81–90 of 99 posts
Fuck Peter Thiel and every last person who voted for Trump. Fuck all of you. Now hellban me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Foreign contacts (including family) may be a complication in security clearance background investigations, IIRC, but AFAIK discriminating directly on that basis (rather than simply requiring the clearance if necessary for the specific job) would be a bright-line violation of the law.
> “His odds were very badly underestimated,” he said. “Trump voters were not being captured by the polls. A lot of the dynamics were very similar to the Brexit vote in the U.K.,” which also took many commentators by surprise. The real takeaway for me is figuring why this is the case — how could / can we change the polls to be more robust? To some degree, perhaps the polls influence the outcome of the election. For ex…
While I think it was 70/30 for Clinton they were very explicit that this doesn't mean Clinton will win. They admitted it's very difficult to convey probabilities to the average person and it's something they're still working on. I feel like a lot of the pundits (honestly, on Trump's side, too) seemed to believe Hillary winning was inevitable and the night was just going to play out like the predictions, but the polls and analysts were saying it was going to be close (although, Hillary was favored).
While Clinton had a confident lead in the popular vote, her electoral map was rocky. She had thin margins in a bunch of contentious states, but in states like California and Texas she got fairly large numbers in individuals that wouldn't translate into electoral votes. When it came to the vote she just lost the contentious states.
Something else they said today is that pollsters see outliers (changes from the norm) as possible noise, so they tend to bias that back to historical values or neighboring values. This can hide pockets of change or make trends slower to show up. The last election was Obama obviously he appealed to different groups of people. Many assumed the areas he flipped would stay flipped. That's why pollsters were off almost as much as 10% in some areas instead of the expected 3%.
Another thing I've heard toyed around is that public polls are funded by universities and newspapers--institutions who haven't had as much money lately. So while analysis of polls have gotten better, polls have gotten worse. There's also talk about landlines falling out of favor and online polling being worse. Campaign polls have gotten better since there's more money now. From what I've heard Romney's internal polls were way off, but Obama's polls were spot on. I've heard both Hillary's and Trump's internal polls had Hillary ahead...so all of that might be irrelevant.
It was a close race and the unconventional nature made it difficult to honestly predict. But most predictions ended up close to the margin of error--they just guessed the winner with too much confidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I understand that sentiment, but I never took Trump as one who spoke clearly. He spoke simply, but not clearly. I think Clinton was actually the clearer speaker by far, with her specific proposals and plans, but she didn't speak simply (and for what it's worth, I'm not sure we should optimize for candidates that speak simply over clearly, as I've covered elsewhere in these comments).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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…
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…
I find that pretty amusing.
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.
> > 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's easier to say rather than do when you are the target and those people are in group... just giving you heads ups... We didn't think it would be a big deal and we also minimized it because it was "just" 50%