The 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

Re: The 2016 Election

#131

Post by mmanfrin » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

sp527 wrote: post #43

Tycho wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Why is money speech? What makes donation different from voting pragmatically? (eg. "I'll put up with an offensive loudmouth for President if it means we get to avoid destroying another Middle Eastern civilization and potentially starting WW3")

This was the shocking conclusion of a landmark case, Citizen's United vs FEC, that was heard by the Supreme Court. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

A case where it was divided along partisan lines 5 to 4 on the SCOTUS. One of the 5s seat is now vacant and the next president will appoint a replacement.

This is the primary reason I am so frustrated with friends of mine who are content to see Hillary and Trump as 'the same'. One of these two people will tilt the court away from the majority that decided on Citizens United. The other will tilt it further in favor of the side that decided on Citizens United.

Even if HRC was ideologically opposed to my own views I would vote for her since 4 or 8 years of HRC trumps (pardon the pun) the 40 years of SCOTUS seating the next president will set.

Re: The 2016 Election

#132

Post by mejari » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

gjolund wrote: post #71

marbletiles wrote: post #7

YC: Happy to cut people off over SOPA support. YC: Can't bring itself to even censure a billionaire who only works with them "part-time" for supporting actual hatred and sexual abuse. I await this thread filling up with "but how you can be tolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance?!" and other Phil-101 Do You Sees

Now Trump = actual hatred. I don't support trump, but the hyperbole is getting exhausting.

I encourage you to watch one of his recent rallies. It is not hyperbole.

Re: The 2016 Election

#133

Post by Jtsummers » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:34 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…

Candidates A and B are for or against (noted as O and X respectively) the following:

  Issue: A B C D E F G
      A: O O O X X X O
      B: O O X X O O X

Noting that they both agree on three issues, disagree on three issues. I have to weight each of those issues to determine which one I am actually for. While I disagree with Thiel's conclusion this year, I have to presume he's done the same sort of analysis (he's not an idiot, he's well educated and successful so he's done something right along the way). His scales have apparently tipped in strong favor of Trump (especially for him to double down with his donation), but that doesn't mean he specifically supports the more abhorrent parts of Trump's character or campaign.

Re: The 2016 Election

#134

Post by the_duke » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #78

ryanSrich wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely not a popular position. Just take a look at Twitter and you'll see people from both sides nearly calling for the death of the other. While not super surprising I've seen little discussion around the fact that your chances of being fired for supporting one of the candidates (you can guess who) publicly are pretty good. Especially when you work in the tech field. Which to me is really interesting becaus…

> you'll see people from both sides nearly calling for the death of the other Not to sound too tinfoilhatter, but this is exactly what you would want the masses to behave like as a politician. Neither candidate gives two shits about you me or anyone who isn't part of the ruling elite, they're just in it for the power.

It's exactly how populists want the voters to think and behave.

They nurture and encourage distrust, anger, aggression. And use it to fuel enthusiasm and support for themselves.

You see this pattern often in history.

When holding an elected office, this kind of separation is a big problem, because it necessarily seeps into political entities (parlaments, senates, congress) and makes collaboration hard.

Re: The 2016 Election

#135

Post by bodmd » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

MrZongle2 wrote: post #54

justjico wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She apologized the next day though.

"“Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that's never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong," Clinton said in a statement released Saturday afternoon." ( http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-basket... ) Apparently the apology was over "half" rather than "deplorables".

> Apparently the apology was over "half" rather than "deplorables"

Which is fair. It's impossible to deny that there are white supremacists (who are deplorable) that support Trump. They're very candid about it.

Re: The 2016 Election

#136

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #24

Except Thiel is saying many of the repugnant things that made Trump popular. - Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump. - Thiel believes that the 19th amendment destroyed democracy, because women vote in favor for anti-libertarian welfare measures. When faced with the choice between saving democracy and capitalism, Thiel chooses capitalism. Trump shares this antidemocratic se…

[deleted]

Re: The 2016 Election

#137

Post by linkregister » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

sethbannon wrote: post #4

Bravo to Sam for the endorsement and for calling Trump out for what he is. On the issue of Peter Thiel, for those of you that believe it's wrong to fire someone based on their political actions, is there any limit? If David Duke ran for office, or the Ku Klux Klan fielded a candidate for president, and someone gave a high profile speech endorsing them and supported their campaign with a million dollars, would it stil…

I think in this situation the limit hasn't been reached; with 40+% of the nation's support, the Trump movement isn't fringe. Additionally, many voters intend to vote for him for politically expedient reasons, such as capturing 3 Supreme Court justice appointments for Republican judges.

Despite the objectively horrible viewpoints advanced by the Trump campaign, they do not approach David Duke's viewpoints.

From some points of view, pro-abortion advocacy is an unconscionable violation of human rights and outweighs religious (Muslim profiling) and racial (seizing remittances from Mexican nationals) concerns; it is a rationally-approached choice of a lesser of two evils.

This isn't strict cultural relativism; the argument has merit. I assert that including alternate viewpoints (but prohibiting bigoted / wrongful actions) strengthens institutions. The best demonstration of the strength of a world view is to accept discussion of alternate viewpoints. If we're right, we shouldn't be afraid of the alternative.

Re: The 2016 Election

#138

Post by jowiar » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

gjolund wrote: post #93

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?

Sure (and to some extent, Obama did it in '08, and Bernie did it this year). It's 100% reasonable to run a campaign on a message of "My opponent is funded by $BANK and $PHARMA and whatnot. I'm funding this out of my own pocket / I'm funded by small-dollar donors / My entire staff is living off of ramen".

Does it single-handedly win an election? Probably not. Does it win some # of votes? Most certainly.

Re: The 2016 Election

#139

Post by jedmeyers » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #95

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 rig…

With the current one-tier election system, you will severely cripple the chances of your second best candidate to win, if you vote you your first choice independent candidate.

Re: The 2016 Election

#140

Post by dnautics » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

lotso wrote: post #58

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.

If you really care about improving the viability of third parties in this country, please do that in local and state elections where it is actually possible to elect third parties. Voting for 3rd parties in Presidential elections is fine, but really doesn't do much really and if you actually dig deep into 3rd party Presidential candidates, they're usually not great either.

This is an incredibly concern trolling argument. There is no right or wrong way to vote for third parties.