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

571–580 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#571

Post by douche »

tbird24 wrote: post #417
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…

Although I want badly to agree, I can't help but think that it's a slippery slope. We can treat this election like a special case because we think it is one, but ~>40% of the US population will vote for Trump in November. We can't condemn 40% of the population, can we? What's the counter argument to this?

The country is really bifurcating. It's a very dangerous bifurcation, because it is not a regional difference; it is essentially an urban/rural difference. Most dangerously, there is the situation where the urban cohort represents power and money, while the rural cohort overwhelmingly supplies their sons and daughters to populate the armed services that protect the money.

As a thought experiment, I've thought what a modern-day civil war would look like. Assuming it wasn't crushed instantly by the military, I think it would look like the vast areas of fly-over-country besieging the urban areas, with huge chunks of the current command structure and rank and file joining the rebels.

Re: The 2016 Election

#572

Post by douche »

slantedview wrote: post #520
zeveb wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not political for many people who will see — and have seen throughout this election cycle — very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility that affects them every day in their lives. Of course, if you fire people who are supporting your opponent, then you will have caused 'very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility' that effects them. That's what creates the cycles of ra…

How about firing someone for damaging your brand and your business through their personal actions? Billy Bush wasn't fired for the things Trump said, he was fired because his association with Trump during that incident caused real damage to his company's brand.

Be honest. Who the fuck knew the name Billy Bush before this "scandal"?

Re: The 2016 Election

#573

Post by douche »

eternalban wrote: post #257

> His racist, isolationist policies ... Had to take a pause right there. (Disclosure: I am a Muslim, naturalized American citizen that emigrated to US in '79.) Critiques of Trump's positions are as exagerated as the candidate's own verbiage, perhaps even more so. I will not touch the "racist" item :) but as to "isolationist", this is false at face value. Non-aggression is not isolationism. Very clearly stating that U…

I dunno, I feel like if you see that a group of people are causing a shitshow in your neighborhood instead of improving things, you have the right to tell further people in that group to go fuck themselves and leave you alone and find a different soft target.

Re: The 2016 Election

#574

Post by gjolund »

mejari wrote: post #532
gjolund wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So, you're angry at her for not doing something you don't want her to do, but you feel like she would do it, even though she's not doing it. And you're throwing in random accusations of lying. You're reinforcing my thought that you are just trying to find an excuse to be angry.

I'm not angry at anything.

I have just seen what happens when unfounded claims of sexual assault get taken seriously.

Re: The 2016 Election

#575

Post by grandalf »

int_19h wrote: post #501
grandalf wrote: post #207

HRC has moved the Democratic Party to the right. This has left many poor and angry people in the dust. Many have gravitated toward Trump. Yes, poor people are more likely to be criminals and racists but let's be real, mainstream pols have been speaking racist language in a more coded and subtle way for a long time. It has always been ugly. HRC has done it herself when it benefits her. What irritates me about this ess…

> HRC has moved the Democratic Party to the right. Comparing the Democratic platform over the past several presidential cycles side by side does not support this assertion. Indeed, it has steadily moving left since Obama, and Clinton was pretty much forced to follow in the primaries. She didn't move as far left as the Sanders crowd (myself included) hoped, but we still got a pretty good platform this year.

> Indeed, it has steadily moving left since Obama,

I'm not sure you could possibly be serious.

- Obama continued and escalated GWB's wars and ramped up the war on whistleblowers and the use of drone assassination and terror campaigns.

- Obamacare was a big corporate giveaway, ushering in the new Halliburtons of Healthcare. The Mylan epi-pen fiasco is one example among many of how the program catered to corporate interests and profits extensively. Ironically this was one reason Obama beat HRC 8 years ago, his healthcare plan was much more open to compromises with incumbent pharma and medical supply companies. He signaled this effectively through a few minor differences with HRC's plan way back then, and it got him elected.

- The only trending leftward has been inevitable changes in social values (support of gay marriage, marijuana legalization, etc.) that are an inevitable part of the oldest generation of social conservative voters dying off. Both Obama and HRC lagged by about 4-8 years on gay marriage (both opposed it until it was abundantly safe to support it).

- There has been no serious reform of Wall Street, no serious GSE reform, and Obama has called for the significant expansion of student loan programs... which are the only kind of debt not discharged when someone declares bankruptcy, making them extremely socially regressive and akin to debt slavery. Someone who is 18 taking on massive debt to attend college is not an informed consumer and does not deserve debt that they will be straddled with no matter what circumstances befall them later.

These are just a few examples. There is a reason why so many Republicans (including the Bush family) has endorsed HRC -- she's essentially running a Republican platform, with a few easily broken promises to the left thrown in.

Re: The 2016 Election

#576

Post by mejari »

gjolund wrote: post #574
mejari wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you're angry at her for not doing something you don't want her to do, but you feel like she would do it, even though she's not doing it. And you're throwing in random accusations of lying. You're reinforcing my thought that you are just trying to find an excuse to be angry.

I'm not angry at anything. I have just seen what happens when unfounded claims of sexual assault get taken seriously.

Then what does Clinton have to do with that?

Re: The 2016 Election

#577

Post by douche »

int_19h wrote: post #511
rtx wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not do it yourself. Millions have died due games that Russians and Americans like to play.

Because Putin has genuine widespread popular support in Russia. There's no viable way to check him from inside the country at this point.

Russia is a very interesting country. Maybe I'm just tainted because I've been listening to Ghosts of the Ostfront lately, but listening to and believing any Russian/Soviet propaganda is very, very suspect.

Re: The 2016 Election

#578

Post by MicroBerto »

chasing wrote: post #565
MicroBerto wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> built upon the massive pile of conspiracy theories and mountains-made-from-molehills that constitute the argument against Hillary. Like the "conspiracy theories" that Hillary's campaign was behind the violence at this year's Trump rallies? Seems like they're no longer 'theories'... ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&feature=youtu.be... )

A Project Veritas Action video? Project Veritas is James O'Keefe's new project, right? The guy who's whole MO is releasing questionable videos to attack liberal organizations? Trustworthy.

How does that change the verbal content inside?

Re: The 2016 Election

#579

Post by douche »

darawk wrote: post #260
gjolund wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump is a new player in politics, whereas Hillary represents business as usual. Hillary means more drone strikes, corporate appeasment, global interventions, weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, and a complete lack of transparency into government. I will not vote for a candidate that represents so much of what is wrong with this country, solely becuase she wants me to believe the other guy is worse. Fear tactics are the la…

I agree with most of that. And I agree that her campaign is mostly about fear tactics. I suppose the difference between us then is just that I think, despite the lameness of fear-as-platform, I think that fear is pretty justified by the thought of Trump being president. When you honestly consider that prospect, does it not terrify you? I don't mean that question rhetorically.

I am terrified by the supreme court justices that would be appointed during 4-8 years of Democratic rule. Unless Democrats become associated with strict constructionism, I will continue to fear them and oppose their appointment to lifelong positions.

Re: The 2016 Election

#580

Post by noobermin »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #357
gkoberger wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sam tweeted that this was his favorite article about the election: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on... It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters.

It's a great article, but only describes a very small minority of Trump supporters. The median household income of a Trump supporter is $72,000, well above that of the median voter, or the median Clinton supporter. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-...

That surprises me greatly. I'm assuming that the fact that the poor themselves don't vote anyway skews the medians of voters up anyway, as they hint at in that article. What a way to dash "established facts."
Post reply on HN