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

$1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#101

Post by pdog »

gthtjtkt wrote: post #14

> No one able to vote in the US should be sitting this one out I disagree. People who haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the candidates should not be encouraged to blindly push a button, especially this year. Most of them will probably be persuaded by fear mongering or partisan mud-slinging. That's not democracy, it's just mob rule.

This is why some people believe there should be a (nominal) cost to voting. If you have to pay to vote, you'll be much more motivated to research the candidates and issues. It will also be much more expensive for campaigns to "buy" unreliable voting blocs, a.k.a. "get-out-the-vote" targets.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#102

Post by mikeyouse »

pdog wrote: post #101
gthtjtkt wrote: post #14

> No one able to vote in the US should be sitting this one out I disagree. People who haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the candidates should not be encouraged to blindly push a button, especially this year. Most of them will probably be persuaded by fear mongering or partisan mud-slinging. That's not democracy, it's just mob rule.

This is why some people believe there should be a (nominal) cost to voting. If you have to pay to vote, you'll be much more motivated to research the candidates and issues. It will also be much more expensive for campaigns to "buy" unreliable voting blocs, a.k.a. "get-out-the-vote" targets.

"Some people" who support poll taxes have historically been Southern racists trying to prevent African Americans from voting. In fact, people were so disgusted with the idea that they passed a Constitutional amendment to prevent poll taxes from existing. I doubt we'll ever see them again (for good reason), the text in the Constitution is pretty straight-forward:

> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#103

Post by lern_too_spel »

mason240 wrote: post #91
specialist wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clinton and Gore knew. Their warnings were ignored.

I'm sure they did, as they both would have taken the exact same course of action. The PATRIOT Act itself was written by Sen Joe Biden ffs.

The same course of action? War with Afghanistan was certainly inevitable after 9/11 (assuming Gore, like Bush didn't follow up on the warnings, and the attacks still happened). The Iraq War, on the other hand, would not have happened.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#104

Post by alasdair_ »

gthtjtkt wrote: post #14

> No one able to vote in the US should be sitting this one out I disagree. People who haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the candidates should not be encouraged to blindly push a button, especially this year. Most of them will probably be persuaded by fear mongering or partisan mud-slinging. That's not democracy, it's just mob rule.

I hate the current voting system. The mess of voting for a district, which votes for a state, which votes for an electoral college, which votes for a president is ridiculous and leads to only a tiny number of votes actually having the chance to determine the outcome of the election.

I worry that by voting, I give whoever wins a stronger appearance of a mandate. I would prefer not to give them this mandate.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#105

Post by mikeyouse »

mason240 wrote: post #91
specialist wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clinton and Gore knew. Their warnings were ignored.

I'm sure they did, as they both would have taken the exact same course of action. The PATRIOT Act itself was written by Sen Joe Biden ffs.

> The PATRIOT Act itself was written by Sen Joe Biden ffs.

This is pretty misleading. The Patriot Act was written by Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin (which makes sense since the R's had majority control of the House in 2001).

Joe Biden wrote an anti-terrorism bill in 1995 in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing that had many similar provisions regarding Federal jurisdiction over acts of terrorism, financial controls, etc. In one of Joe's wonderful bits of rhetorical flourish while debating the Patriot Act in 2001, he said that Ashcroft basically sent up his bill. So you could say that he wrote a precursor to the Patriot Act, but he's also voted against expanded wiretaps and the Habeas violations at Guantanamo so it's not like he's a neocon.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#106

Post by specialist »

pdq wrote: post #99
specialist wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't see why he sees this one as the most important." This cycle realigns the USA. Like Reagan did in 1980, in reverse. Baring an Act of God, Hillary has already won. Ignore the polls. Everyone has their own reasons to pretend its close. Media wants a horse race and more advertising dollars. If Hillary's base thinks the election is in the bag, they might stay home. Donald is Donald. Hillary's campaign is pushing…

Care to put down a wager? I'll give even odds.

What's the wager? Clinton beats Trump? Sure. $100?

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#107

Post by specialist »

chris11 wrote: post #80
specialist wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't see why he sees this one as the most important." This cycle realigns the USA. Like Reagan did in 1980, in reverse. Baring an Act of God, Hillary has already won. Ignore the polls. Everyone has their own reasons to pretend its close. Media wants a horse race and more advertising dollars. If Hillary's base thinks the election is in the bag, they might stay home. Donald is Donald. Hillary's campaign is pushing…

538 has Trump .6% ahead of Clinton, the other polls have CLinton ahead, but her highest is at 54% right now. That's basically a coin flip, not an act of god. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?...

Aha. Thank you. You helped me figure out Trump's angle.

After he loses (badly), Trump will claim the election was rigged, stolen, whatever. Because the returns won't match the polling. An argument well worn by the left when Gore beat Bush in 2000.

Please recall that Romney was surprised he lost. He too thought too much of the polls. But whereas Romney had a decent campaign, posing a credible threat, he faced the most sophisticated campaign in history, with an amazing ground game (GOTV).

Comparatively, Trump has nothing resembling a campaign. A twitter account. Some campaign stops. No volunteer organization. And certainly no ground game. Rather, Trump's effort is solely about enriching Trump, a play book he's copying from Giuliani, Grigrich, and a host of other faux GOP candidates.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#108

Post by chris11 »

specialist wrote: post #107
chris11 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

538 has Trump .6% ahead of Clinton, the other polls have CLinton ahead, but her highest is at 54% right now. That's basically a coin flip, not an act of god. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?...

Aha. Thank you. You helped me figure out Trump's angle. After he loses (badly), Trump will claim the election was rigged, stolen, whatever. Because the returns won't match the polling. An argument well worn by the left when Gore beat Bush in 2000. Please recall that Romney was surprised he lost. He too thought too much of the polls. But whereas Romney had a decent campaign, posing a credible threat, he faced the most…

There's also a rumor going around that he plans to start a media company if he looses because he has some very strong supporters and he think his campaign should have been covered differently.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#109

Post by oh_sigh »

hellogoodbyeeee wrote: post #54
toomuchtodo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$1M VotePlz is too little too late of that's the impetus; keep the cash and do something useful with it Sam, like fixing the DNC so they run a competent candidate next time.

You have been the victim of the conservative spin machine if you think one of the most experienced candidates that either party has fielded in decades isn't "competent".

If the DNC was as neutral during the primaries as they should have been, do you think Hillary would still be the nominee? Maybe, but there is a much better chance Bernie would have made it through. I say this as a person who has voted in the past 4 presidential elections, but never for a Dem or Repub.

Re: $1M VotePlz Sweepstakes

#110

Post by oh_sigh »

hellogoodbyeeee wrote: post #88
lintiness wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

of course you don't. romney's probably the single most experienced, best qualified candidate for president the nation's ever seen. that you believe a woman who's ridden the coattails of her husband to office is somehow more "experienced" is telling.

Is this a joke? You are completely dismissing the accomplishments of a senator and a secretary of state because she is a woman? Lots of governors run for president. Very few senator/sec of state/first ladies do. Edit: Mitt Romney wasn't even a two term Governor. Gary Johnson is objectively a better qualified candidate

If being president/CEO of a large organization is your qualifying factor, then you surely must be supporting Trump right now.
Post reply on HN