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

361–370 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#361

Post by evo_9 »

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…

I agree it's an impressive summary for sure.

However, how does one bring forward the 43% that appears to agree so strongly with Trump there isn't really any common ground to have a reasonable discussion around? How do you go about working with someone that is uneducated, and often proud of this fact, raised to believe all other races are a blight against life as they know it, and often are proud of this, truly believe global warming/climate change is a hoax? Etc etc.

I'm not trying to be coy, I just think that fundamentally those that support Trump are different. My father is a huge fox news watching old-school Italian. He is a die-hard Trump supporter. He isn't educated, he isn't interested in learning why Trump is wrong. He isn't ever going to change his mind and when (hopefully) Trump loses, will be part of the 43% calling the election 'stolen'.

I love the man, he is my father after-all, but I have noticed that he (a life-long Republican) simply doesn't have empathy for others the way I do. When I ask him would he rather have more homeless or no homeless, his first reply back was 'well how much is it going to cost?'. And this is how 'they' think, there is a distinct difference in how he, and i suspect most 'hardcore conservatives' view human life (unless of course it fits their pro-life agenda, then of course they are suddenly lovers of 'life' above all else). Money is more important to them, it always will be, and the idea of helping others is never going to be acceptable (unless, maybe they find themselves in a situation where they need help).

I'm sorry to be so negative about this but I'm quite a bit older than most around here and in my experience it's a losing battle to try to convert anyone to a more reasonable position. The only thing that seems to help is more eduction, more exposure to diverse cultures, and generally not focusing only on one self above all else. But then look at Thiel, and then you have to wonder if it's something more.

Empathy and Personality Disorders: http://www.healthyplace.com/personality-disorders/malignant-...

Re: The 2016 Election

#362

Post by ZenoArrow »

MBCook wrote: post #181
mtgx wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Let's say I was independent and lived in Ohio or some other swing state. What choices do I have? * Vote Dem, have a reasonable chance at my pick winning * Vote Repub, have a reasonable chance at my pick winning * Vote other, have no chance at my pick winning. In an ordinary election you may be willing to do #3 to 'send a message', etc. But in THIS election almost everyone seems to agree that one or both of the candid…

> "But in THIS election almost everyone seems to agree that one or both of the candidates are horrible and will ruin everything."

I'd argue that's why it's a great chance to vote third party. Both major candidates are terrible choices, and quite frankly even though people say Hilary is less terrible than Trump, I don't buy it, just look at her track record. If you vote third party in this election, you might not win this time, but you can start laying the foundation for a strong third party to emerge in future elections.

Re: The 2016 Election

#363

Post by eeks »

rwmj wrote: post #221
eeks wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "subjectively" wrong. Trump is wrong from Altman's standpoint, not from an absolute "good" or "evil" standpoint. Except if you do believe the latter, and in that case any discussion is moot.

No, objectively. Granted sama doesn't provide detailed references, but you can find factual backing for statements such as these ones easily if you look: "A Trump presidency would be a disaster for the American economy." "He has no real plan to restore economic growth." "His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer" "He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage.…

Not that I want to split hair but in the examples you gave:

1) Subjective

This is an opinion, not a fact.

2) Objective

I agree. But that does not make him "objectively" wrong.

3) Subjective

Without starting a discussion about Trump alleged racism, whether or not a somewhat isolationist policy would either divide our country or make American innovation suffer is a matter of opinion, not facts. Some other prominent investors seem to disagree.

Besides, examples in our history would tend to show the contrary (I am referring to Roosevelt policies after the '29 crash).

4) Subjective

Unless SCOTUS rules that his stands are unconstitutional, it's only a matter of interpretation.

Re: The 2016 Election

#364

Post by sparky_z »

sidlls wrote: post #355
labster wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 50 years ago, most normal Americans held these same beliefs Most Americans 50 years ago would be stunned that someone who has been married three times, and who has been caught on tape saying he wants to cheat with other women, is still running for President. That alone would be disqualifying.

Um, JFK begs to differ.

"Most Americans" at the time had no idea about JFK's personal flaws in that regard. If they had, I can't imagine he would have reached the point of being nominated.

Re: The 2016 Election

#365

Post by ZenoArrow »

foota wrote: post #146
mtgx wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perhaps it's because the two leading independent candidates have terrible policy proposals? (Not to say that both major party candidates have great proposals, either)

Tell me what you know about Johnson and Stein's policy proposals.

Re: The 2016 Election

#366

Post by dgregd »

I live in central Europe. It is really sad to see so many manipulated people in the US by politics propaganda. 90% of people support Clinton/Trump because they dislike the other candidate more. That's it. Why do you offend each other? Both candidates aren't very good, so to speak.

The real problem is the current political system. I would like to see some innovation here on HN, what can be done to unleash the potential of the wisdom of crowds, also in politics, similary what open source, stackoverflow, github etc. did for software engineering.

PS. East Germany producted two awful cars: Trabant and Wartburg. But car owners were not offending owners of the other brand. Everybody knew that the socialist system was bad.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

Re: The 2016 Election

#367

Post by sctb »

This submission has received a huge number of user flags. We've overridden flags and other software penalties for several of these stories already for being related to YC, but our primary duty is to the community and we have to let it protect itself from being ripped apart by politics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12716825

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12720673

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12726970

Re: The 2016 Election

#368

Post by josho »

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…

I'm surprised that more Americans don't spoil their ballot. Imagine if 20% of the ballots cast were spoiled. That would certainly wake up the media & politicians to the problems inherent in this 2 party system.

Re: The 2016 Election

#369

Post by CJKinni »

mankash666 wrote: post #193
CJKinni wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Castigating/firing people for their opinions is illegal under the constitution. Citation Needed. Edit: Here's a link on the front page of a google search for 'firing people for their opinions is illegal under the constitution' that refutes your claims. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/your-money/speaking-about-... A private company certainly can fire people for their articulated political views (edit: under the co…

It's not black and white. Depends on which state you live in. Quoting http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-ballman/can-you-be-fired... "Activity outside work: Some states and localities prohibit employers for firing or disciplining employees for legal activities outside work. If you’re involved in a political campaign and you work in one of these states, you can’t be fired for your political activities as long as they…

Good point. I was just pointing out that the US constitution itself doesn't provide a protection, as the original comment suggested. You're right that states certainly could place additional requirements on businesses. I edited my post to reflect that. Thanks

Re: The 2016 Election

#370

Post by monk_e_boy »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #190
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.

The article (and phrase) I found really helpful in understanding the split in support is: "The press takes him (Trump)literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-ma...

I'm not from the US, so take this as an outsiders view.

Clinton says different things in public than she does to her friends. She also flip flops. This is not trustworthy.

Trump is unpleasant, but at least he talks straight.

I think this could be the last election of its kind in the USA, a two party system that works to produce these two candidates? Someone (Facebook, google, twitter) will come up with a better way of informing the public how unfair the system is.

How is electoral reform view in the US? In the UK it is very popular and there is often talk of STV or something similar.

[edit] I am losing valuable imaginary internet points! Oh no! Here, this makes my point better than I can:

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/n...

Post reply on HN