Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#231

Post by ubernostrum » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 7:23 AM UTC

api wrote: post #152

bjourne wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Views on Global Warming: "Well, I think the climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money. I know much about climate change. ... " "NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?" "I don’t believe in climate change." "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chin…

Saying the Chinese invented Global Warming is batty, but it is certainly true that they have become more competitive in manufacturing by game theoretically "defecting" on it -- going crazy with cheap coal power to undercut all the other nations who have taken at least some steps to reduce CO2 emission. Of course Trump's point was not that nuanced. He said the batty thing as near as I have heard, and I have not heard…

His "nuance" consisted of deleting the relevant tweets and then denying he ever said it.

The easiest way to make Trump lose a debate is to make Trump of right now debate the positions of Trump of five (seconds/minutes/months/years) ago.

Re: undefined

#232

Post by gallonofmilk » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 7:25 AM UTC

stephenboyd wrote: post #115

bobsgame wrote: post #38

I'm not very political and I haven't decided who to vote for yet, but I don't understand why the tech industry is so anti-Trump. He seems like a relatively sincere and smart guy to me, and some of his policies seem to be better for business. Is it because of tougher immigration laws? Are there other reasons based on his policies, or is it mostly just emotional?

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that opposition to Trump is either based on disagreements with his public policy statements or 'just emotional'. Sometimes people are just not qualified for a position, even if they can occasionally say some of the right answers at the interview. If a tech company is considering hiring a CEO or CTO who has ruined several companies, refused to do business with black people until speci…

Trump is orders of magnitude more qualified than Hillary Clinton.

Re: undefined

#233

Post by rconti » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 7:27 AM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #206

rconti wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue the opposition to Trump has very little to do with politics -- or, at least, no more so than the (generally Democrat) opposition to (generally Republican) candidates. Most of the repulsion is due to his tone, his personality, his unpredictability, and how generally erratic he is. Frankly, to the extent that you ascertain any coherent political principles he has, they're more moderate than the other candidat…

Politics is about access to power. Trump's views on women - pieces of meat that which he should be free to sexually assaulted - are a direct attack on the rights and power of women. Rights which were hard won over decades of political engagement. Likewise his views on minority populations. So yeah, many of us oppose him in political grounds. Because he's a misogynistic white supremacist, and having such a person in t…

It's late, and I'm not quite sure how to reply as I absolutely agree with you, and I don't want my comments to be construed in any way as pro-Trump who I view as the absolute bottom of humanity's barrel, but I didn't want my comments to appear too "political" and not adequately rational. I apologize if politics got in the way of humanity.

My best way to describe it is that I was commenting about "politics" as a set of partisan principles; he is far less Republican than the average primary victor; far more moderate in terms of what policy positions he checks the box of. (The usual guns, abortion, marriage, gay, free speech, trade, etc).

That was not meant in any way to say that his views on women and racial minorities are "moderate"; clearly they are not, and clearly his own views denigrate him as a person in ways that no words I could ever summon would.

Re: undefined

#234

Post by rconti » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 7:29 AM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #219

marincounty wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

>>even though Obama has sent more illegials home than any other president Where can I find the source for this? I may need it when arguing with people...

Well, we know that net migration flows to Mexico (and possibly all of central america?) are positive. They turned from inflows to outflows during the recession. Perhaps this is where someone came up with "Obama sending illegals home".

Of course, I'm more than open to being wrong; certain classes of illegal immigrants have been given defacto amnesty, and Obama's spoken in their favor, but no doubt others continue to be persecuted.

Re: undefined

#235

Post by icebraining » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 7:30 AM UTC

aptwebapps wrote: post #183

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…

I don't think he's investing in the hopes that Trump will pull of a long shot. I think he has a different goal in mind. He said in his speech at the RNC that the country is broken and that Trump is the only one who can fix it. I have no doubt that he believes the first part - he's said as much for a long time - but I do doubt that he really thinks Trump is the man to fix anything. Thiel may be nutty according to some…

Considering how divisive Trump is even among the conservative base, and especially in the RNC, seems weird to support this particular candidate if what he wants is to assert himself in the republican base and party.

Re: undefined

#236

Post by kchoudhu » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 7:31 AM UTC

I've been watching pg complain about Trump on Twitter with some interest. It is mind blowing to me that he has said nothing about Thiel so far.

Re: undefined

#237

Post by bcg1 » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 7:34 AM UTC

It should not be overlooked that Mr. Thiel's funding of hogan's lawsuit against Gawker was clearly a shot across the bow of American freedom of the press by the plutocracy.

It should also not be overlooked that Charles Harder (hogan's lawyer paid for by Thiel) is now Melania Trump's lawyer in 2 lawsuits against media outlets, and also is working for Roger Ailes, the disgraced deviant sexual harrassing adviser to Donald Trump and former head of Fox News channel.[1]

Also please don't forget that Trump has promised to "open up" libel laws so that he can sue news organizations when they report the truth about his depraved life or bring attention to his abject incompetence.

Thiel clearly shares at least one ideological viewpoint with Trump and his ilk (i.e., removal of freedom of the press)... the more interesting question I think is why?

[1]: http://www.newsweek.com/charles-harder-gawker-melania-trump-... [2]: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-...

Re: undefined

#238

Post by davemel37 » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 7:37 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #154

api wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He might very well have set up a "heads I win, tails I win more" gambit. If he wins the election, he's president. If he loses, he has 30 million or so passionate customers for his next business venture.

This is definitely the case...but he doesnt even need the new audience or the new venture. His entire empire is built on a name that is getting billions in free press.

The worst thing to happen to a famous brand is not bad press but rather becoming irrelevant and falling out of discussion.

Even if the Trump political brand crashes and burns, the broader trump brand of success and money just gets stronger...

This election was the ultimate win win for Trump.

This is why he can take all the risks he is taking, he has nothing to lose...which is the ultimate trump card!

Edit: spelling correction

Re: undefined

#239

Post by curiousgeorgio » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 7:40 AM UTC

It looks like a lot of people here don't understand how someone could possibly support Trump. If I were simply following the mainstream media's narrative, I'd be in a similar position.

If you're really interested in trying to understand a viewpoint that differs from your own (which I believe is healthy for anyone, even if you don't plan on changing your views), I would suggest beginning by listening to Stefan Molyneux (https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/). Label him as you will - at least he makes a lot of logically sound arguments in support of Trump (which I honestly can't say for a number of other Trump supporters).

Re: undefined

#240

Post by SomeStupidPoint » Sun, Oct 16, 2016, 7:41 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #103

rorykoehler wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always found the right-libertarian philosophy to be extremely confused. They want freedom to do whatever they want but they also want to base everything off of capitalism which by definition means you can't do whatever you want unless you're rich. It just doesn't make any sense (unless of course you're already a billionaire in which case your world is already quite libertarian in reality).

Libertarianism isn't about doing whatever you want. It's about protecting your rights and the rights of others. This means you can do what you want, as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. That last clause is often overlooked or misunderstood, but it is critical.

> Libertarianism isn't about doing whatever you want. It's about protecting your rights and the rights of others. This means you can do what you want, as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others.

It is, however, "do whatever you want" in that it implies no non-negative social duties, ie, it doesn't require you proactively do anything to be part of society or that you seek to help others in society -- merely that your harm to them come through passive actions or side-effects of legally permitted actions.

It might be better to explain libertarianism as "rights over duties", in that it essentially asserts you have no social obligation which is more fundamental than your rights.

Others disagree, obviously.