Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 394 posts

Re: Trump

#201

Post by jack-r-abbit »

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 find it kind of sad that we can fall all over ourselves declaring how some white judges are totally biased against minorities (or biased in favor of other rich white people... like the judge in the recent Stanford rape case) and that is just fine. But flip the script and suggest that a hispanic judge could possibly be biased against a person that has been quoted (and/or misquoted) as saying unkind things against certain other hispanics and that is racist. I guess that only makes sense if you buy into the "only white people can be racist" philosophy. I believe anyone can be racist. I believe anyone can be prejudiced. I believe it is entirely possible that the judge in the Trump University case could be biased (he is a human after all). I don't believe suggesting it as a theory is racist.

Re: Trump

#202

Post by outlace »

clevernickname wrote: post #184
splawn wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor." -- Bernie Sanders

Taken in context that quote is not very shocking and certainly wasn't racist. Moreover he clarified his remarks the very next day. Trump's remarks about the judge are racist in any context and he repeated them for several days. It's rather disingenuous to compare this to Trump and suggest that it's even in the same league as what Trump said.

Re: Trump

#203

Post by heurist »

mikeaz1 wrote: post #96

Trump supporter here. If Trump is not elected I will be very concerned for the future of this country. Not sure why any real American would not vote Trump.

He surrounds himself with so much noise that it's impossible to know what his true stances are. I used to think he'd pivot and display his intelligence and marketing savvy after winning the nomination, but it's been a few weeks now and he's only dug himself into deeper holes. So now I just think he's a lucky idiot with no clearly reasoned policy positions. Ultimately I think other foreign leaders would walk all over him by playing his ego, and we'd be a weaker country for it.

Re: Trump

#204

Post by throwanem »

mikeash wrote: post #165
mikeaz1 wrote: post #153

> kill the cancer that's causing it This guy is calling Trump supporters like myself a cancer that needs to be killed. Who's the real nazi? We need Trump to fix this country and we need it fast

Actually, I'm calling the ignorance and insecurity a cancer that needs to be killed. Nice demonstration of the insecurity, though, good job.

> Actually, I'm calling the ignorance and insecurity a cancer that needs to be killed.

This by you is better? It's not the people who need killing, it's just their perception of the world and their deeply held beliefs. Who, having once heard you explain this, could possibly not start heeding what you have to say?

Re: Trump

#205

Post by mikeash »

trcollinson wrote: post #196
mikeash wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

So I guess the real question is, were the other candidates actually compelling? And more compelling? If so, how were they compelling? I think it's a poor argument to say a big chunk of voters basically said "fuck it" to the whole process. What they did say was, well the other candidates are offering us anything compelling to vote for them with; Mr. Trump is. Now, again, maybe the compelling arguments Mr. Trump is giv…

The others weren't compelling, but at least most of them weren't completely nuts.

Sure, the Republican primary electorate found Trump compelling, and that's why they won. And that's what scares me. I don't think they necessarily should have found any of the others compelling (what an awful field of candidates, I mean, seriously, what happened there?) but that's beside the point.

Re: Trump

#206

Post by mkane848 »

mikeaz1 wrote: post #119
mkane848 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please define "real American" for me[0] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

Any American who wants prosperity and safety for our country

And you legitimately believe that someone who doesn't support Trump doesn't care about the future of our country? You're throwing around an ideal that doesn't really have a black and white definition as a metric to create your us vs them battle, come on now. I'm not a Trump supporter but I certainly detest the political game of charging each side up against each other and neither being able to even BEGIN to comprehend how the other side of the aisle filled out.

Re: Trump

#207

Post by throwanem »

splawn wrote: post #194
clevernickname wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor." -- Bernie Sanders

Correct me if I am wrong, but your premise here looks like a meaningless semantic argument while ignoring why racism is bad to begin with.

...he said, because the claim that it's not possible to be racist against white people had actually won over anybody ever.

Re: Trump

#208

Post by lizardskull »

splawn wrote: post #179
trcollinson wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Mexico is not a race"

Re: Trump

#209

Post by mikeash »

throwanem wrote: post #204
mikeash wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I'm calling the ignorance and insecurity a cancer that needs to be killed. Nice demonstration of the insecurity, though, good job.

> Actually, I'm calling the ignorance and insecurity a cancer that needs to be killed. This by you is better? It's not the people who need killing, it's just their perception of the world and their deeply held beliefs. Who, having once heard you explain this, could possibly not start heeding what you have to say?

Yeah, if people's perception and deeply held beliefs involve ignorance and insecurity then I think that needs to go. Americans need to stop being such cowards, and they need to stop embracing anti-intellectualism. The fact that cowardice and anti-intellectualism are deeply held beliefs by many doesn't change what I think of them.

I don't really know what else you'd expect. Do you think I should embrace this stuff?

Re: Trump

#210

Post by MajorLOL »

floatgatenate wrote: post #161
mikeaz1 wrote: post #153

> kill the cancer that's causing it This guy is calling Trump supporters like myself a cancer that needs to be killed. Who's the real nazi? We need Trump to fix this country and we need it fast

You are, for supporting a nationalistic demagogue riding a wave of hateful xenophobia by exploiting people's suffering during an economic downturn. Next question.

This is a traditional attack line; Label your opponent, apply negative attributes to that label, dismiss all opposition as non-relevant.

I guess this is the lefts compelling argument for voting for another Clinton?

Post reply on HN