The 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

Re: The 2016 Election

#271

Post by postcarnival » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

the_duke wrote: post #134

Swizec wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

when you find out that the your own party has lied to you... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

Re: The 2016 Election

#272

Post by sanjeetsuhag » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

1337biz wrote: post #33

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.

I am always skeptical when somebody takes his personal opinion as the metric to tell the world what right and wrong is.

What do you think 'right' and 'wrong' mean ? It will always be a matter of opinion. Especially since one side in this election is adamant to ignore empirical/scientific evidence when it comes to topics like global warming and discrimination.

Re: The 2016 Election

#273

Post by pastProlog » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:51 PM UTC

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

I don't understand how 43+% of the country supports Hillary. A lot of what Trump says makes sense to me - questioning why the US military is involved all over the world, questioning TPP etc. Hillary is more militaristic, historically more pro-TPP etc.

It seems more sensible to get tough on people illegally crossing our border than to get tough secretly bombing Syria as she suggests in Wikileaks e-mails. She's picking a fight, he is not.

Also, 43% of people don't fully support Trump. Some see him as the lesser of two evils. They may not like aspects of his personality or policies, but they prefer it to the alternative. The congress that will be elected will more accurately reflect how Americans think, with Trump and Clinton the choice is binary.

I don't support Trump, mainly because I think he would increase tensions between Latinos and non-Latinos in the US. However I also don't like Hillary's desire for military adventurism, how she leaned towards TPP etc. before polls quieted that down etc.

Trump is not the creation of yahoos from rural Indiana. He is the creation of the museum and concert hall sponsoring Koch brothers, whether their calculations include funding him or not. He is the creation of one of our media oligopolies, News Corp. He's the creation of neutered government regulators which allow scams like Trump University to exist.

Rural white workers voted for FDR, Truman, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. They haven't changed, it's the Democratic party which changed. Soros and company have destroyed the decentralized, grassroots Democratic machine and replaced it by a centralized, technocratic, machine learning targeting party focused on fundraising, not voters, and the interests of wealthy and upper middle class urban liberals.

From 1932 to 1996, West Virginia was a fairly reliable voter for the Democrats. Overwhelmingly white, poor and working class and rural. The Democratic leadership started writing them off, and the Republicans courted them, and now they vote Republican. Why do you think Trump and Pence drop mentions of supporting coal?

Re: The 2016 Election

#274

Post by edanm » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

teekert wrote: post #117

I'm not from the US but I'd vote for Trump. To me Hillary represent the imperial US, the economic Hitmen US, the could war US, the NSA US, the make sure Russia-Europe relations are poor US. She represents the elites, the Rothschilds, the banks, the family of secrets, the kill-list, the endless meddling in countries that have a lot of natural resources "for the common good". She represents Guantanamo bay, more drones…

Here's why I disagree (also not from the US).

If you look at actual history, World War 2 happened exactly because some countries were unwilling to defend other countries, and let the Germans effectively try to conquer Europe. From a game theory perspective, you really, really want to pre-commit to not letting other countries do things that will cause war. So you pre-commit to protecting allies and other countries against e.g. Russian aggression.

The years of the cold war, while hard psychologically, were relatively peaceful, exactly because of these pre-commitments and threats to use force.

I think it's wishful thinking to assume that the world is at relative peace, and that can't change. That's not the default state of the world. And without knowing a hell of a lot more about international politics than I do, I'd be incredibly remiss to throw out the current establishment and say "yeah let's bring in someone new who wants to rewrite the rules". The chance that things will be worse is huge - that's what usually happens when you change things.

Re: The 2016 Election

#275

Post by qntty » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

Analemma_ wrote: post #44

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

Might as well just copy-paste my comment from yesterday: "Taking the high road like this is only possible when it's not your neck on the chopping block. Thiel thinks giving women the right to vote was a mistake; Trump thinks all Mexicans and Muslims are violent madmen who should be barred from entering the United States. Hacker News can gregariously see past these faults because they're not in the crosshairs, but if…

Wow, I initially agreed with sama, but this makes me realize how much of a hypocrite I am.

Re: The 2016 Election

#276

Post by marbletiles » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

teekert wrote: post #117

I'm not from the US but I'd vote for Trump. To me Hillary represent the imperial US, the economic Hitmen US, the could war US, the NSA US, the make sure Russia-Europe relations are poor US. She represents the elites, the Rothschilds, the banks, the family of secrets, the kill-list, the endless meddling in countries that have a lot of natural resources "for the common good". She represents Guantanamo bay, more drones…

This is a guy that 17 nuclear commanders have said isn't fit to have the launch codes; who erupts on Twitter at the slightest provocation and said he'd fire on Iranian ships for looking at US ships the wrong way.

He'd take us to WWIII in a heartbeat.

Your reference to the "Rothschilds" also seems like dogwhistle anti-semitism to me, which has no place here.

Re: The 2016 Election

#277

Post by gjolund » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

ttcards wrote: post #229

Meta notes on the comments so far 1. YC banning companies that supported SOPA was a mistake. I'm sure they now acknowledge that. 2. Mr Thiel donating $1M does not mean he believes or endorses in everything Trump stands for or says. I don't happen to agree he should have made the donation, but please use common sense. 3. Mr Altman used his personal blog not the YC blog. This is important. But the line is blurred betwe…

"Representative democracy... practical system"

Not anymore. We need to restructure if we the people are ever going to have say in government again.

Re: The 2016 Election

#278

Post by the_watcher » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

gragas wrote: post #152

sama wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes--honestly, for me this is much more about not electing Trump than electing Clinton.

If you switch Trump and Clinton in that sentence, you'll get something that millions of Americans agree with as well.

To be fair, this pretty much describes why the two party system remains dominant despite increasingly fractured and contentious primaries. Take a look at how aggressively Hillary campaigned against Obama in the 2008 primaries, for example.

Re: The 2016 Election

#279

Post by MrZongle2 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

bodmd wrote: post #135

MrZongle2 wrote: post #54

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".

> 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.

Sure. There are individuals in any large group that stray in philosophy and behavior from what the majority consider rational or acceptable, and that includes Clinton, Johnson and Stein supporters.

So what is the acceptable number? "Almost half"?

And what does that say about the rest of the group? Are they too to be damned by association, for standing too close to the "real deplorables"?

Re: The 2016 Election

#280

Post by grzm » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

holman wrote: 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…

Thank you for sharing your thoughts in a civil, well-reasoned way. To me, this is a good example of how one can approach a divisive position in a way that has some hope of reaching people who may not agree with you. Much appreciated!