[MisterWebz]

Bombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured. These are things that are acceptable, but a 90-day ban on immigrants coming from war-torn countries, that's a step too far? Has everyone seriously lost their mind?

[noelwelsh]

Imagine you're a person who was strongly against "[b]ombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments[,] and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured". Now imagine that the US has just elected a president far more conservative (and volatile!) than his predecessor, and a result there is a widespread movement for progressive political change, in line with your beliefs, from people who are normally not engaged in the political process. Do you:

a) bitch and moan at the johnny-come-latelys climbing onto your bandwagon; or

b) accept that society reacts in a non-linear way and use the opportunity to actually achieve something meaningful.

[eeZah7Ux]

What you call "bitch and moan" can be a useful reminder of how people tent do overestimate what happens in proximity and overlook what happens in a remote location.

[marcosdumay]

c) bitch and moan at the candidate at your side that isn't listening to your ideals?

There's a deep level on hypocrisy here, and that people (against both bombing and closing) are really not trying to fix this, otherwise they would have started sooner.

This is the third time in a row that the US public votes against the candidate supported by the Pentagon. Yet, the non-warmonger is a complete asshole...

(By the way, I'm watching from a safe distance, not participating on this stuff.)

[rdtsc]

Why does it have to be a and b only. Why not both or add c and d to the list.

He brought a valid point it seems but it was "bitching and moaning". And gave him a binary choice to pick between.

[pjc50]

Note that, due to the two-party system, complaining about bad Democrat policy on these issues was always somewhat muted at elections because the likely alternative wasn't some better Democrat but a Republican with a far worse policy. Which is pretty much exactly what's happened.

(The same applies to British politics: yes, the Labour party were wrong over the Iraq war, but does anyone think the Conservative party were in the right, or would have been less keen to support the US in that situation? Especially given the May-Trump summit.)

[_b8r0]

> The same applies to British politics

Your example is a poor one, and the British electorate have very different motivations when it comes to voting for very different parties with very different backgrounds, in very different elections with a very different governmental structure.

[varjag]

You are arguing strawman. Most people who are anti-ban were also against Iraq war and waterboarding.

[MisterWebz]

Yet people seemed to be awfully calm when Obama was droning weddings. I'm not saying we should've put so much hate towards Obama as well, I'm saying we should put things into perspective.

[YarickR]

Where's 8 year long trail of posts shaming and blaming previous administration and personally pres. Obama for those actions ? I see hypocrisy reigning supreme since Jan 20, from both sides.

[rdtsc]

The level of outrage doesn't seem to make sense. If they are ready to donate to ACLU, drive to a protest at an airport, subscribe for more media, over a botched travel ban surely they protesting 10x harder when actual killing was talking place.

I even got an email from Lyft about it. A driving app on my phone is now telling about this travel ban too and how much they are donating to the ACLU.

[levlaz]

> Bombing predominately Muslim countries, overthrowing governments and covert black sites where Muslims get tortured.

Who is saying that this is acceptable?

> 90-day ban on immigrants coming from war-torn countries

I think the key issue here is that this ban includes valid Green Card holders and people who have Visas. This means that they have already spent up to two years being vetted. This policy makes no sense.

If the order was just "stop issuing visas", I don't think that there would have been such an uproar.

[SBCRec]

I believe he is referring to the global hate train (media hype?) being run on Trump, magnitudes higher than any directed at the previous administrations responsible for those actions.

edit: Are military actions against these countries targeting Muslim communities worse than removing immigration privileges of Muslim communities? I dunno how to approach this question...

[coldtea]

>Who is saying that this is acceptable?

A few, but this is irrelevant to the parent's point.

Which is that whether people say it is acceptable or not, much fewer numbers complained about it when other administrations where doing it, and much less visibly than people do today .

Which gives one the impression that if in 2 or 4 years some democrat or another republican gets into office and does the same or worse, things will be silent again (except for few consistent protestors), and hence that it's all about ousting Trump rather than justice in general.

Case in point: Obama halted people coming in from Iran in 2011 (for 6 months) and nobody said much of anything. Or how about this: Trump said he'll get rid of 3 million illegal immigrants and all went crazy. Well, Obama has the record thus far with 2.5 million deportations, but nobody seemed to care back then.

[geff82]

Stopping issuing visas in itself would be bad for US reputation. I know many Iranians who really work hard to get a visa for the USA to visit the country they long for at least once in their life. As there is no US embassy in Iran (for good reasons, by the way), they usually have to travel to Turkey at least twice. One couple I know came to Germany for two weeks just to get their visa from the American consulate here. They were so freaking happy to visit the USA for two weeks (they just got home a week before inauguration).

[verbify]

Iran is not a war-torn country.

And this doesn't just ban immigrants, it bans green-card and visa holders too.

[coldtea]

So just like Obama did back in 2011 for 6 months and nobody batted an eyelid?

[imron]

They do however have that whole 'Death to America' thing going on:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-marks-revolution-deat...

[Patient0]

It's not just "a 90-day ban on immigrants coming from war-torn countries" - the fact that Christians from those countries are exempt makes it explicitly a "muslim ban".

[dingaling]

> makes it explicitly a "muslim ban".

No, 'explicitly a Muslim ban' would say 'this is a ban on Muslims'.

Do consider that the list of proscribed countries is compiled between the Departments of Homeland Security and State, not by the President, and is published in the Federal Register. The fact that the majority on that list currently coincide with dominant Muslim populations might have been useful for Mr Trump's intent but is not guaranteed to persist.

The list was last updated in February 2016.

[eli_gottlieb]

They've actually inadvertently included a bunch of Mizrahi Jews in the ban, too.