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

371–380 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#371

Post by theduckling »

>(of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says >himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator).

Uh, what about the if "People acted the same way Hillary did while in office they would be in jail."

This is not hyperbole. Perjury is still a crime (one that got her husband impeached). Her lies weren't to the public, they were to the Justice Department - not knowing that the red "C" stood for classified. Furthermore, her concealment and destruction of her emails were federal crimes (plural).

Not only would this end in discharge for military personnel or removal from office of a government official, but criminal charges and restriction of civil liberties. Of the millions of federal employees, she's proven herself to be in the distinct minority as disqualified to hold a position of authority.

See:

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I don’t see how anyone could support Hillary, based on her actions.

Re: The 2016 Election

#372

Post by brianwawok »

rtx wrote: post #252
brianwawok wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would prefer Trump? Why? Serious question.

Trump is a racist, Hillary is a warmonger. As an American you might be more concerned about racism. But I guess rest of the world is more concerned about drones and missiles that miss the target.

So what leads you to believe that Trump is LESS of a warmonger than Hillary?

I see lots of talks from Trump about "negotiate tough" (sounds good), but then a lot about "smash them up" (sounds not so peaceful). Doesn't seem very peace like.

Re: The 2016 Election

#373

Post by nkassis »

rtx wrote: post #75

>unprecedented threat to America Hillary is an unprecedented threat to the world. But I guess Americans are so cut of from the rest of the world, it's hard for them to see things from others perspective. As a citizen of third world please don't unleash Hillary on us.

Interesting take albeit I'm not sure most would be ok with putting what they see as their own interests (myself included) aside in order to elect Trump to prevent potential harm by Hillary to the third world.

I'm curious what do you fear most that she would do as president that would harm third world countries?

Re: The 2016 Election

#374

Post by r_smart »

chris11 wrote: post #239
551199 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SNL writer Chris Kelly 'How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?'[0] Person thinks 40% of people are crazy, racist, hates women etc. Maybe the person who thinks that is the one not understanding the situation. Clinton: Read Wikileaks, study Clinton Foundation (Haiti) Trump: Read news from both sides msm and Breitbart & similar. Scott Adam…

Thinking there is a possibility someone is crazy, racist, or sexist is definitely reasonable if that person is stating they agree with a crazy, racist, sexist. I'd wonder if someone was racist if they supported David Duke.

It would depend on which position of Duke's they were talking about. If they say they agree with his stance on race, then yes, they're a racist. If they agree with his stance on tax policy (I assume he has one), then no, there's no evidence that person is a racist. EZ-PZ.

Re: The 2016 Election

#375

Post by noir_lord »

olalonde wrote: post #267
braythwayt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, not a good analogy. What it omits is the power factor. Were Mr. Thiel a founder, and a powerful VC blacklisted him because of his political views, we would have the powerful trampling the weak. If HN banned everyone who defended Mr. Thiel, we would have a purge. But choosing not to do business with a billionaire that is actually spending money to support Mr. Trump is not a case of the powerful oppressing the w…

I doubt you'd be saying the same if a VC was blacklisted for supporting Hillary.

False equivalence though since Hillary isn't Trump, I don't like Hillary much either but I dislike her less than Trump.

It's a lose/lose situation but the potential losses are large on one side than the other.

Re: The 2016 Election

#376

Post by bdamm »

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.

Quite the contrary. The affairs were mostly secret up to the point he was elected president, and he was only married once.

Re: The 2016 Election

#377

Post by r_smart »

susan_hall wrote: post #358
rayiner wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: many of the founding fathers were crazy sexist racists, yet we still hold their other opinions in quite high regard.

No "we" don't. Not all of us. Many of us hold the Founding Fathers in deep contempt. There is now DNA evidence showing that Thomas Jefferson raped Sally Hemings. That means that all of Thomas Jefferson's writings, including the Declaration Of Independence, needs to be re-evaluated and perhaps put aside.

I'm intrigued. How could DNA provide evidence of rape?

Re: The 2016 Election

#378

Post by jlebar »

postcarnival wrote: post #331
Analemma_ wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

> He never once called all Mexicans rapists

OK, that's correct as far as I can tell. He didn't say "all Mexicans are rapists". You might still want to reflect on how what he did say was nonetheless offensive, not to mention factually incorrect.

However,

> He never once said he wants to ban ALL Muslims from entering the US

this is plainly false. From his website:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...

It's clear that he's not asking for a permanent ban. The parent poster did not say "permanent ban". It's still clearly a "ban" by the plain meaning of the word.

If you're going to defend Trump, at least read what he puts out on his own website.

kthx.

Re: The 2016 Election

#379

Post by teekert »

esaym wrote: post #305
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…

You are correct about Hillary. She represents the worst of everything. Even paying supporters to start riots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY The irony is that what Trump supports, the Clintons have always supported for the last 20 years if you look at their old debates. They are nothing but crowd pleasers. Saying yes to anything, but rarely following through. Not sure how people don't see that.

After you saw that Youtube movie, are you not convinced that the Hillary camp will do anything regardless of ethics to win? I believe her party is able to completely destroy anyone's reputation.

Re: The 2016 Election

#380

Post by lotso »

dnautics wrote: post #140
lotso wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really care about improving the viability of third parties in this country, please do that in local and state elections where it is actually possible to elect third parties. Voting for 3rd parties in Presidential elections is fine, but really doesn't do much really and if you actually dig deep into 3rd party Presidential candidates, they're usually not great either.

This is an incredibly concern trolling argument. There is no right or wrong way to vote for third parties.

>There is no right or wrong way to vote for third parties.

Sure, I agree with you.

However, if your goal is to make third parties viable long-term in Presidential elections and not dependent on having very unfavorable candidates from the major 2 parties, I would argue that strong local and state 3rd parties are important.

Post reply on HN