The 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

Re: The 2016 Election

#141

Post by ryanSrich » 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…

> then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying

Disagree.

Thiel is making an investment. He can likely separate his emotions from his actions. I imagine Thiel doesn't agree with a lot of what Pence says about homosexuals, but that certainly didn't stop him from making the investment.

Re: The 2016 Election

#142

Post by to3m » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:34 PM UTC

mikebannister wrote: post #15

> if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator That could be scary to employees of Y Combinator... what things fall on the blacklist? To me it's obvious that you will fire someone for saying racist or sexist remarks but it's not clear exactly what I can or cannot say to avoid being fired.

Partners are not employees.

Re: The 2016 Election

#143

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

Its pretty simple why a lot of the country supports Trump.

Every election the media brands the Republican party candidate the devil and stupid (Romney was tagged as a racist last election and stupid for thinking Russia might be a threat). They also read all the leaked e-mails calling them stupid and see what the Clinton Foundation has done. They aren't ignorant or stupid and see when a fix is in. Never mind the various people that Sec. Hilary has declared she will put out of business.

I said it in another thread, "if you keep demonizing a group, expect them to send an actual demon eventually".

I honestly believe if you cannot understand why people support Trump, then you just don't want to understand or believe that they are full of hate. They aren't full of hate. Most just don't believe the media anymore. Take the media outlets this morning blaming Trump for the burning of a GOP office. I think the quote that comes up most often is "If he were really that bad, NBC would have had to fire him during his time on TV and besides Bill is worse". The media outlets didn't do themselves any favors by holding onto tape from 2005 until after the convention and using it as an "October Surprise".

As for me, I didn't get to vote in the primaries because of issues with the GOP and the ND GOP. My candidate didn't get in (Rubio), and the Libertarian candidate is a disaster. I was hoping the Libertarians could get that magic 5% like Perot's party did in 1992. I might still vote Libertarian. I really doesn't matter as far as electoral split. I am more interested in the governor's race. I won't vote for Hilary since she is an actual demonstrated threat.

Re: The 2016 Election

#144

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

> I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump.

Didn't Clinton "explain" that a few weeks back?

Re: The 2016 Election

#145

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

sremani wrote: post #37

1337biz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking here about 40-50% of the American electorate not some fringe maniac. If you think those people's opinion should be shunned than your world view seems very restricted to me.

People need to understand, about 43% of eligible electorate are going to Vote for Trump. Its better trying to understand them rather than demonize them. What next, no funding to start-ups in Texas since it voted Trump. Trump is obnoxious but Stalinist purges are not an answer for it.

Funny you should mention Stalin, because it seems that people on Clinton's side are mostly using free speech to express their disgust, while Trump's camp has literally advocated mass deportation and legislating unsympathetic newspapers out of existence.

Re: The 2016 Election

#146

Post by foota » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:35 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…

Perhaps it's because the two leading independent candidates have terrible policy proposals? (Not to say that both major party candidates have great proposals, either)

Re: The 2016 Election

#147

Post by Aloha » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:35 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…

You made the comment I was going to make. Though I would have included the following too:

> The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less.

When it comes down to it.. its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper.

Re: The 2016 Election

#148

Post by joshmanders » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #28

I already made this point today but Hillary Clinton, whom sama is endorsing, has directly contributed to starting two wars (in Syria and Libya). While Trump threatened to ban Muslims from entering the US, her actions have already led to thousands of Muslims being killed. Isn't that strictly worse?

Yeah I'm not quite sure I understand the whole "I'm voting Clinton because it's the only way to stop Trump" argument.

No it's not. If enough people who are voting Clinton purely to stop Trump voted 3rd party, 3rd party would actually have a chance.

In this overflowing toilet bowl we call the 2016 Presidential Election, your best bet to unclog it is to use a plunger, now throw another turd in. Vote for the plunger, not the turds.

Re: The 2016 Election

#149

Post by 6stringmerc » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

jackfrodo wrote: post #101

> That kind of diversity is painful and unpopular, but > it is critical to health of a democratic and pluralistic > society. Is it? How does having someone who endorses xenophobia, sexism, etc, as one of the most visible members of your organization achieve these goals? If we tolerate this kind of thinking, how many opportunities are we losing out on because of people who couldn't get past the barriers it sets up?

I can relate to both sides, but I think the logic of wanting to engage is that at least having a dialogue path is an avenue to submit contrary evidence or examples for consideration. Sort of like "All X are like Y!" and then the refutation of showing "Several X are not like Y" without trying to attack the conversation participants. It takes both parties agreeing to the rules, and I'm not claiming either side always works through the dialogue in a mature or analytical fashion.

Re: The 2016 Election

#150

Post by TillE » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:35 PM UTC

tdb7893 wrote: post #48

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…

I think that all you can assume with donations is that the statement is "I think that this is the best candidate" instead of "I endorse everything that this person says". I would then think that it is reasonable to not hold a donor responsible for everything that the person they donated to says

That's just as delusional as the people who gush over Hillary for her social justice stances, but get very angry when you bring up her hawkishness. That's not how it works. You vote for / donate to the entire politician. You can't elect half a President.