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

361–370 of 394 posts

Re: Trump

#361

Post by graycat »

At

http://qz.com/712518/im-going-to-say-something-very-unpopula...

Sam Altman posted

TRIUMPH OF EVIL

about D. Trump.

Here in the interest of better government for the US, I respond to Altman's post.

Who am I? I've posted long and often at HN, especially on relatively technical topics in applied mathematics.

I am doing an Internet information technology startup where the core of the work is some of my original applied math for higher quality information for the users.

I am a US citizen with no connection with any political campaign.

I live in the state of NY and there am registered as a Democrat.

I've used the Internet to try to keep up on the race for President of the US (POTUS). Currently I intend to vote for Trump.

> But Trump is wrong about the more important part: how to fix these problems.

Well, from all I've seen, so far Trump's statements about the economy are generalities.

Are those generalities bad? Apparently not: As of now, at

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/repub...

apparently on the first ballot in the Republican Convention in Cleveland in July, Trump will receive at least 1542 votes and, thus, comfortably over the 1237 he needs for the nomination. So, so far his economic plans, although just generalities, were part of a successful campaign.

Maybe in the rest of the campaign Trump will provide more details. I hope he will.

For Alman's claim that Trump is "wrong", Altman didn't mention anything, not specifics, not even generalities. So, there is no way for me to tell just why Altman believes that Trump is "wrong".

> He is irresponsible in the way dictators are.

Altman didn't give any specific case where Trump was "irresponsible". Being "in the way dictators are" doesn't mean much since I am sure that Altman, Trump, and all dictators are the same in that they eat, sleep, breathe, talk, and more. To have something critical about Trump, we need something more specific.

> Trump’s casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without precedent among major presidential nominees.

I've read a lot about Trump and frequently read that Trump is racist and misogynist. Since I would be very concerned if Trump were those things, I've looked for solid evidence but so far have found none. The sources I read gave no solid evidence, and neither did Altman. The evidence I have found indicates that Trump is just the opposite from racist and misogynist.

> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent isn’t treating him fairly because of his heritage and that we should ban Muslims from entering the country.

I dispute the claim about Trump and the judge: From all I have seen, Trump believes the judge has treated him unfairly in the case. One Trump claim is that the case should have been dismissed on summary judgment. Another claim is that the case should have been dismissed when the lead plaintiff withdrew from the case.

Then, with that unfair treatment, Trump asked why, why did the judge treat Trump unfairly? So, as at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE

Trump said:

> All I'm trying to do is figure out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge. And a lot of people agree with it. All I want to do, all I want to do is find out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge.

In looking for an answer to this question, Trump noticed the judge's Mexican ancestry and political activities that conflict with some of Trump's positions on illegal immigration from Mexico. Trump concluded that those facts about that judge explain why the judge treated Trump unfairly.

Trump never claimed that the a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to treat him unfairly. Instead Trump noticed that the judge DID treat Trump unfairly, asked why, and noticed the judge's ancestry and political activities.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on...

“I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.

At

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/4-reasons-why-judge-curiel...

there is much more detail on the case and why the judge should recuse himself from the case.

If there is any racism here, it is from the judge. Indeed, if investigate a little, the judge is too close to some groups who want CA to be returned to Mexico and all persons in the US of Western European descent to return to Europe -- wildly racist.

> To anyone familiar with the history of Germany in the 1930s, it’s chilling to watch Trump in action. Though I know intellectually it’s easy in hard economic times to rile people up with a hatred of outsiders, it’s still surprising to watch this happen right in front of us.

Clearly from his many statements, Trump wants the US to enforce the long existing US laws on immigration, e.g., the laws that his wife Melania DID follow correctly. I've listened to nearly all of Trump's debate performances, speeches, and rallies, and what I have heard is that always or nearly so each time Trump says that we should stop illegal immigration he also says right away that he is for LEGAL immigration.

"A hatred of outsiders" has nothing to do with the desire and need to enforce our immigration laws.

That's enough, Sam. Sam, you blew it.

Re: Trump

#362

Post by graycat »

kbenson wrote: post #150
athinggoingon wrote: post #115

> Trump's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without precedent among major presidential nominees. He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over the Trump university case, is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal im…

> > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage > La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. What does that have to do with his heritage. There are people that believe that without Mexican descent. I believe it, and I'm not Mexican, and am not an immigrant, and neither are my parents. There are people of Mexican descent tha…

> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage

No, that is what much of the media wants to claim, say, for clicks.

Instead, there are two points where can use because. The first point is, Trump asserts that the judge is unfair, and Trump asserts this because of the judge's rulings. The assertion of unfairness is from the rulings with nothing to do with Mexico. Second, as in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE

with

> All I'm trying to do is figure out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge. And a lot of people agree with it. All I want to do, all I want to do is find out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge.

Trump was looking for the MOTIVATION of the judge to be unfair. Then it was easy enough to notice that the judge has a Mexican background and is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions on Mexico. So, Trump concluded that the judge's MOTIVATION to be unfair was because of the Mexican stuff.

Trump asserted unfairness because of the RULINGS with nothing about Mexico. Then, as a second step, Trump asserted that the judge was MOTIVATED to be unfair because of the Mexico stuff.

So, we have two points and two uses of because. But much of the media, in their search for clicks, conflated those two to assert that Trump said that the judge was unfair because of the Mexican stuff. Nope: That would be poor evidence that the judge had been unfair. Instead, the claim that the judge was unfair was because of the judge's RULINGS. Then, the MOTIVATION for that unfairness was because of the Mexican stuff.

In no way did Trump assert that all judges with Mexican backgrounds would be unfair, but much of the media wanted to play with words to conclude that.

The US has, IMHO rightly, decided that racism is a bad thing. Sure, long in the US, people of Western European descent were racist against Native Americans, Africans, Irish, Italians, Asians, Jews, and Mexicans. Well, the US has gone a long way to stopping that. But neither do we want Native Americans, ..., etc. to be racist against others, e.g., persons of Western European descent. We want no racism, from anywhere.

> Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. I don't see how this right can be protected if you filter possible future citizens based on religion.

There are at least three really big problems with your statement here:

First, the US gets to decide who can enter the country and for that decision can use any reasons or no reasons. Non US citizens outside the US have no "rights" in the US at all. The US gets to run its immigration system in any way it wants.

Second, Islam is a long way from being just a religion. In addition to religion, Islam runs marriages, dress codes, lots of social norms, diets, education, architecture, media, the legal system, foreign policy, government, and, yes, also religion. Each part of Islam regards everyone else as an infidel to be either converted to killed. In this way, the Sunni and Shiite parts of Islam have been at war for 1000+ years, and recent examples include the Iran-Iraq war, the Baghdad-ISIS war, the Syrian civil war, and the high tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran, e.g., in Yemen. Islamic religious leaders issue Fatwahs, commands, calling for Jihad, holy war. ISIS has declared war on Europe and the US. Iran says "Death to America", and that cry is also common in parts of Pakistan. Net, when considering immigrants to the US, Islam must be regarded as not nearly just a religion.

Third, the Islamic immigration under most consideration now is heavily from areas of the Mideast awash in Islamic wars and violent Medieval Islamic culture, indeed, from areas that have declared war on the US. And that immigration is not via the usual legal channels but for "refugees". From the list of violent attacks from radical Islamic terrorists in the US, Europe, etc., the "refugees" are an obvious threat to the US. So, no way should the US admit such people. And, even if the wars end, it is in the strong interests of the US to reject people who likely will not assimilate. E.g., the US does not want whole communities that reject much of US culture and, instead, are devoted politically to religious leaders and follow Sharia law -- not in the interests of the US.

But, a Muslim US citizen has full US citizenship rights as you suggest.

Re: Trump

#363

Post by splawn »

graycat wrote: post #343
splawn wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That Trump is a racist is a common claim in the news media. But I can't find the primary sources that support this claim. To me, at this point, the claim looks like just attacks on Trump by people who want to attack him for other reasons. Indeed, from all I can find, Trump is the opposite of racist. I'm ready, willing, able, and eager to consider some primary sources that show I'm significantly wrong. For such a clai…

Trump is racist. I came up with the same conclusion after listening to him talk about immigration... I didn't need the "news media" to claim anything. Building a border wall to keep out the "rapists"... deporting and banning all Muslims... How is racism not baked right into those concepts? His proposed policies have even gained him an endorsement from the KKK. If you don't already see it then no amount of evidence will help. Im always floored by how blind some are towards racism.

Re: Trump

#364

Post by splawn »

graycat wrote: post #360
justjico wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also believes a Muslim judge could be unfair to him because of his policies. I think the media is not really distorting his thinking but rather clarifying it. Similar to when he said Obama has something else going on with regards to radical Islam. He didn't say it, but said people should fill in the blank. Also, his lawyers have never filed such a claim.

It's a tricky issue of language and the use of because . I tried to be clear. And it really is clear: Trump claims that the judge IS unfair, and his reasons for saying that are that, as Trump claims, the judge has ruled in unfair ways. So, we get this far, the judge unfair, without mentioning Mexico. Or, the REASON Trump is saying that the judge is unfair is "because" of the judge's rulings against Trump. Then, as in…

Look at this huge pile of split hairs.... The judge is american.

Re: Trump

#365

Post by kbenson »

graycat wrote: post #362
kbenson wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage > La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants. What does that have to do with his heritage. There are people that believe that without Mexican descent. I believe it, and I'm not Mexican, and am not an immigrant, and neither are my parents. There are people of Mexican descent tha…

> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage No, that is what much of the media wants to claim, say, for clicks. Instead, there are two points where can use because . The first point is, Trump asserts that the judge is unfair, and Trump asserts this because of the judge's rulings. The assertion of unfairness is from the rulings with nothing to do with Mexico. Second,…

> In no way did Trump assert that all judges with Mexican backgrounds would be unfair, but much of the media wanted to play with words to conclude that.

The problem here is that Trump, given behavior from a judge he doesn't like, latched on to the most likely reason, or at least the reason he felt comfortable discussing on national television, being because of the judge's heritage.

> First, the US gets to decide who can enter the country and for that decision can use any reasons or no reasons. Non US citizens outside the US have no "rights" in the US at all. The US gets to run its immigration system in any way it wants.

I didn't say non-US citizens had rights, or the right to freedom of religion. I said I'm not sure how you can claim freedom of religion if you are restricting it prior to entry, not because the rights of those people are being infringed, but because you've singled out a religion to exclusion prior to entry,and the effect that has on the population may be to restrict that religion in some aspect. Constitutional rights are not something I take lightly, to be played with and followed in letter but not spirit. I don't see how we can possibly protect something as a right of a citizen but use it as exclusion for the act of becoming a citizen while following the spirit of the law (and spirit of the law is important. Almost all the cased the SCOTUS rules on are seen by them because there are conflicting laws, or laws aren't being followed in spirit, and it needs a panel of judges to clarify).

> Second, Islam is a long way from being just a religion. In addition to religion, Islam runs...

Islam is not one homogeneous group with the same views and actions. This is obvious by the Sunni and Shiite war you reference. Islam is made up of many different groups of people. Some of those groups are dangerous, others are not. Should we target Islam, or the actual dangerous groups within it?

A lot of US citizens have committed a felony. Should we restrict the whole population to prevent repeat crimes?

> And that immigration is not via the usual legal channels but for "refugees".

Do you think refugees go through no review process or something? Average time it takes for a refugee to get into the US is over a year[1]. You think this is the first time the US has had to balance humanitarian efforts with national security?

As we noted in a previous fact-check, once a case is referred from the UNHCR to the United States, a refugee undergoes a security clearance check that could take several rounds, an in-person interview, approval by the Department of Homeland Security, medical screening, a match with a sponsor agency, "cultural orientation" classes, and one final security clearance. This all happens before a refugee ever gets onto American soil.

> From the list of violent attacks from radical Islamic terrorists in the US, Europe, etc., the "refugees" are an obvious threat to the US.

You're going to have to link that for me if you expect me to accept it. How many attacks have been carried out by refugees? How many by non-refugees? How many by US citizens (such as the Orlando shooting)?

> And, even if the wars end, it is in the strong interests of the US to reject people who likely will not assimilate. E.g., the US does not want whole communities that reject much of US culture and, instead, are devoted politically to religious leaders and follow Sharia law -- not in the interests of the US.

If they don't follow US law in the United States, they will be arrested for it. If they state their intention to follow some other judicial system before ours, then they should fail their immigration/refugee interview. As to what their culture is like apart from that, I don't think your opinion matters. The United States is an amalgamation of the cultures of many countries, mixing and responding to each other and evolving over centuries, with new infusions of countries and cultures all the time. At some point in the past, there was likely some group that viewed the immigration of some of your ancestors as bringing cultural aspects that didn't mesh well with that thay considered American culture. What makes you any more right then the centuries of people that expressed that opinion before you (and about a markedly different culture from today at the time, as well)?

1: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/...

Re: Trump

#366

Post by justjico »

smsm42 wrote: post #273

I am no fan of Trump (in fact, I think selecting Trump is a huge problem for Republican party and he's one of the worst candidates the GOP had lately), but the post seems to be repeatedly confusing actual Trump with media myth of Trump (not uncommon among both supporters and detractors, and somewhat excusable given how much media manipulation Trump engages in). No, Trump did not blame Obama in Orlando shooting. No, T…

I agree with your "factual" statements about Trump, but keep in mind, the media is trying to hold him accountable not just for what he said, but for what he meant to say. Rubio didnt say Trump had a small penis, he just implied it. Saying Rubio never actually said that, in my view, is more dishonest than missquoting him with actually saying it. Trump, being a presumptive nominee has a really big megaphone. He should be able to convey a very clear message. When he says, Obama has something else going on, the media is right to press, so what exactly are you saying? And Trumps response is: people should fill in the blanks, I don't know. In other words, I agree politicians lie and exaggerate, and sometimes say things they don't mean to say, but they correct the message, move on. Trump doesn't, he doubles down. He cites completely crazy and outrageous conspiracy theories, again, correctly saying, "I heard" or "some people think"... that is complete bs. I hate Ted Cruz, yet I was outraged when he was, again, factually just saying a tabloid run a story claiming Ted's dad was involved in the JFK assassination. "I'm not saying he was involved, but some people think so, and nobody talks about it". Factually correct, yet completely insane coming from a presidential candidate.

Re: Trump

#367

Post by stcredzero »

smsm42 wrote: post #348
stcredzero wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving people resources means taking resources from people, passing it through enormously vast, complex and ever expanding bureaucracy and then giving whatever is left to the those that the bureaucracy deemed worthy. This sounds more like the military industrial complex than the Social Security Administration. The SSA pays out something like $870 billion per year (2015) with fewer than 70 thousand employees. It's spe…

> The SSA pays out something like $870 billion per year (2015) with fewer than 70 thousand employees You sound like these employees produce those $870 billion. In fact they take them from one set of people and send them to another set of people. Getting handsome pay, union benefits, pensions and what not on the way. > That's way better than most private charities. Charities do not have IRS, FBI and the police to jail…

There is clearly value generated by the right kind of distribution. Anyone who doesn't admit that hasn't thought about the role of middlemen, and isn't being intellectually honest in their economic thinking.

Re: Trump

#368

Post by stcredzero »

graycat wrote: post #341
stcredzero wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Sam Altman's post: Demagogic hate-mongers lead down terrible paths. Demagogic hate-mongering has become the default mode of the political theater that now passes as "public discourse" in our media on both ends of the political spectrum. The new internet media gives strong incentives to that which gains attention, and nothing gains attention like outrage. What's scary about Trump isn't that people are unwilling t…

> actually substantive suffers a prolonged trickling death For "substantive" content, this is by far "the best of times" -- such content is very much on the Internet if look for it. E.g., nearly every interview, debate, or speech of Trump is on YouTube. Good coverage of Trump's positions are on his Web site. So, we have solid primary sources and easy to find good references. I just counted -- I have 187 unique YouTub…

Substantive != primary. Investigation and synthesis are what I mean.

For more substantive comment, for anyone with such a comment, many blogs and fora are readily available. Finding such things may not always be easy (my startup is intended to help with people finding content on the Internet)

If there is value in finding such things, there is clearly a degradation of value in their obscuration. Until the general populace can navigate and find their way to the new sources of substantive content, the internet is effectively degraded in this regard.

Re: Trump

#369

Post by dang »

piotrjurkiewicz wrote: post #339
dang wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11940914 and marked it off-topic, and banned this account for trolling.

Because it presented views opposite of your boss? Disgusting...

This comment is interesting because it makes the dynamic of such comments so clear: you assume something disgusting, and then are disgusted by it. That is a self-referential activity!

In reality the above moderation was routine to the point of plodding, as anyone can easily determine by reading back through https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang (a boring procedure I do not recommend). As for bosses: we downweighted Sam's Trump article just as we would have if it had been written by anyone else.

Re: Trump

#370

Post by graycat »

kbenson wrote: post #365
graycat wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage No, that is what much of the media wants to claim, say, for clicks. Instead, there are two points where can use because . The first point is, Trump asserts that the judge is unfair, and Trump asserts this because of the judge's rulings. The assertion of unfairness is from the rulings with nothing to do with Mexico. Second,…

> In no way did Trump assert that all judges with Mexican backgrounds would be unfair, but much of the media wanted to play with words to conclude that. The problem here is that Trump, given behavior from a judge he doesn't like, latched on to the most likely reason, or at least the reason he felt comfortable discussing on national television, being because of the judge's heritage. > First, the US gets to decide who…

This whole topic is mostly nasty mud wrestling and is way beneath you and hopefully me.

Yup, likely there are many millions of peaceful Muslims. I hope so. Of course, the claims that some polls show that ballpark 50% of Muslims in the US favor Sharia law would concern me, but I'll put that aside for now.

Your view of freedom of religion is deep and delicate. Freedom of religion is fine with me, but I don't want to call radical Islamic terrorism devoted to an international enemy of the US, e.g., ISIS just a religion.

Your description of how refugees get vetted on their way into the US conflicts with my (casual) understanding of the process. Indeed, supposedly we have already admitted refugees from Syria or nearby after less delay than you mention. Besides, there are reports of the refugees bringing TB and, what was it, measles into the US. Good vetting would stop at least TB and likely measles.

On your spirit of the US Constitution and immigration, I hope you don't believe that that spirit means we necessarily should admit people. My understanding is that the usual legal immigration process is very long, slow, and careful, ballpark 10 years, and that's fine with me.

> What makes you any more right then the centuries of people that expressed that opinion before you (and about a markedly different culture from today at the time, as well)?

I don't accept the idea that the US should continually foster a long term melting pot. Instead the US should admit people when has a really good reason to do so. Now the usual reason seems to be that the candidate is extremely well qualified, and that has been the case with immigrants I've known. One I know is from France, is a darned good mathematician, a student of Choquet, a member of Bourbaki. Glad to have him!

> The problem here is that Trump, given behavior from a judge he doesn't like, latched on to the most likely reason, or at least the reason he felt comfortable discussing on national television, being because of the judge's heritage.

Well, at least the heritage, but maybe also some of the judge's political stuff. But, again, we have to be careful: Trump was not saying that all judges with Mexican background would be unfair to him. Instead he said that, from the judge's ruling, this judge was clearly being unfair and then looked for the judge's motivation and noticed the judge's background, interests in pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with some of Trump's campaign positions, etc.

Maybe Trump is correct. Maybe Trump is trying to defend himself against a campaign season political attack (e.g., consider the plaintiff law firm). Maybe Trump is just trying to do his best as a defendant. Maybe Trump is looking for media attention. Even if Trump is just blowing smoke, I suspect that he is within his rights. But I don't think that Trump is racist.

> As to what their culture is like apart from that, I don't think your opinion matters.

No, sadly my opinion likely does matter: We don't want new ghettos where police are afraid to go. Supposedly there are such in Europe now.

Even if in the past we had Native American, African, Irish, Italian, or Chinese ghettos, we are not obligated to have more ghettos now, Muslim or otherwise.

> Should we target Islam, or the actual dangerous groups within it?

Of course, we don't want to target all of Islam. But apparently we very much need to target some groups within Islam.

Of course there is the issue of the open border with Mexico: Anyone who can get to Mexico can just walk across the border -- no vetting of any kind.

You seem to be for immigration unless there is some really strong reason to say no. Basically I'm for saying no unless there is some really strong reason to say yes. For Muslims, I'm especially eager to say no if only because their culture is so darned different that they typically are darned slow to assimilate. If some Saudi prince wants to go to Harvard, maybe okay. But some Saudis who want to learn to fly the big jets, fly, yes, land, no, no thanks.

There are a lot of people in most of the more industrialized countries I can admire and would welcome to the US, maybe as citizens, certainly as visitors. In many other countries, generally, no, and nearly all the Islamic countries are in that category not really just because they are Islamic (although that concerns me) but because they are backward, too close to or actually just Medieval. Admit people from backward countries?

That's just botheration we in the US don't need.

Post reply on HN