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

461–470 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#461

Post by xname2 »

sharemywin wrote: post #412
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.

I was not talking about making laws, I was talking about people's feeling. Maybe you are right, even if the country is taking over by more and more Muslims, and Christians slowly become minority and they cannot legally do anything about it and should just swallow it.

Re: The 2016 Election

#463

Post by odonnellryan »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #250
Latty wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are claiming that calling a non-trivial proportion of Trump's supporters deplorable requires an apology, you disagree with me about what is deplorable.

The fact that a candidate for President of the United States -- whichever party they represent -- would decide to dismiss a sizeable portion of the country as contemptible or wretched seems to be the issue. Mitt Romney dismissed 47% of the voting public in 2012 and was roundly criticized for dismissing the people he supposedly wanted to lead. If Clinton had said 46% , would that have made it ok?

I do not think that was a good comment from Hillary, but I absolutely do not think this disqualifies her from being president: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/sep/10/hillar...

Re: The 2016 Election

#464

Post by noir_lord »

josho wrote: post #433
noir_lord wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yep, what the intelligence agencies got up to is quite astounding and I see no reason to not think are still doing that stuff we just won't find out for a while what they are doing now.

Re: The 2016 Election

#465

Post by rtx »

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.

Hillary takes advice from Kissinger. I think third world countries should be vigilant.

Re: The 2016 Election

#466

Post by int_19h »

duaneb wrote: post #126
mtgx wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand "even more" than that (literally, by the numbers) is how 49% of the country is registered independent and yet keeps voting Democrat and Republican. Worse yet, 76% of the country "wants to see alternatives" in the debates...but still keeps voting Democrat and Republican. Even if people agree to buy into this whole "this election is special" premise, I think people would be well within their rig…

What third parties? Would you rather have the libertarians or green party? Maybe a party or candidate with even less of a track record? Neither offer a sane way forward.

The important part is that both support major electoral reform that would enable third parties in general to be viable and to get proportional representation. If they can actually pull it off, I couldn't care less about the rest of their platform - the country can survive 4 years of libertarians or greens, it's seen much worse.

The catch is that said reform requires constitutional amendments, and these are gated on the states, not on the federal government (obviously, ratification requires state legislatures, but the states can also call for a constitutional convention, regardless of what the feds think).

So supporting third parties on the federal level is pointless from that perspective. If you just want electoral reform, vote third party for state legislature.

Re: The 2016 Election

#467

Post by nickparker »

Aqueous wrote: post #266
gizmo wrote: post #24

Except Thiel is saying many of the repugnant things that made Trump popular. - Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump. - Thiel believes that the 19th amendment destroyed democracy, because women vote in favor for anti-libertarian welfare measures. When faced with the choice between saving democracy and capitalism, Thiel chooses capitalism. Trump shares this antidemocratic se…

Assuming all of this is accurate, Thiel's thinking and actions are so full of contradictions and irrationality it's hard to understand how he became a billionaire. Just two that stick out right away: "- Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump." - unless he determines that the political incorrectness in question happens to affect him in some adverse way. See: Gawker. And yes,…

I'll play devils advocate here and unify both those points with Thiel's apparent views:

Striking back at Gawker wasn't about political correctness, it was about the boundaries of public/private life. He doesn't care if people hate him / judge him for his sexuality, but he believes it's nobody else's business and the press should be kept from revealing similar private info in the future. This reconciles well both with the specific case he chose to attack them through (Hogan's sex tape) and with a vague 'yearning for the past.' Past presidents had extramarital affairs as sort of public secrets with the press corps, because exactly this sort of thing was considered immaterial.

The second one is even easier to reconcile. Thiel believes there's a significant variance in the fundamental capabilities of different humans. The Thiel Fellowships are for exceptionally capable people, but he could still think the 'middle of the pack' needs higher education to maximize their contribution to society. He wants to make startup kings, not pull everyone out of school to start co-ops.

Re: The 2016 Election

#468

Post by mejari »

gjolund wrote: post #452
mejari wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What at all does Clinton have to do with these women pressing charges or not?

As for why a woman might not press charges after a sexual assault, there are a multitude of reasons that have been discussed in plenty of related literature, I urge you to seek them out.

Re: The 2016 Election

#469

Post by burkaman »

CoryG89 wrote: post #341
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…

A few points: 1. Donating to the Clinton Foundation is not the same as donating to the Clinton campaign. 2. Buying an album is not the same as donating money to a campaign or voting, both of which can meaningfully affect a large number of other people, unlike buying an album. 3. If you knowingly fund criminal operations without actually committing said crimes yourself you can definitely be held accountable for it by…

1. He has donated to her campaigns as well, several times.

2. If money that supports speech is equivalent to making that speech, isn't this just a matter of degree?

3. I understand. Doesn't my specific example seem absurd, though?

4. But there are many more limitations on money than there are on speech. There is no limit on speech in support of a campaign. There is a limit on money in support of a campaign. Is that not enough evidence that money and speech are not equivalent, at least legally?

Re: The 2016 Election

#470

Post by rtx »

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 actually oil vs killing vs banning
Post reply on HN