Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#71

Post by return0 »

venomsnake wrote: post #37
logicallee wrote: post #12

trump is an idiot who has no business being president of the country, which marks the first time someone with zero (literally zero) political experience, not even military service, was elected to that position. That said, he speaks his mind and it's trivial to see what he's thinking. Had Hillary Clinton (who I and any sane person would like over Trump) become President, it would be impossible to know what she really…

Your whole post illustrates why Trump won. Any person that is able to parry and repose mid air the fat pigs question with "Only Rosie O'Donnel" is not an idiot by a long margin. I have been trump supporter since the beginning - your expert diagnosis of my mental health aside - the guy won for too long, against great odds, made all the long shots for that to be luck. And with a world gone mad, you may need a madman on…

Today is not a day to make rational arguments. Any mention of trump incites spontaneous namecalling , as if only certain people are entitled to the truth. I'd give it a few days until the internet becomes usable again.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#72

Post by kbenson »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #58
kbenson wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously". Which I guess is great if you're a billionaire and probably get some time with Trump or someone close to him that knows what he actually plans to do. In the meantime, all the rest of us are left with "I'm going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something great." Forgive me if I would have preferred something a little more substantial.…

Can any politician be taken literally, though? How did Obama's promises on the revolving door between lobbyists and his administration work out? Or his promise on health insurance premiums? These promises aren't the exception, they are the rule. Politicians (almost) always have to lie to win. So Trump not being specific as to what he will do seems unlikely to be any different to interpret than if he made very specifi…

Well, I think there are differing levels of information that can be conveyed. You can say you want a healthcare system where everyone is insured. You can say you want a healthcare system where costs are lowered. You can say you want both. All these convey some information about the goals of the politician, and how they may or may not align with your own. What they eventually come up with, or not, will inform you how much they compromised on that position. I would hazard most politicians are less likely to compromise on specific goals they stated, and more likely to compromise on ones they didn't state. This allows you to steer yourself towards a candidate that may work for an outcome you want, even if there's obviously no guarantee.

In this case, we have "I will make something great", as if every candidate wasn't implicitly setting out to to do the same and every voter wasn't hoping for the same. So, am I more or less likely to get the outcome I want in this situation? Who knows? I don't because there's no way to, but I would sure appreciate being empowered to at least try to figure that out.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#73

Post by pmelendez »

coldtea wrote: post #47
pmelendez wrote: post #4

I am ok with Thiel thinking Trump would win. What was a disappointment for me is that Thiel actually believes Trump was a good candidate and (I speculate) agrees with his platform. Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump

> Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. A president's economic platform is more important, and Hillary, as did most pundits, mostly retold the old wives tales…

>That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama.

You are underestimating the effect of a racist speech coming from a person in a position of power. Racists tend to keep their views for their own when are not sure they can speak freely without being judged. When they can speak freely they turn up the tone of the speech (which happened in Trump's rallies).

In Venezuela we had a similar situation when Chavez came to power, not with race but with economical status... At some point you could be yielded at the street just because the way you were dressed (didn't have to be fancy). All that was unheard before Chavez.

So yeah... A bad president can indeed reshape the view and behavior of people. Just wait until he has their own tv show as Chavez did.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#74

Post by leurfete »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #29
chronic6l wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I voted for Trump. I'm also a distinguished engineer at Google in Mountain View, CA.

One of the elite 30,000 people that works for google? To what do we owe the honor (and why did you list their headquarters location)?

Being a distinguished engineer at Google is definitely elite. Only a tiny fraction of its 30k employees hold that title and it probably draws a salary in the 1-2% range.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#75

Post by pmelendez »

return0 wrote: post #65
pmelendez wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being Venezuelan I am familiar with the whole "pay attention what he does instead of what it says", and that didn't work well for us. The problem with authoritarian governments is that they can delay plans but never forget about them. If Thiel really think that, then he is not only an opportunist but also a fool.

I don't know, given thiel's track record, maybe we should wonder if we are the fools.

I have seen successful people having foolish calculations before... specially regarding reading other people.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#76

Post by ethbro »

wavefunction wrote: post #61
stcredzero wrote: post #53

A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he said, forgot the motto that Bill Clinton had won the presidency with in 1992: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Donald Trump was a stealth 3rd party candidate, riding on a wave produced by demographic changes and the falling fortunes of a large demographic. He's down with OP…

I grew up in "flyover country" as it has been so lovingly labeled by the coastal urbanites, and I would agree that the media is completely out of touch with a huge portion of the country. Many of these people are decent but weren't offered even lip-service by the Democratic candidate or party. You have Hillary treating them like second class citizens offering them a lower minimum wage than urbanites, for example. Why…

Absolutely agree with your opinion of the decency of non-urban America and also the amount it's had to put up with.

Curious what revitalization looks like in an increasingly automated economy though. Not sure Trump has his finger on the pulse of where the world's going to aim ahead of that trend. Although he might, and honestly, is probably more likely to than Hilary.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#77

Post by pen2l »

wavefunction wrote: post #70
pen2l wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > For starters, immigration is a key issue for Silicon Valley for which Thiel can be a voice of reason to influence the new administration. > I don't know if immigration is as much of an issue for Palantir, given many of its clients are clandestine and won't permit non-citizens to work on their projects. So, Palantir is actually in trouble for not hiring certain immigrants / races. See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/0…

I expect there to be a prohibition against foreign nationals at a lot of defense contractors. Consider his country of origin: it's one of the last places our government wants technology transfer or espionage to occur with. And I mean no offense to your friend, but that's how those folks think.

So, I should not have said "Pakistani". He's actually an American-born, his parents came here in early 80s. Is that still a problem you think? Would a defense contractor be hesitant in hiring native-born citizens with parents from a different country of origin?

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#78

Post by EdSharkey »

return0 wrote: post #60
EdSharkey wrote: post #56

I didn't vote for Trump nor Clinton. Although I'm right-leaning on most issues, I am in the perplexed camp of why 50% of voters selected Trump. I was sure Hillary was going to win. I'm especially bewildered why deeply religious, evangelical Christians I know were big on Trump. He's such a sinner by biblical standards, the love for the guy didn't make sense - I thought it'd be hypocrisy to support the guy. For most, t…

You would be wrong i believe, because it seems that everyone, and not just the deplorables voted trump. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters...

> Among college-educated whites, 45% voted for Clinton – 39% of men and 51% of women (the only white demographic represented in the poll where the former secretary of state came out on top). But 54% of male college graduates voted for Trump, as did 45% of female college graduates.

Fascinating, pretty strong turnout for Trump with college educated folks! Clinton's numbers reflect that she lost a ton of male votes to third party.

> But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton.

Middle class came out for Trump too. I wish they'd break out higher income brackets, that's where I'm at. And I guess that Clinton's support there is much stronger - which reflects the disconnect Murray describes in cultures and political leanings between the urban wealthy classes and the rest of the population.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#79

Post by ethbro »

kbenson wrote: post #68
coldtea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. A president's economic platform is more important, and Hillary, as did most pundits, mostly retold the old wives tales…

> That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. This actually touches on what upset me most about this election. It's not so much that I think Trump is going to be horrible. I think he's been vague enough and it's obvious enough that he was playi…

> That people can equate breaking the rules using a personal email server with recorded audio of a candidate condoning and admitting sexual assault.

I think most Trump supporters saw a pattern of behavior in Clinton that they trusted even less than Trump's gaffes. Not so much that they condoned sexual assault, but they'd rather the devil who speaks clearly than the devil who seems to have a secret in every closet.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#80

Post by ethbro »

pmelendez wrote: post #73
coldtea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. A president's economic platform is more important, and Hillary, as did most pundits, mostly retold the old wives tales…

>That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. You are underestimating the effect of a racist speech coming from a person in a position of power. Racists tend to keep their views for their own when are not sure they can speak freely without being…

That's still only 50% of the country. If someone says something racist in front of you, take the time and discomfort to confront them. "Hey, that's a person too. Trying living by the Golden Rule a bit more" Etc.

We are the country we create, whoever is in power.

Post reply on HN