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

591–600 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#591

Post by smorrow »

dickman3000 wrote: post #390
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…

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.

Voting isn't liberty, though.

Re: undefined

#592

Post by Frondo »

zo1 wrote: post #586
Frondo wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I could think of at least four possible reasons to doubt their accusations. Some of which wouldn't sit well with people. 1. The accusers are being blackmailed into doing it. 2. Or they are being bribed by people wanting to influence the election. 3. Or they want to be famous. 4. Or they have a personal vendetta against Donald Trump. There is a reason we have courts, trials and burdens of proof. And the convenient tim…

Can you prove they are being blackmailed, bribed, want to be famous (several already are, of course, for their own careers and lives), or have a personal vendetta?

I mean, on the one hand, you have a lot of women who tell the same sort of story, and I trust people until I have an actual (not hypothetical) reason to assume they're lying.

On the other hand, you have the guy who brags about dishonest business practices and lies (and this is all on video) about his past statements. Trump has given me lots of reasons not to trust him. Starting now to trust him, because women are involved, that doesn't make sense to me.

Re: undefined

#593

Post by ebfe »

ubernostrum wrote: post #189
morgante wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't know about Brendan Eich. That makes me angry. It makes me angry too, but also raises (for me) some interesting political questions around what level of disagreement is "too far." I would never fire someone for being a Republican and personally/privately opposing gay marriage. But I would also immediately fire someone if they were a Nazi. So where is the line if what's an acceptable level of tolerance (and…

So consider Proposition 8. This was a ballot measure whose sole purpose was to enshrine in law the idea that "this group of people over here aren't legally equal to everyone else". Privately believing someone has done something wrong, or belongs to a bad group, is one thing. Trying to enshrine that belief in law and disenfranchise the targeted person or group is quite another thing, and if you honestly are unable to…

Out of curiosity, do you also oppose non-flat taxation, affirmative action, minority-owned business contracting priorities, etc.?

Re: undefined

#594

Post by coding123 »

wsgeorge wrote: post #555
davemel37 wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO it means you believe in a right freedom so long as you dont infringe on someone elses rights. So, in theory you would be against forcing someone to pay taxes to build roads or provide education, but would arguably be for paying for a police department and justice system to protect people from having others infringe on their rights. It basically means the only function of government should be to protect our freedo…

I haven't looked into this myself, but your definition of "libertarian" fits exactly with my concept of an ideal government: one that's sole purpose is to protect the freedoms and dignities of all those within its jurisdiction, and within that framework, allowing everything else to be more or less self-determined, so long as the freedoms and dignity of all those within it are not harmed.

In my simple way of understanding this, then, is that libertarians are un-developed democrats. They think Democrats are "wrong" because of what they are, but when you extend this line of thought for many, many many years, you find yourself a democrat. Democrats can be easily criticized for overthinking bathroom rights, but doesn't that argument boil down to freedoms of the oppressed transgendered person? Freedom for the many oppressing the freedoms of the few.

Too many climate laws, too many laws protecting groundwater? How would this Libertarian definition fit those? The freedoms of the individuals in the town that has a giant polluting factory. Now that town needs laws to make the factory safer.

How about gun laws? Libertarians might suggest more "freedoms" with respect to gun availability,... many years later, revealing that more guns available actually means more deaths => freedom lost for the dead? Now they're a democrat too...

How's this definition different than democrat?

I'm just asking, because reading this mini-thread I'm lost here.

Re: undefined

#595

Post by zo1 »

jphillipsio wrote: post #571
SixSigma wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Does it matter? The claim behind the article appears to be a hidden-camera video. Maybe you should discredit that thing, rather than dismiss the article because its a conservative-leaning organization.

Re: undefined

#596

Post by SixSigma »

jphillipsio wrote: post #571
SixSigma wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

fuck this shit again

It's a video, Briebart is just the messenger. When CNN is Hillary's 7th largest contributor, Reuters giver her $MMs, Google give her $MMs, Fox give her $MMs what's left ?

Re: undefined

#597

Post by notthemessiah »

striking wrote: post #585
notthemessiah wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for the explanation. It's clear I failed to grasp his argument.

He was trying to deflect the criticism from his controversial essay, so his only option was to be obsequiously vague in his wording while killing the strawman of "Thiel wanting to take away women's right to vote".

Re: undefined

#598

Post by davesque »

eruditely wrote: post #173
davesque wrote: post #117

My breaking point with Trump (when I decided he is a menace to American society) was reached a long time ago with his proposed ban on Muslim immigration. It was demagoguery not unlike the kind used by Hitler -- attempting to place blame on a very clearly defined minority group to make his followers more motivated. Doing this was simply not right in the most fundamental way and painted a target mostly on innocent peop…

and instead you decided to betray me and my race, dear european, by not being strong enough.

I don't know what you mean.

Re: undefined

#600

Post by sctb »

ting_bu_dung wrote: post #443
Tsugumo wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The record-breaking Republican turnout was due to Trump, and I think it is reasonable to believe that the vast majority of Republicans will vote Trump over Hillary, or 3rd party. At the same time, many independents and Bernie supporters will vote Trump as well. In my mind, Trump is the Republican Obama, and will benefit from many first-time voters, and a large turnout in general. It does not seem to me that Hillary h…

you seem to live in a delusional fantasy where angry white uneducated men are the only voters in the country

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the guidelines.
Post reply on HN