Live data from Hacker News

The 2016 Election

blog.samaltman.com

241–250 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#241
Sam's entire post has one line about Hillary and ten about Trump.

Instead of trying to demonize Trump, perhaps it is important for you to advocate for your candidate. As the president said, go work for your candidate. People are not dumb. The contrast will be clear and then people can make their own choice.

I know its hard to compare, but would you say, "Buy my product to stop the other product from being successful because the other product makes claims that are outrageous". Rightly everyone then says, "Why buy any of the products?" Or "Let me try a third product".

Re: The 2016 Election

#242
post #119

The only way I can see that someone can't understand why some people support Trump is because they have not made an attempt to understand the other side's positions. I agree with close to none of Trump's positions and abhor the man, but it is simply smug to dismiss his supporters (credit to Sam for not dismissing them as dumb). 1) Anti-Free trade. Bernie and Trump both were very popular with working class individuals…

I am sure you are correct on those points. But I feel that something deeper is at play. American society has an excess of complexity that people are unwilling or unable to deal with. There is a desire for simplicity that is sated by Trump.

The more comfortable you are with complexity in society the less you need Trump.

Re: The 2016 Election

#243

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…

It's hard to have moderate, rational discussions in 255 characters

Even harder in 140.

Re: The 2016 Election

#244
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bec…

>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. The key there is that they _feel_ like they're not getting ahead - a very different thing than not actually getting ahead, and much more dangerous.

Don't just assume they only feel like they're not getting ahead.

A large majority of these folks are in actual fact falling far behind, and that fact is not easily observed in many of the metrics people often use for measurements (like 'household income', and 'unemployment')

Re: The 2016 Election

#245
post #177

I think a lot of the problems with the YC/Thiel discussion stems from the difference between how people view it: is it a political disagreement, or is it an ethical disagreement? In a "normal" election, this would be pretty cut-and-dry: it'd primarily be a political disagreement over taxes or something, and letting someone go because of their political beliefs would be viewed by many as being pretty extreme. Many peo…

It seems that your argument is that this particular election is pulling items from the sphere of deviance into the sphere of legitimate controversy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin%27s_spheres

Re: The 2016 Election

#246
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, no…

They probably wouldn't. I think you overestimate the number of people voting Clinton just to stop Trump. A lot of people truly like her the most. (Not me, I'd like to note - not that I will be voting as an Englishman).

It's also worth noting, what third party candidate? There isn't a perfect option there either.

It's a first past the post system - third party candidates are never going to happen because of the psychology, number of ingrained voters, and the way electoral college votes work.

If you are in that situation, the best thing is to vote Clinton, then instantly start putting as much pressure on her and other Democrats to change that system once she is in office. Start now, and get support for a candidate so in the next election you can have one you actually like standing, or at least push towards one. The biggest problem is people getting worked up in the presidential election, then when it's over, ignoring politics for four years.

Change in politics does not happen quickly - generally it involves waiting for old people to die, because people are bad at changing their beliefs. I'd love to believe a third party vote was worthwhile, but the truth is, in reality, it's not. We know that. The system is broken. Work to change that.

First past the post simply isn't democracy. It's a vague semblance of. Until you change that, you'll have two parties and your choice between a turd sandwich and a douche.

Re: The 2016 Election

#247
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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-f…

I didn't say we should assume he's racist, but you assumed he isn't. In fact you assumed his motivation very explicitly. I was asking how you made such an assumption.

Re: The 2016 Election

#248
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, Clinton's side is all rainbows and ponies. This whole post is about Clinton's side wanting to throw Thiel out because of his views! Like happened to Eich. That doesn't clear Trump in any way, but don't you see both sides are the same? That's the problem!

How could you possibly equate a private company disavowing a single billionaire with the president of the United States harassing and deporting millions of people?

Re: The 2016 Election

#249

The polarization in politics has gotten worse and worse. A lot of people are feeling marginalized and unheard. The echo chambers we find ourselves in make it difficult to even perceive how the other side could hold the views that they do. Yellow journalism is worse than I've ever seen. Viral social media posts that are more click bait than fact are spreading more misinformation than valuable insight. It's more than a…

Build truly open communication platforms.

Reddit, Twitter, HN, and Facebook have all shown heavy bias and a willingness to stifle conversation that they didn't agree with.

I would like to see ad free communication platform that supports content creaters through donation and patronage.

Re: The 2016 Election

#250
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"“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".

If you are claiming that calling a non-trivial proportion of Trump's supporters deplorable requires an apology, you disagree with me about what is deplorable.

The fact that a candidate for President of the United States -- whichever party they represent -- would decide to dismiss a sizeable portion of the country as contemptible or wretched seems to be the issue.

Mitt Romney dismissed 47% of the voting public in 2012 and was roundly criticized for dismissing the people he supposedly wanted to lead.

If Clinton had said 46%, would that have made it ok?

Post reply on HN