The 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

Re: The 2016 Election

#91

Post by DougN7 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:29 PM UTC

sp527 wrote: post #5

> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying. Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalis…

It's not an all or nothing, black and white thing though.

It's possible for someone to agree with some things a candidate says, and disagree with other things. If I agree with more things Trump says than things Clinton says (or does, or believes, etc...) then it makes sense to support that candidate. So money is not speech. Even votes are not speech.

Re: The 2016 Election

#92

Post by rdiddly » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:29 PM UTC

potency wrote: post #39

Could I please, pretty please with a cherry on top, have one sanctuary that isn't infested with "Vote for X, because Y is unacceptable"? It's already been done everywhere else ad nauseam.

Yep. Same old "lesser of two evils" argument that allows the Dems to keep selling real liberals out.

Re: The 2016 Election

#93

Post by gjolund » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:29 PM UTC

jowiar wrote: post #62

> (of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator) This is the difference, in my book, between casting a ballot and writing a big check. Casting a ballot is what you have the right to do privately, without judgement from the world. When you write a check (especially one of the 7-figure variety), and amplify the message, you bear far more responsibility than…

How about holding people like Clinton responsible for where their funding comes from?

Re: The 2016 Election

#94

Post by err4nt » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:29 PM UTC

If you were to dissociate with Thiel over his political views it would lead to LESS diversity at Y Combinator!

Re: The 2016 Election

#95

Post by mtgx » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

lhnz wrote: post #6

> We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. > But I’d like to find out, because we have to include > everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to > stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, > we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020. > > That kind of…

What I don't understand "even more" than that (literally, by the numbers) is how 49% of the country is registered independent and yet keeps voting Democrat and Republican. Worse yet, 76% of the country "wants to see alternatives" in the debates...but still keeps voting Democrat and Republican.

Even if people agree to buy into this whole "this election is special" premise, I think people would be well within their rights to riot in 2020, if they hear one more time that that election is special, too, and they must once again vote Democrat ("because who else are they going to vote for?!")

Because when elections become "special" all the time, it means they really aren't. And it means the problem is systemic, and it's that systemic issue that needs to be addressed before voting against any particular candidate. Otherwise, these problems are never going to end. "Fix Democracy First" - as Lessig once believed (like until earlier this year) before he also started thinking that people should just shut up and vote for Clinton already.

Re: The 2016 Election

#96

Post by ryana » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

sama wrote: post #34

ryana wrote: post #9

So does Sam denounce the previous actions of YC banning companies who supported SOPA from demo day? Either YC is an organization that takes political stands or it's not.

I think those organizations were wrong to support SOPA, and it was wrong for us to say we wouldn't invite them to Demo Day.

Thanks for the honest reply. I think that helps some of us square the circle on why you felt so strongly about not cutting ties.

It does a lot to make sure this doesn't come off as "YC won't take a stand on political actors unless it directly affects almost all of our founders."

Re: The 2016 Election

#97

Post by mankash666 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #53

FLAGGING FOR POLITICAL CONTENT (not because Trump but because the Thiel NY Times story was so mercilessly flagged)

Here's the thing about HN - when it's political content that isn't palatable with the HN echo chamber, you get flagged. Else, you're a hero.

Reminds me of the song "Orgasmatron" - "Hypocrisy made paramount, Paranoia the law."

Re: The 2016 Election

#98

Post by meritt » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #10

Why would Sam not go for a third party who was less problematic? There are third party candidates available. Is it because they are unlikely to be elected? If so, this thinking keeps on trapping us into voting for the least bad of the bad.

Because Sam is an intelligent and rational individual.

Re: The 2016 Election

#99

Post by CJKinni » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

mankash666 wrote: post #87

Castigating/firing people for their opinions is illegal under the constitution. Even if Thiel said the things Trump did, it's his right to free speech, and YC, as an employer, cannot fire him on any constitutional ground. Disclaimer - before HN goes on a witch hunt, I do find Trump repugnant. But I'll defend his constitutional right to say it.

> Castigating/firing people for their opinions is illegal under the constitution.

Citation Needed.

Edit: Here's a link on the front page of a google search for 'firing people for their opinions is illegal under the constitution' that refutes your claims.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/your-money/speaking-about-...

A private company certainly can fire people for their articulated political views (edit: under the constitution).

Re: The 2016 Election

#100

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:30 PM UTC

mankash666 wrote: post #87

Castigating/firing people for their opinions is illegal under the constitution. Even if Thiel said the things Trump did, it's his right to free speech, and YC, as an employer, cannot fire him on any constitutional ground. Disclaimer - before HN goes on a witch hunt, I do find Trump repugnant. But I'll defend his constitutional right to say it.

[deleted]