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

241–250 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#241

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#242

Post by [deleted] »

rconti wrote: post #234
enraged_camel wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 b…

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#243

Post by rdtsc »

marincounty wrote: post #147
rconti wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

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

I think so too. There is an interesting phenomenon there. Just guessing but suspect on the surface it is a very accepting, liberal place, perhaps one which encourages and celebrates diversity.

Re: undefined

#244

Post by HSO »

bcg1 wrote: post #237

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 Dona…

While I generally share your sentiment, I also think it's a stretch to hold up Gawker as an example of the freedom of the press. Outing someone or publishing a "sex tape" of someone against their will clearly breaches boundaries. I doubt that the public interest, by any definition, was served by this. Neither Thiel nor Bollea were running for public office.

Trump, on the other hand, is a real danger.

I would not lump those two issues together.

Re: undefined

#245

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

solipsism wrote: post #116
rorykoehler wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom is not freedom without power to exercise said freedom.

Freedom in the Libertarianism context (and in most contexts) means lack of coercion or constraint imposed by government or other institutions. It doesn't refer to freedom from natural or physical constraints. That wouldn't make any sense to advocate for. Does this clear it up for you?

The lack of economic freedom experienced by many is a direct product of the economic policy enforced by government and advocated for by libertarians, ie, it's directly the result of government coercing people to adhere to its decisions and libertarians support sufficiently many of those decisions to be culpable.

Libertarians are nothing but outright hypocrites in arguing that government shouldn't be required to pay the economic damages of its coercing people to adhere to policy they favor (eg, maintaining a free-market, private-property based economy with courts enforcing contracts) while preaching about how people shouldn't be coerced.

Re: undefined

#246

Post by md_ »

icebraining wrote: post #235
aptwebapps wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe the point is to signal his willingness as a backer to other potential candidates.

Though I find even that a bit odd. Would people not take a pledge seriously without having seen his demonstrated willingness to lose large sums of money?

Re: undefined

#247

Post by md_ »

davemel37 wrote: post #238
nostrademons wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 elec…

I don't buy this. What was the cost--in brand, but also in actual revenue--to losing his role in The Apprentice, losing the Macy's sales, the Miss Universe thing, etc? I expect the backlash has had real consequences.

No doubt starting a cable network is a good fallback position, but I don't buy the idea that this is all according to plan.

More likely, some in his campaign know he's going to lose and are looking for an out, while others (maybe including the candidate) still think he may win.

Re: undefined

#248

Post by jacquesm »

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…

At least one presidential election has been decided by a margin so close that a few hundred votes made the difference. That's not so massive a scale that it couldn't happen.

Re: undefined

#249

Post by zem »

solipsism wrote: post #116
rorykoehler wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom is not freedom without power to exercise said freedom.

Freedom in the Libertarianism context (and in most contexts) means lack of coercion or constraint imposed by government or other institutions. It doesn't refer to freedom from natural or physical constraints. That wouldn't make any sense to advocate for. Does this clear it up for you?

most of them also have a very narrow view of "coercion", though, and will hotly deny that economic coercion is a valid concept

Re: undefined

#250

Post by jacquesm »

rodgerd wrote: post #209
morgante wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, though Trump is obviously not a carbon copy clone of Hitler.

Hitler never ran for a public office that gave him access to nuclear weapons, for starters.

That wouldn't have stopped him either. Given that nuclear weapons did not exist it would have been highly surprising if he had.

Oh, and the Nazis did try to make them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapon_project

Post reply on HN