151–160 of 414 posts
Diversity and inclusion, but only for those people whose politics we agree with? (A rhetorical question, it's always been that way).
Some political platforms are inherently non-inclusive and Trump's is one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "this isn’t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence." As an outsider looking in, isn't Hillary's history in advocating hatred and violence? Again, as somebody who isn't all that familiar with the state of the states isn't the choice between a moron and someone who is systematically immoral? Either way, its a sad state of affairs.
> As an outsider looking in, isn't Hillary's history in advocating hatred and violence? Not really, no. Hillary has made some questionable choices, but I don't think that makes her any more or less "systematically immoral" than Trump - she just has a longer record, because she actually has political experience. For example, both Trump and Clinton were in favor of the Iraq war. Trump got to backpedal and pretend other…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're describing seems only natural to me. Very few people sit entirely within the spectrum of one of the two parties - they have to evaluate both and see which has the most pluses. If you're gay, the Republican party is threatening your ability to get married and live without discrimination, so I can believe that might seem more important than relatively minor shifts in economic policy.
Except, I guess, if you're Peter Thiel, who stands both to be discriminated against but also to get massive tax breaks in a Trump presidency.
Well, being as wealthy as Thiel is basically frees you from the day to day realities of being discriminated against.
I'm not saying minorities who are rich aren't also victims of prejudice and such, but when you are rich and relatively famous (and any kind of minority) you are very unlikely to be openly discriminated against the same way a "commoner" minority will be.
... which makes his support for Trump seem even more selfish to me.
I am disappointed with Thiel's decision to donate money to Donald Trump, but I don't care what Ellen Pao or her organization thinks about it. It's their prerogative, but I laughed at the tagline 'Sometimes hard decisions aren't that hard after all'. I don't believe an attempt to pressure outside parties into severing business ties with someone because of their questionable political judgement should be treated as if…
Or it's a stand against a movement which opposes their moral principles. To Pao (and, to the extent that it matters, me), D. Trump's movement is so vile that any prominent supporters of it waive their right to being tolerated. I am sure you'd agree that doing so would be acceptable if Thiel supported Strom Thurmond, Viktor Orban, or Mao Zedong; it's just a matter of how bad D. Trump is.
I can concede that point.
And people with this kind of thinking are considered to be the good guys? SNL writer Chris Kelly "How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?"[0] Seriously pause to think that. This fabricated outrage created by media & Clinton campaign of Trump's 'alleged' doings is quite concerning. At the same time there are Wikileaks collusion, media ena…
You mean the serial sexual assault which he basically confessed to multiple times unprompted (bus tape, stern show, …), and to which his only defences are a british lunatic (who "confessed" to being a child pimp for british cabinet members at 17) and that his accusers are too ugly for him to assault?
Let us get this straight: you think it's necessary to fabricate outrage over a man who believes the issue in being accused of sexual assault is he's accused of sexually assaulting "uggos"?
There is clear precedent for YC taking a political stand by uninviting investors. Only five years ago, Paul Graham was willing to uninvite investors from Demo Day based on their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin... Paul asked, "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good invest…
I agree with the thrust of your point - that organizations like YC should be allowed to uninvite or refuse to collaborate with people they are diametrically opposed to for political reasons. However, I do not agree that it's fair to call an investor's competency into question due to their political views. I agree organizations have every right to not affiliate themselves with those investors, but in the real world th…
I also find it ironic that something called Project Include is upset because someone is supporting a party that a huge percentage of the country is going to vote for. YC had nothing to do with Thiel's donation and you dissociate from them when there are 2 degrees of separation? That is not inclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama. >Hillary voting to invade Iraq Her own floor speech before her vote said she was voting yes precisely to give Bush leverage…
> There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama. "In late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state,…
Yet your arguments sound more directed at the average Joe. You seem to have assumed, based only on headline news, no one else is making the comparison.
This is a pretty self-aggrandizing position to take.
There is clear precedent for YC taking a political stand by uninviting investors. Only five years ago, Paul Graham was willing to uninvite investors from Demo Day based on their support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin... Paul asked, "If these companies are so clueless about technology that they think SOPA is a good idea, how could they be good invest…
There is very much a difference between "uninviting companies " based on their support of a bill and firing a partner for his personal political viewpoints. These aren't apples to apples comparisons; this issue isn't that simple.
All this alleged 'Trump is racist and hates x' is complete BS. If you read the wikileaks emails there is a major media & Clinton collusion going on. That should pause everybody.
The way Democrats are running this campaign is really worrying as show in todays leaks 'CLINTON CAMP HIRES AGITATORS TO INSTIGATE VIOLENCE'[0].
Edit: I'm being down voted for facts. What have HN become.
[0]http://regated.com/2016/10/project-veritas-clinton-camp-corr...