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

431–440 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#431

Post by burkaman »

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.

There are a lot of good reasons to not vote for Hillary, but this has to be one of the dumbest. She's awkward and uncharismatic, so she must be a psychopath? How many actual psychopaths have you met, to compare her to? Have you ever seen her off camera? Do you not have any friends or family who aren't good at faking enthusiasm? Is disliking campaigning really the sign of a psychopath? Is "cold and calculated" not a good quality in a president? Aren't great manipulators usually extremely charismatic? Even supporters agree that Hillary is not very likeable or charismatic, is that really the sign of a great manipulator? How many years of psychological study have you spent calibrating your "internal psychopath detector"?

Re: The 2016 Election

#432

Post by linkregister »

jedmeyers wrote: post #212
linkregister wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in this situation the limit hasn't been reached; with 40+% of the nation's support, the Trump movement isn't fringe. Additionally, many voters intend to vote for him for politically expedient reasons, such as capturing 3 Supreme Court justice appointments for Republican judges. Despite the objectively horrible viewpoints advanced by the Trump campaign, they do not approach David Duke's viewpoints. From some p…

> such as capturing 3 Supreme Court justice appointments for Republican judges. And Peter Thiel might be one of them.

Is Peter Thiel a lawyer? I seem to be missing a large part of this line of thinking.

Re: The 2016 Election

#433

Post by josho »

noir_lord wrote: post #390
lintiness wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

never going to happen. you people are crazier than trump is.

A sitting American president is never going to commit military forces without the consent of Congress? > During the 20th Century, forces were sent by various presidents into countries such as Nicaragua to suppress rebellions without asking Congress. During the Cold War, dodging Congress not only continued, it increased. For example, the Korean War, which the U.S. was involved in for three years, was never officially…

Oh and don't forget initiating covert actions in pretty much every South American country, Iran, and others.

Re: The 2016 Election

#434

Post by int_19h »

monk_e_boy wrote: post #370
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Electoral reform is a hot topic, but what people usually mean by it is not a change in how the votes are counted. The most popular issue is campaign financing (with the current arrangement being that there's no practical limit a private party can pour into the elections, so long as they do the Super-PAC dance). Another big issue of concern is gerrymandering. For Democrats, the way their primaries function (superdelegates etc) has been in the spotlight.

As far as voting system itself is concerned, electoral college is the most common issue that is raised, and switching to national popular vote counting is the most common proposal to fix it. There's an ongoing attempt to do this from bottom up, by signing up enough states that they can basically impose this without changing the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

Things like STV for presidential elections, or MMP for parliamentary, are mostly under the radar - there are certainly people who are aware of them and push for them, but they're a very small minority, and the public is largely unaware.

Just to give you some sense of how these stack up, the only electoral issue that has been discussed at length in this political campaign by any of the major candidates (including primaries) is campaign finance reform. I haven't heard a peep about electoral college or proportional representation.

Re: The 2016 Election

#435

Post by some-guy »

twoodfin wrote: post #352
some-guy wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, we aren't talking about Mitt Romney here. If this were the 2012 election I would be defending him, but this isn't some "standard" GOP candidate. Funny how the "binders full of women" seems so tame today.

Funny how the "binders full of women" seems so tame today. I'd be the first to criticize Romney's campaign, but that 'gaffe' was trumped up from the word go. It's a fine way in colloquial English to describe the experience of having collected large stacks of women's resumes with the intent to populate state government with qualified female candidates, which, in fact, Romney did. It wouldn't have been racist if he sai…

I agree, it was political theater. Romney in many ways to me reminds me of Hillary as far as style is concerned and I would say Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment is far worse politically.

Re: The 2016 Election

#436

Post by zeveb »

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…

> It's not political for many people who will see — and have seen throughout this election cycle — very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility that affects them every day in their lives.

Of course, if you fire people who are supporting your opponent, then you will have caused 'very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility' that effects them.

That's what creates the cycles of radicalisation and polarisation: he-said, she-said, tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye politics.

Re: The 2016 Election

#437

Post by gjolund »

plg wrote: post #396
gjolund wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So just to clarify. Trump supporter = racist is now a fact?

I never said trump supporters are racist. I just said trump supporters are supporting a racist. And someone who likes to brag that they sexually assault women. Would you hire a person for your company who brags about sexually assaulting women? I wouldn't.

Would you hire someone who brags about voting for trump?

Re: The 2016 Election

#438

Post by DanBC »

gjolund wrote: post #437
plg wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said trump supporters are racist. I just said trump supporters are supporting a racist. And someone who likes to brag that they sexually assault women. Would you hire a person for your company who brags about sexually assaulting women? I wouldn't.

Would you hire someone who brags about voting for trump?

Where do they do the bragging?

Re: The 2016 Election

#439

Post by xhedley »

r_smart wrote: post #377
susan_hall wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

DNA provides evidence of paternity of Sally Heming's children. Which appears to be that the father was Sally Heming's owner Thomas Jefferson. Sally Heming may have been head over heels in love with Thomas Jefferson. But on the balance of probability I would guess there might have been coercion (hence rape) from a slave owner to a slave. Evidence, not proof.
Post reply on HN