Trump

[Cazmonster]

"We are creating hardship for people that do not deserve hardship," Republican Motto

[Mike]

Very funny, but I'm hoping to avoid insults.

[Phoebe]

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to argue about whether this specific order is legal; all I can say is that I've read several accounts of legal experts explaining why it's illegal, and you have the acting Attorney General fired precisely because she believed it was illegal and was willing to be fired for the sake of that commitment, and we now have multiple Republicans in the Senate and House objecting to the order, and we have multiple conservative attorneys and law professors - whose opinions conservatives would in other circumstances totally embrace (like some of the same people who think the ACA is unconstitutional) - explaining that the order is illegal. So if you want to argue that this order is legal, I doubt the denizens of Nerd Pride Radio are your big opposition; rather, you're going to have to explain to a whole cadre of expert law scholars from across the political spectrum why it's legal.

Putting aside the legal issue for a moment, then, I would like to know what practical or moral justification anyone has for excluding those who are legally authorized to be here and whose homes and families are in the U.S. This order didn't say, "hey, let's stop letting in new people until we can be sure we're scrutinizing them appropriately." It said that a bunch of people who are already legally authorized to be here and whose lives and homes are here cannot enter the country. Have those of you who think this is necessary to combat terrorism and save lives considered that doctors, medical researchers, and scientists are one key group affected by this ban? Maybe when you get cancer you won't find it quite as amusing that your top expert can't return from his conference overseas, or that the newest medical resident can't start her job at your clinic now. My mother is a patient at a highly specialized medical clinic where one of the doctors is from Pakistan and another is from Venezuela. Not on the travel ban today... maybe tomorrow?

And about that... why isn't Pakistan on the list, given that so many people from there have been actively responsible for terrorist attacks or plots in the West? Thank God it's not, since I'd rather my mom's doctors stay right here where their families live and where they might help my mom live longer - you know, small things like that.

This ban has nothing to do with the larger debate about how many refugees we should take and whether we should give a preference to certain classes of immigrants - or even whether doing so is Constitutional. It was enacted without preparation or warning in precisely the manner designed to cause maximum chaos and disruption. Changing the refugee policy isn't accomplished by suddenly throwing people off planes when they were already approved to come here and a church group is waiting at an airport in Podunk, Midwestern State to bring them in. This was about causing a public scene and paving the way for future actions that go farther. This is about seeing how tolerant the public and Republican Congress are going to be. This is about Steve Bannon being appointed to the NSC while actual experts are pushed aside. Anyone trying to defend this is defending the morally indefensible. I question the motives of anyone who thinks this is okay - why are you okay with Nazi-style separations of people from their children? Why are you okay with letting foreigners who have helped our troops be at risk of execution - as has happened and surely will happen again? These are NOT people on a plague-boat who have to be abandoned to their deaths to save the lives of millions; these people are your doctors, nurses, IT professionals, teachers, and the mothers and brothers and children of the same. Do we know that not even one such person could be a threat? No - and we also know that far more people who have been proven threats came from somewhere else. So you're doing something totally immoral that you have no way of knowing is going to help, while ignoring more realistic threats, which reveals the lack of honest principle in what's being done.

[Tahlvin]

From Reuters:

The headline was: Only a third of Americans think Trump's travel ban will make them more safe. However, looking at the second question, only about a quarter feel less safe. I think the more interesting statistic is the first question, which shows about 49% agree with the order and only about 41% disagree (rough percentages). Of course, all the responses are very much along party lines.

[Mike]

Historically, there have been many times that a significant portion of the country has been in favor of actions that were nevertheless still illegal and unconstitutional.

[Phoebe]

Over 1000 career State Department employees have risked their jobs to sign a statement saying, among other things, this makes us less safe. Their word isn't inviolate, of course, but there is certainly a burden on those who disagree to explain why they are right and all these actual professional experts in the matter are wrong. Actual facts might be required - not just feelings at this point.

Our enemies are having a field day with this. They're delighted! Nothing could be better for them than our proceeding as if Islam itself is our enemy, not just radicals. Guaranteed such actions - and polls suggesting most Americans are cool with it - are having dangerous effects right now, convincing young people to become extremists.

Edited to add, here is an example of the type of bullshit that influences millions of people: FOX news had to be asked by the Canadian government to remove a statement that the Quebec mosque terrorist was Moroccan, which is false. He is a white nationalist, anti-feminist. How many people listen to FOX and how many will notice the error and its correction? This is partly why they're afraid. But as someone with a kid in a Jewish school, after the third round of bomb threats since Trump was elected, I'm a wee bit more afraid of the white nationalists. They loooove this travel ban.

[Stan]

Everything I see, here and elsewhere, supporting Trump's actions boils down do xenophobia and irrational fear. Just damn well get over it.

I've lived with and worked with Muslims. They're just people. Islam is ~90% the same as Christianity. Jesus and Mary play prominent roles. All the old testament stuff is in there. Most Muslims immigrating to the U.S. are not zealots; they're more likely wanting to get away from bad governments. They idea that over a billion people are united and plotting the destruction of the world is beyond laughable. And, if they were, the world would be on fire right now - it may feel like it's on fire but that's just sensationalist media, the world is getting more peaceful. Bans focusing on religion go entirely against the concept of freedom of religion - this goes beyond whether the actions are technically constitutional. Would you be ok if there was a ban on Catholics or any Christian sect? Then why are you ok with banning others of the book?

Another issue is terrorism. News, and media in general, loves terrorism. Things blow up and it gives enthralling video. There are victims to interview. You can make TV shows about fighting terrorists with dramatic violence - it also lets writers be lazy as they can have one dimensional villains that get blasted apart like so many battle droids. The reality is that, in the U.S., terrorism is a minor issue. It averages, ~30 a year, depending on how you count it. Gun deaths overall are nearly a 1000 times higher, depending on how you count. Basic math says that modest gun law changes would have a bigger impact than any improvement in anti-terrorism - even a 10% decrease would dwarf terrorism deaths. Deaths from air pollution dwarf gun deaths, at roughly 200,000/year in the U.S. alone; terrorism doesn't even show up on that scale. If you really care about safety, why aren't you doing everything you can to get coal power plants converted and reducing car pollution?

If you really want to stop terrorism, you need to address the root causes. Most victims worldwide are Muslims, in the fight between fundamentalism and rational thought. Some terrorism, such as Basques and northern Ireland, are long running political disputes that are tricky to resolve. But most of it is desperate people clinging to demagogues offering them hope. Stable governments with economic development go a long way - guys with a job and a girlfriend are far less likely to blow themselves up. The invasion of Iraq was the biggest political cluster fuck of the 21st century - the political naivety, the corruption of civilian firms, the ignorance, created a failed state where many regions have little left for people to do. Let's not do that again.

The ideological war is not Christianity vs. Islam. It's rational thought vs. fundamentalism. Rational thought has been winning so let's not reverse course now; don't swallow the fear messages in the media use your head. If you look into many Muslim countries, you see that they're not monolithic entities; they are struggling against zealots. It's a long path, but education and development and using knowledge over fear are the best path.

If you're still concerned about domestic terrorism, you need to recognize that by far the largest terrorist organization in American history is the KKK. They were fairly successful in oppressing millions of people for decades. Now, people with the same mindset are in the president's inner circle. Are you really ok with that? There are now thousands in right wing militias, many with fundamentalist, dominionist views. Right now, they think they're winning. But as the tide turns and they realize that they are getting steam rolled by demographics, many of them will turn violent with a level of destruction far beyond a handful of foreign terrorists.

If you continue to support Trump, you are going down the path of fear and anger. Spock and Yoda would both be ashamed of you.

[Mike]

Bravo.

[Phoebe]

Does everyone know that Steven Miller, the senior White House advisor for policy, is a 31 year old who was buddies with white nationalist Richard Spencer in their days at Duke? He and Bannon reportedly authored the ban and also were the ones pushing for it to be released suddenly in the chaos-producing manner we saw, rather than following any usual process of having it reviewed or making clear those responsible knew how to implement it.

It is seriously terrifying to me on a personal level that we have two people in the innermost circle of the White House who appear to be anti-Semitic or share in these wild ideas about Jewish conspiracies in media and banking. Hopefully the Jewish people in positions of power in media and banking will establish a protective conspiracy soon, because I'd rather not read any more emails about toddlers evacuated from their schools due to bomb threats, thank you. Feeling safe is obviously a matter of relative perspective for people. I have far more specific cause for concern I can't even write in public.

[Ronster]

[Stan]

[Ronster]

[Mike]

That's just it, Stan. From the people I've talked to in person. From people here like Ron. From reasonable conservatives I've read online... this is not about fear and anger. It's not about bigotry and hatred. It is more about common sense and safety. They don't see that this as being primarily about religion. They understand that some see it that way, and that there are bigots and haters in the world who are gleeful about it for the wrong reasons. But from their point of view, it's simply common sense and safety. And for the most part they seem to feel that that's what motivated the president to do this. They take the president at his word in his official justifications for the action.

YOU have categorized this as being about hate and fear and anger, but the moment you put that assertion into your arguments, you've immediately lost anyone from the other side. To them, you clearly don't understand them, and using that characterization is seen as baiting or insulting. They're not listening to you anymore.

Of course, reasoned facts and confirmed statistics and logical debates about point of law don't seem to be changing many hearts and minds for me either. So take it as you will.

[Stan]

Let me put it this way. It's normal to assess threats and take precautions. However, if one thing is clearly more dangerous than another, and someone acts much more afraid of the less dangerous thing, they are not acting rationally.

Is there any evidence that Muslim refugees are more dangerous than other groups of people? Especially refugees from the banned countries? Even people who have already been thoroughly screened and have green cards for years? Literally, show me the evidence. If you want to deny standard rights to a group of people without evidence of difference, that is not a rational desire.

Also, is it ok to refuse help to thousands on the possibility that one of them might be a really bad person?

[bralbovsky]

Whenever we act from an impulse of cowardice (whether or not it's couched in some euphemistic "caution") it diminishes us.
It justifies ignoring laws (which makes it more likely laws like Habeus Corpus will be ignored when inconvenient).
It justifies torture and other inhuman and inhumane acts like wholesale imprisonment.
It influences us to invade the wrong countries for the wrong reasons.
It surrenders any pretense of a moral high ground, which undermines everyone's rights worldwide.
It slides us inexorably toward being just another Banana Republic run for the financial enrichment and masturbatory delight of a couple guys who really couldn't care less what people who support the bill of rights think.

Jefferson and Franklin supported lots of ideas that we have decided were imperfect, but one durable idea that they did support was the idea that dissent was critical, and dismissing it, censoring it, punishing it were dangerous.

Every autocracy has the same number of citizens: one, and every other former "person" is his slave.

[Phoebe]

What do we call it when a whole group of people is set apart as different, without sufficient reason or evidence, and thus becomes the object of irrational fear, anger, and worse treatment than other groups? There's a specific word for it!

What would it be like if I said, well, black men make me feel afraid, so it's not that I'm racist, it's merely that I have legit concerns for my safety because, you know, black men are different and scarier than other people? There is no "nice" way to interpret this wherein I'm simply concerned about safety. Likewise, there is no "nice" explanation wherein Trump supporters get to pretend that their baseless xenophobia is simply due to concerns about safety. The concerns about safety are caused by the xenophobia!!! And we know this because if that were not true, people would attach safety fears to actual dangers, like Stan said. But they aren't doing that. We're more at risk now than we were before the ban!

The time to care about winning hearts and minds by treading lightly around people's tender feelings is long past. People are going to learn about Trump much the same way that climate-change skeptics are going to learn about climate change, the hard way. So right now I care about the people who are risking their lives, unjustly detained, separated from their families, or giving up on the once-present hope of a free and secure life. At some point it is your responsibility to notice the damage you're doing to other people and stop doing it. If you want to change the immigration policy, fine - reasonable people can differ about what that policy should be and to whom the benefits of citizenship or residency should be granted. But in the process of figuring that out, we have a responsibility not to intentionally harm people who have been abiding by the law! We have a moral duty not to destroy people's lives for no reason, right?

[akiva]

[Phoebe]

I can imagine some people never coming to that realization or being willing/able to admit it. That's fine. Some people probably won't acknowledge basics about climate change even when it's bearing down upon them, but for others it will be an unhappy surprise. I'm still confident some learning about Trump will happen for most of those voters. A lot of them weren't truly excited about him to begin with but just couldn't get past their loathing of Hillary. Now that she's out of the picture they'll keep having to find new scapegoats. The media, Malcolm Turnbull, fringe anarchists, grandmothers, grizzly bears, disabled kids, whatever. The religious right would be just as happy with Pence. We are doing a great job of pissing off the rest of the globe for no good reason and we're not even two full weeks in. Eventually it's like, why have all my other friends left and I just have this one friend who keeps insisting the rest of the friends were assholes anyway and we don't need them? Also, let's start a war in the Pacific! WTF people, it's unfortunate to be trapped on a ship with so many idiots.

BTW has anyone seen Pence's wife? Either someone over there has been intentionally trolling her in the fashion dept. or... I have some questions. I hate to be so cliche about it but, well, I have some questions.

[Mike]

If you want to educate yourself more about how Trump supporters of many stripes actually think and justify their positions, listen to:

the latest episode of

and the latest episode of

Incredible. There are some people here who I recognize I could not have a meaningful discussion with over Trump, because our views are so divergent and some of them are so clearly willing to whitewash anything and everything about the man. But with others, I would enjoy having a substantive discussion, and this gives a fair idea of the rationale they hold in their heads to indicate what sort of points I could make that would have an impact on them.

[Phoebe]

Your desire to have a meaningful conversation or real impact on MAGA type people is noble, but I honestly consider it a lost cause. I have limited time in my day and it's better spent boosting the signal of people who live in reality and are usually amiable to other humans without prejudice. On issues where my view really is the minority, I feel like it's important to explain it patiently to people who have a different set of values, assumptions, or experiences. Look at what that did for gay marriage in one generation, for instance. But you know what else helped? Moving through one generation. Things are getting crazy here because the Republicans simply do not have the numbers going forward to sustain their power. They will have to draw in new people (seems unlikely, since old racist, sexist white people are their strongest and now most visible base) or else they have to lie, cheat and steal in whatever way possible to fight the inexorable demographics favoring Democrats. Then we can have a different form of corporate rule by the 1% but at least it's a far better one!

I saw a great article the other day and thought of you - it was about how people on different sides of the political spectrum are often operating in different moral worlds because they value different things. So if you want to communicate across the divide, you have to reach them where they live, in moral terms they can understand, with respect and some mutual patience. This only works if you really do want to change hearts and minds, because it matters whether they change! Sometimes it doesn't matter. This happens at work at lot. Some foregone conclusions are total fact-free bullshit and it's politics. No argument on earth is going to change the mind of someone who is out grasping for their naked self-interest no matter what reason or facts or evidence say. I deal with people who are generally intelligent, in some cases having advanced degrees they couldn't have if they were stupid or couldn't interpret data, and they will look you in the face and say that the sky is green if it serves their political interests. That's where I think we are now. Racists are going to look you in the face and say that black people are fundamentally flawed or lesser or scary in some way, and then they'll get mad if you call them racist for saying so. They are saying these things about women, about immigrants, about Muslims, about Jews, or whoever they perceive is standing in the way of their personal comfort and delusions of grandeur. You can be the nicest person in the world saying the most reasonable and well-supported things ever and it's not going to matter.