The 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

Re: The 2016 Election

#481

Post by rdl » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

pb wrote: post #237

tyre wrote: post #50

It's a slippery slope to not associate with people based on politics. It is also a slippery slope to continue to associate with people because the views they support are those of a politician. David Duke is running for senate. Does that make Holocaust-denial a political issue? There was a time when women having the right to vote was a political issue. Today it is not (though Thiel has raised concerns about what women…

If I believed that Clinton was going to start World War III, and that Trump would stop it, then I would vote for Trump despite all of his nastiness. In reality, I believe Trump is much more likely to start WWIII, which is yet another reason to be opposed to him, but it is extremely uncharitable to assume that all of his supporters support everything that he does. I think most Republican voters simply believe he's the…

I think Clinton and Trump would each start WW3 in different ways, which makes it harder to directly compare. He would do something stupid/impulsive which couldn't be walked back (most things can, thankfully), or would cripple long-term alliances making war more likely later. She would get involved in some situation (no one thinks Trump is competent enough to let him actually engage in an intentional expansion of a conflict), which then escalates out of control.

I completely agree that being a single-issue voter on "preventing WW3" is the most moral thing possible. It's just really hard to tell which is less likely. And maybe if it is 0.00000001% vs. 0.000000011%, some other issue should have priority.

Re: The 2016 Election

#482

Post by zanny » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

falsestprophet wrote: post #349

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…

"Except Thiel is saying many of the repugnant things that made Trump popular. - Thiel wants to restrict immigration to highly educated people. Just like Trump." Why is this repugnant? One would expect a country to institute immigration policy that benefited that country. If it is the case that some immigration restrictions are beneficial, isn't that a fair and reasonable policy? Is the only acceptable immigration sys…

> institute immigration policy that benefited that country

This is implying that less educated immigrants are not beneficial? Almost any migration only happens because there are resources to be acquired on the other side. It is exactly like the drug war - you could ignore the causes of demand and try to somehow crush supply which has objectively failed (because supplies will arise to meet demands) or you implement policy to get the demand you want.

And the immigrant demand takes many forms. Some times, welfare programs are too lax and give immigrants easy ways to avoid working. And other times, there is work to be done nobody is doing (often under minimum wage) that immigrants are willing to do because even below regulated standards of income they make way more here than they would back home.

Both reflect on failings of policy that crated the demand, and those failings could be addressed in many ways and all political ideologies tout their own ideas as the solution, which is the point of debate. Most can agree the status quo is unsustainable globally, when states are trying to consistently stop the supply of immigrants rather than resolve what is causing the demand.

Re: The 2016 Election

#483

Post by MBCook » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #460

ZenoArrow wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Whoever wins I'm VERY interested to see what election/campaign/voting reform laws get proposed or passed.

Do people try to make tax returns a requirement? Birth certificates? Do we move to a more federal election system so it's not 50 states + 1000s of counties deciding how elections are run? Do presidential powers get reigned in a bit?

Much of that may require amendments, but I have a feeling we're going to have the discussions.

Re: The 2016 Election

#484

Post by douche » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

ryanSrich wrote: post #41

lhnz wrote: post #6

> We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. > But I’d like to find out, because we have to include > everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to > stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, > we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020. > > That kind of…

It's definitely not a popular position. Just take a look at Twitter and you'll see people from both sides nearly calling for the death of the other. While not super surprising I've seen little discussion around the fact that your chances of being fired for supporting one of the candidates (you can guess who) publicly are pretty good. Especially when you work in the tech field. Which to me is really interesting becaus…

People are starting to throw firebombs at each other. It's only been one incident so far (that I'm aware of), but it's not a good trajectory.

Re: The 2016 Election

#485

Post by MBCook » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

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…

So that's the tradeoff. Would you rather that the X party might get a seat at the table next time or would you rather that you do your best NOT to elect the person you don't want by voting for their opponent.

Re: The 2016 Election

#486

Post by zanny » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

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.

And it remains your decision how much of your own personal politics you are willing to sacrifice in exchange for a candidate more likely to win.

For a lot of people, this year, you are basically on a scale from yourself with no chance to the major nominees with at least 99.9% of the chance and almost nothing you agree with.

Re: The 2016 Election

#487

Post by int_19h » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:37 PM UTC

sp527 wrote: post #5

> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying. Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalis…

Thiel has not just backed Trump with money. He has very publicly endorsed him:

http://fortune.com/2016/07/21/peter-thiel-gives-full-throate...

The only way that this could be anything less than a full support of the Trump platform, would be if Thiel had specifically rejected large chunks of the platform are bad, and he's not supporting them, but there's some things there in particular that he finds so important that they override all the bad stuff. In other words, the "lesser of two evils" endorsement, such as some Republicans have made for Clinton this year.

Thiel didn't do that. In his speech, the only reference to that was decrying the "fake culture wars".

Ergo, he fully supports not just Trump, but the entirety of the Trump platform.

Re: The 2016 Election

#488

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:38 PM UTC

sysk wrote: post #475

sparky_z wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? B…

It could be that people support Clinton for reasons unrelated to her personal skills at manipulation.

I mean, even leaving aside all issues of substance, campaigns spend a lot of money hiring people specifically for their manipulation skills; even if it's all about manipulation, the candidate's skill isn't the only weapon in the campaign's arsenal.

Re: The 2016 Election

#489

Post by int_19h » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

teekert wrote: post #313

edanm wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's why I disagree (also not from the US). If you look at actual history , World War 2 happened exactly because some countries were unwilling to defend other countries, and let the Germans effectively try to conquer Europe. From a game theory perspective, you really, really want to pre-commit to not letting other countries do things that will cause war. So you pre-commit to protecting allies and other countries ag…

You are assuming US and EU actions in Ukraine are anti-war? The boycotts (that kill European companies as well) are not anti-war, the anti-Russia attitude that almost everyone seems to have here, under the influence of our media, is not anti-war? John Kerry loud-mouthing his opinion in the Ukraine is not anti-war? The way MH-17 was blamed on Russia far before there was even talk about an investigation, is not anti-wa…

I have direct access to both Russian and Western news/propaganda.

There's a lot more warmongering in Russian state funded press than anywhere in the West. I haven't seen any Western news outlets talk about how "US can turn Russia into radioactive ash" in prime time. Technically true, yes, but you don't bring such things up routinely. It's as if you were talking to a guy, say, arguing about something, and every now and then he'd mention, "by the way, I have a loaded gun, and I could shoot you... but I won't, yet".

Re: The 2016 Election

#490

Post by int_19h » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 9:43 PM UTC

chubot wrote: post #106

marbletiles wrote: post #7

YC: Happy to cut people off over SOPA support. YC: Can't bring itself to even censure a billionaire who only works with them "part-time" for supporting actual hatred and sexual abuse. I await this thread filling up with "but how you can be tolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance?!" and other Phil-101 Do You Sees

I think you are overstating the case. Thiel didn't support Trump's hatred and sexual abuse. Presumably he said "I'm proud to be gay" at the republican convention precisely to put those issues aside. (Apparently he was the first person to do this, which shouldn't be underestimated.) Thiel supports Trump for his economic policies, which seems utterly bizarre to me, but I don't see any double standard in terms of YC's b…

He didn't oppose them, either.

On the other hand, he did endorse Trump.

If you endorse someone, without pointing out what you believe to be their flaws, when you know those flaws (and, really, I don't think Thiel could claim excuse by ignorance here), you implicitly support those flaws.