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

531–540 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#531

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #508
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Although my perspective on him has changed, it seems to me that the American left has turned into the authoritarian controlling power they so often claim to fight against. Only if you consider Clinton to be leftist, which really doesn't make much sense. https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

American left != Clinton.

I quite realize, but I don't see much authoritarian tendency in the parts leftward of Clinton. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders just aren't that authoritarian, let alone the Green Party.

Re: undefined

#532

Post by Marazan »

blhack wrote: post #63
heartbreak wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding that poll specifically: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-...

Their response: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-daybreak-poll-ques... Where they eliminated that one 19 year old, and saw very little effect on the poll.

That's not true, they saw the same affect as upshot, which is to say nearly 1 percentage point movement by removing him.

1 responder should not move a 2500 person poll by 1%

Re: undefined

#533

Post by pdog »

rorykoehler wrote: post #65
morgante wrote: post #29

I'm genuinely curious what the rational for Thiel is in doing this. He's a smart guy, but I just don't see the ROI. At this point, it seems very unlikely that Trump will get elected. So Thiel isn't getting access to a future President. Plus, in addition to the monetary cost of the donation there's definitely a very real reputational cost. A lot of people in SV hate Trump and are completely mystified as to Thiel's sup…

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).

> Capitalism means you can't do whatever you want unless you're rich.

You're conflating laissez-faire or free market capitalism with a plutocracy (society ruled by the wealthiest). They're diametrically opposed systems.

Re: undefined

#534

Post by batbomb »

rayiner wrote: post #452
ting_bu_dung wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, when you align yourself with a women-hating, racist candidate, what do you expect your friends to think?

In a way, because this election has come down to a dichotomy between Hilary and an actual cartoon villain, it'll be bad for the democratic party. It'll ensure the entrenchment of the conservative "think of the children" "just say no" wing of the party for another decade or more.

Obviously you don't know enough people who support Trump (or McMullin, or Johnson) in your facebook feed, because the charicatures they post about Clinton are of a cartoonish evil villain as well, often with their favorite picture: https://goo.gl/images/LvYxB1

Clinton isn't my first pick, but I realized long ago that quite a bit of the hate about her goes back to her feminism and activism in her early days in the white house, when many families felt she had led a full-on attack on their traditional family values simply by not practicing them.

Re: undefined

#535

Post by davemel37 »

Maybe he is fighting the disgraceful shaming culture going on in this election.

By standing up and making a donation, he is forcing people to reconcile his success with his political views, creating real discourse, like this HN discussion.

I cant recall a single election that had so few lawn signs out and that people are afraid to admit who they truly support.

Re: undefined

#536

Post by SixSigma »

dcposch wrote: post #334
dreta wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can argue whether Trump is an authoritarian or not, but what we can't argue about is that Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms. Democrats can call it "common sense" whatever, but that's what it is.

> Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms I'm pretty sure going sleeveless will still be legal in a Clinton presidency. Spelling aside, it's still incorrect. Nobody is proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Basic gun control-- for example, requiring a criminal background check with no gun show loophole-- is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.

Have you seen the O'Keefe video where Russ Feingold, a Democratic challenger for U.S. Senate, tells a Palo Alto, California, fundraiser that Hillary Clinton might use an executive order to enforce gun control.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/13/feingold-okee...

Re: undefined

#537

Post by DominikR »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #524
DominikR wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote this in another comment: > And last but not least: Hitler himself frequently said and wrote that he is a Socialist. Not an International Socialist like the Soviet Union but a National Socialist. International Socialism was the Soviets. By definition an international variant must be less racist and it's not surprising that a National variant was racist. But the economy had similarities, it was controlled almos…

We both know that Hitler wasn't hated because of his economics, please.

How is that relevant when trying to determine if he was a Socialist or not?

I think we all know why he was hated.

Re: undefined

#538

Post by harryf »

untog wrote: post #281
tvural wrote: post #264

Thiel might have ulterior motives, but his support of Trump is not too surprising if you've listened to his other ideas. He feels that the political agenda has been overrun by distractions, like "who can use which bathroom", at the expense of real problems, like the stagnation of median wages over the last forty years. He prefers the days when the national conversation was about how to beat the Soviets, and sees the…

None of what you wrote answers "why Trump?", though. If Thiel thinks he can somehow control Trump and get him to pursue a Libertarian agenda (which Trump's platform bares no resemblance to) then he's an idiot. If he wants Libertarianism he should donate to Gary Johnson. Anything else is just opportunism.

> Anything else is just opportunism.

But that might be it. Trump clearly lacks a well oiled political machine behind him like Clinton. Should he win power there will no doubt a lot of opportunities opening up for anyone with a cheque and an agenda. I guess 1.5 million is not much to gamble for Thiel and will pay back 1000 to 1 if Trump were to succeed.

Re: undefined

#539

Post by rayiner »

batbomb wrote: post #534
rayiner wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a way, because this election has come down to a dichotomy between Hilary and an actual cartoon villain, it'll be bad for the democratic party. It'll ensure the entrenchment of the conservative "think of the children" "just say no" wing of the party for another decade or more.

Obviously you don't know enough people who support Trump (or McMullin, or Johnson) in your facebook feed, because the charicatures they post about Clinton are of a cartoonish evil villain as well, often with their favorite picture: https://goo.gl/images/LvYxB1 Clinton isn't my first pick, but I realized long ago that quite a bit of the hate about her goes back to her feminism and activism in her early days in the whi…

I mean Trump is an actual cartoon villain.

Re: undefined

#540

Post by josho »

jacquesm wrote: post #257

The only way out of the current mess I think is to elect Clinton and to immediately impeach her. Neither candidate is looking good at this point in time but Clinton at least seems to be relatively stable and won't do irreparable damage to the country.

I like your novel approach to the problem of being forced to choose between 2 candidates that are both inappropriate (for very different reasons) for the role.
Post reply on HN