[Cursuviam]

A protest isn't hypocritical just because something worse in the past happened that wasn't protested. Maybe some issues with a human face to rally behind receive disproportionate attention, but that doesn't invalidate the issue.

[adventured]

Failing to stand up against egregious civil liberties abuses for eight years, then immediately springing into action again (on every possible topic) because your party is now out of power, is the definition of hypocrisy politically. This happens with every rotation, I watched it happen from Clinton to Bush, and then from Bush to Obama, and now from Obama to Trump.

At the same time the Democrats wanted my vote for Clinton against Trump (I voted for neither). One of the lesser reasons Trump is President, is that vast hypocrisy by the left on civil liberties. It does matter. Clinton was a war hawk that supported bombing only Muslim countries (she supported bombing something like eight different Muslim nations in the last 15 years; but I'm to believe she's not anti-Muslim) and overwhelmingly anti-privacy, she isn't getting my vote on the argument that she's the lesser of two devils. Sanders by contrast, has historically been very consistent on civil liberties for decades, and I'd have considered voting for him.

[grzm]

You care about civil liberties? You now have a large number of people who will act with you. Take advantage of it. If you truly care about these issues, work with whomever you can ally yourself with while not compromising your own values. Right now, there seems to be a lot of people motivated to change things. Work with them. It doesn't mean you're one of them.

[rorykoehler]

Trump is not the problem, he is the symptom. Whilest I agree with your sentiment, it's hard to work towards solving the problem when there is not even an ability to understand what the problem is from those you suggest working with. Anyone who is out there protesting now but would have been cool with Clinton doesn't get it.

[grzm]

It's hard to argue what people would have been cool with under Clinton given Clinton wasn't elected. If you're determined that those who are protesting now just don't get it, you're absolutely right, you won't be able to work with them. You've already closed off that opportunity before you've even tried.

not even an ability to understand what the problem is

Do you really, honestly believe that so many people are completely unreasonable? If so, what do you think the path forward is? Do you write all of these people off? What do you do with them then?

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I think Trump is the problem. I think the problem is that people aren't willing to look beyond some of their differences to work towards the goals they have in common.

Though from you comment, it's not clear to me what you consider the problem to be. Would you elaborate?

Once you're at the point where you no longer consider others reasonable, you're effectively stuck. You can't reach them, nor are you open to being reached by them. This is a position from which no civil progress can be made. I'm willing to accept such a position with only the greatest reluctance.

[rorykoehler]

>If you're determined that those who are protesting now just don't get it

You're putting words into my mouth.

[grzm]

I very well may have. Please elaborate so I may understand what you mean. I've already asked once before. Please point out every place you feel I've misunderstood or misrepresented you, explaining what you do mean so we can at least try to understand each other.

[cinquemb]

>Trump is not the problem, he is the symptom.

I completely agree with your assesment:

"About a little of a year ago, when I worked in a lab, some of my colleagues routinely laughed and mocked Trump and boasted how he had no chance in hell (as well as fueling fire with continued patronage of sites and news that gave them more of the same "entertainment" [in their words]), and no amount of me pointing out to them the environment that enabled a such a persona to exist/rise to fame/power should be the topic of conversation rather than on the team $x circus ring leader de jour."[0]

>Anyone who is out there protesting now but would have been cool with Clinton doesn't get it.

Part of me thinks that, just some (most?) people never will. It seems like there will always be those who are quick to believe those who will pander to them only to be sold out for later tbd date or possibly in the same transaction!

Faux diametric ideological battle field lines are being drawn stateside (and arguably globally) and led by the same people that have benefited and continue to do so from the status quo, and we are expected to Coke and Pespi this and most take up such role willingly…

I'm taking the wait and see approach: if people are as fired up and eventually willing to fight and kill each other, might as well take the practical route as P&G did during the civil war and sell metaphorical glyceryl trinitrate to both sides and wait for the dust to settle while lurking in the shadows of the madness.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13111842

[3131s]

None of us pointing out the hypocrisy are saying that we won't work with everyone else, nor are we trying to legitimize Trump's policies. The point is that if we get someone like Michelle Obama in 2020, we want people to still care about these same issues. Maybe pointing out the hypocrisy isn't the best way to do that, but what is?

[grzm]

Work with the people who are interested in working with you now. Once they're engaged, they're much more likely to stay engaged, don't you think? And more likely to be increasingly politically aware. Not everyone is at the same stage of their political development. No one is perfectly consistent. Humans just aren't built that way. You and I included. Continuing to hew along these binary political lines is doing no one any good.

[seanmcdirmid]

Look, shit in someone else's yard, I don't care.

Shit in my yard, I care a lot about that. There is nothing hypocritical about expecting your country to look out for your interests, while other countries can look out for the interests of their own citizens and residents.

This is nothing about "party". Bush would have never done this, neither would McCain and Romney have been so stupid if they were elected. No, this transcends republican and democrat to a new level of damaging politics unseen since the 1930s.

[StreamBright]

It is an interesting stand when you walked over to somebody else's garden and took a dump and than you say I do not care about that.

The mass immigration problem is there because of the consistent, bad, misguided, systematic intervention the US committed in the last 30 years in the middle east. Most of the immigrants this executive action is screwing over are leaving their country because of the results of US intervention.

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/us...

[seanmcdirmid]

The mass immigration "problem" started shortly after Columbus discovered the America's, and hasn't let up since. It is not of the USA's making, in fact, it made the USA.

[sfifs]

> Shit in my yard, I care a lot about that. There is nothing hypocritical about expecting your country to look out for your interests

Well, from the point of view of Trump's supporters, that's what Trump is doing - making things difficult for people who are not American citizens.

[theWatcher37]

Except Obama himself did this exact same thing, and Carter.

You only care because of who's doing it.

[seanmcdirmid]

I've addressed that in multiple comments.

[aaronbrethorst]

This was a Cold War propaganda technique. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[oculusthrift]

worst part is how disingenuous it is. it's not that they want believe some point but simply want to discredit opposition.