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

411–420 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#411

Post by Aloha »

Bartweiss wrote: post #346
mashmac2 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper. The key there is that they _feel_ like they're not getting ahead - a very different thing than not actually getting ahead, and much more dangerous.

A lot of them actually aren't , though, by any reasonable metric. Health? Number of close friends? Lifespan? Addiction rate? Income? Unemployment rate? Labor participation rate? By any of those metrics, life in a lot of rural-red communities is getting worse, and has been for years. I'm aware of the "better but it feels worse" pattern - crime rates are the prime example - but it's far too glib to say that covers ever…

On some level I feel like my country is unwinding, like somehow over time we have developed these parallel economies and social institutions, and now we don't know how to talk to ourselves anyhow.. and it scares me. The fact that one side can't see the other is struggling is an example of this.

There is another observation I have too - and some point everyone became offended at everyone - when I was younger, merely having a different opinion was never offensive, now in certain circles, it sure appears to be. (HN may be one of those circles)

In the end.. we need to remember time doesnt stop when this election is over - the morning after we're all still gonna wake up and get on with business - I fear the level of vitriol may be damaging the fabric of my country.. and that makes me nervous.

Re: The 2016 Election

#412

Post by sharemywin »

xname2 wrote: post #85

One thing the author seems do not understand is that people could be non-racist but also refuse their own country be occupied by more and more illegal immigrants and people of different religion. They do not hate those people, but they just do not want this country to be taken over by a group of people very different from themselves. Is this OK to the author?

the part about "people of different religions" violates the 1st amendment to the constitution.

Re: The 2016 Election

#413

Post by olalonde »

noir_lord wrote: post #375
olalonde wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understood the argument as "it's OK to blacklist people because of their political views if they are powerful" in which case it's fair to question whether that belief would hold for a different set of political views. As you might have guessed, I think blacklisting people based on their political views is a slippery slope and shouldn't be done even to powerful people (especially for political positions that are actually mainstream). I'm not a fan of Trump/Hillary either.

Re: The 2016 Election

#414

Post by teekert »

Btw, how can this 383 (currently) points article, posted 1 hour ago be below a 34 point article of 16 hours ago. This feels like a multi-hour front-page article to me...

Edit: Ah flags, just reading about what they are. We have to be protected from ourselves then.

Re: The 2016 Election

#415

Post by [deleted] »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #214
kapitza wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not how things are done in this country. Tocqueville, almost 200 years ago, begs to differ: "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.... in America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases; but woe to him if he goes beyond them." [1] What's changed…

>within these barriers an author may write what he pleases; but woe to him if he goes beyond them. This has been more recently termed as the "Overton Window" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

[deleted]

Re: The 2016 Election

#416

Post by josho »

gjolund wrote: post #164
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?

Let's not forget about all the weapons we are selling Saudi Arabia. They are killing civilians with weapons made in the USA.

The US has been the largest arms exporter for as long as I can remember. For much of this time selling directly or indirectly to some very bad people.

So, I find it particularly interesting that this somehow has become a partisan election issue. Maybe the world will get lucky and this will stick as an issue after the election.

Re: The 2016 Election

#417

Post by tbird24 »

holman wrote: post #177

I think a lot of the problems with the YC/Thiel discussion stems from the difference between how people view it: is it a political disagreement, or is it an ethical disagreement? In a "normal" election, this would be pretty cut-and-dry: it'd primarily be a political disagreement over taxes or something, and letting someone go because of their political beliefs would be viewed by many as being pretty extreme. Many peo…

Although I want badly to agree, I can't help but think that it's a slippery slope. We can treat this election like a special case because we think it is one, but ~>40% of the US population will vote for Trump in November. We can't condemn 40% of the population, can we?

What's the counter argument to this?

Re: The 2016 Election

#418

Post by dnautics »

Latty wrote: post #246
joshmanders wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I'm not quite sure I understand the whole "I'm voting Clinton because it's the only way to stop Trump" argument. No it's not. If enough people who are voting Clinton purely to stop Trump voted 3rd party, 3rd party would actually have a chance. In this overflowing toilet bowl we call the 2016 Presidential Election, your best bet to unclog it is to use a plunger, now throw another turd in. Vote for the plunger, no…

They probably wouldn't. I think you overestimate the number of people voting Clinton just to stop Trump. A lot of people truly like her the most. (Not me, I'd like to note - not that I will be voting as an Englishman). It's also worth noting, what third party candidate? There isn't a perfect option there either. It's a first past the post system - third party candidates are never going to happen because of the psycho…

IIRC, Surveys consistently show that 40-50% of people would like to have a third option besides clinton or trump, which is rather high. That should be enough to get at least a plurality, except for "psychology" (people don't want to lose; network effects; with-me-or-against-me-ism)

> what third party candidate? There isn't a perfect option there either.

As long as you acknowledge the double standard implicit in your language: For a non-third-party candidate, it suffices to "not be as bad as the other person"; for a third-praty candidate one must be "perfect".

> the way electoral college votes work.

Electoral colleges don't work that way. In order to win, one need only get one state (it's unlikely, but McMullin seems to have a shot at pulling that off; less likely: Johnson).

Really a smart campaigner could grab one state, and then use the momentum (as you might say, "psychology") to continue grabbing states.

Re: The 2016 Election

#419

Post by ryandrake »

josho wrote: post #388
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…

> Calling Trump racist, for instance, isn't going to flip anyone's voting bit That is what saddens me the most from this election. The fact that someone running for a high profile position can get away with such abhorrent remarks as Trump's made. Maybe the real issue is the 2 party system. Both candidates have signifiant flaws, so the electorate is selecting on the attributes they dislike less.

"Abhorrent" is relative, and colored by the cultural bubbles in which we live. I know people who genuinely and enthusiastically agree with Trump's various statements about immigrants and minorities and think what he said in that "microphone was on" recording was hilarious instead of sexist. They don't think he "got away with" anything.

Re: The 2016 Election

#420

Post by 551199 »

evo_9 wrote: post #361
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 believ…

> 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.

That someone isn't uneducated just because she/he doesn't align with one's thinking.

The Economist: Where Donald Trump’s support really comes from:

'However, averaging out his support in all state primaries (where exit polling is available) shows that richer and better educated voters form as big a part of Mr Trump’s support base as those at the lower end of the income and education scales.'[0]

[0]http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/04/daily-c...

Post reply on HN