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

451–460 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#451

Post by gjolund »

josho wrote: post #416
gjolund wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trust me, I know.

My first tech job was at Lockheed, I started there on 9/1/2001.

Re: The 2016 Election

#452

Post by gjolund »

mejari wrote: post #400
gjolund wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why hasn't he been indicted?

Because no one has pressed charges? I don't see how that's relevant. People can be guilty of things they haven't been proven to do in a court of law. I'm not saying he should be thrown in jail without due process, I'm pointing out that he himself has admitted to committing sexual assault, so it seems wrong to have a caveat of "allegedly".

If he were guilty, and if Clinton were the champion of feminism that she says she is, then why wouldn't they press charges?

Re: The 2016 Election

#453

Post by chris11 »

551199 wrote: post #399
chris11 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hillary Clinton's 'friend and mentor' was KKK member Robert Byrd.[0] Using the same logic all democrats are now x. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4wo9nqWrwE

Right, and if we were talking about people with Hillary's or Robert Byrd's record then I would decide that they weren't racist.

Hillary's record has shown a strong commitment to civil rights activism. Robert Byrd did do some horrible things, but he changed and apologized. The NAACP actually honored him after his death. Supporting the the KKK would prevent me from voting for any politician. But Robert Byrd actually changed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/0... http://thegrio.com/2010/06/28/the-evolution-of-robert-byrds-...

Whereas Trump has a history of racism. There have been accusations going back years, and his public statements support those accusations. He accused a federal judge of not being able to be impartial because the judge was Mexican. And David Duke is still a leading white nationalist, and said that voting against Trump is treason to your heritage.

People can change, but you can't claim they have changed if they've ignored what they did in the past and have not done anything different.

Do you think that Hillary is just as racist as Trump? And are you voting for Trump because you actually want him as president, or because you think Hillary's worse?

Re: The 2016 Election

#454

Post by dragonwriter »

dllthomas wrote: post #444
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…

> third party candidates are never going to happen More than two parties will never be stable unless elections are other than FPTP. But which two parties has changed more than once through US history. I don't see a reason it couldn't possibly happen again.

It happened twice, both in the first century of US independence; whole there have been subsequent realignments, the identity of the two nationally-competitive parties have been stable for more than a century and a half. It's not implausible that the basic factors which promoted the relative fluidity of the party system in the early Republic are gone. (Direct election of senators and the near universal norm of assigning Presidential electors based on public elections both are factors which make the national parties more responsive to changes in the mood of the electorate, which reduces the risk of either being replaced.)

Re: The 2016 Election

#456

Post by int_19h »

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.

Hypocrisy of Jefferson's personal conduct doesn't change the validity (or lack thereof) of the logical arguments he made in his writings. If they held to rational scrutiny before, they still do after.

Re: The 2016 Election

#457

Post by odonnellryan »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #204
TillE wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just as delusional as the people who gush over Hillary for her social justice stances, but get very angry when you bring up her hawkishness. That's not how it works. You vote for / donate to the entire politician. You can't elect half a President.

It's basically impossible to select a President you 100% agree with, unless you're voting for yourself.

True, but presidents (on average) get a remarkable percentage of their policies passed in some form. Maybe you don't support 90% of what Donald or Hillary say, but you have to be careful: it's almost guaranteed that at least something of that 90% is going to happen.

Also, there are varying degrees of agree-ability. I do not agree with many of Hillary's policies, but there aren't any that I would take a firm stance against. Most of Donald's policies are different: I don't agree with them, and I believe it'd be awful if they were to actually happen.

Re: The 2016 Election

#458

Post by darksaints »

kybernetikos wrote: post #386
darksaints wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not gonna put words into someone else's mouth, but here it is from my perspective: We come to the opinions we have based on the experiences we have, and everybody has different experiences. Equally as true is the opinions that don't form due to the experiences we don't have. One example I have from someone I disagree with. It was a rich kid about to fully take over his father's company via inheritance, who agreed veh…

For 'valid' to mean anything interesting there has to be the possibility of something not being valid. If the criteria for 'valid' is merely that 'someone thinks it' then it's starting to sound like it's not a useful distinction to make.

The distinction being made isn't valid vs invalid, but rather perspective vs opinion. An incorrect opinion does not invalidate the perspective that helped form it, and the perspective is still worth understanding if you want an actual solution to a problem instead of just the self-righteous satisfaction of being right.

Re: The 2016 Election

#459

Post by burkaman »

orbitur wrote: post #401
burkaman wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, he has donated to her senate and presidential campaigns as well. Just not this latest campaign, obviously.

Re: The 2016 Election

#460

Post by int_19h »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #362
MBCook wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say I was independent and lived in Ohio or some other swing state. What choices do I have? * Vote Dem, have a reasonable chance at my pick winning * Vote Repub, have a reasonable chance at my pick winning * Vote other, have no chance at my pick winning. In an ordinary election you may be willing to do #3 to 'send a message', etc. But in THIS election almost everyone seems to agree that one or both of the candid…

> "But in THIS election almost everyone seems to agree that one or both of the candidates are horrible and will ruin everything." I'd argue that's why it's a great chance to vote third party. Both major candidates are terrible choices, and quite frankly even though people say Hilary is less terrible than Trump, I don't buy it, just look at her track record. If you vote third party in this election, you might not win…

> If you vote third party in this election, you might not win this time, but you can start laying the foundation for a strong third party to emerge in future elections.

Assuming that there are future (fair) elections.

I have serious concerns about that if Trump is to become the president.

I've heard many people on the right having the same concerns about Clinton.

Post reply on HN