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

421–430 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#421

Post by 1337biz »

tormeh wrote: post #284
1337biz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking here about 40-50% of the American electorate not some fringe maniac. If you think those people's opinion should be shunned than your world view seems very restricted to me.

"Maniac" and "fringe" have no absolute relationship. Look at Hitler. I'm not exaggerating. Let me quote Wikipedia: " On election day, 6 March 1933, the NSDAP's share of the vote increased to 43.9 per cent, and the party acquired the largest number of seats in parliament. " I'm not equating Trump and Hitler, btw. But Hitler proves that being mainstream means nothing. Separately, it is also my perception that both men'…

> I'm not equating Trump and Hitler, btw. But Hitler proves that being mainstream means nothing.

It means that you better take the position serious and engage in a real discussion. By labeling one side good and the other evil you just drive both sides more into towards the extremes.

Re: The 2016 Election

#422

Post by zeveb »

colemickens wrote: post #385
postcarnival wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

He's repeatedly threatened to throw journalists in jail that wrote things he didn't like. He threatened, on stage, in a Presidential debate, to unilaterally throw his political opponent HRC in jail. He is already contesting the results of the Democratic election weeks before it has even happened. And that's just what he's said. The fascist overtones are present in a variety of other ways. He makes minority groups sca…

> He threatened, on stage, in a Presidential debate, to unilaterally throw his political opponent HRC in jail.

To object to that is to beg the question of whether she belongs in jail or not. I won't take a position on that, but it should be obvious that being a political candidate doesn't grant one immunity from prosecution for improperly divulging classified information (or for sexual assault, for that matter; I can't remember a previous where folks could legitimately debate whether both candidates should be in jail).

Re: The 2016 Election

#423

Post by sliverstorm »

sysk wrote: post #360
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…

As a non American who would probably vote for neither of them, Hillary definitely ranks way higher on my internal psychopath detector. The constant fake smiling, cold and calculated question answering, passive aggressiveness, etc. In short, the traits of a great manipulator. Trump is guilty of some of that too but he is somewhat redeemed by the fact that he seems dumb/naive enough to believe whatever he preaches.

Psychopath is one particular slur that I've started ignoring. We've been taught it is equivalent to evil, or something like that, and it's used as a thought-terminating cliche. But, the basic traits of clinical psychopathy aren't really inherently evil.

The characteristics that define clinical psychopathy are many of the same that make effective leaders

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-startl...

(I certainly don't want a psychopathic criminal in charge, but psychopath != criminal)

Re: The 2016 Election

#424

Post by postcarnival »

spdustin wrote: post #353
postcarnival wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lot of accusations but maybe there are reasons that half the country believes in what he's saying? we've had more terrorist attacks, more foreign policy disasters, and more cultural and racial unrest in the past few years than in modern times yet you shut down the conversation by attributing it to "fear" as if people don't have a right to be fearful... nice

I don't mean to troll here, but I've never gotten anyone to give evidence of these claims. I'm an open-minded person, and evidence speaks loudly to me to change my mind. I fear that there are many who won't allow evidence to change their mind unless their feelings are acknowledged and compensated for first, and I think that's a difficult circumstance to manage and get past, because often that acknowledgement is seen…

I too look for evidence and I have to be careful not to put emotions in front of rationale but one thing that strikes me about the rise of isis and the ensuing terrorist attacks from Europe to California is the media coverage. I honestly feel like the same media that is actively trying to destroy Donald Trump also can't get enough of him. Do you remember when all of those journalists were having their heads cut off? Or the many bombings and attacks after? The media created the term "ISIS" and blanketed 24 hour news cycles with it. The same has happened for the police shootings. You may be able to say that based on the numbers things are looking up, but if you turn on the TV the past few years you wouldn't know that. I also think that is why many Trump supporters are sick of the "media". They've been spoon-fed a teaspoon of fear a day and now that they chose their candidate whom they feel will lead them to higher-ground and that same media tells them they're racist/bigot/stupid for supporting him, they no longer trust media outright.

Re: The 2016 Election

#425

Post by marbletiles »

josho wrote: post #404
marbletiles wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_.

Well, one is controversial and has political opinions that antagonise a large chunk of the US electorate, but the other is batshit-crazy, narcissistic, anti-democratic and would blow up the world to salve his ego. So, it's not even apples and oranges here

Re: The 2016 Election

#426

Post by zeveb »

sp527 wrote: post #43
Tycho wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Why is money speech? What makes donation different from voting pragmatically? (eg. "I'll put up with an offensive loudmouth for President if it means we get to avoid destroying another Middle Eastern civilization and potentially starting WW3")

This was the shocking conclusion of a landmark case, Citizen's United vs FEC, that was heard by the Supreme Court. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Remember, that case was about the U.S. government trying to prevent a group of people from showing a film critical of a political candidate. Do you really think that isn't speech?

Re: The 2016 Election

#427

Post by sparky_z »

sysk wrote: post #360
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…

As a non American who would probably vote for neither of them, Hillary definitely ranks way higher on my internal psychopath detector. The constant fake smiling, cold and calculated question answering, passive aggressiveness, etc. In short, the traits of a great manipulator. Trump is guilty of some of that too but he is somewhat redeemed by the fact that he seems dumb/naive enough to believe whatever he preaches.

> The constant fake smiling, cold and calculated question answering, passive aggressiveness, etc. In short, the traits of a great manipulator.

Aren't those, pretty much by definition, the traits of a poor manipulator? A great manipulator wouldn't seem so false.

Let me put it this way: How natural do you think you would seem if you were spending hours of every day in front of dozens of cameras, knowing that the slightest misstatement or weird facial expression is going to spread across social media to the entire country and be analyzed and picked apart and turned into memes and used against you by your opponents? I think anyone who seems like a "normal person" in that situation is anything but.

Re: The 2016 Election

#428

Post by nv-vn »

swang wrote: post #339
postcarnival wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, b…

Or maybe he was implying that she would be in jail after a fair trial because he (and his supporters) believes that she has committed perjury and illegally destroyed government documents, among other crimes. There's really no evidence that this was meant as a threat, especially considering he said she would be _investigated_ by a special prosecutor (rather than just being sent to jail immediately). What I believe was meant here is that if he was leading the country he would not allow her to get out of having a fair trial (which it is claimed she has gotten out of by having control over the government). I mean, I could be completely wrong, but either way saying "the language in clear" greatly simplifies this situation. Not that it really matters to me given his political opinions, but I feel that accusations like this are what led to the whole us vs. them mentality on both sides of this campaign.

Re: The 2016 Election

#429

Post by throwsincenotpc »

As a foreigner in his 30s, no need to say that the 2016 elections feel like one of the most obnoxious US elections ever, it's worse than Bush vs Gore. The amount of dishonesty, propaganda, spin, is ridiculous. Of course the internet isn't off the hook as most websites and social networks are heavily involved into the propaganda machine. The political divisions in US is at a all time high. But the US democratic process will survive, I'm pretty sure it has seen worse in the past.

But the IT aspect is interesting. It seems that now, if you do not follow a specific political ideology, you will be automatically excluded from the american tech community as people will try to get you and ruin your career, your business and the lives of your families, prevent you from speaking at conferences, insult you on Twitter/Facebook and co because you broke the "ranks" and didn't follow the SF bay "political mindset" so you're fair game...

Re: The 2016 Election

#430

Post by dragonwriter »

dnautics wrote: post #418
Latty wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lots of people like the abstract idea of another option. There are, on fact, other concrete options, and people don't tend to like them as much as the abstract idea of an alternative, even before factoring in tactical concerns.

Now, to be fair, part of that is a product of the electoral system--people who are likely to be competent for the office are unlikely to run as a third-party candidate, given that they are likely to understand how the system works.

Post reply on HN