The 2016 Election • Hacker News Board

Re: The 2016 Election

#521

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:15 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #514

the_watcher wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Voting for one is throwing away your vote. No. It is not. The reason the two party system continues to exist is because so many people insist on there not being other options, despite there literally being other candidates on the ballot. There's a reason why Democrats have continued to spend money on turning Texas blue for years, despite the argument that they are "throwing money away." Momentum matters. Please don…

> The reason the two party system continues to exist is because so many people insist on there not being other options, despite there literally being other candidates on the ballot. No, it's because the mechanics of the voting rules themselves lead to a stable two party system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

And because people complain about the candidates each election, but never do anything about the system.

Re: The 2016 Election

#522

Post by gizmo » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:25 PM UTC

moultano wrote: post #515

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…

>> - 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 sentiment. This needs a citation, because whenever I've seen people say this, they cite this this essay https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educa…

Moldbug believes that white people are the intellectual superiors of black people. That's supremacy. It's on his blog and in the medium post you linked. He isn't fooling anybody with his explanation of how that belief isn't racist or supremacist.

Re: The 2016 Election

#523

Post by strato » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:25 PM UTC

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…

Who's the arbiter on what's an -ism and an -obia? Just feels like another tactic by the left to create a safe space for itself by demonizing anything that might undermine its arguments.

Re: The 2016 Election

#524

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:32 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: The 2016 Election

#525

Post by Locke1689 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:33 PM UTC

551199 wrote: post #420

evo_9 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's an impressive summary for sure. However, how does one bring forward the 43% that appears to agree so strongly with Trump there isn't really any common ground to have a reasonable discussion around? How do you go about working with someone that is uneducated, and often proud of this fact, raised to believe all other races are a blight against life as they know it, and often are proud of this, truly believ…

> However, how does one bring forward the 43% that appears to agree so strongly with Trump there isn't really any common ground to have a reasonable discussion around? How do you go about working with someone that is uneducated. That someone isn't uneducated just because she/he doesn't align with one's thinking. The Economist: Where Donald Trump’s support really comes from: 'However, averaging out his support in all…

That article is from the April primaries. Donald Trump's demographic support is much different now.

Re: The 2016 Election

#526

Post by elect2016 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:34 PM UTC

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…

I think it's ignorant to assume it's an ethical problem just because someone supports a presidential candidate.

Re: The 2016 Election

#527

Post by Locke1689 » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:34 PM UTC

r_smart wrote: post #395

evo_9 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's an impressive summary for sure. However, how does one bring forward the 43% that appears to agree so strongly with Trump there isn't really any common ground to have a reasonable discussion around? How do you go about working with someone that is uneducated, and often proud of this fact, raised to believe all other races are a blight against life as they know it, and often are proud of this, truly believ…

>How do you go about working with someone that is uneducated This is a myth. [0] >with someone that is uneducated, and often proud of this fact, raised to believe all other races are a blight against life as they know it, and often are proud of this, >I'm not trying to be coy I can assure you no one is about to accuse you of that :) [1] [0]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-... [1]: https:/…

Link [0] States that they're not lower-income, not that they're educated.

Re: The 2016 Election

#528

Post by gjolund » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:38 PM UTC

mejari wrote: post #506

gjolund wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hillary paints herself as the savior of all women, yet she can't convince a group of women who could literally win her the election to press charges? Smells like bullshit to me.

You want her to insert herself into these women's personal choices? Can you imagine the outrage from the right if she tried to convince these women of anything? You're not making any sense, it just sounds like you're looking for an excuse to put down Clinton over a situation she has zero involvement in.

I don't want her to do anything.

She is already playing dirty, why stop at convincing a group of women to lie some more for the cause?

Re: The 2016 Election

#529

Post by masterleep » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:42 PM UTC

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…

If you believe that Clinton has a greater propensity to start or inflame wars, and that wars are a greater evil than racism or sexism, then it may well be unethical to support her. It may even be an ethical duty to support Trump.

Re: The 2016 Election

#530

Post by olalonde » Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 10:43 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #491

olalonde wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood the argument as "it's OK to blacklist people because of their political views if they are powerful " in which case it's fair to question whether that belief would hold for a different set of political views. As you might have guessed, I think blacklisting people based on their political views is a slippery slope and shouldn't be done even to powerful people (especially for political positions that are ac…

This seems to imply that all political views are equal. They're not. For example, "Jews are a race of parasites that should be exterminated" is a political view, very popular in some countries back in the day (and in some other countries even today). I don't have any problem blacklisting people who believe in that, and act to make those beliefs a reality, even if the acts themselves are legal (e.g. funding a politica…

Can't disagree with that. I guess I should have nuanced my own position a bit, how about: we shouldn't blacklist people based on their political beliefs if those beliefs are shared by nearly half the population and are in no way genocidal? I'd extend the same logic to religion because they both tend to be completely inconsequential at work.