The 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

Re: The 2016 Election

#331

Post by postcarnival » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 8:06 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…

> Trump thinks all Mexicans and Muslims are violent madmen who should be barred from entering the United States.

ok honestly this is just outright wrong. you're just reciting false talking points from your liberal tv when you clearly haven't actually taken the time to listen to what Trump actually said. He never once called all Mexicans rapists yet you say he did. He never once said he wants to ban ALL Muslims from entering the US yet you did. For your information, the FBI notified congress and local governments that they currently are not confident that they can properly vet all incoming refugees. If the FBI is saying that, how on Earth can you claim it's wrong for Trump to call for a temporary stop until the FBI says it has a handle on it?

Re: The 2016 Election

#332

Post by gjolund » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 8:07 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #173

meritt wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Sam is an intelligent and rational individual.

If Trump were to win, Dems would for sure do a reshuffle and look introspectively. If Hillary were to win, there will be little introspection. If Clinton wins, the Repubs will go into a tailspin and introspect, if Trump were to win, Repubs and Dems will have to both look inwardly to figure out how their machinery failed so miserably in the face of a hack -a blowhard with no political experience who will say anything…

You just summed up what I have been trying to explain for months.

Sometimes things need to get worse before they can get better.

Re: The 2016 Election

#333

Post by edanm » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 8:07 PM UTC

postcarnival wrote: post #315

edanm wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ag…

> that's what usually happens when you change things. with that logic we should throw out our two-party system entirely and turn into a constitutional monarchy of bush and/or clintons...

I was speaking about overhauling the entire system. Both sides of the political divide in the States have e.g. maintained support of NATO allies.

I think both the OP and others are talking about Trump as "let's get rid of the current political establishment and get an outsider". That's fine, but an outsider that threatens a lot of the foundational international strategy of the US is a threat to world stability.

I also think Trump is threatening the very system of democracy int he US by calling the elections into question and threatening to lock up his political opponent. That's a very direct threat to democracy.

Re: The 2016 Election

#334

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 8:07 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: The 2016 Election

#335

Post by eppsilon » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 8:07 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…

Four years of Trump would allow him / the GOP to appoint at least one SCOTUS justice. That alone is enough for me to vote against him.

Re: The 2016 Election

#336

Post by lintiness » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 8:07 PM UTC

noir_lord wrote: post #291

lintiness wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

never going to happen. you people are crazier than trump is.

Re: The 2016 Election

#337

Post by jsolomon » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 8:07 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.

This really resonated. It's hard to overestimate how isolated we are from The Outgroup and how rarely we actually do anything about it.

If anyone is genuinely interested in talking to someone who is very different than themselves, I'm volunteering to play recruiter/matchmaker and coordinate some (hopefully) interesting conversations. I started a Ask HN thread to discuss so please let me know: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=12729057

Re: The 2016 Election

#338

Post by danielcampos93 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 8:07 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #204

TillE wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not even on good days do I even come close to 100% agreeing with myself

Re: The 2016 Election

#339

Post by swang » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 8:07 PM UTC

postcarnival wrote: post #299

spinlock wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. he actually said this:

Clinton: "it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country."

Trump: "Because you'd be in jail."

Maybe, (surprise, surprise) Trump wasn't thinking it through and just wanted to get that quip in on Clinton but the language is clear: If Trump was in charge of the law in the US, Clinton would be in jail.

Parse it all you want, but Trump has continued to say that in his stumps and is fine with selling merchandise that says Clinton should be in prison.

Re: The 2016 Election

#340

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 8:08 PM UTC

postcarnival wrote: post #306

gizmo wrote: post #24

Except Thiel is saying many of the repugnant things that made Trump popular. - Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump. - Thiel believes that the 19th amendment destroyed democracy, because women vote in favor for anti-libertarian welfare measures. When faced with the choice between saving democracy and capitalism, Thiel chooses capitalism. Trump shares this antidemocratic se…

> Trump shares this antidemocratic sentiment. what tangible evidence do you have that he is anti-democratic?

[deleted]