> He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants

As an immigrant myself, I keep seeing famous people write this, but I want some kind of "citation needed." What plans does this actually refer to?

Demanding others supply widely reported and debated information doesn't make sense for this forum.

Try searches like below, evaluate them and pick specific issues you think people here could help you with:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+threat+to+women&t=ffsb&ia=ne...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+threat+to+minorities&t=ffsb&...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump+threat+to+immigrants&t=ffsb&...

It's not a complaint about any specific plans he has made, it's a complaint about his general approach to those communities. The risk is not that he'll implement this particular idea, it's that all of his ideas are shaped by his abusive personality.

So, what you're saying is, you have no real evidence that his policies are going to adversely affect any of these groups?

Are you really suggesting that a presidents personality and repeatedly stated disparaging opinions have no impact on his policies?

As an immigrant and minority myself, you are being intentionally obtuse.

Great. Was has that got to do with this?

OP didn't 'criticize Trump', they called another poster 'intentionally obtuse' for not assuming liberal premises.

I'm a 'dumbass' for even questioning that liberal premises are not in any way political/ideologically motivated beliefs or perspectives, as opposed to facts you must not even be seen to question...

..AKA not drinking the kool-aid.

And, as if it need to be said, your insults break HN civility rules.

You still don't get it buddy.

He's proven he's willing to enact executive orders with no notice which bar legal immigrants from entering the country. So we've got action against immigrants already. Not just plans.

they deliberately conflate legal (skilled) immigrants and illegal aliens. to them, there is no difference.

it is a hyper-egalitarian interpretation of the word 'immigrant' with no basis in law or social norms.

> no basis in law or social norms

To push back a little...

I'm generally pro immigration and didn't vote for Trump (partly for these reasons). But there are valid points to be made about:

* what a healthy level of immigration is

* what a healthy immigration process looks like

* how much should family concerns affect immigration chances

* how much should professional skills affect immigration chances

* how to enforce immigration laws

The above are entirely about law and social norms. Just because you disagree doesn't mean there are no valid points.

Not engaging those points is just retrenching people, promoting more division, and making reasonable people side with unreasonable ones like Trump. I'm gathering that most people who voted for Trump voted for the least bad option in their minds, not because they wanted a buffoon for a president.

* what a healthy level of immigration is

specifically, what reasons is it being used for? It's been discussed here many times that the H1B program for tech workers is being used to depress wages and remove the immigrants' rights to competition. So while a politician may seem so shiny and "progressive" for increasing immigration, you never know if their back pockets are being padded by the tech corporations who save billions of dollars by not paying the "free market" rate for the skilled work.

wow, i must suck at writing because you just made the same point i did.

namely: legal and illegal immigration are completely different things and anyone who says otherwise is disregarding law and social norms.

I was saying that social norms and ideal laws aren't uniform and it's more productive to start from there.

The point about legal vs. illegal immigration being different is well taken. I presume even Trump agrees with that given his immigrant family.

Stephen Bannon stated that having Asian CEOs running 2/3rds of the companies in Silicon Valley was bad for civic society.

Are unskilled workers sneaking in from Asia illegally to run Google and Microsoft or are you wrong about whether it's only unskilled, illegal immigrants that are being targetted?

(We'll ignore for now the fact that 2/3rds is an incorrect figure, he was presumably intentionally exaggerating to inspire fear in his base.)

i'm saying that legal and illegal immigration are two different things. the fact that steve bannon dislikes both types and probably (almost certainly) dislikes non-white people has nothing to do with my point.

let's say all your worst fears are true, and bannon secretly is literally hitler. does that change the fact that legal vs. illegal immigrants are different, and should be treated differently, with a different set of laws and social acceptance? because i would say that even if he is literally hitler and mussolini combined, that would still hold true.

i mean, what is your actual point here? that you don't like steve bannon? okay, great.

You were clearly trying to paint "the other side" as unreasonable zealots, who pretend that upstanding, hardworking immigrants are under threat, when really it's only the classic illegal immigrant stereotype that your side have a problem with. (This stereotype is also BS but that's a different story...)

Unfortunately for you, someone right at the very top of the Republican party that is in charge right now said something that blatantly contradicts your stated claim that this is an invented concern. Trump has also made comments about the 1965 change in immigration laws that makes it clear that the skin color of immigrants is more important to him than their legality, numbers or skill level.

So feel free to apologize for misrepresenting their opinions or defend your original claim, rather than pretend you said something else.

Hardly. He stated that there is a difference between illegal and legal immigration, and that right now, somehow, that distinction is being lost in the hyperbole. One side of the argument is being unfairly portrayed as a horde of white supremacists/nationalists/racists/etc, because they make this distinction. At the same time, amnesty for illegal immigrants is being pushed by the other side as a humanitarian concern. Both sides are right to feel as they do, but good luck trying to find common ground in this current political environment.

i'll say it again, just in case you didn't get it the first time:

illegal aliens are different than legal immigrants, and should be treated differently under the law, and in society.

frankly, i don't care what the republicans or steve bannon think about it, that's apparently a major concern of yours, but isn't one of mine.

Today's headline:

Two Indian Engineers Shot, One Killed, "Get out my country"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/world/asia/kansas-attack-...

Didn't the recent travel ban attempt to revoke valid visas?

And bar entry to valid green card holders (permanent residents).

I fail to see what this has to do with Peter Thiel's self-identification as a libertarian.

Because he complains about government funding and distortion in markets, but became a billionaire with Palantir thanks to government funding.

It's hypocritical for "libertarians" to rail against government spending, crony capitalism, and the government picking winners, and then turn around and benefit from exactly that.

It's not exactly surprising as right-libertarian is a paradoxical concept. It only works if you're loaded. No actual poor person could possibly ever be considered at liberty seeing as money dictates access.

I would disagree on this point, being a "right"-libertarian from a low-income family, but I will happily concede that this differs from person to person, situation to situation. Libertarianism promotes and empowers the individual over the collective, and most libertarians derive their values from this ideological position. I'm not sure if you are familiar with any libertarians in your personal life, but many are deeply caring, rational individuals who have a consistent framework of ideals and strongly held beliefs against the use or threat of violence toward others. I would encourage you to engage with us more before you dismiss us, and I think you'd be pleasantly surprised :)

Disclaimer: Am fairly solidly left-libertarian (the original source of the word)

Collective action is the only thing that can ever empower the individual. We're standing on the soldiers of giants. It's as a collective that humans have developed all the technology that you see. It's thanks to FOSS that I and many HN visitors can earn our livings and contribute further to society. If you want to be egotistical and think you don't exist as part of a complex eco-system that both sustains and enables you through more than just economic exchanges you are free to do so but do expect to be challenged on it frequently. This message was delivered to you via the world wide web after all, which would be impossible in a right-libertarian world.

This is basic game theory. Organizations and society select for maximization of wealth/power - not ethics, morality, enlightenment, and/or aspirational value of your choice.

The problem is simple: Maximize organizational wealth/power given the social, business, and political context. Anyone competing in this system who does not loses to those who do.

The current response: Placate the users by agreeing with the issues and take no real actions (beyond a call for startups focusing on democracy).

CGPGrey's rules for rulers on youtube is a great application of the model to politics and organizations.

Actually inequality has been shown to reduce a society's overall wealth and power by stifling growth. Banana Republics aren't renowned for accomplishing much.

>society's overall wealth and power

Your response demonstrates a lack of understanding. Identify those trying to maximize this in a BR and compare to the priority and power of other players.

I would suggest that no one in any significant position of power cares about 'overall wealth and power' - otherwise you'd see a different result.

I think you reversed the meaning of my response. So I'm going to count this as extremely "strenuous agreement."

That means two things either they don't care enough to do anything or Thiel has greater power over them than we assume.

What could he have over them?