There are quite a few comments by presumably more right wing people marked as dead here. Excluding these people from debate this way makes hacker news less useful IMO. Why not make constructive criticism instead of downvoting, I realise it's easier...
The threshold for flagging is lower than for downvotes. The flag button only appears on the individual comment page, accessed by clicking the timestamp (the same page shows a "vouch" button, to support a comment you think is unfairly dead). I guess it is turned off for some people if their flags don't seem to be useful or whatever.
It's really great to see some interesting discussions of the points here rather than needless downvoting! I learned some things too and nobody got hurt.
I hasten to add that I think this order is designed as perfectly as possible to piss of liberals and entrench Trump supporters.
I mean the left is very good at pretending Obama wasn't an evil disaster for say Pakistanis or you know the rule of law. Just my opinion we need to get rid of executive orders and allow people to vote more directly. Politians should be lowered to civil servants rather than gravey train shoe ins. Wait and see if Trump does force through a two term limit for congress!!!
HackerNews loves to pat itself on the back about what a great community it is, but when it comes to politics (and other specific topics) the bullying and one-sidedness is as bad as anywhere on the internet.
But this is exactly why half of America is in utter shock about what's happening: their discussion circles involve one "side", and the other isn't acceptable.
90% of what Trump and his supporters are saying truly is not acceptable, you're right. Banning people based on their religion, canceling visas that have already been granted, firing reasonable dissenters rather than working with them, discriminating against LGBTQ folks, destroying access to women's health care, those are all completely unacceptable ideas.
It doesn't matter that some people believe in them, some people believe that black people should drink from different water fountains than white people. We shouldn't entertain those ideas even for a second, we shouldn't legitimize them. Conservatives are completely accepted around here. What isn't accepted is authoritarianism, bigotry, sexism/racism, and hate.
Being a conservative does not mean you have to be a bigot, and being a bigot does not make you a conservative. There are plenty of conservatives who would agree with that. If you believe that you should have more rights than someone else purely because of the color of your skin or the god you worship, you've gone well beyond the label of "conservative", you are an authoritarian and no one should be forced to listen to you.
The ban is based upon country. Muslims in general aren't being banned, otherwise travelers from countries such as Indonesia would be affected. They aren't.
"...canceling visas that have already been granted, ..."
If the visa has been granted to somebody from a country to which the immigration halt is applied, or otherwise is now subject to additional background checks that were not applied when the visa was granted, then the United States Government certainly has the right to revoke or otherwise suspend the visa.
This may be rude and it may be inconvenient, but it's hardly a violation of human rights. It certainly isn't unconstitutional.
"...firing reasonable dissenters rather than working with them, ..."
That oft-quoted "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" comes to mind here. What constitutes "reasonable"? If your boss tells you to do something, you do it. Or you resign. Or you get fired.
What if your boss told you to do something illegal? At the time, your options are identical: do what you were told, resign, or get fired. In due time, if you chose one of the latter options and your boss truly was breaking the law, you will be revealed to have taken the superior moral position.
We have yet to see if that is the case anywhere. If it turns out that way, it will harm Trump. I suspect, however, that if the appropriate courts rule in Trump's favor we will either not hear of it at all or it will be dismissed as judicial activism.
What they've done versus what they have said they wanted to do is not the same. The trouble is, what they have said they wanted to do is really, really awful. Sure Trump himself isn't repealing LGBTQ protections, but the Republicans really want to, and aren't shy about it.
And you're calling the Attorney General a terrorist? For saying that she didn't think the EO was legally defensible? Something that AGs do all the time, because they're legal professionals and cannot defend something they know is indefensible? It literally happens all the time. AGs very commonly refuse to defend against laws they don't think, in their legal opinion, will stand up to a successful legal challenge. Do a Google search for "attorney general refuses to defend law" and you'll see just how often it happens. Usually they don't get fired for it, because that's their job. It's not like Trump asked her opinion on it, something he really probably should have done.
Oh and no, the government does not have the right to revoke already-granted visas and green cards. The courts have issued a stay on that particular piece, because it's clearly unconstitutional.
And one of the first EOs Trump signed blocked funding for any healthcare provider who talked about abortion, anywhere across the world. Which is following one of the promises made by Republicans, to make sure Planned Parenthood (one of the largest women's healthcare providers in the nation) gets defunded.
This is the last I will debate any specific things you want to call out. My point wasn't to argue line-by-line but rather that these beliefs are not conservative, they're authoritarian. And that's not okay. No one is attacking conservatives, they're attacking fascists. Unfortunately, fascists have started calling themselves conservatives, something conservatives really should push back against.
So here I am, pushing back. Your comment has you sounding like a fascist. I'm sorry you can't see that. Conservatism has nothing to do with banning muslims, building a wall, or regulating people's sex lives. Those are authoritarian values.
You know, I was starting to address your first two paragraphs, then my eye went to your last one:
"Your comment has you sounding like a fascist. I'm sorry you can't see that."
If you've already convinced yourself that I'm a fascist, then you've shut down the conversation. Nothing I can possibly say can change your thinking, because even if I'm redeemable as a person it will be because I have rejected my irredeemable position, which is apparently fascism. Which is unlikely, because you've assessed me as incapable of observing reality.
I don't know if you're a fascist, all I know is your original comment was written to defend authoritarian policies. Like I said, the comment sounded like what a fascist would say. Especially the part saying the AG was a terrorist for daring to defy the glorious leader. That's pretty fucked up, you have to understand that.
But the fact that your immediate response to that is "wah you hurt my feelings so I'm going home" is doubling concerning. I don't care why Trump won, but you weren't interested in having a conversation in the first place. And you're right, neither am I. I've actually said that before, in a post that you said you didn't read, so I'm not surprised you missed it.
But my point remains. Conservatives are always welcome. Small government, in favor of small business, lower regulations, lower taxes, more individual rights. Those are good things. Authoritarians are not. Denying people their rights, regulating bedroom activities, discriminating based on color and religion, trying to make everyone afraid of everyone and everything, demanding 100% obedience or else, those are bad policies and no one should have to put up with it.
I can't help the way you come off in your comments, and I can't change your mind. That's not what I'm trying to do. I just want to explain the difference between Trump and a conservative. Because being anti-Trump is not the same as being anti-conservative. Trump is not, in any way, a conservative, so criticisms of his policies are in no way a criticism of conservatives.
And this, in a nutshell, is why I don't really care what you have to say.
This comment precisely exemplifies what it's parent describes. One-sided self-righteous talking-point drivel. None of your points in the second sentence are based in reality. NONE. No one was banned by religion, green card holders and those with valid visas were let in. Trump came out last night and explicitly said he wants to protect lgbt -- he is the most pro-gay President let alone Republican in history yet the false narrative from the leftist media is contrarian.
I completely agree with the parent comment. Every single time I've seen a dissenting opinion on this site it is flagged (greys out the comment) into oblivion and downvoted to the bottom.
You're throwing out labels and name calling while reciting the same made-up garbage that led your party to lose, and will lead it to lose in 4 more year as well.
The left is NOT liberal, remember that. Classical Liberalism is dead, replaced by a faux-culture war fighting, race-baiting, self-righteous, entitled, and massively misguided maintstream media-driven movement that has completely gone off the rails.
When the other side is proposing to reduce the liberties of those it disagrees with, you're darn right it's not acceptable. It's not like conservatives are forced to get abortions, change gender, become homosexual, or have a different religion, but they complain mightily about other people who want to do such things for themselves, while conservatives present themselves as victims of...well, I'm not too clear on exactly how they've been victimized.
the bullying and one-sidedness is as bad as anywhere on the internet
Really? I read a lot of conservative forums and have done for years. I'd quickly be banned from HN if I were to start cutting and pasting the sort of personal attacks that are considered kek-worthy there.
> See, you're ignoring a person's rights. There is more than one person involved
That's only true if you believe that a fetus is a person. That's the actual point of contention here: it's not when life begins, it's when personhood begins. Most people who are pro-choice don't believe that a fertilized egg is a person (if only because it is not, and cannot be, self-aware), and thus it cannot have any natural rights of a person. Most people who are pro-life believe that a fertilized egg is a person, and thus all natural rights apply, including the right to life.
The argument ("not like conservatives are forced to get abortions") is denying that there is a difference of opinion here.
Note that you quickly went from "fetus" to "fertilized egg". After a certain point there are brainwaves (what we use to determine death in difficult cases) and even a response to pain. If that doesn't count, then why not pull the plug on anybody needing life support equipment?
Not every conservative is insisting on personhood for fertilized eggs. For example, Bobby Jindal accepted early termination pills.
Note that you're responding to a different person. I didn't say the "not like conservatives are forced to get abortions" bit, and I recognize it as a fallacy. I fully understand why people who are against abortion see it as murder, and consider it as moral imperative to stop it wherever it happens. I was merely pointing out that this difference stems from the different views on what personhood is, not on whether a fetus is alive or not. No pro-choice person will deny that a fetus is alive, or that it's a human being. The sole question of interest is whether it is meaningfully a person, with the rights that entails.
If having brainwaves were sufficient to impart a natural right to life, we'd treat killing any animal with a brain as murder. We don't. So, no, that's not it.
And also, I don't know where the exact answer is. I do know for sure that anything without a brain is not a person. When it comes to brains, it actually intersects with the issue of personhood of animals, since at various stages of fetal development, the complexity and brainpower is analogous to that of animals. Now, I do consider it quite likely that some animal species have personhood. It is most likely the case at some stage of fetal development, as well. But we still lack the precise definition of what it is, to be able to draw a clear line. So for now it's "I know it when I see it".
With respect to your question on life support equipment - I do believe that there are valid cases involving brain activity where the human being in question is no longer a person, because the brain function has deteriorated (due to damage etc) too much for self-awareness. In which case, yes, I would consider pulling the plug to not be murder.
