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

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#141

Post by eruditely »

I'm glad to see our Dutch friends have stayed sensible, I'm not-white and I'm voting for Trump because he will not prioritize blacks/mexicans over asian/indian people. There's a huge resentment in the asian communities, and it's super common to say "Fuck white people" "Don't hang out w/ white ppl". Because of built up resentment.

if you're a minority learn the differences between white people and what they believe, you will quickly learn anglo's(Moms) say the love you, but love the "bad kids" the most. Germans(dads) love the good kids the most.

Mom(Livingston/Altman/Graham/Warren Buffet) vs Dad(Andreesan/Trump/Charlie Munger)

Re: undefined

#142

Post by baytrailcat »

naveenspark wrote: post #44

Its unclear what Peter Thiel is supporting with this donation. This candidate is highly inconsistent. Perhaps his bet is that if this candidate is elected, it will result in chaos. A sharp, rapid upheaval will enable him to accelerate his overall agenda. Given his net worth he is insulated from the negative effects this chaos will have on everyone else. Given his net worth he, and others who support his agenda can qu…

This is my thinking too. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that he doesn't have anything closer to a consistent policy in his platform. To be fair, there is a lot of copy-paste from standard GOP platform, but his own speeches and interviews give out the impression that he doesn't have a handle on any of them. So to think that Thiel might have hitched his wagon based on ideology or policy is illogical. On the other hand, some of Trump's impulsive ramblings (dishonor NATO agreements, refuse to pay US debt, start a trade war with China etc.) shows that, if elected, he can potentially create huge massive disruptions to world order. Thiel might be thinking he can either benefit from that or that the status-quo deserves to be destroyed.

Re: undefined

#143

Post by the_economist »

naveenspark wrote: post #44

Its unclear what Peter Thiel is supporting with this donation. This candidate is highly inconsistent. Perhaps his bet is that if this candidate is elected, it will result in chaos. A sharp, rapid upheaval will enable him to accelerate his overall agenda. Given his net worth he is insulated from the negative effects this chaos will have on everyone else. Given his net worth he, and others who support his agenda can qu…

The policies on donaldjtrump.com have been the same for a long time, and Trump has not contradicted them for the most part.

Re: undefined

#144

Post by easyd »

Everyone seems to think it's about maximizing his ROI or, less cynical, about economics. But here's a quote from Thiel's speech at the republican convention:

"Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don't need to see Hillary Clinton's deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. She pushed for a war in Libya, and today it's a training ground for ISIS. On this most important issue, Donald Trump is right. It's time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild our country."

He clearly says "On this most important issue, Donald Trump is right" and it's not really surprising, since Thiel is a libertarian.

Re: undefined

#145

Post by jaredklewis »

2AF3 wrote: post #133
blhack wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump isn't nearly as far behind as you may think: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/ Yes, this poll is an outlier because their methodology is very different than most other polls. Yes, Nate Silver has a very different outlook on the election, but Nate Silver was also not very reliable during the primary season (although that is, by his admission, because primaries don't have very good poll…

If you look at the pictures of the number of people in attendance at their respective events one would conclude Trump is ahead.

Do we have any evidence that number of people at campaigning events correlates to more votes? If not, why would we conclude that?

Is it not (in absence of any evidence) equally plausible that the type of voter that will vote for Trump is more predisposed to attend a campaign event than other voters?

Re: undefined

#146

Post by Tsugumo »

threeseed wrote: post #112
Tsugumo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Super Tuesday voter turnout in 2008: 8,228,763 for Democrats, 5,025,685 for Republicans. 2016: 5,557,243 Democrats, 8,307,884 Republicans If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on Trump. I think it will be close. That said, I also believe electoral fraud could decide the election.

That doesn't make much sense. Super Tuesday primaries included all likely Republican voters. But Trump only has the support of about 40% of them and nothing he has done to date indicates that number is changing. And there is no evidence that electoral fraud is likely to decide the election. In fact it's looking like efforts to prevent it e.g. in Indiana are far more likely to influence the election.

The record-breaking Republican turnout was due to Trump, and I think it is reasonable to believe that the vast majority of Republicans will vote Trump over Hillary, or 3rd party. At the same time, many independents and Bernie supporters will vote Trump as well. In my mind, Trump is the Republican Obama, and will benefit from many first-time voters, and a large turnout in general. It does not seem to me that Hillary has the same draw. I don't mean to argue with you, only to clarify.

Re: undefined

#147

Post by marincounty »

rconti wrote: post #70
throwaway101416 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's very difficult to find truly unbiased statistics on this. Every current well-known analyst has been repeatedly egregiously wrong on the matter throughout this election cycle.

On matters of opinion, ABSOLUTELY. On matters of polling, absolutely false. Even Brexit was predicted by the polls, it just didn't happen until a week before the vote. (It's worth noting, of course, the same could happen here. And that's probably what Thiel is counting on).

This is different.

Just say you were going to vote for Trump. Someone stops you on the street, or call you up; would you admit it?

I wouldn't.

The guy is an absolute joke of a person on so many levels. He's stupid. He's just aweful.

But there's a tiny bit of Trump in a lot of us buried deep in that ID.

Personally, I do think we need to get much more vigilant on immigration, even though Obama has sent more illegials home than any other president. Would I admit this in public--hell no.

And I have never believed in Globilization. Would I admit this at work--hell no.

I really think a lot of people will vote for Trump in the privacy of that booth.

I won't because I won't vote for a president this year, or will I?

Re: undefined

#148

Post by api »

himynameistimli wrote: post #135
nostrademons wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much all of Thiel's investing thesis is to invest in things that are statistically on track to fail, but whose payoff if they succeed is greater than most people imagine. PayPal, Facebook - both of these were terrible ideas when they came out (along with a number of other ones that did, in fact, fail). His idea is that people consistently mis-price risk, and so investing in a portfolio where everyone else thin…

Actually if he loses, he becomes the first investor in a ultra conservative right-wing media empire, Trump Media, which appears to already have quite a large following.

I wonder if launching this media outlet is the real purpose of the campaign. It's at least more plausible than the Trump is throwing the election for Hillary conspiracy theory.

Re: undefined

#149

Post by mixologic »

2AF3 wrote: post #133
blhack wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump isn't nearly as far behind as you may think: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/ Yes, this poll is an outlier because their methodology is very different than most other polls. Yes, Nate Silver has a very different outlook on the election, but Nate Silver was also not very reliable during the primary season (although that is, by his admission, because primaries don't have very good poll…

If you look at the pictures of the number of people in attendance at their respective events one would conclude Trump is ahead.

Which is why thats an awful gauge of the electorate. The vast majority of voters do not attend political events, and "attendees at events" is really just an uncorrelated measure of "enthusiasm for a candidate amongst their base". If 40% of the country loved him so much that they all showed up at every single rally, yet the other 60% hate him, and will vote for HRC despite not really loving her, then you see a rally filled to the brim with Trump supporters, and nobody at hers, yet his chances are zip. Rally attendance is a meaningless metric.

Re: undefined

#150

Post by douche »

daveguy wrote: post #124
pesenti wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small chance of making it to the Supreme Court? http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57d80d57e4b09d7a687f9b03/a... ?

If Trump became president and nominates Thiel I expect it would be one of the rare times that the Senate rejects the nomination -- considering this donation and relative lack of experience.

I would support Thiel, or really, any engineer or tech-related person, being on the supreme court. It is absurd that we have fossils that do not have email accounts making decisions on laws touching on the technological future of the country for the rest of their natural lives.
Post reply on HN