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

471–480 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#471

Post by rtx »

eppsilon wrote: post #335
adamnemecek wrote: post #63

As much as I hate Trump, I'm kind of hoping for him to win. Fundamentally, I think that 4 years of Trump might be better than 8 years of Hillary. Also, if Hillary wins, the DNC won't have to change. If Trump wins, in 2020, they will be forced to nominate maybe someone like Sanders. Trump winning will also really underscore how broken the US political system is and I'm hoping that him winning could be a catalyst for s…

Four years of Trump would allow him / the GOP to appoint at least one SCOTUS justice. That alone is enough for me to vote against him.

Is it more important than dead people in middle East.

Re: The 2016 Election

#472

Post by int_19h »

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…

I would actually agree with OP that Trump is not anti-democratic, ideologically speaking.

His ideology is actually the other extreme - it's mob rule with a strong leader who can do whatever they want (phrased as "whatever needs to be done"), having the mandate to do so from the mob. Very similar to the current arrangement in Russia, for example (yes, elections are rigged, but Putin would still get a large majority even in fair elections), or now also in the Philippines.

Trumpism is anti-democratic in practice, because it doesn't have actual popular support, and so has to resort to conspiracy theories to explain it away by claiming that elections are rigged etc, effectively trying to disenfranchise its opponents. But its adherents don't see it that way - they genuinely believe that there's a conspiracy against them, and they would have won in fair elections; so from their perspective, they're fighting for democracy.

Re: The 2016 Election

#473

Post by int_19h »

nanistheonlyist wrote: post #268
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…

Minor quibble: Yarvin is not alt-right he is neo-reactionary. The main difference seems to be that neo reaction endorses monarchy as a system of gov.

NRx is generally seen as a subset of alt-right.

Re: The 2016 Election

#474

Post by 551199 »

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

> chris11 Whereas Trump has a history of racism.

"Last December, after the council refused to lift the restrictions, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Palm Beach, alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans. The suit seeks $100 million in damages."[0]

Like back in 80's when Trump was fighting for blacks and jews. Read the wikileaks. Clinton campaign's gameplay memo is to create Trump is 'crazy racist' narrative through media.

[0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB862335923489989500

Re: The 2016 Election

#475

Post by sysk »

sparky_z wrote: post #427
sysk wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 slight…

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

This is a good point and it baffles me to be honest. I said "great" manipulator because it seems to be working so far. Great manipulators don't necessarily need to be great with everyone all the time. Or maybe she intentionally wants us to think she's a poor manipulator so that we trust her more? But that surely fails Occam's razor.

To answer other comments, I didn't get this impression solely by watching her on TV, it is corroborated by her history as a politician and recently leaked emails.

Re: The 2016 Election

#476

Post by rtx »

nkassis wrote: post #373
rtx wrote: post #75

>unprecedented threat to America Hillary is an unprecedented threat to the world. But I guess Americans are so cut of from the rest of the world, it's hard for them to see things from others perspective. As a citizen of third world please don't unleash Hillary on us.

Interesting take albeit I'm not sure most would be ok with putting what they see as their own interests (myself included) aside in order to elect Trump to prevent potential harm by Hillary to the third world. I'm curious what do you fear most that she would do as president that would harm third world countries?

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/05/in_debate_hillary_clinton_bo...

Re: The 2016 Election

#477

Post by kybernetikos »

darksaints wrote: post #458
kybernetikos wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm completely in favour of understanding why people think what they do - apart from anything else, it's almost impossible to persuade them of anything different if you don't start from a position of sympathy.

In order to give you the opportunity of gaining a position of sympathy with me; one of the reasons I was asking about 'validity' is that it sounds formal and logical, but it doesn't seem to be being used in a formal and logical sense.

I think you're using it to say that we shouldn't dismiss perspectives, even those that have a high correlation with incorrect opinions (even though I'd struggle to define 'perspective' except as a bundle of opinions). While the intention seems admirable enough, I still find myself wishing for a bit more precision over what exactly is being said: obviously experiences aren't invalidated by the person experiencing them having false opinions, but the opinions formed from those experiences can absolutely be false, and occasionally even in the strict formal, logical sense invalid. If we're not talking about experiences (since the argument is almost never about what the other party experienced, but rather about what it means), and we're not talking about opinions, then I'm not sure what we're talking about at all.

Maybe I should just take this as a shorthand for describing a useful attitude to take rather than a description of something in the world, i.e. saying 'it's worth understanding why people think what they think, even if it's wrong, rather than dismissing it out of hand', and then I could agree with it.

Re: The 2016 Election

#478

Post by int_19h »

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?

It's not about the number, but rather about the accuracy of the statement.

I don't have any problem with what Clinton said. Based on the numerous polls, she is absolutely correct. It may not be a politically prudent thing to say, but that's not an ethical matter.

Re: The 2016 Election

#479

Post by rtx »

eternalban wrote: post #393
noir_lord wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. In that instance not racist since Islam isn't a race however that complete lack of nuance and the absolute torrent of shit he has said makes him incredibly dangerous.

I've noted a moderation and more nuanced position lately. To be perfectly frank, sometimes I wonder if DJT is not the establishment's strawman designed to keep us with the globalist agenda. The globalists' agenda is directly responsible for the death of millions of Muslims and likely a substantial number of Iraqi and Syrian Christians, with Sam's choice of president being very much in the loop, starting with her husb…

Since you understand both cultures, why are people in USA not able to see the threat posed by Hillary.

Re: The 2016 Election

#480

Post by foota »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #365
foota wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it's because the two leading independent candidates have terrible policy proposals? (Not to say that both major party candidates have great proposals, either)

Tell me what you know about Johnson and Stein's policy proposals.

Johnson thinks we should eliminate income taxes and replace them with high consumption taxes and Stein thinks we should cancel student debt. I've admittedly cherry picked some things I don't like.
Post reply on HN