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

221–230 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#221

Post by tummler »

api wrote: post #148
himynameistimli wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is spot on. He's building an audience with the presidential bid. After he loses, he'll cry fowl, start an alt-right online news network, and spend the next 4 years complaining of a stolen election. He's enough of a draw to pull talent from The Blaze (Tomi Lahren), Breitbart, Fox News, etc. $1.25M seems like a small gamble for what could be a pretty big payoff.

Re: undefined

#222

Post by gallonofmilk »

Tom1971 wrote: post #205
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.

Depends what you mean by electoral fraud. In the US, the only electoral fraud that has a significant impact is one where groups of voters are prohibited/prevented from voting. Pennsylvania is particularly vulnerable to that one due to very broad rules that allow people to question the legality of other people to vote. It's why Trump has been calling PA supports to do exactly that. Other types of fraud (ballot stuffin…

george soros affiliate produces the voting machines in 16 states...

Re: undefined

#223

Post by gallonofmilk »

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.

where are you getting 40%? last I heard 87% of republicans are backing Trump (regardless of the elitists jumping ship)

Re: undefined

#224

Post by ubernostrum »

chroem- wrote: post #198
adjkant wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. To answer your question, yes. 2. Putting Trump and Clinton on the same level simply isn't accurate. I would revise this: |============================X==| amazing candidate |================X==============| normally acceptable candidate |============X==================| Clinton |==X============================| Trump Clinton is certainly worse than most candidates historically, but her corruption and scandals are…

Clinton has been exposed in plain daylight as having done things that would have made Richard Nixon blush. It's so bad that her campaign has been forced to hire a crew of dedicated astroturfers to cover for her, and they have no scruples over doing this either. How does that make her better than Trump?

And this country voted for Richard Nixon twice. Once in a historic landslide.

Do you feel that disqualifies Clinton from the presidency?

Re: undefined

#225

Post by rconti »

sumedh wrote: post #216
sidcool wrote: post #181

First mistake was allowing Trump to run. Second was to be Republican presidential candidate. Third and the final one would be to make him win

Who was going to stop Trump from running?

There was already a political vacuum. Why else did we end up with 17 candidates in the primary? That's virtually unheard of.

16 candidates played more-or-less fair, while the 17th threw hand grenades at everyone. Everyone else tried to outlast him by focusing on each other. They gambled and lost.

It's hard to see him winning the primary against a small handful of rivals.

But even if you think he would have won against (say) Rubio and Cruz and Bush as his only competitors, it's hard to argue that the sheer size of the field indicated that the electorate had a very, very diverse set of interests.

Re: undefined

#226

Post by tekni5 »

code_sardaukar wrote: post #153
easyd wrote: post #144

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…

Clinton's plan for Syria is scary. Ironically it displays the kind of toughness that Trump claims to represent. Personally I think it is a bad move, and Russia has already been reasonable, e.g. backing the Iran deal. You don't even need to be a libertarian or an isolationist to believe that the neoconservative approach is wrong.

This is the only issue that really worries me, Clinton might actually attempt to get some leverage over Russia as she says. In such a bold move, Russia will feel so cornered that it may break out into a major war, with possible use of limited nuclear weapons.

The western world doesn't understand the mentality of Russia, they have had two regime collapses this century already. Putin believes that everything needs to be done to avoid a third one.

I'm not even in the US, but have been following the election closely. What a circus, both candidates are horrible choices. But Clinton's foreign policy is what scares me, at least based on what I have heard so far.

Another concern is some type of civil unrest after the election.

Re: undefined

#227

Post by rconti »

inimino wrote: post #91
meritt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he's a bully with a dangerous trigger-finger mentality. He doesn't have any actual policies. There's the formal GOP policy which he frequently contradicts and his own viewpoints are extremely fluid as well. His only consistency is attacking those who he views as lower than him.

This explains why you won't vote for him, but that wasn't the question. The question is why the tech industry would differ from the population at large, where Trump has >40% support.

Look at an electoral polling map.

Re: undefined

#228

Post by gallonofmilk »

mcknz wrote: post #48
dmix wrote: post #40

> [Trump's] position on immigration is the opposite of the tech industry’s Is this true? I'm not familiar with Trump's policies because it doesn't sound like he talks about them in much detail. Isn't he all for "legal immigration" and was just extremely against illegal immigration? Has he even addressed H1B or T1 Visas? Although he has mentioned making immigration harder through intensive testing/vetting, which sound…

Naturally he hasn't recently mentioned immigration because he's trying to move to the center. During the primary, however, he wanted to block all Muslims from entering the country, as well as build a wall along the Mexico/US border.

Actually you're leaving key points out, like most people/media...

He wanted to temporarily block immigration from countries with islamic terrorism (syria / libya) until our country found a way to better vet them. American Muslims, or any other Muslims are not an issue. He also wants to protect our southern border with a wall to prevent ILLEGAL immigrants from easy access into our country.

Re: undefined

#229

Post by ubernostrum »

qq66 wrote: post #126
AvenueIngres wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why the tech industry is so anti-Trump. People don't risk openly supporting Trump unless they have the kind of fuck-you money/assets that allows them to do so. Truth is that the tech industry is probably leaning toward the Democratic party a lot less than it actually seems simply because of the politically motivated discrimination you would face should you endorse the wrong candidate (or embrace the "wrong" opinion…

I think you are correct that the Democratic Party is much more socially acceptable to support, and that especially today, the penalties for holding the "wrong" opinion are severe and cause people to retreat to the anonymity of venues like Reddit and the voting booth. However, telephone polling generally matches actual election results closely enough to assume that people feel a similar level of anonymity in the votin…

Also, "conservative" today increasingly means "socially conservative" which in turn often means "evangelical Christian", to such an extent that the terms are usefully interchangeable.

This is the result of a direct and honest strategy of courting socially-conservative religious people who believe the country is being dragged "in the wrong direction" by people with "a radical social agenda".

While there are people who disagree with the general mainstream of socially-liberal belief in this country who aren't motivated primarily by religious beliefs, they are rare enough compared to the religious majority to not be worth mentioning most of the time.

Re: undefined

#230

Post by gallonofmilk »

daveguy wrote: post #134
bassman9000 wrote: post #46

Interesting to see that many comments on money buying influence. Yet no one seems to consider the possibility that the most pro-establishment candidate, with a proven track of money-for-favors trafficking is, in Thiel's opinion, a worse outcome.

I wasn't aware either had a proven record of money for favors. Except maybe Trump's donation in Florida.

are you living in a cave or just brain washed by CNN?
Post reply on HN