The 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

Re: The 2016 Election

#161

Post by DougN7 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:36 PM UTC

braythwayt wrote: post #51

sanjeetsuhag wrote: post #2

> We shouldn’t start purging people for supporting the wrong political candidate. That's not how things are done in this country. Amen.

Sorry, not a good analogy. What it omits is the power factor. Were Mr. Thiel a founder, and a powerful VC blacklisted him because of his political views, we would have the powerful trampling the weak. If HN banned everyone who defended Mr. Thiel, we would have a purge. But choosing not to do business with a billionaire that is actually spending money to support Mr. Trump is not a case of the powerful oppressing the w…

What about Brendan Eich? I don't know if he is a billionaire, but he lost a job. Losing a job for having a particular view is oppression. Next election cycle, should you lose your job if you support Clinton? No. We're losing civil discourse by going this way.

Re: The 2016 Election

#162

Post by joncalhoun » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:36 PM UTC

mejari wrote: post #122

gkoberger wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a degree of separation you're missing. SOPA is a specific belief, Trump is a person who has many beliefs. Person -> SOPA Person -> Trump -> Sexism/Racism/etc Thiel doesn't support Trump because he's racist/etc, he does it in spite of that. That doesn't make Thiel right, however it is an important distinction. If Thiel said or did anything racist/sexist/etc, he'd be out of YC. It's a slippery slope to start fi…

>Thiel doesn't support Trump because he's racist/etc, he does it in spite of that. How do you know that?

I believe his point was that you don't know until Thiel actually makes the racist comments himself, so you can't infer that he does.

Re: The 2016 Election

#163

Post by sangd » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:36 PM UTC

> if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator.

I find this logic is similar to the logic some GOPs use to support Donald Trump. Even though they condemned him for saying lewd/racist comments (or even committed to), they still give him the support. I don't know how you would continue dodging this for Peter when Donald Trump is being sued for actually committing to a criminal offense. YC needs to draw a line instead of playing this blurred line.

Re: The 2016 Election

#164

Post by gjolund » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:37 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?

Let's not forget about all the weapons we are selling Saudi Arabia.

They are killing civilians with weapons made in the USA.

Re: The 2016 Election

#165

Post by qntty » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:37 PM UTC

adamnemecek wrote: post #63

As much as I hate Trump, I'm kind of hoping for him to win. Fundamentally, I think that 4 years of Trump might be better than 8 years of Hillary. Also, if Hillary wins, the DNC won't have to change. If Trump wins, in 2020, they will be forced to nominate maybe someone like Sanders. Trump winning will also really underscore how broken the US political system is and I'm hoping that him winning could be a catalyst for s…

You only need to look at Reagan or Bush 2 to see how long it takes to repair the damage of a very bad President. This sounds plausible in theory, but in reality it's totally reckless. We would be dealing with the consequences for decades.

Re: The 2016 Election

#166

Post by _xhok » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:37 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…

You are misreading that sentence. You're talking about money talking symbolically. From context, Sam obviously means if Peter starts saying specific things that Trump has said.

Re: The 2016 Election

#167

Post by foota » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:37 PM UTC

Yhippa wrote: post #123

rsobers wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This is crazy: 1. A rich and powerful person parroting Trump's evil statements --> ban from YC. 2. A rich and powerful person helping put Trump in a position to turn his evil statements into reality for an entire country --> No ban from YC.

> 1. A rich and powerful person parroting Trump's evil statements --> ban from YC. Has this happened yet?

Sam stated anyone that said what Trump does would be banned.

Re: The 2016 Election

#168

Post by ebola1717 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:37 PM UTC

mejari wrote: post #122

gkoberger wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a degree of separation you're missing. SOPA is a specific belief, Trump is a person who has many beliefs. Person -> SOPA Person -> Trump -> Sexism/Racism/etc Thiel doesn't support Trump because he's racist/etc, he does it in spite of that. That doesn't make Thiel right, however it is an important distinction. If Thiel said or did anything racist/sexist/etc, he'd be out of YC. It's a slippery slope to start fi…

>Thiel doesn't support Trump because he's racist/etc, he does it in spite of that. How do you know that?

Palantir is under investigation for racist hiring practices, so there's pretty good reason to think he supports Trump because of them.

Re: The 2016 Election

#169

Post by grandalf » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:37 PM UTC

Sam, could you add a paragraph or two with critiques of HRC that you acknowledge but which don't change your voting rationale?

Re: The 2016 Election

#170

Post by ChuckMcM » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:37 PM UTC

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.

I see it differently than Sam here. My father is also a vocal Trump supporter. His path, and the path shared by his friends, appear to me to be driven not by what Trump says he will do, but by what they feel the government has not done. These people feel disenfranchised by their own government who appears unresponsive to their concerns and dismissive of their point of view. And in their world view, by reflecting their fears, Donald Trump appears to be listening to them.

When you overlay this perception of listening, and the historical divide of the role of government (Is it there to take care of you or is it there to enable you to take care of yourself?) It surfaces a lot of Trump supporters.