Hacker News Reader

Comment by grey-area | Hacker News Reader

According to Guilanni, and to the president himself, that's exactly what he meant. There's just the small matter that what he wants violates the law and human decency, so they've had to temper it, for now.

President Trump has turned out to want literally what candidate Trump proposed. Thiel was wrong in a fundamental way.

As to your supposed impartiality I think you should be honest about your support for Trump, not dissemble, here is what you said about the press lower down -

Given their [media] hostile history with Trump, it's no surprise that they'd issue misleading, incredible, and fabricated screeds as he goes about fulfilling the campaign promises that got him elected.

View on HN

> There's just the small matter that what he wants violates the law

No, that's exactly what the Giuliani story doesn't indicate: it indicates the exact opposite, which is that they did this legally.

Incidentally, I think it's possible to support neither the President nor the media. The National Review had a recent article, whose title was something like 'Trump's order is wrong, but the Left is insane.' It's entirely possible to disagree with everyone who's shouting.

What he wants violates the law:

"a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States"

not what he did (the EO), which debatable in terms of legality, the EO could be legal as the president has a lot of power on immigration, though the former AG thinks not.

Re the media question, it was just an example of a recycled talking point in the OP's comments, which tipped me off that they are in fact a Trump supporter.

>Re the media question, it was just an example of a recycled talking point in the OP's comments, which tipped me off that they are in fact a Trump supporter.

You say this like there's something bad about it, first. There are lots of Trump supporters, or at least Trump voters, and their opinions have every potential to be valid. What's the point of this political shame game? It only hurts your position overall and such smugness may very well have played a large role in your side's election loss.

Second, I voted for Trump, but I don't consider myself a "Trump supporter" as such -- I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump, as I previously explained, and I don't have any specific personal opinion on Trump's EOs, pending further research.

Thirdly, as we've also already established, one need not be pro-Trump to recognize that the media is anti-Trump. That's not a "recycled talking point", that's a real thing. You may disagree if you wish, but your blatant hostility and denigration of others is not appropriate for this forum. You should read PG's essay at http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html.

It is just as fair to say that Mr. Trump's EO is more reflective of his actual opinion than his campaign statements as it is to do the opposite. That argument is zero sum because no one can know anyone else's true intentions.

You seem to be having difficulty grasping some of the nuance here, and trying to whip up a hysterical mob reaction. This is a thread about technical legal topics such as separation of powers and constitutional obligations, etc. In the future, you may wish to go visit the Huffington Post or something of that nature for the dismissive, mean-spirited political bigotry that you're attempting to use to pollute HN.

Apologies for being off-hand or derisive, it wasn't meant in that spirit, nor to shame you, it was in the context of your claim of neutrality further downthread. My side certainly is not Clinton/Obama/Democrats, but I don't agree with Trump and am concerned about him as president after the first week.

I am neutral on this issue. At this point my personal opinions have been widely exposed so everyone should have clear perspective on where I'm coming from, which I'm more than happy to provide. But even with this reply, you seem to be persisting in the claim that I'm not neutral as it relates to this EO on immigration based on the fact that I voted for Trump and/or that I recognize a strong anti-Trump bias in the media.

That's what's grating here. You're saying that you don't intend to shame or denigrate, but then you make claims that appear intended to discredit me based on my opinions on unrelated issues, like media bias.

A vote for Trump does not automatically mean one endorses/agrees with every action he takes whilst in office, nor does acknowledgement of the mostly blatantly biased and hostile reporting in modern history.

Anyway, I do appreciate the apology and your participation in the discussion. Echo chambers are very tiring, and HN is one of the only places one can come and have this type of debate with only the minor downside of losing 50 karma overnight. :P

>As to your supposed impartiality I think you should be honest about your support for Trump, not dissemble, here is what you said about the press lower down -

First, thinking that the media is anti-Trump does not automatically make one pro-Trump.

Second, being pro-Trump does not make one automatically pro-strong-vetting.

As for my personal positions, which are not relevant to anything but which I'm more than happy to disclose based on your expression of interest, I voted for Donald Trump and I've stated that on HN in multiple places before.

Immigration is not a major issue for me and particularly anti-Muslim rhetoric is a major turnoff for me; I have a lot of respect for Islam as a religion and I've studied it casually for many years. I think, in general, Muslims are great neighbors and community partners. I am not Muslim, but I am religious, and I've enjoyed working with Muslims on topics of mutual interest to religious people.

I don't like Donald Trump very much and I started out strongly opposed to him. I warmed up to him only over the final 6 weeks prior to the election or so. Prior to that, I was considering writing in a vote, and I probably would've if I didn't live in a swing state.

My personal preference for a presidential candidate would've been one of several candidates that was in the running earlier in the election cycle (preferably Rand Paul, though to be frank I would still like Ron).

I don't know enough about immigration from the blacklisted nations to know a) whether migrants from those countries do, in fact, pose more risk to the United States than migrants from other countries; b) whether that risk is substantial enough to warrant a travel stoppage/visa suspension of the type we've seen; c) whether a review or change in our vetting procedures will have any effect; or d) whether this ban will have larger negative ramifications in PR and internal turmoil than it would have benefit in implementation.

Because I don't know any of those things, I don't know if it's a smart thing to do or not. Why are you arguing with me about this and trying to tell me I don't know my own opinions? I don't get it.

a) Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero (0) Americans in terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and the end of 2015 (as opposed to say Saudi Arabia).

b) See a) above

c) The deliberate effect was immediately sending back green card holders and dual-citizens arriving at the border, this is wrong, both morally and pragmatically (damages US standing and the value of citizenship).

d) See the large worldwide protests at the ban.

> dual-citizens

To be clear, you mean like Iranian-British, right? If one of the citizenships were American I don't think it applied.

Right, I understand some of the arguments in favor or against. But I haven't researched enough to develop a firm opinion. Do you expect these one-sentence summaries of the liberal position to change that?

I don't think the conservative/liberal dichotomy is useful, consider the points on their merits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com