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

571–580 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#571

Post by jphillipsio »

SixSigma wrote: post #536
dcposch wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Breitbart as a source?

Re: undefined

#572

Post by eli_gottlieb »

ThomPete wrote: post #428
dmode wrote: post #404

I hope the tech world shuns Thiel. This is what he is supporting http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-... Specifically, look for his insults aimed at reporters and journalists. This man is unhinged and unqualified. He is currently riling up his followers by claiming that the election will be rigged. I am concerned the consequences of that message https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/1…

The real tragedy is how easily peoples attention are all about form not substance. For all the crazy things Trump is saying he actually have some points that are far more important to discuss than whatever he said about women or journalists. With Hillary you get a seasoned politician who is going to do what they have always been doing. Absolutely nothing. That's besides of course making a huge mess internationally. A…

Well yes, but with Trump you get Eric Cartman come to life: all the problems of Clinton, plus vulgarity, plus neo-Nazism.

Re: undefined

#573

Post by awqrre »

dmode wrote: post #404

I hope the tech world shuns Thiel. This is what he is supporting http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-... Specifically, look for his insults aimed at reporters and journalists. This man is unhinged and unqualified. He is currently riling up his followers by claiming that the election will be rigged. I am concerned the consequences of that message https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/1…

Have you seen the hidden-cam video of Alan Schulkin, NYC commissioner of board of election claiming that they are in fact rigged? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

Re: undefined

#574

Post by joshkpeterson »

CptJamesCook wrote: post #256
mcrae wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the parent is saying that Trump is literally Hitler, but rather that his rhetoric targeting specific minorities is alarmingly similar to that of Hitler's and his National-Socialist party during their rise to power. No doubt the Holocaust was one of the most horrific crimes ever committed -- should we not then be all the more vigilant in preventing such similar hate speech from entering the mainstream?

Sure, we should be vigilant against hate speech. But not by banning speech, and not by manipulating it. And saying that we shouldn't allow a specific faith into the United States, even on a temporary basis, is certainly against the American ethos. But it's not Hitler. I would say a more apt comparison to Hitler is the language used in the parent to my comment: "If that's the man Thiel wants to stand with so be it. Bu…

We're not banning or manipulating speech, we're simply labeling what Trump said. It's demagoguery.

And no, your attempt to turn the tables and characterize the parent comment as Hitlerish is not convincing (it's obviously utter bullshit). But, it does actually undermine your original argument that it's bad to compare things to Hitler. If it's so unfair, then why are you doing it?

Re: undefined

#575

Post by notthemessiah »

striking wrote: post #441
dickman3000 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn't Thiel talked about how it's bad that women have the right to vote? Doesn't seem like he cares much about liberty here. Thiel strikes me as more of an authoritarian than libertarian, hence probably why he supports Trump. I mean ... why else would he support Trump? No sense in doing complicated mental gymnastics here.

> Hasn't Thiel talked about how it's bad that women have the right to vote? I was curious about this, so I looked it up. From Thiel's writings on Cato Unbound: > Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron. Later: > It would be ab…

He's saying he doesn't want to disenfranchise women or any particular class, he wants to disenfranchise everybody. He's framing the democratic political process as something that doesn't get anywhere and something that gets in the way of progress, so he prefers authoritarian power over the checks and balances of a democratic political system.

Re: undefined

#576

Post by gwern »

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.

> Of the poll’s 14 weeks so far, there were three times when removing that weight switched the result from a Trump lead to a Clinton lead. Generally, the shift was between one and two percentage points...Some people have ignored the margin of error in order to make a political point, but there’s not much we can do about that.

That seems highly disingenuous a response.

Re: undefined

#577

Post by Frondo »

tenpies wrote: post #507
jsprogrammer wrote: post #467

I wonder what his thoughts are about Trump nonconsensually groping women? A libertarian could not support such violence/coercion. [Edit: wow, off-topic?]

I haven't kept up, but have any of the accusations been proven yet? Last I checked they were all allegations.

When just two people are in the room, you won't find it possible to "prove" anything.

But there is, of course, no reason to doubt the honesty of the women involved. Why wouldn't you trust them?

Re: undefined

#578

Post by jsprogrammer »

Frondo wrote: post #577
tenpies wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't kept up, but have any of the accusations been proven yet? Last I checked they were all allegations.

When just two people are in the room, you won't find it possible to "prove" anything. But there is, of course, no reason to doubt the honesty of the women involved. Why wouldn't you trust them?

Because Donald Trump seems to call the accusations "completely fabricated". Why wouldn't you trust Donald Trump?

Re: undefined

#579

Post by millstone »

jerkstate wrote: post #511
golemotron wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like the US this year. This is not an exaggeration. Many people would have professional and personal consequences for supporting Trump in public. People like Peter Thiel and Scott Adams have enough money to not care. Scott isn't even endorsing him and he says that his speaking engagements have dried up. We may see a big difference between the polling and the election results this year. The Shy Tory Effect came t…

You can't even present facts in a way that feels to liberals like defending Trump without facing social consequences (this is what Adams is guilty of.) I had several problems with friends explaining positions taken by both candidates during the debates and discussing the legality of what's known publicly about Trump's tax returns. Discussion of any of those topics will agglomerate the liberal view of Trump as racist,…

Adams faces social consequences because of his bizarre and paranoid rantings, such as that Hillary supporters will literally assassinate him if he supports Trump [1].

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for...

Re: undefined

#580

Post by zo1 »

zappo2938 wrote: post #494
neonbat wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thiels philosophy is actually deeply technocratic authoritarian. in a lot of ways he is a technocrat and not a true libertarian. hes said on multiple occasions that politics has failed libertarians and that they should try 'alternatives.'

I tried looking up libertarian on Wikipedia and there are so many definitions I'm not sure what people mean when they say the word, libertarian. What I thought the word meant years ago was no government, turns out that is called anarchism. When people tell me that they are libertarian I always wonder what the hell that means or if they even know.

Libertarianism is actually quite an open definition. E.g. I find it easier to describe myself as one, even though I'm technically an anarcho-capitalist.

It's the same if you try look up concepts such as Marxism, Democracy, Mercantilism, Capitalism, Left vs Right, etc. At the end of the day, you need to find someone that can distill the concepts for you to something more easily digestible.

Personally for me, there really is only one consideration to clarify the position. Does the person support the Non-Aggression Principle universally? If yes, then they're an anarcho-capitalist, if "almost-completely" or something like that, then they're fence-sitting near the libertarian position. And if they say no, then they're definitely a Statist (Whether that is democracy, marxism, socialism, or monarchy, doesn't matter).

Post reply on HN