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

551–560 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#551

Post by MicroBerto »

random_upvoter wrote: post #517
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…

I've been thinking about what bothers me about Clinton and here's an example: In 2008, Clinton declares she's opposed to gay marriage. Now it's 2016, and the majority of the American people are in favor of gay marriage. And guess what, Clinton is in favor of gay marriage. The battle has been won and now Mrs. Clinton proudly jumps on the barricade. Now you may say this is just the reality of politics, but at some poin…

Hillary's team states that she is still very opposed to gay marriage. She is simply lying now.

Re: The 2016 Election

#552

Post by sysk »

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…

This is 900% rationalization.

> When you see him and his followers advocating misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, aggressiveness, and basically all the other -isms and -obias, it becomes much harder to "see the other side" of the debate

The exact same argument could be convincingly used to discriminate against members of the two largest organized religions. Are you also going to ask potential hires who they voted for at the last election too?

Re: The 2016 Election

#553

Post by esaym »

teekert wrote: post #379
esaym wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct about Hillary. She represents the worst of everything. Even paying supporters to start riots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY The irony is that what Trump supports, the Clintons have always supported for the last 20 years if you look at their old debates. They are nothing but crowd pleasers. Saying yes to anything, but rarely following through. Not sure how people don't see that.

After you saw that Youtube movie, are you not convinced that the Hillary camp will do anything regardless of ethics to win? I believe her party is able to completely destroy anyone's reputation.

Indeed

Re: The 2016 Election

#554

Post by MicroBerto »

joshmanders wrote: post #148
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?

Yeah I'm not quite sure I understand the whole "I'm voting Clinton because it's the only way to stop Trump" argument. No it's not. If enough people who are voting Clinton purely to stop Trump voted 3rd party, 3rd party would actually have a chance. In this overflowing toilet bowl we call the 2016 Presidential Election, your best bet to unclog it is to use a plunger, now throw another turd in. Vote for the plunger, no…

> If enough people who are voting Clinton purely to stop Trump voted 3rd party, 3rd party would actually have a chance.

It's actually the other way around though. When including 3rd parties in polls (Florida, for example), Clinton has consistently done worse.

This is why you're not seeing any mainstream media coverage of Johnson or Stein -- it hurts their golden goose.

Re: The 2016 Election

#555

Post by ZenoArrow »

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.

Improvements to the fairness of elections won't come from those who benefit from the status quo, it'll come from those at the grassroots level. Boosting the electoral performance of third party candidates builds confidence that grassroots movements can make a significant political impact.

As for whether Trump or Clinton would actively block fair elections, that wouldn't surprise me, but I wouldn't put it past either of them (Trump's already made it clear he wants to make it easier to manipulate the press, and Clinton was clearly willing to engage in underhand tactics to get the Democratic nomination). If you're of the same mindset then it makes no sense to vote for either of them, as it appears neither are interested in engaging in fair elections.

Re: The 2016 Election

#556

Post by douche »

nickparker wrote: post #467
Aqueous wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This public/private dichotomy reminds me sharply of a novel I read at one of those late teen-age formative periods, For Us, the Living[1], by Heinlein. In that story, it was a norm that you could declare "private sphere", and journalists et al would have to ignore the ensuing events until going "public" again. In that world, it had basically put the papparatzi out of work. There are some other gems in there, like a future law where if a country was to go to war, it was put to a popular vote, and if the measure passed, those who voted for war were moved to the head of the draft list.

I'm not sure whether everyone should be banned or required to read Heinlein in high school...

[1] http://amzn.to/2eemScq

Re: The 2016 Election

#557

Post by ZenoArrow »

MBCook wrote: post #485
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…

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.

I'd take the first option. Look at the shitshow that's been unleashed by continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils. We'll only stop things getting worse by making politicians earn our votes, rather than winning by default by being slightly more palatable than the other candidate. Voting with your conscience means you want to hold your politicians to higher standards, and whilst that might not have an immediate impact, it is the type of action that can make a noticeable difference over time.

Re: The 2016 Election

#558

Post by k3n »

monk_e_boy wrote: post #370
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article (and phrase) I found really helpful in understanding the split in support is: "The press takes him (Trump)literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-ma...

I'm not from the US, so take this as an outsiders view. Clinton says different things in public than she does to her friends. She also flip flops. This is not trustworthy. Trump is unpleasant, but at least he talks straight. I think this could be the last election of its kind in the USA, a two party system that works to produce these two candidates? Someone (Facebook, google, twitter) will come up with a better way o…

> Clinton says different things in public than she does to her friends. She also flip flops. This is not trustworthy.

> Trump is unpleasant, but at least he talks straight.

You seem to imply that since Trump "talks straight", he doesn't flip-flop?

If that's what you're implying, it couldn't be more inaccurate; he has sharply contradicted himself countless times, straight-up denying things he's documented as saying (on TV, Twitter, etc.)

Re: The 2016 Election

#559

Post by douche »

zanny wrote: post #482
falsestprophet wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 po…

The grass is always going to be greener somewhere else. Trying to attack that demand is, in my opinion, a fool's errand. If there is work to be done that isn't viable at rates allowed by regulation, then either it isn't that valuable, or its price is being suppressed.

I think that we are largely moving to a world where the vast majority of human labor is unnecessary. Increasingly, hiring one smart person is more productive than hiring 10 or even 100 below average intelligence people, because what is needed increasingly is brainpower, not manpower.

Re: The 2016 Election

#560

Post by Aloha »

int_19h wrote: post #450
Aloha wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You made the comment I was going to make. Though I would have included the following too: > The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less. When it comes down to it.. its bec…

> We should talk to each other more, not less. It's a nice sentiment, but it implies that both sides have walked away from the middle more or less equidistantly, and the way to fix it is to walk back. The reality is that American left is still mostly center-left, while the American right has been steadily radicalizing over the past two decades. Study after study shows the same thing: the average right wing voter toda…

The right is further along in their process than the left is. But it is starting on the left.
Post reply on HN