that sucks, it doesn’t change anything.

But, if you are saying that someone thinks disagreeing with Mike on this particular makes you in-human, that is different and I’ve not yet read anything that suggests other points of view may not have validity or come from a different view or priority of humanity. And if you are saying that Trump was elected because people ignored the very real, though different, expressions of humanity of their fellow citizens, then, you’d be right but confusing since that’s a good thing – assuming Trump is what’s required to improve how we interact with our fellow citizens.

art guerrillasays:

Re: Re: Re: Well...

thank you, the many victims of TDS need to be reminded (apparently even it guy below, who is usually a little more perspicacious) of how they sat on their pussy hats for eight long years while choco jesu went much further than bush the lesser ever did, AND THERE WAS NOT A FUCKING PEEP OUT OF THEM…
by that alone, they have PROVEN they have NO PRINCIPLES they will not sacrifice for useless optics…
secondly, mikey’s shakey-voiced polemic on his all-american immigrant family may explain why HE feels so strongly about thst, but it doesn’t mean shit to the rest of us…
depending on how pedantic one wants to get, we are ALL immigrants, so that factoid is meaningless…
i am not going to bother with the research (bet i know what the answer is), but did techdirtia get all weepy and pearl clutchy and mobbing airports (wtf ?) when saint obama did the same for iranians for six months ? ? ?
yeah, all t-rump has done is shown that a LOT of libtards have NO PRINCIPLES, AND are massive hypocrites…

Derek Kertonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

art-guerilla

“NOT A FUCKING PEEP” in all caps, no less?

Mike and Techdirt had pretty much an endless stream of criticisms of the Obama administration, particularly around the issues of:

– transparency
– intolerance of whistle-blowers
– state-sanctioned espionage
– intellectual property matters
– asset forfeiture
– The TPP

Mike didn’t rely on just his family history. He also did the normal Techdirt Cost/Benefit analysis, and found real costs, but no benefits to Trump’s EO. Don’t act like he was a victim of his emotion, he STILL provided the analysis and rational argument.

And RE Obama and Iranians, that is a false equivalence. A specific case of a refugee in Kentucky was found who had been involved in IEDs on US soldiers. So Obama ordered a a re-screening on ALL the then-recent admissions. This slowed down the process for other applicants. No ban. No specific countries. No religions mentioned. Didn’t apply to green carders. Again, false equivalence.

Wendy Cockcroftsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy

Yeah, about that: our dysfunctional relationship with KSA means we look the other way while the Wahbabbist faction organises, arms, and funds terrorists because we buy oil from KSA and they buy weapons from us.

If your client had an employee who behaved badly would you look the other way to keep the money flowing or would you challenge them? The shift to renewables is stemming the flow of money to KSA, and should eventually reduce the funding for terrorism. A girl can dream.

Roger Strongsays:

Re: Re: Re: Well...

The US was undeniably built on immigration. Compassion is pretty important too. This has been true from before the country’s founding to Ronald Reagan’s “Shining House on the Hill” speech about opening the borders to all.

It’s you who is trying to introduce your alt-right politics into it.

wayoutsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

you repeat an age old argument that has no basis in actual reality. There are NO native Americans (Indians). Research after research has determined that they migrated here from Asia (DNA backs that claim up). So to keep repeating a lie in hopes that others will accept it as truth..well So no, the colonist were not intruders, nor invaders, while the Indians were here first, they can make no more claim to this land than that. The data on the DNA evidence is out there, do a little research..

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

You realize that your argument cold be applied across the entire globe with the exception of one little place somewhere in africa …. so, we can invade everywhere except that one little place because the people who were there first move there from somewhere else … do you see how stupid that is?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

There is no such thing as the ‘right’ to immigrate here. But, wow, this thing really brings out all of the loony leftists out. I doubt one in a 100 cared about this stuff a week ago. The protests are simply because Trump is involved. Had Hillary or Obama issued the exact same order, they’d all be going on about the wisdom of it…

Anonymous Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

I think people are more concerned about what was done rather than who did it. That it will be ongoing is probably more an issue than who did it.

Expect that when someone in government screws up, it is gonna get commented on, R or D, liberal or conservative, left or right. Label them all you want (to me that is like rain on a duck) it doesn’t remove the action. Or my derision, when that action is bad or anti democratic or anti social or against some class, any class, of people.

But you have a bicycle to ride, and it appears to be pretty wobbly, so…peddle harder…that way, maybe you can get out of the neighborhood.

Pixelationsays:

Asking

I’ve been asking myself why the Russians were gleefully happy when Trump was elected. So far, the immigration ban and the alienation of the Mexican president are two things I’m sure the Russians love. I’m left to wonder if Trumps intentional divisiveness is a ploy to distract us from the new and improved fleecing of US citizens by the mega-wealthy.

Let’s hope Trump has a life changing moment that wakes him up to his humanity and ours.

Richardsays:

Re: Re: Re: Asking

Because they encourage the citizens of other countries to dislike the USA. Which strengthens Moscow’s influence with them.

Like Imran Khan?

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1310571/will-fight-sharifs-corruption-till-last-breath-imran/

Actually the evidence I have seen is that it is mostly Americans who dislike these things – and especially the type of Americans who dislike Russia.

sigalrmsays:

Re: Re: Asking

“No need for complicated analysis”

Yeah, and this is why the US is going to get our asses handed to us in the next 20-50 years: As a society we’re functionally incapable of looking more than a couple years out, strategically speaking.

China and Russia are playing long games with the US, and the US hasn’t figured that out.

Tactically, having a “friendly” US president is moderately useful.

Strategically speaking, the US beginning taking action to withdraw from the international community and begin the voluntary process of alienating its Allies and Neighbors is absolutely priceless to Russia and China.

sigalrmsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Asking

Not being involved with either the US, Russian or Chinese governments, I can only speculate, but enhanced economic and military dominance jump to mind as obvious candidates. Enhanced long-term control over natural resources, globally speaking, is another candidate.

All 3 of which become easier for them to accomplish if the US role in world affairs is diminished.

Again, this is all speculative and opinion, and therefore easily shredded.

Anonymoussays:

Challenge Accepted

Its fine for you to criticize Trump. The problem here is the scale and the genuineness of the criticism.

Criticizing Trump’s policy here is ok. It was a bit hamfisted and is being tweaked towards being less stringent. It is also temporary.

However, many people acting like this is the Worst.Thing.Ever.

Would hide their eyes from the google results of this query:

“Libyan refugee boat capsizes”

People actually died because of the policies and actions of one of our latest set of Presidential candidates. Yet many (nearly all) of her voters did not, or do not give a shit about that. But are screaming their heads off because literally dozens of people have been inconvenienced……

Anonymoussays:

Re: Challenge Accepted

Would hide their eyes from the google results of this query: "Libyan refugee boat capsizes"

At the present time, there are exactly four pages returned by a search on "Libyan refugee boat capsizes", including this page.

You might wish to explain your concerns more directly.

literally dozens of people have been inconvenienced

More people have been affected than that. My guess is that you are only counting those actually at airports. That ignores the people already in the US who can no longer leave and the people who were not yet at an airport when this came down. It also ignores the concerns regarding the executive branch ignoring the stays issued by the judicial branch, as is outlined in the post, and appears to be a point of bi-partisan concern (e.g., Evan McMullin’s tweets).

SteveMBsays:

Re: Hypocrisy

Alternative Fact: “Obama was doing the exact same thing”

Real Fact: “In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/)

Anonymoussays:

Re: Hypocrisy

Obama never did this though.

For all Obama’s many many faults, he never got into a pissing contest about popularity at his inauguration. He may not have always been honest, but he didn’t tell bold-faced lies as “alternate facts”.

Most importantly, he didn’t ban people of certain religions from entering the country. Obama and Trump had very different faults- how can you compare when “Obama did the same thing” and how does that make it right anyway?

GristleMissilesays:

Re: Re: Hypocrisy

Trump has not banned people of a specific religion from entering the country. He has banned all people of any religion from seven specific countries from entering the country. He has not banned any members of any religion from outside those countries from entering this country.

Countries which he has not banned people from include (In order of Islamic population percentage from wikipedia’s list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country#Table) Maldives, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Tunisia, the Western Sahara, Morocco, Tajikistan, Mayotte, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Comoros, Niger, Algeria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Senegal, Kosovo, Gambia, Mali, Jordan, Turkmenistan, and Egypt. These are all countries with 90%+ Muslim populations.

If we go for a simple 50%+ add another 20 or so majority Muslim countries to the list.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy

Some interesting “Alternate facts” you list there GristleMissile for your 90% Muslim nations.

What you really meant to say is: he only bans Arab muslims, except for those Arab Muslims with which his companies do direct business with. This is probably even worse.

There is no reason to include Iran but not Saudi Arabia, for example. Not one terrorist or terrorist plot on our soil has originated from Iran; but Saudi Arabia is where most of the money, people and terrorism comes from.

Anonymoussays:

Isn't this the same executive order....

that President Obama issued in 2011/13?(I’m asking in total sincerity) And where is the Constitutional precedent for such actions by any President? I feel if maybe you approached these topics by answering the Constitutionality of the issue clearly, calmer heads may prevail. But that’s just a guess…

Dark Helmetsays:

Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

“I don’t recall Trump’s EO including a religious test?”

Uh, then go read it again. Those seeking asylum can be exempted from the ban, but only if they are a member of a “minority religion”, which means Christians and Jews but, oddly, not atheists….

GristleMissilesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

Uh, maybe you should go re-read it again-again. I’ll copy paste the relevant section here.

“(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.”

“Upon resumption” means that AFTER the ban ends, minority religions will get prioritised in cases in which they claim asylum from religious persecution.

There is no exemption from the ban based on religion.

There is no religious test DENYING entry.

(Atheists should certainly get to claim religious persecution)

Ninjasays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

Really.

So I am a Muslim and I want to leave Iraq because I’m not considered Muslim enough by the leaders. Well, though luck man, just be quiet there and die will you?

So I am a Christian and I want to leave Iraq because… COME IN BROTHER IN FAITH!

Sure, nothing wrong here.

Dark Helmetsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

How does this conflict with what I said? Refugee status will be impacted by a religious test, per the text. If you’re Christian, you’re at the front of the line. If you’re Muslim, or Atheist, get to the back.

That’s unconstitutional, plainly…

sorrykbsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

@GristleMissile

From
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual?s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.

GristleMissilesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

Yes, that is indeed the section of the executive order which I already quoted. I’ll quote from the proceeding comments which you seemingly didn’t bother to read, with some extra bolding to help you out:

"Upon resumption" means that AFTER the ban ends, minority religions will get prioritised in cases in which they claim asylum from religious persecution.

There is no exemption from the ban based on religion.

There is no religious test DENYING entry.

Derek Kertonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

So…ah…you’re providing evidence that the “religion question” exists for applicants, but you’re just debating the TIMING of the religious test? And you agree that it exists, but debate how heavily the answer to the religion question will be weighted?

Can you see how that doesn’t do a good job in refuting Dark Helmet’s assertion that there is a religious test in Trump’s EO?

GristleMissilesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

I am refuting two things. First, that there is a religious test denying entry (lower priorities in a specific subset of cases are not the same as rejections), and second, that anyone is exempt from the ban. Anything further than that I am not refuting in the slightest, nor attempting to.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual?s country of nationality

Found the problem Dark Helmet – he thinks Muslims are a minority religion.

Be patient. They’re simple minded, you know.

Ninjasays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Isn't this the same executive order....

Which is amusing, I can just declare myself a persecuted christian while being full muslim inside. No seriously this is gold. I’ve seen people denying their religion for much less threatening stuff (like a street fight) so why wouldn’t they lie en masse to escape from hell, no?

These people are just pure comedy. Trump would be as well if he didn’t have so much power in his hands.

Haywoodsays:

To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

If there is one citizen who is unwillingly unemployed, the gates shut until there are openings. I don’t give 2 shits what you’re running from, only what you bring to the table. Are you a an asset or a liability. If you have no intention of melding, please stay where you are, and try to improve that.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

If there is one citizen who is unwillingly unemployed, the gates shut until there are openings

Hmm. But what if the immigrant is coming here to open a business that will employ those citizens who are unemployed.

It’s not as if there is a limited number of jobs and giving one to an immigrant means more can’t be made for Americans.

I don’t give 2 shits what you’re running from,

Well, that’s kinda the point of my article. IF that’s really true, I’d urge you to take a step back and ask yourself what kind of person "doesn’t give 2 shits" about people in trouble?

If you have no intention of melding, please stay where you are, and try to improve that.

Melding, huh? You do realize that the culture here that people "meld" into is made almost entirely by immigrants, right?

Haywoodsays:

Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

I don’t give 2 shits what you’re running from,

Well, that’s kinda the point of my article. IF that’s really true, I’d urge you to take a step back and ask yourself what kind of person “doesn’t give 2 shits” about people in trouble?

I think a realist, there is likely always going to be an abundance of folks who could use a helping hand. You do the world no favors drowning yourself trying to rescue others.
“Ships don?t sink because of the water around them. They sink because of the water that gets in them.” unknown.

sorrykbsays:

Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

Mike wrote:

Well, that’s kinda the point of my article. IF that’s really true, I’d urge you to take a step back and ask yourself what kind of person "doesn’t give 2 shits" about people in trouble?

to which Haywood responded:

I think a realist, there is likely always going to be an abundance of folks who could use a helping hand.

A person who doesn’t give two shits about people in trouble is not a "realist", but something else entirely. Don’t blame pragmatism for your selfishness.

Trailssays:

Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

“They took er jerbs!”

This seems predicated on some bizarre zero-sum concept of the economy. Immigrants, by and large, are not penniless good for nothings who just line up for welfare as soon as they’re in.

They come to build a life for themselves and their families.

Haywoodsays:

Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

“Immigrants, by and large, are not penniless good for nothings who just line up for welfare as soon as they’re in.”

But that that were so. Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall immigrants looking for a handout, with a very few pensioners mixed in.

Roger Strongsays:

Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

You’re making that up.

A more interesting look at the issue:

Wall Street Journal: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups

…including Google, SpaceX, Tesla, Uber, Cloudfare and more.

And it doesn’t even count second generation immigrants. For example Apple, founded by the son of a Syrian refugee and the son of Polish immigrants.

Which isn’t at all surprising. When I was in high school it was the immigrants – from Asia, Russia, the Philippines, etc. – who did their homework and got the highest marks. They got the work ethic from their parents. Later I’ve worked for immigrants who set up businesses here.

We all know people with grand plans to improve their lives. They’re going to move to the west coast. Or to Canada if the Republicans or Democrats win. They’re going to save up, quit their jobs and go back to school. They’re going to run for office and fix things. But most never do. They’re stuck in the inertia of their own lives, unable to drop or stop making new commitments even in the long term. Or unable to save, or to put in the extra effort. Or just too nervous about taking a leap into a new life.

Immigration acts as a filter. You get only the people who DO the things they said. Who got over their fears. Who put in the extra effort and made the big leap.

These are the kind of people you want as citizens. The kind who ALSO tend to start businesses and create jobs. It’s one reason why for immigration is a good deal for the countries they head for.

Haywoodsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

Age and control of the english language. There, now you can label me a racist and whatever else you want, I couldn’t care less, this country will perhaps be saved perhaps not, but to have a country, you need borders and culture. Neither of which has been protected for a long time. Is a large part of our culture taken from immigrants? Sure, melding goes both ways. I think I’ll go have some German sausage on a tortilla.

Derek Kertonsays:

Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

Your anecdote about a Social Security office is of no value.

First, because it is just anecdotal. But more importantly, because we have reams of data we can turn to on these very questions. Universities, states, the nation – they all have data that deals with the very issues you are trying to summarize: how and in what ways immigrants affect jobs, taxes, and the economy.

So to use the most unreliable data when much better sources are available seems…just lazy.

I wish I could rate your argument as -1 “insightful”.

JMTsays:

Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

"Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall immigrants looking for a handout, with a very few pensioners mixed in."

From what you’ve written you don’t sound at all like someone who spends enough time hanging out at Social Security offices to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy. So either you’ve missed sharing some vital info with us that would make your claim a lot more believable, or you’re making shit up to strengthen your utterly amoral argument. Feel free to clarify.

Trailssays:

Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?

Sigh, not too sharp, eh? All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.

Even if most welfare recipients were immigrants, it doesn’t mean most immigrants are welfare recipients.

Now, to unpack the astounding racism of your post, that you could tell by looking who were immigrants, is, well, breathtaking.

Let’s be clear on what you were actually saying:

> Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall [darkies] looking for a handout, with a very few [old white people] mixed in.

Be sure to wash that white hood of yours before your next meeting, ya hear?

Davidsays:

Well Mike, I disagree on one point:

But, as someone who tries to look at every policy proposal based on a "does this make sense" or "does this make the world a better place" metric — and not on a "does this help my team" scale

I absolutely cannot see this making any sense on the "does this help my team" scale either. Unless that team is a sadistic street gang betting money on less privileged people killing each other.

383bigblocksays:

All in Time - Its about trust

I don’t know that I agree with everything Trump is doing, has done or is about to do. I will give him credit that he is following through with what he has promised. The problem is trust. I don’t trust that previous administrations did their job. I don’t trust that we have a good vetting process, I don’t trust that anyone in the government has held up their end of the deal to protect us from terrorists, I don’t trust that they care about anything other than to buy/ grab votes to remain in power. If he has to put the brakes on a system that is clearly out of control, with not one shred of published evidence that we are doing our due diligence to clear the refugees then so be it. He didn’t BAN immigrants forever, He put a temporary hold on them until he and his team can understand exactly what is and what is not being done to screen the incoming. Now all of sudden this presents a problem with liberal media and those who would just as well invite terrorists over here to kill folks and then blame themselves for not being understanding.

Why is it that everyone and now Techdirt included, wants to jump to conclusions and Trump bash. We have a paid-for liberal media to do that we don’t need anymore jumping on the band wagon. A 90 day waiting period is nothing in the grand scheme unless Americans are just dying to be in the club with out countries where Muslims are blowing themselves up in public places. Yes, I said Muslims because unfortunately, that’s who is doing it. Not Christians, Not Hindus, Not budhists,……Muslims. I know the liberal media would like to distort that fact or bury their head in the sand trying to figure out how to rewrite history and spin it, but the facts are its Muslims.

I don’t know about you but I am not eager to read about the numbers of people killed at a mall because a Muslim decided to blow themselves up in the name of an Archaic religion. Its bad enough we had San Bernadino and Florida shootings, let’s not be so eager to embrace the suicide bombing club just quite yet.

Ninjasays:

Re: All in Time - Its about trust

Dude… Stop. Just stop. Read the damn thing again, go inform yourself. You’ve had over a decade already to become the Muslim-bomberman apocalypse already. But yeah, keep your head in the sand. We’ll have 4 years of building hatred to show how bad Trump is.

Remember, some centuries ago the Catholics were the ones spreading terror.

383bigblocksays:

Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

Wrong… re-read your history dipshit. Muslims have been attacking Christians since “Day One”. The crusades fought back and keep in mind you had to say “Some Centuries Ago” imagine that, it was Centuries ago. Well News flash, the muslims are blowing up people now and never stopped and have been doing it all during the Centuries when others got a clue and realized it was bad thing. How many Centuries have to go by before you can say about Muslims……probably never.

Pull your head out of the sand there is no hating going on here just COLD HARD DATA and FACTS. I know you liberal haters don’t like it because its not politically correct, however no one gives a shit about PC when their families die. Statistics don’t lie they’re just inconvenient truths for your PC liberal loving Asshats.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

More people have been killed in the name of Christianity than in the name of Islam. In fact, historically speaking, Islam has been a lot more accepting of other religions than Christianity has. More wars have been fought over Christianity, or the conversion of people to a specific brand of Christianity then it has over Islam.

Perhaps since the mid 20th century that has flip-flopped a little, but throughout most of the history of major religions it was Christianity that was the clear and apparent “bad-guy”.

Now does that make one religion bad and one good? Absolutely not. Just the flow of history. People are what make religions appear bad or good- not the religion itself.

Anonymoussays:

Re: All in Time - Its about trust

I agree. If we keep killing muslims we will stop the problem at the root. It doesn’t matter if almost all of the terrorist attacks in the last decade have been domestic ones done by white people.

Well I guess we don’t call school shootings and stuff terrorist attacks. It doesn’t really fit with our narrative that the muslims are the terrorists. But who needs reality?

Me and 383bigblock will just keep sucking ol’ Trumps dick 😉

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

where are the terrorist attacks that happened in the last decade in America GristleMissle?

There is only one terrorist attack listed in the last 10 years that happened in the United States.

Would you like to try again? You seem like a smart guy. I’m sure you’ve got another wiki link in you friend.

GristleMissilesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

You want US-centric? Here you go, buddy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2000.E2.80.9309

Sadly sorting by date doesn’t work due to someone not using a sort friendly date format. By my count approximately 50% of terror attacks in the US during the past decade were jihad related. “Patently false” stands.

GristleMissilesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

I’m not quite getting your point here, Roger. It is true that facts tend to have a left wing bias, but I fail to see what that has to do with the AC’s comment of

>thanks for puttin dat libcuck in his place

>can you use a link that is not wikipedia? it has too many libfacts on there.

nor with my proceeding comment pointing out that terrorist attacks in the US do not at all match the earlier AC’s comment that the majority of terrorist attacks in the last decade have been by domestic white people.

I backed my shit up with links. I await y’all’s.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

“I fail to see what that has to do with the AC’s comment of”

…barely literate rambling with words made up by people with the mentality of a 6 year old.

That’s sadly the level of some of these comments – the AC clearly rabidly on one side, to the point where he has to come up with childish names to dismiss the people he considers to be on the other “team”. From my experience, that means he’ll either be incapable of understanding actual nuanced factual citations, or he’ll dismiss the source because it doesn’t back up he prior assumptions (as, it seems, he already has).

My reaction that is “why bother, since it’s clearly a waste of time trying to have an adult conversation”. I suspect Roger’s reaction was something similar.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

https://www.cato.org/blog/little-national-security-benefit-trumps-executive-order-immigration

I’ll sum it up for you. The Cato Institute analysis of terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 found that foreign nationals from the seven countries targeted by Trump?s travel ban ? Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia ? have killed no Americans.

Fuck You GristleMissle

bobsays:

Re: All in Time - Its about trust

Except that Trump is eroding any potential trust in the executive branch by:

Not relying upon good sources for information
–his top advisor isn’t intelligence or military sources, reorganizing the NSC

He doesn’t wish to have or accept the real facts of a situation
–inauguration crowd size despite photo evidence, Muslims dancing in the streets on 9/11, his hand size in photos, etc…

He is making policy changes without looking at the long term consequences
–travel ban, deregulation of industry (mixed results here), border wall, silencing of executive branch organizations

He doesn’t even try to avoid the appearance of shady dealings or corruption (not saying he is corrupt but it is hard to tell)
–not releasing tax returns, not separating himself from his businesses entirely, picking business insiders to be heads of industry oversite/advisory/enforcement groups

He also blatantly lies about things that are easily verifiable and then won’t correct himself unless people make him (I’m not talking about just messing up facts or old memories)
–look at his speeches, his press secretary, advisor Conway, he did change his take on Russian hacking but many more things he won’t admit he was wrong on or correct his subordinates.

Like its said trust is not given its earned. Soo far his track record is looking pretty bad for earning any trust.

383bigblocksays:

Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

Thanks for sharing mostly anecdotes and hipocracy. Obvious liberal, I imagine Hilary selling out our country to fund her foundation was just an oversight on her part. There’s someone who enriched herself through politics and you have the balls to call out Trump because he doesn’t 100% divest himself from his businesses. Tell me one president has has who actually had a business prior to being elected. I guess that leaves us only career politicians available for office in your mind. I guess that’s why Trump bothers you because he doesn’t need bilk America to make his money like the others.

If you’re sitting their professing your trust of Obama then you’ve lost all credibility. The man lied, manipulated, misled, etc, etc. I guess I need to get pair of those Liberal Glasses so that I too can see the world like you.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

Yeah ol’ Hilldawg can’t be our president! We need to stop her! Gotta keep our man Trump lookin’ good!

All the lies that Donny T has told are ok because Obama lied! REMEMBER? He lied all the time. So it’s ok when Trump lies.

I’m gonna break your liberal glasses and give you a nice pair of conservative ones. That way you’ll see the world the way it should be.

I like how Donny T is staying in all his businesses. Think about it when he makes a ton of money it’ll all come back to us! I agree with bigblock383. So many good ideas coming from Trump.

sorrykbsays:

Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

Tell me one president has has who actually had a business prior to being elected.

Jimmy Carter.
(There were others, but you asked for one. There’s one.)

And as for non-anecdotal information about Trump’s shady business dealings and problems with his foundation, David Fahrenthold at the Washington Post has a fine collection of well-sourced and detailed articles for you. You can Google it, or go to https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-a-fahrenthold/?utm_term=.0fe63e184cb7

383bigblocksays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

Exactly, no-one persecuted him for being a businessman prior to being a president and I don’t remember anyone telling him he had to divest of it 100%. NO-ONE has but now all of a sudden having a business and being President is a BAD thing. You should be concerned about the Presidents who are career politicians who get government paychecks that in no-way can account for the massive amount of wealth they accumulate in office. Hmmmm, I wonder how that happens. I can see where Trump gets his, I wonder where the Clintons got their millions……interesting. I guess the lecture circuit is very lucrative….when the country is for sale anyway.

Roger Strongsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

and I don’t remember anyone telling him he had to divest of it 100%

Nor is anyone telling Trump to. Presidents since Lyndon Johnson in 1963 have put their business holdings into a blind trust. It’s not just about not using their position to enrich themselves; it’s about not letting other governments influence them via the threat of harming their overseas businesses.

Derek Kertonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

“Exactly, no-one persecuted him for being a businessman prior to being a president and I don’t remember anyone telling him he had to divest of it 100%.”

No, Jimmy Carter WAS told to divest of it 100%.
And he did.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3796484/president-jimmy-carter-gave-up-his-peanut-farm-and-richard-nixon-sold-most-assets-to-avoid-conflicts-of-interest/

Looking up and down the comments on this page, it’s clear you are either the world’s best troll, or the world’s worst debater.

ottermatonsays:

Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

I guess that’s why Trump bothers you because he doesn’t need bilk America to make his money like the others.

There’s no evidence of this whatsoever. (Hint: Trump saying this doesn’t make it true. From we’ve heard from him so far, it’s a good bet that whatever he says is provably false)

If we could only see the darned tax returns of his … wonder why not?

bobsays:

Re: Re: Re: All in Time - Its about trust

Nope not a liberal, just a conservative that calls out bull crap when I see it. I didn’t mention Hilary because she didn’t become president. I distrust her as well. She has done many of the same types of things I have outlined above. Which is why I didn’t vote for her or Trump in the election.

Just because someone points out facts about one person and not about another doesn’t make them any less true.

Anonymoussays:

Re: All in Time - Its about trust

“I don’t know about you but I am not eager to read about the numbers of people killed at a mall because a Muslim decided to blow themselves up in the name of an Archaic religion. Its bad enough we had San Bernadino and Florida shootings, let’s not be so eager to embrace the suicide bombing club just quite yet.”

Jane, you ignorant slut, Those were both perpetrated by US citizens.

Ninjasays:

It seems to me that Trump is the cornerstone of everything wrong with the US nowadays taken to a whole new level. And when that level of wrong meets power nothing good may come of it.

In the distant past his ancestors were the ones running, emigrating and then immigrating into a land that received them with open arms. Sadly, it seems he and his kin failed at evolving and are stuck in the Middle Ages.

I can only pray the world survives this piece of shit of human he is. No offense intended towards the shit but I can’t find anything worse.

Dr. David T. Macknetsays:

All Too Familiar...

The responses you’ve had are all too familiar to anyone with a public persona. Scott Hanselman has tweeted about it, as have John Scalzi, and countless others – responding to people who only want to hear one side of a person’s experience (in those examples, either the tech side or the author side). This proscriptive bullying is an attempt to devalue the person behind the writing – to tell you that you’re ONLY valuable because of your writing on a particular subject, and should not speak on anything else because that’s not your PLACE.

Liberties are, indeed, all intertwined, and must be defended as part of a whole. You cannot be free in one venue if your freedoms are arbitrarily restricted in another – that’s just not how freedom works, whether you’re a radical progressive or a libertarian or anyone in between. I appreciate your writing on them as part of a whole. Keep it up. Also: any time you can speak truth to power, please do.

Anonymoussays:

Re: All Too Familiar...

This proscriptive bullying is an attempt to devalue the person behind the writing – to tell you that you’re ONLY valuable because of your writing on a particular subject, and should not speak on anything else because that’s not your PLACE.

That is a ridiculous inference. Preferring to keep only veggies in the veggie drawer (tech in the techdirt blog) and disliking having the meat tossed in there with it isn’t ‘bullying.’ It’s like complaining about someone’s white papers being posted on their Homestuck fanfic blog or vice versa.

Of course dubbing this post ‘not belonging’ on techdirt shows an incredibly narrow view of what topics it’s concerned with, and plenty of objections here are stupid, emotion-based, and rife with alternative facts, but calling complaining about a blog’s contents ‘bullying’ the poor bloggers is just completely out there.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Give Mike a break

After all, he made the EXACT SAME post after Obama shut down Iraqi immigration for 6 months during his presidency.

Except, of course, he didn’t do that, as many have explained above. Don’t push fake stories to support your beliefs.

And if you don’t think I’ve criticized Obama repeatedly, you haven’t been reading this site.

Firewingsays:

Re: humanity

My family has been in the US since before the Mayflower arrived on these shores, and I am proud to be an American. That means BEING an American…..learning our language, following our laws….and entering the country legally! It does not mean that you should be here to get all the benefits of citizenship without earning them.
I have a nephew in the Border Patrol at Nogales, AZ. I have seen first-hand the path of illegals: discarded trash of every sort littering the landscape. So first comes the illegal entry into the country, then the trashing of it as you pass through. If that isn’t enough, then find someplace that will give you food and shelter and probably money as well. And you didn’t have to do one damn thing to earn it. Well, gee……..isn’t that what criminals do? They steal from others and give nothing back except hurt.
There is NO humanity in allowing our country to be overrun by those that only come here to take what they can get.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: humanity

This is such truth. I too have a cousin in the border patrol and he says that under Obama they didn’t have the right to lock up the children and parents when they were illegal.

I think Firewing is right. If we can’t kill the immigrints who come to this country then how can we protect ourselves?

The right thing to do is kill all immigrants and leftist pussies so us true americas can fight for what is right.

Cowardly Lionsays:

Re: Re: Re: humanity

"Did the native Americans think that way when your ancestors arrived I wonder?" Right from the get-go they were helping the colonists. I often wonder if they could have sneak-peeked a few centuries ahead would they have behaved any different? I don’t believe they would have. Compassion was hard-baked into their communal way of life.

If you get the chance, read "Bury my Heart at Wounded knee", by Dee Brown. But be prepared to weep buckets.

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re: humanity

I have a nephew in the Border Patrol at Nogales, AZ. I have seen first-hand the path of illegals: discarded trash of every sort littering the landscape. So first comes the illegal entry into the country, then the trashing of it as you pass through. If that isn’t enough, then find someplace that will give you food and shelter and probably money as well. And you didn’t have to do one damn thing to earn it. Well, gee……..isn’t that what criminals do? They steal from others and give nothing back except hurt.

Ah, my favorite type of nonsense argument. It’s the "I have a semi-distant relative who saw a thing" anecdote, which I now take to be a perfect example of what the broader reality is, even when the data and facts disagree with me.

Anyway, if you’re going to use Mexicans coming across the border as your argument, you do realize that net migration between Mexico and the US has been negative the past few years (as in, more people are going back to Mexico than coming to the US). But who cares about that, your nephew saw some litter and you’re positive it’s because Mexicans are stealing from US taxpayers.

Richardsays:

Built on immigration

Basically my entire family came to America between around 1890 and 1920

People have said that the US was built on immigration as if that was somehow a good thing.

I wonder what native Americans feel about that one?

Some of them may wish that there had been a much more comprehensive immigration ban for the last 500 years.

Ninjasays:

Re: Built on immigration

This is another side of the same coin. When the first colonizers came they didn’t think of natives or black ones as people. Maybe if they were in the (admittedly limited) level of evolution a good portion of humanity is now the history would have been different and we would have way more indians in the population.

By 1890 the genocide against the natives were already done basically. So, yes, one could say that immigration became a good thing but the colonization was terrible.

Derek Kertonsays:

Re: Built on immigration

Humans are native to the region around Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.

Humans anywhere else migrated there, whether sooner or later.

It is my opinion that it’s the more industrious among them that migrate, and these characteristics correlate with those that drive progress. Courage, adventure, sacrifice, curiosity, hope.

Stayers always go on about the glory of having been born somewhere, the Mayflower, or the importance of their ticket in the lottery of birth. But how much pride can they have in their homeland if they never actually chose it, or made any effort to be there?

Nothing wrong with having been born somewhere great like the USA. It just makes it possible that either you DO love your country, or you’re just lazy and lucky. Can’t say that for migrants – they all sacrificed to be where they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge

lars626says:

Morality

Humanity, morality, however you want to describe it always has a place. Just because this is a tech blog does not mean you should confine yourselves. If the Trump supporters don’t like that you point out the insanity they can always read breitbart or foxnews.

If you ever stop calling out this kind of inhumanity and go vanilla on me I will be the one moving to other sources.

Anonymoussays:

Perhaps this is the equivalent of battlefield triage? If I were president, and my advisers said to me that we need to shut down immigration temporarily from specific countries and get a handle on this. That we have confirmed threats pouring into our country on a daily basis and our current immigration system is so broken we can even slow it down. I may have to go to the nuclear option temporarily as well. Yes it’s going to hurt people. That part really REALLY sucks, but if that could possibly prevent another 9-11 or major catastrophe, then it’s necessary.

I know people are going to say there is no proof that something like that is going on … etc etc.. I’m not so sure it would be a wise idea to even tell Americans if it were that bad. Every redneck with a truck and shotgun would be out looking for bad guys.

I’m not sure where I stand on this. I’ll have to give this some more thought.

That One Guysays:

Re:

I know people are going to say there is no proof that something like that is going on … etc etc.. I’m not so sure it would be a wise idea to even tell Americans if it were that bad. Every redneck with a truck and shotgun would be out looking for bad guys.

Yeah, gonna go with Occam’s Razor on that one. It might be true that the government isn’t providing evidence in support of their actions here because they fear a ‘furriner hunt by good ol’ muricans’… or they might not be providing the evidence because they don’t have it to release.

Out of the two options the latter strikes me as much more likely.

Anonymoussays:

Supporting DJT

DJT’s most vocal supporters do so in the face of:
1. Proven DJT lies – not a few, a lot.
2. Proven illegal actions and massive civil violations
3. Decades (plural) long history of misogyny, bigotry, racism, eletisim, selfishness, sexual assault, oath violation, contract violation, bankruptcy (financial), bankruptcy (moral), narcissistic and transference disorder.

You are essentially asking people that support this sort of person to display deportment incompatible with their icon.

That isn’t going to happen.

In fact, they consider traits of compassion, understanding, charity, honesty, veracity, insight, intelligence, empathy, honor and duty as signs of a weak person and revile them, frequently calling them “special snowflakes” and less repeatable characterizations.

The only solution to these sorts of people is to simply not engage with them. Upon identifying them, smile politely, nod agreeably, back away slowly, and hit the exit. A longer term solution entails finding a country that would be willing to force them into the mental health system and court ordered medication compliance.

Anonymoussays:

Here we go again...

More “my shit does not stink, but yours does” diatribe.

Sorry, those of you that fail history lessons. Trump is the exact person that comes after the pendulum swing that Obama created. The person that comes after Trump will be what comes after the pendulum that Trump swings.

Just as George Washington said… this bullshit is going to happen if you keep letting your politics rip set us apart. The anti-Trump crowd has gotten so shrill that they are now louder than the anti-Obama crowd.

This place wants to become nothing other than an echo-chamber. I hope that is does not, but I am certain that it will. And down the tubes this place will go. I will keep sitting here and watching each side ignore the sins of their own or soft pedal them, while shrieking loudly at the smallest of trespasses by their foes.

Anonymoussays:

Let's take the emotion out of it...

The ban is not a Muslim ban as only 6 countries are affected.. The 6 countries Obama designated as terrorists hot beds. It is not even a ban, but a temporary halt to get vetting in place. In fact Obama made the same “ban” in 2011 for Iran. Carter did it too. Go to YouTube and you can find a video of Bill Clinton talking about curbing immigration to a cheering crowd.

But the media and Dem leadership are long on emotion and short on facts. They do this to whip the emotional left into a frenzy which apparently is going to be a weekly thing now. They don’t care that these protestors are violent, assault people, destroy property and probably end up with a criminal record thus hurting their employment chances.

There is a reason the left is called low information voters. They get all their news from 1 place, the liberal media.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

Also, it is a fallacy to say there is only 1 solution to a problem. In this case, bringing them here is not the only solution. If you think we can solve the worlds poverty problems, watch the video below. We are $20 trillion in debt thanks to Obama and climbing. We have the lowest labor participation rate in decades. Thanks to Obama’s lack of leadership, we don’t have jobs for the people that are already here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

sorrykbsays:

Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

The ban is not a Muslim ban as only 6 countries are affected.. The 6 countries Obama designated as terrorists hot beds.

Not quite.
http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/

In fact Obama made the same "ban" in 2011 for Iran.

False. (And you mean Iraq, not Iran. They are two different countries.)
http://wpo.st/l1iX2

Carter did it too.

Entirely different.
http://www.snopes.com/jimmy-carter-banned-iranian-immigrants/

But the media and Dem leadership are long on emotion and short on facts. …
There is a reason the left is called low information voters.

… ahem …

Leigh Beadonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

Yeah it “broadened Obama’s a little” from increased screening processes for refugees from one country to flat-out immigration bans for anyone from seven countries. And from covering 33-million people to to 218-million. Y’know, “a little”.

Stop being obtuse.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Mike Masnicksays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

Ah, so 1 country is ok, its just a little bigoted. But 7 is too many. Is 3 ok?

Except, again, what Obama did with that one country is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than what Trump did with the 7 countries. One involved revamping the review process of a specific group of refugees — no ban, no block. The other involved a blanket ban that was so broad it covered green card holders, people who already had been through "extreme vetting" and were on their way to the country, those who were dual citizens or citizens of allies who just happened to have been born in a blocked country… and more.

To say they’re the same, or that the only difference is the number of countries suggests someone being willfully ignorant.

Stop playing for your team and start playing for humanity.

That One Guysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

You have got to be doing this deliberately, the idea that you really can’t see a difference between ‘temporary slowing of immigrants from one country and ‘complete stop of immigrants from seven countries’ is just something I find hard to buy.

That’s ‘broadening it a little’ in the same sense that driving a semi through a BB hole ‘broadens the hole a little’.

If you think the EO is defensible then defend it on it’s own merits, don’t try to make absurd comparisons to something that’s ‘connected’ only to the extent that both deal with immigration.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

It is not a permanent ban, it is limited time so it is a slowing as well. So yes, you are splitting hairs. Also, one more response that fails to explain how we can solve the worlds problems by bringing them here. There are 3 billion people in poverty and probably millions being persecuted. We cannot afford to bring them all here. Again, it is a fallacy to say there is only 1 solution to any given problem.

That One Guysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

Probably because you added that particular goalpost after multiple people have pointed out how the comparison doesn’t hold up.

Once again, if the think the EO is defensible then defend it on it’s own merits, stop pointing to other actions by previous presidents with ‘Well he did it too!’.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

First, nobody has addressed the Cuban ban. Two, obviously I think it is fine for a sovereign nation to control its borders. Just like I think it is fine that you lock your doors and windows. Though I question why you haven’t opened your home to the local homeless?

And yet again we have the economics of the situation that has not been addressed. Did you watch the video? Do you think we can import 3 billion people in poverty or would it be better to help them where they are? Or do you only see 1 solution to a problem?

But yea, keep dodging the issues.

That One Guysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take the emotion out of it...

First, nobody has addressed the Cuban ban.

Oh this is just too good. You were bluffing.

Obama ended the ‘Wet Feet, Dry Feet’ policy(at the last minute to be sure, but last minute’s better than never), and the policy itself was in place well before he became president, he was simply continuing a policy that had been in place for 12 years as of 2017, when it was finally ended, and even then it wasn’t a ban, it was basically an ‘agreement’ between the USG and Cuba that if people trying to cross from Cuba to the US were caught at sea they would be returned to Cuba or a third-party country, whereas if they made it to land before they were caught then they had a chance to gain US citizenship.

Two, obviously I think it is fine for a sovereign nation to control its borders. Just like I think it is fine that you lock your doors and windows. Though I question why you haven’t opened your home to the local homeless?

Red Herring and False Dichotomy. Defend the EO on it’s own merits or admit that it has none.

And yet again we have the economics of the situation that has not been addressed. Did you watch the video? Do you think we can import 3 billion people in poverty or would it be better to help them where they are? Or do you only see 1 solution to a problem?

Red Herring, The EO has nothing to do with the economy or ‘helping people where they are’. Defend the EO on it’s own merits or admit that it has none.

But yea, keep dodging the issues.

Oh yeah, I’m totally the one dodging the issues here. /s