The 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

Re: The 2016 Election

#201

Post by gkoberger » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:41 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?

Maybe he's a closet racist, who knows. But I think that's a dismissive assumption.

Here's a great article: http://theweek.com/articles/638051/why-does-peter-thiel-supp...

Some bullet points:

  * He believes we've stagnated (see http://blog.samaltman.com/trump)
  * He sees a unique opportunity to buy into politics at the highest level for a mere $1.25MM
  * He likes being on CNN and on stage. He's famous, but not politics-famous.
  * He found a way to get Republicans to cheer for the phrase "I'm gay"

Again, doesn't justify him... but potentially explains him.

At the end of the day, we shouldn't be surprised that a guy who's famous for asking "What's one thing you believe that no one else does?" is supporting the most contrarian candidate we've ever seen.

Re: The 2016 Election

#202

Post by pnathan » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:41 PM UTC

gjolund wrote: post #125

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…

I have been saying this for months. I would prefer 4 more years on congressional deadlock to the dystopian nightmare that Hillary will unleash. Force the DNC to address its shortcomings, and push a real progressive in the next election.

> dystopian nightmare that Hillary will unleash

What specifically will happen?

Re: The 2016 Election

#203

Post by jowiar » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:41 PM UTC

rtx wrote: post #113

jowiar wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made it then, and I'm making it now. One of the best ways we can fix campaign finance is by holding campaign financiers responsible for what they're funding.

Why not make voters responsible.

It works on both ends:

- Voters holding candidates responsible for where their support comes from, and whether that will influence their actions in office. - Consumers / collaborators / whatnot holding financiers responsible for what they are funding.

I, as a voter, do choose to take into account who is funding a candidate's campaign.

I, as a consumer / potential employee / human, take into account the speech funded by someone I'm intending to conduct a transaction with / form a friendship with, as evidence of their character.

Re: The 2016 Election

#204

Post by ocdtrekkie » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:41 PM UTC

TillE wrote: post #150

tdb7893 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's basically impossible to select a President you 100% agree with, unless you're voting for yourself.

Re: The 2016 Election

#205

Post by Latty » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:42 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?

My counter to that would be that we accept that sometimes war is necessary and can be the lesser of two evils, while judging every Muslim by the actions of a few should never be necessary.

Hilary didn't say she wants to nuke Syria and Libya. She made a decision because she thought that conflict there was the lesser of two evils, and has applied mostly proportionate response, and attempted to limit collateral damage.

Trump has said he wants to completely ban everyone who shares a religion with the most prominent terrorists of the moment.

The two, in my eyes, are very, very different. One is a decision made in the understanding that we have to make difficult choices, one is a naive, dangerous blanket policy as a knee-jerk response that will cause more harm than good.

It's easy to say 'killing vs banning' and make it sound the way you did, but when it's 'carefully directed killing to try and reduce overall killing vs overreaching banning that will be ineffective and punish innocent people'...

Re: The 2016 Election

#206

Post by spdustin » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:42 PM UTC

I've said this in another thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728761) but in case that submission gets flagged off the page again, I'll include it here:

From The Education of a Libertarian [0]

---

"I believe that politics is way too intense. That’s why I’m a libertarian. Politics gets people angry, destroys relationships, and polarizes peoples’ vision: the world is us versus them; good people versus the other. Politics is about interfering with other people’s lives without their consent. That’s probably why, in the past, libertarians have made little progress in the political sphere. Thus, I advocate focusing energy elsewhere, onto peaceful projects that some consider utopian." - Peter Thiel [0]

[0]: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

---

Leaving aside all the drama surrounding YC and Peter Thiel, this is where it all breaks down for me. How am I supposed to take Thiel at his word today, when less than a decade ago he was convinced that politics is "too intense" because it angers people, divides them into us-vs-them groups, and tears them apart.

Is it simply that he's changed who he is in that time? I mean, that's a legitimate reason, and one I could respect even if it means I don't agree with who he is today. I'd want to know what changed his mind.

Or are there different Peter Thiel personas? I can understand this, too. As Hillary Clinton pointed out, Abraham Lincoln believed that politicians have a private and a public persona, because most of the electorate would shudder to see how our tasty, democratic sausage was being made.

Or is he a capricious man who doesn't stick to his principals when motivated by financial or political need? That would be disappointing, but the cynic in me says it wouldn't be surprising.

Without knowing who he truly is, and why there is such a divide between just 7 years ago (still fully within his adult life) and now, his whole persona just doesn't compute with me and I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that he's too chaotic to trust.

Does anyone have any insight?

Re: The 2016 Election

#207

Post by grandalf » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:42 PM UTC

HRC has moved the Democratic Party to the right. This has left many poor and angry people in the dust. Many have gravitated toward Trump.

Yes, poor people are more likely to be criminals and racists but let's be real, mainstream pols have been speaking racist language in a more coded and subtle way for a long time. It has always been ugly. HRC has done it herself when it benefits her.

What irritates me about this essay and the "stop Trump" argument for HRC in general, is that it supposes that it is not necessary to hold one's chosen candidate accountable and that we should just get on board and be grateful someone is running against Trump.

I could never vote for either candidate. But Trump's stark and unthinking narrative is matched by a similarly stark and unthinking anti-Trump narrative.

Re: The 2016 Election

#208

Post by jgroszko » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:42 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…

Any first past the post system like we have will trend towards a two party system as people vote strategically for the most tolerable mainstream candidate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

It's interesting to see people calling for more alternatives and more viable political parties in the US. It's not clear to me that having more political parties would be better since many European countries, where more parliamentary style representation is common, is also dealing with their own xenophobic and nationalist movements.

Re: The 2016 Election

#209

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:42 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: The 2016 Election

#210

Post by ones_and_zeros » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:42 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #76

gkoberger wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam tweeted that this was his favorite article about the election: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on... It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters.

> It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters. I think what we're seeing are the results of taking 6 trillion dollars that should have been spent building infrastructure for working class Americans and instead wasting it in Iraq.

Without the war there would not have been 6 trillion dollars to spend...

I think Trump supporters are regular simple Americans who are looking around and seeing they haven't benefited from the economic prosperity at a rate equivalent to their output and are facing an all out assault on their labor via neo-liberal policies adopted by both major parties. Neither party is going to point back at themselves and Trump has seized their support by blaming common scapegoats and tapping in to populist racial, gender and religious discrimination. Democrats have and do do this too, ie "super predators", etc.