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

401–410 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#401

Post by orbitur »

burkaman wrote: post #104
sp527 wrote: post #5

> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying. Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalis…

No he isn't. Since Trump has donated to the Clinton Foundation (edit: and Hillary's senate and presidential campaigns), does that mean that he is effectively saying everything that Hillary is saying? Does buying an album mean I agree with every lyric on it? If I donate to someone who then incites violence, can I be prosecuted? Also, the Supreme Court does not believe money is speech. If they did, campaign contributio…

Donating to a politician's charity and donating to a politician's campaign are only similar in that money is being donated.

Re: The 2016 Election

#403

Post by Aloha »

sparky_z wrote: post #364
sidlls wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The change is.. we know far more about our leaders than perhaps we should. No one is, has ever been, or will ever be, as saintly as our ideals require.

Re: The 2016 Election

#404

Post by josho »

marbletiles wrote: post #276
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.

One can reasonably conclude that neither is suitable for the office.

Which is why I find the squabbling over the candidates so interesting. They are both _deplorable_.

Re: The 2016 Election

#405

Post by yolesaber »

gjolund wrote: post #225
darawk wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I upvoted your comment because I think it's important, even though I disagree with you. Would you mind explaining your position? I think it might be helpful in furthering people's understanding, although it does run some risk of devolving into an argument.

Trump is a new player in politics, whereas Hillary represents business as usual. Hillary means more drone strikes, corporate appeasment, global interventions, weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, and a complete lack of transparency into government. I will not vote for a candidate that represents so much of what is wrong with this country, solely becuase she wants me to believe the other guy is worse. Fear tactics are the la…

>Hillary means more drone strikes, corporate appeasment, global interventions, weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, and a complete lack of transparency into government

Trump supports drone strikes and wants to go further, including torturing the families of terrorists. Trump supports nuclear proliferation (e.g. Japan). Corporate appeasement? The guy runs a billion dollar business and benefitted greatly from the housing crisis. Transparency? He won't even release his tax returns.

What makes you think Trump is going to be any different than the right-wing status quo which essentially still supports all these? Trump has NO serious political connections outside of Gov Christie, he is becoming anathema even among his own party, how could he possibly reverse any of the "business as usual" even if he wanted to?

>Fear tactics are the last resort of tyrants

Like claiming the entire election is stolen before a single vote is cast? Or threatening to jail your opponent?

This is why people think Trump supporters are delusional and dumb. So many people in this thread posting about what they think Trump will do, despite the fact that it flies in the face of what he stands for and has said. They take the candidate seriously and ignore what he is saying in favor of their own imagined reasonings. I get it. You don't want Hillary to be president. I don't either. But to act like Trump is a political savior is a very very disturbing and strange move.

Re: The 2016 Election

#406

Post by plandis »

gjolund wrote: post #230
mrschwabe wrote: post #219

Does Sam also endorse the DNC 'consultants' who are paid to incite violence at Trump rallies? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

Or the firebombing of election offices?

Please provide a list of DNC officials that support from fire bombing. The candidate that he supports has said it was terrible. Democrats organized money specifically for the office to be rebuilt.

You're not adding anything of value to the conversation here.

Re: The 2016 Election

#407

Post by noir_lord »

eternalban wrote: post #393
noir_lord wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. In that instance not racist since Islam isn't a race however that complete lack of nuance and the absolute torrent of shit he has said makes him incredibly dangerous.

I've noted a moderation and more nuanced position lately. To be perfectly frank, sometimes I wonder if DJT is not the establishment's strawman designed to keep us with the globalist agenda. The globalists' agenda is directly responsible for the death of millions of Muslims and likely a substantial number of Iraqi and Syrian Christians, with Sam's choice of president being very much in the loop, starting with her husb…

I'm not disagreeing with you on anything then (except the rigorous checks, they already do that), if I was American I'd be voting third party/spoiling the ballot.

In a straight choice I'll take Hillary over Trump because as you mentioned the man is dangerously unstable and incredibly easily provoked (see his reaction to SNL today..).

Re: The 2016 Election

#408

Post by spdustin »

Swizec wrote: post #381
spdustin wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Thank you for putting it into more and clearer words than I did. You're right, the divide has always been there. That's why it always flares up during elections - it's only during elections that the divide is useful to the people who stoke it. Candidates benefit from their electorate being loud and vocal and at arms with the other electorate. It drives press, it drives news, it brings people out to vote. All things c…

> And I find myself once more in the midst of elections driven primarily by shit up stirring. Perfect.

All I can say is this: you're not wrong that the media coverage of our candidates amplify their voices, which empowers their supporters to amplify theirs as well. And you're not wrong that this election cycle has more shit-slinging than any other in my memory. It's thus made me more than a little uncomfortable, as an American, to ponder what others think of our society. It's embarrassing to me, it truly is.

But here is hope, and even thought you've arrived just in time for this circus of an election, I hope you can find the will to believe that the future is not doomed. Not because the leadership requires unity and compromise, but because once the spotlights shining their attention-focusing beams are turned off, there won't be such a contrast with the more rational among us. I believe many people will have learned that the isolation between ideological extremes doesn't help to move us forward as a society. And many will try, in their own quiet and subtle ways, to effect a positive change.

I'll be honest though: I believe these things not because there is a preponderance of evidence to support them (there's some, but this election cycle is unprecedented) but because I have to believe it to have the energy to try and effect that positive change.

Re: The 2016 Election

#409

Post by dnautics »

Latty wrote: post #205
blfr wrote: post #28

I already made this point today but Hillary Clinton, whom sama is endorsing, has directly contributed to starting two wars (in Syria and Libya). While Trump threatened to ban Muslims from entering the US, her actions have already led to thousands of Muslims being killed. Isn't that strictly worse?

My counter to that would be that we accept that sometimes war is necessary and can be the lesser of two evils, while judging every Muslim by the actions of a few should never be necessary. Hilary didn't say she wants to nuke Syria and Libya. She made a decision because she thought that conflict there was the lesser of two evils, and has applied mostly proportionate response, and attempted to limit collateral damage.…

It's easy to call it 'carefully directed killing' when many people called out that sort of activity in general, and those specific actions (syria, libya) and even constructively suggested alternatives that would avoid bloodshed and blowback - and those alternatives have been repeatedly ignored.

Re: The 2016 Election

#410

Post by plandis »

I think this whole thread should be purged there is nothing substantive here. Just a bunch of people espousing opinions that approximately half of people disagree with (me included).

I personally have gained nothing out of reading all of this and I suspect that this is the case for the majority of people here.

Post reply on HN