Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Trump

#171

Post by bryanlarsen » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 8:36 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #140

Oh for fuck sake. Not another smart person who links Trump to Hitler. PG spends a third of his twitter feed making that comparison, it is getting tiresome. Back when Bush was president we (meaning the leftist groups I read) used to assume Bush would turn the US into a concentration camp, would institute military law, etc. We were certain that he wouldn't give up power to a black guy and just leave the White House pea…

"but what is Clintons alternative?"

lmgtfy: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

Except for being racist and anti-islamist, she talks a lot about all those problems and outlines proposals for all of them.

You may disagree with many of her proposals (and I do), but to say she's not talking about them just goes to show how the debate has been hijacked by demagoguery.

Re: Trump

#172

Post by leepowers » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 8:36 PM UTC

ethanhunt_ wrote: post #20

Disappointed to see Sam repeat things that are plainly false. Everyone says that Trump says such horrible things, but why is it that so often those same people have to misquote him to make it seem horrible? > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage and that we should ban Muslims from entering the country. He said that a judge of Mexican descent isn't treating him…

> He said that a judge of Mexican descent isn't treating him fairly, and that it is probably because of his heritage.

The judge is an _American_ of Mexican ethnicity. Trump said that the judge gave unfair rulings because of the judge's ethnicity. Trump is advocating that ethnicity "trumps" citizenship, judicial duty, or any other personal and professional virtues. As Paul Ryan correctly noted this kind of essentialism is textbook racism.

Or put another way. Were the rulings so egregious that a white judge, or a black judge, or an asian judge would rule differently? Aside from the judge's ethnicity what has he said or done in the past to imply any bias against Trump? If Trump truly believes the judge has a strong bias why hasn't he instructed his lawyers to for a motion of recusal, or a change of venue, or any other legal remedy?

> And where was the condemnation of the Obama admin when they tried to prohibit an Iranian-American judge from presiding over Iranian immigration cases?

It was wrong for the Justice Dept to do this. But the Obama admin being wrong doesn't make Trump more right. Both can be wrong. BTW, the Obama DOJ recognized its error, reversed course, and settled with the Iranian-American judge: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/03/454394225/...

Re: Trump

#173

Post by putaside » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 8:36 PM UTC

Terrible Godwin flamebait. Not disappointed, merely amused and surprised. If you can not make a statement about a politician without invoking Hitler and dictatorship, you should really reconsider speaking up.

Indirectly you are calling Trump voters Nazi's. That is pretty damaging to debate and to democracy.

First calling Trump right, then portraying him as a mastermind capable of murdering millions of people, is juggling the very same demagogic tricks you so despise. There is no need to demonize someone, when you can factually, and calmly, attack their xenophobic economy-damaging proposals.

This is fighting fire with fire.

Re: Trump

#174

Post by clevernickname » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 8:38 PM UTC

Aldo_MX wrote: post #131

stcredzero wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the issue is that those people will procreate more ignorant and insecure people and the issue will never end. Highly procreative undereducated underclasses have long been a staple of American life. Give people enough resources and opportunities, and they will often better themselves. What you are seeing is what happens when you economically squeeze people.

> Give people enough resources and opportunities, and they will often better themselves. The paradox is that giving people resources and opportunities is the wisdom behind left-wing politics, the opposite of what Trump and the Republican party represent...

The welfare state does not exist to bring people up, it exists to lock people into a dependent underclass to justify its continuation and expansion.

Re: Trump

#175

Post by pbreit » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 8:38 PM UTC

ethanhunt_ wrote: post #20

Disappointed to see Sam repeat things that are plainly false. Everyone says that Trump says such horrible things, but why is it that so often those same people have to misquote him to make it seem horrible? > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage and that we should ban Muslims from entering the country. He said that a judge of Mexican descent isn't treating him…

I think you're wrong. He called it "an inherent conflict of interest" which Sam's description seems more accurate than yours.

The WP headline is still there: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06...

Re: Trump

#176

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 8:39 PM UTC

trcollinson wrote: post #162

mikeash wrote: post #38

This certainly doesn't match what I've seen. All the people who think Trump is unfit seem perfectly willing to say so. All of the people who support him seem to be completely sincere in their belief that Trump would make a good president. I don't see anyone giving any indication that they think Trump shouldn't be president, but that they're afraid to say so. There is no "charade," as the author puts it. It's possible…

What's scary is that so many people actually want him to win. I am not sure, exactly, how that is scary. Let's take a look at the reality of our current political situation, fear mongering and demagogic arguments aside. We in the US live in a country with two parties that have, for all intents and purposes, chosen their two favorites for leaders. When we go to the polls in November we will either vote for Mrs. Clinto…

It's not the potential win in November that's scary, it's the fact that Trump won (is guaranteed to win?) the nomination.

If God descended from heaven and snapped his fingers and declared, "This November, you shall decide between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton," then I wouldn't find it particularly surprising or worrying that ~50% of the electorate would support Trump.

But the fact that people chose him out of a wide field during the primaries is a totally different story. Yes, none of the other choices were particularly compelling, but neither were they the inconceivable choice represented by Clinton.

It's not that they believe in him more than Clinton, it's that they believe in him more than Rubio and Cruz and Christie and Jeb Bush.

A big chunk of voters basically just said "fuck it" to the whole process and gave up on even the pretense of sane politicians. Who are they going to choose for Congress? Who are they going to nominate for president the next time around? Maybe they'll realize this was a mistake and get back to some form of sanity, but I'm not optimistic.

Re: Trump

#177

Post by VLM » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 8:39 PM UTC

spoiledtechie wrote: post #95

Oh how I am disparaged by Sam Altmans words. Not because they are wrong, but because they seem naive. Trump is right about the problem. His solutions are a more verbose than most. I am reminded of a quote "We must not paint with pale pastels, but with bold colors" Trump is using bold colors to address change. Mexican Judge - When has it not been heard that many white judges have shown prejudice against a black person…

"creating a connection between Trump and Hitler. Its horribly sad to see such a connection being made"

We're raising a generation who will grow up associating the name Hitler with an outspoken New York City real estate developer who did nothing wrong. Which is a bit of a problem if a real Hitler ever comes along. Along the lines of "crying wolf" fairy tales. So lets say we get a guy in 20 years who really does want to put Jews in ovens. And the people are like "yeah yeah yeah, I've heard it all before, and Central Park is kinda cool and I like casinos and big skyscrapers so I'm not seeing a problem here"

I'm not sure they understand trademark dilution as a concept. All tissues are Kleenex and they're all OK, all photocopiers are Xerox and they're all OK, all politicians to the right of Lenin are Hitlers and they're all OK, oh whoops a real Hitler slipped thru and now the ovens are getting stoked up, maybe that was a bad strategy after all.

You have to realize I'm not old enough to be greatest-generation, but for decades of my life all I've heard is everyone's Hitler and its simply not been a problem. And nobody seems to agree with me that its a problem to propagandize that being Hitler is OK and normal and nothing bad happens because of him.

Re: Trump

#178

Post by heurist » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 8:40 PM UTC

ethanhunt_ wrote: post #92

ebbv wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not fact checking, it's repeating Trump's spin on what he's said, and it's just not true.

If you watch the interview that someone linked above, it is what he says. He says: - he is being unfair, so now I say "why" Now people invert this argument and say Trump is saying "He can't do his job because of his heritage". That's completely different from saying "he is not doing his job, and the most probable reason is his heritage". Now you can certainly say that even the latter argument is racist or xenophobic…

The implication that he's not doing his job because of his heritage is still pretty bad. It minimizes the judge's experience and boils him down to a skin tone. He has a conflict of interest because of his heritage? Appeal, sue him, whatever. Prove it.

Re: Trump

#179

Post by splawn » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 8:40 PM UTC

trcollinson wrote: post #162

mikeash wrote: post #38

This certainly doesn't match what I've seen. All the people who think Trump is unfit seem perfectly willing to say so. All of the people who support him seem to be completely sincere in their belief that Trump would make a good president. I don't see anyone giving any indication that they think Trump shouldn't be president, but that they're afraid to say so. There is no "charade," as the author puts it. It's possible…

What's scary is that so many people actually want him to win. I am not sure, exactly, how that is scary. Let's take a look at the reality of our current political situation, fear mongering and demagogic arguments aside. We in the US live in a country with two parties that have, for all intents and purposes, chosen their two favorites for leaders. When we go to the polls in November we will either vote for Mrs. Clinto…

Imo, its scary because an overt racist is a viable candidate.

Re: Trump

#180

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 20, 2016, 8:40 PM UTC

pbreit wrote: post #164

mej10 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump: Jake, if he was giving me fair rulings, I wouldn't be talking to you this way. He's given me horrible rulings. Tapper: But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is, if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job ... Trump: I think that's why he's doing it.

This passage supports OP claim that Trump only reacting to "horrible rulings". But that's clearly false: "“I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest"

[deleted]