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

591–600 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#591

Post by int_19h »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #555
int_19h wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> rump'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

I would dare say that these two things aren't equivalent.

Clinton "rigging" the primaries didn't involve preventing people from speaking out, or excluding them from voting. It was mostly about the system itself being "pre-rigged" by design, so to speak, and then some coordination with the DNC behind the scenes. All bad juju, but not the kind of thing that causes lasting damage compared to the current state of affairs. Compared to Democrat "machines" of the old, it's practically peanuts - and the country and its political system survived those.

OTOH, Trump's talk about expanding the libel laws and otherwise targeting the press, if implemented to its logical completion, would take a lot of time to dig out of. That's not even taking into account his threats to "investigate" his political opponents if elected.

Re: The 2016 Election

#592

Post by int_19h »

Aloha wrote: post #560
int_19h wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes. On the left, though, it's not an irreversible process yet. It can still be contained.

On the right, it ran away a long time ago.

Re: The 2016 Election

#593

Post by int_19h »

noobermin wrote: post #582
int_19h wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>middle more or less equidistantly, and the way to fix it is to walk back. That supposes that there really is only one degree of freedom. For example, both Trump and Sanders were for protectionism. EDIT: added quote to clarify what I'm saying. My point is the model isn't quite right, a better way to explain it is rather than points on a spectrum, there are policies that we might place on a spectrum but that different…

The unfortunate reality of the present US political system is that in inter-party politics, there's only one degree of freedom. Other fights have to be fought on the inside to get anywhere, in the primaries etc. And if your side wins, then you take the entire party for the ride along with yourself in national politics.

Re: The 2016 Election

#594

Post by int_19h »

monk_e_boy wrote: post #542
int_19h wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electoral reform is a hot topic, but what people usually mean by it is not a change in how the votes are counted. The most popular issue is campaign financing (with the current arrangement being that there's no practical limit a private party can pour into the elections, so long as they do the Super-PAC dance). Another big issue of concern is gerrymandering. For Democrats, the way their primaries function (superdeleg…

Interesting. I work in education in the UK and the way we assess pupils is a relatively complex calculation based on a number of factors. So schools, teachers, pupils and parents are all aware that attainment is a complex beast and requires an open, yet complex calculation. Which leads me onto STV and other ways of counting votes, none of these are as simple as first past the post, but these are all far simpler than…

I think it's mainly that there are other, more obvious problems to tackle before getting to STV etc. One thing at a time and all that.

Even those things are immensely complicated politically, because they would upset the existing balance between the parties, and in the current climate of extreme partisanship, whichever party is affected is going to pretty much automatically be against it. For example, if we switch from electoral college to national popular vote, it's pretty much guaranteed to give all future presidential elections to the Democrats, at least until GOP has a massive reform. Obviously, they're going to be against it. Similar issues arise with gerrymandering, and even such normally non-controversial issues as making voting easier (increasing registration periods and making the process easier, increasing advanced voting period, mail-in voting etc).

So I wouldn't expect any progress on that front until the present deadlock is broken. On the other hand, whatever new party will arise on the right from the ashes of GOP (or existing third party take over the spot), is likely to be in the minority for a while - and hopefully, that would motivate them to make electoral reform for a more proportional representation a prominent part of their platform. On the other hand, Democrats are likely to get more complacent and corrupt from a long uninterrupted stretch in power, and a few particularly nasty public scandals could be used to prime the voters for an upset election. So we'll get there; it'll just take time.

Re: The 2016 Election

#595

Post by Tycho »

honyock wrote: post #324

There are a lot of negative things about Trump in this post, but aren't any positive points about Hillary. It seems to me that if one were to endorse one candidate over another, they should talk about the policies of the candidate they're supporting in a positive light. > He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage. There are a slew of former Secret Service agents from Bill Clinton's detail who say the same exac…

The email was referring to hating "Everyday Americans" as a choice of slogan.

Re: The 2016 Election

#596

Post by Tycho »

I'd never heard the phrase "crazy pills" before but I've read it three times in this one topic, from three different posters. Hmmm.

Re: The 2016 Election

#597

Post by flukus »

SonicSoul wrote: post #328
551199 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SNL writer Chris Kelly 'How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?'[0] Person thinks 40% of people are crazy, racist, hates women etc. Maybe the person who thinks that is the one not understanding the situation. Clinton: Read Wikileaks, study Clinton Foundation (Haiti) Trump: Read news from both sides msm and Breitbart & similar. Scott Adam…

Scott Adams blog has turned into sensless propaganda. From what I can gather by reading below[0] he does not like Clinton raising taxes. The rest of his points are such insightful gems as: "I don't know the best way to default ISIS .. negotiate trade policies .. neither do you but you probably think you do... Given the uncertainty about each candidate – at least in my own mind – I have been saying I am not smart enou…

Scott Adams is a contrarian first and foremost.

Re: The 2016 Election

#598

Post by flukus »

marbletiles wrote: post #425
josho wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can reasonably conclude that neither is suitable for the office. Which is why I find the squabbling over the candidates so interesting. They are both _deplorable_.

Well, one is controversial and has political opinions that antagonise a large chunk of the US electorate, but the other is batshit-crazy, narcissistic, anti-democratic and would blow up the world to salve his ego. So, it's not even apples and oranges here

The trouble is I'm not sure which one is which in that statement.

Re: The 2016 Election

#599

Post by tropo »

spinlock wrote: post #265
simonsarris wrote: post #77

Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this one: > [Hillary] shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if [she] becomes our president. Other sentences would just exchange antonyms and not make it sound any better. You call Trump isolationist, they ca…

I understand your argument and I might even agree with it. But, I would like to point out that there is a difference if we consider objective facts. Fact: Trump threatened to jail his political opponent if elected. That's how he has shown a disrespect for our system of government. Now, I realize that Trump supporters really don't get why it's bad to put your rival in jail. But, that objective fact does actually matte…

It's bad to put your opponent in jail if your opponent does not belong in jail and equally bad to not put your opponent in jail if they do belong there.

In a properly functioning country, status as "opponent" or "non-opponent" has nothing to do with going to jail. Right now we don't seem to have that; destruction of evidence is one of many things that would put any normal person in jail.

Given that Trump's opponent actually committed crimes, Trump is actually showing respect for our system of government. To let the powerful go unpunished is to disrespect it.

Re: The 2016 Election

#600

Post by Houshalter »

sparky_z wrote: post #364
sidlls wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, JFK begs to differ.

"Most Americans" at the time had no idea about JFK's personal flaws in that regard. If they had, I can't imagine he would have reached the point of being nominated.

I don't think that's true actually. The media had a policy on not reporting on candidates infidelity. People didn't think it was relevant to politics and that it was a cheap way of attack. As far as I can tell reporting on and outrage over sex scandals has only become more popular over time. Our culture is much more sensitive to it now, instead of the reverse.
Post reply on HN