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

631–640 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#631

Post by cookiecaper »

douche wrote: post #571
tbird24 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes. Military people are usually very conservative. It would be hard to get them to engage on the "liberal" side of such a conflict. No doubt there would be defections of entire bases and installments.

Re: The 2016 Election

#632

Post by cookiecaper »

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.

Really? I don't think the mind-numbingly large conglomerate behind NBC could be tarnished by anything a low-level bit reporter like Billy Bush could do.

Re: The 2016 Election

#633

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.

Well now I'm confused! Why are people resigning and getting fired over this if the videos aren't trustworthy?

Re: The 2016 Election

#634

Post by zodiac »

sp527 wrote: post #43
Tycho wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Why is money speech? What makes donation different from voting pragmatically? (eg. "I'll put up with an offensive loudmouth for President if it means we get to avoid destroying another Middle Eastern civilization and potentially starting WW3")

This was the shocking conclusion of a landmark case, Citizen's United vs FEC, that was heard by the Supreme Court. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Did you read the article at all? It contains no support for your claim that

> If Thiel donates ... to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying.

Re: The 2016 Election

#635

Post by Latty »

dnautics wrote: post #418
Latty wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably wouldn't. I think you overestimate the number of people voting Clinton just to stop Trump. A lot of people truly like her the most. (Not me, I'd like to note - not that I will be voting as an Englishman). It's also worth noting, what third party candidate? There isn't a perfect option there either. It's a first past the post system - third party candidates are never going to happen because of the psycho…

IIRC, Surveys consistently show that 40-50% of people would like to have a third option besides clinton or trump, which is rather high. That should be enough to get at least a plurality, except for "psychology" (people don't want to lose; network effects; with-me-or-against-me-ism) > what third party candidate? There isn't a perfect option there either. As long as you acknowledge the double standard implicit in your…

Let me restate: I don't see a third party candidate that is that much better than Clinton. Most are better in some ways, worse in others. I used the word 'perfect' because I think that, for a third party candidate, you would need to get the perfect mix to inspire enough support to break through. If I'm throwing my vote behind someone for ideological reasons without an expectation it will work, I want it to be someone I can truly support without reservation.

The momentum thing, I don't buy. It might technically be possible, but it's practically never going to happen, because FPTP is broken.

Re: The 2016 Election

#636

Post by Latty »

dllthomas wrote: post #444
Latty wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably wouldn't. I think you overestimate the number of people voting Clinton just to stop Trump. A lot of people truly like her the most. (Not me, I'd like to note - not that I will be voting as an Englishman). It's also worth noting, what third party candidate? There isn't a perfect option there either. It's a first past the post system - third party candidates are never going to happen because of the psycho…

> third party candidates are never going to happen More than two parties will never be stable unless elections are other than FPTP. But which two parties has changed more than once through US history. I don't see a reason it couldn't possibly happen again.

Sure. And? Swapping a party around doesn't really solve any of the underlying problems. It may help a little in the short term, but FPTP encourages not only two parties, but the kind of polarisation that leads to the republican party as they stand now, pushed incredibly far to the right.

Re: The 2016 Election

#637

Post by Latty »

dnautics wrote: post #409
Latty wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My counter to that would be that we accept that sometimes war is necessary and can be the lesser of two evils, while judging every Muslim by the actions of a few should never be necessary. Hilary didn't say she wants to nuke Syria and Libya. She made a decision because she thought that conflict there was the lesser of two evils, and has applied mostly proportionate response, and attempted to limit collateral damage.…

It's easy to call it 'carefully directed killing' when many people called out that sort of activity in general, and those specific actions (syria, libya) and even constructively suggested alternatives that would avoid bloodshed and blowback - and those alternatives have been repeatedly ignored.

I'm not saying I agree completely with the actions taken - but they still hold up far better under the 'who do I want making the decisions' test - the person who at least tried to make a good call, or the person who wants to make a clearly terrible one.

Re: The 2016 Election

#638

Post by Latty »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #250
Latty wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are claiming that calling a non-trivial proportion of Trump's supporters deplorable requires an apology, you disagree with me about what is deplorable.

The fact that a candidate for President of the United States -- whichever party they represent -- would decide to dismiss a sizeable portion of the country as contemptible or wretched seems to be the issue. Mitt Romney dismissed 47% of the voting public in 2012 and was roundly criticized for dismissing the people he supposedly wanted to lead. If Clinton had said 46% , would that have made it ok?

If a sizeable portion of the country is contemptible or wretched, why on earth would she not say it?

It's not dismissing them, it's saying they hold contemptible views. Just as, at one point in time, I'd imagine 50% of the population were in favour of slavery.

It's not a good political move, but it's telling the truth.

Re: The 2016 Election

#639

Post by unprepare »

cookiecaper wrote: post #627
unprepare wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He also believes that Asians and Jews are on average the intellectual superiors of "white" people, so it's not clear to me how that's "white" supremacy. but it is the literal definition of racism...

Is it also the definition of racism to acknowledge that some races may have higher incidences of certain diseases, like sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis? There are differences between the races. One of those differences is skin color. That doesn't mean it's the only difference. The fact is that when you plot the results of IQ tests, the accepted measurement of intellectual capacity, along with race on a chart, a…

you could, ya know, look up the definition of racism. that would answer your question.

Re: The 2016 Election

#640

Post by akvadrako »

sliverstorm wrote: post #423
sysk wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non American who would probably vote for neither of them, Hillary definitely ranks way higher on my internal psychopath detector. The constant fake smiling, cold and calculated question answering, passive aggressiveness, etc. In short, the traits of a great manipulator. Trump is guilty of some of that too but he is somewhat redeemed by the fact that he seems dumb/naive enough to believe whatever he preaches.

Psychopath is one particular slur that I've started ignoring. We've been taught it is equivalent to evil, or something like that, and it's used as a thought-terminating cliche. But, the basic traits of clinical psychopathy aren't really inherently evil. The characteristics that define clinical psychopathy are many of the same that make effective leaders http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-startl...…

Indeed - if all the voters were psychopaths then they would at least elect a candidate that served their interests instead of being totally persuaded by show.

I think most people who gain such a high office are much more psychopathic than average anyway.

Post reply on HN