Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 2016 Election

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#291

Post by noir_lord »

lintiness wrote: post #238
brianwawok wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would prefer Trump? Why? Serious question.

to all you babies literally wetting yourselves over trump, what the actual fuck do you think he's going to be able to do with two parties that hate him controlling both houses?

> The War Powers Resolution requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

The US military can break a lot of things in 48 hours never mind 60 days.

Re: The 2016 Election

#293

Post by linkregister »

darawk wrote: post #223
linkregister wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to imply a hell of a lot. "I'm not saying that darawk's down/up-voting should be revoked, but he sometimes upvotes things that aren't the best for our country." The above (wrong) sentence would be an example of this type of implication.

It's not really fair to hang someone by what you infer from a truthful statement. You could say "Ending slavery caused enormous economic problems for the south" without supporting slavery. In reading the full context of what he said, it doesn't seem to me that he's implying we should take away women's suffrage. My reading of what he said is more akin to recognition of a marketing problem. That he thinks libertarians…

Thanks for clarifying; by your statement it does indeed appear that the quote is being unfairly taken out of context.

Re: The 2016 Election

#295

Post by spdustin »

Swizec wrote: post #156
the_duke wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't it curious how this sort of deep strife only flares up during elections?

I don't believe that the occurrence of an election is itself causation at work.

The reason it seems that way, to me, is the same reason that abused women tend to step out of their shame when they see other women doing it, or when their anger is kindled into a flame that exceeds their fear. People feel empowered when they realize they're not alone (edit: and someone they identify as a peer has given a voice to their own beliefs, experiences or feelings)

Sometimes, that feeling of empowerment makes them speak up. Sometimes it makes them lash out. It's an unfortunate coincidence that a presidential candidate is directly responsible for catalyzing both groups of people into responding so passionately today.

Realistically, I believe that the electorate has felt disenfranchised (using the more general "deprived of a voice" definition) for many years now, and for various reasons. A republic such as ours can never have an electorate that, in its entirety, feels like their voices are heard. I don't know how to help that; I don't think anyone does.

Dividing the electorate further isn't the solution for any leader. Inciting them to illegal or violent behavior isn't the solution either, unless you aim to dismantle a democratic republic.

I've always felt "us-vs-them", and I believe everyone has, because my peer group has ideals different from others. So we find other groups that share them, and we try harder to be heard, or to exert the influence that the framework of our republic grants to us (i.e. voting) or that society grants to us (i.e. boycotting).

But I do not believe the election itself has caused a divide, it's the candidates (yes, one more than any other, but all have contributed) whose rhetoric has amplified a divide that was there all along.

Re: The 2016 Election

#296

Post by opendomain »

darawk wrote: post #130
misterbowfinger wrote: post #14

> I will continue to try to change [his grandmother & Thiel's] minds. I can get behind that. > of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator sama should address the weird things Peter has said about women voting.

He didn't say women shouldn't be able to vote. He said that giving women the right to vote has eroded some of his libertarian ideals, because women tend to oppose those ideals. Which is a true statement.

What logic is this?

Pretty it up in some rhetoric, but not matter how you slice it, at the end of the day he _IS_ saying that he regrets the 17th amendment.

Re: The 2016 Election

#297

Post by the_watcher »

munificent wrote: post #236
mc32 wrote: post #10

Why would Sam not go for a third party who was less problematic? There are third party candidates available. Is it because they are unlikely to be elected? If so, this thinking keeps on trapping us into voting for the least bad of the bad.

> Is ot because they are unlikely to be elected? It's more than unlikely. There is effectively zero chance of a third party candidate getting elected president in 2016. Voting for one is throwing away your vote. Worse than that, it's throwing away an opportunity to indicate your second choice preference. The US's first-past-the-post electoral system is not great, but voting for a third-party candidate does not at all…

> Voting for one is throwing away your vote.

No. It is not. The reason the two party system continues to exist is because so many people insist on there not being other options, despite there literally being other candidates on the ballot. There's a reason why Democrats have continued to spend money on turning Texas blue for years, despite the argument that they are "throwing money away." Momentum matters. Please don't listen to this. It's the absolute worst outcome of the two-party system: they've effectively convinced people that they're stuck with them, and it's why there are regular Republicans voting for Trump. Someone told them that not voting for him was throwing their vote away, and they listened.

Re: The 2016 Election

#298

Post by squozzer »

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.

That's a two-edged sword. A couple of examples --

1) Germans forced to march through an extermination camp because their cowardice in not stopping Hitler made them responsible for his actions.

2) Osama bin Laden justifying 9/11 by saying citizens are responsible for the actions of the US Govt.

Do you like either interpretation of your statement?

Re: The 2016 Election

#299

Post by postcarnival »

spinlock wrote: post #265
simonsarris wrote: post #77

Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this one: > [Hillary] shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if [she] becomes our president. Other sentences would just exchange antonyms and not make it sound any better. You call Trump isolationist, they ca…

I understand your argument and I might even agree with it. But, I would like to point out that there is a difference if we consider objective facts. Fact: Trump threatened to jail his political opponent if elected. That's how he has shown a disrespect for our system of government. Now, I realize that Trump supporters really don't get why it's bad to put your rival in jail. But, that objective fact does actually matte…

> Trump threatened to jail his political opponent if elected.

actually he said he would appoint a special prosecutor to the case which honestly should have been done a long time ago and based on the context of it is perfectly reasonable.

Re: The 2016 Election

#300

Post by qntty »

atmosx wrote: post #218

As an outsider, I am having troubles understanding why the Democrats put against Trump the only candidate who had a poor enough track record to make this election "interesting". Why didn't they choose Sanders who is not as vulnerable as Hilton? By they I mean the Democrat elite.

You're right, polls showed that Sanders would do better than Clinton against Trump. The Democratic elite doesn't want Sanders because he doesn't represent their interests.

BTW, you should know that, at this point, the election is basically over and Clinton has won. This election is far too polarizing for the kind of swing Trump would need to win (people who still have hope for Trump are basically hoping for a Brexit scenario where polls significantly underestimate his support). So their strategy worked, even if it was risky.

Post reply on HN