311–320 of 1001 posts
Are there any publicly pro-Trump founders in the current YC batch and, if so, how ostracized do they feel reading things like this? EDIT: If there's no answers from the current batch (either due to sample size or general shyness), I'll pose the same question regarding past YC alumni. I find it hard to believe out of a thousand people there isn't a single Trump supporter.
You really do need to demonize Trump voters. Most of them are in favor of his horrible policies, and are malicious themselves. You're never going to get anywhere without recognizing the source of the problem.
There is a book I recently read: https://www.amazon.com/Never-Split-Difference-Negotiating-De... This is a book about negotiation written by a hostage negotiator. It was an eye-opener that I needed. One of the key principles is that you don't accuse or attack (something I still need to work on myself).
> This is very important people It's also complete bullshit. I actually live in a Trump-supporting area, and everyone I know who voted for him is ecstatic about this disgusting, offensive action. Trump is a bad person, and the people who voted for him are bad people, and I hope to God I 'push them away' as far as they'll get from me.
I voted for Trump. I support many (not all) of his policies. I don't appreciate being called a bad person. Certainly you have a right to think this but I disagree.
I won't go into what I think of people who voted for Hillary because I try not be mindlessly nasty but I don't think they are all "bad people".
> In doing so, we should not demonize Trump voters—most of them voted for him for reasons other than the promise of a Muslim ban. We need their eventual support in resisting actions like these, and we will not get it if we further isolate them. This is very important people - calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist homophobe, a moron, and not deserving of the franchise is not going to help anything. I didn't vo…
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to have any good will for people who voted for him. Especially the "I voted for you, but you're doing X" people. EVERYONE seen how hateful his campaign was. There isn't a sensible person who looked at it and thought otherwise. However, there are a lot of people who witnessed what he was doing and thought "it won't hurt me though" and were absolutely okay with him and his hateful approach to "making America great"
Fuck them
I know people, aside from myself and my family, that are already hurting because of his policies. And now when he gets whatever form of that nationwide stop and frisk going, it won't be white kids harassed by law enforcement, it will be my suburban black son and his friends.
You can miss me with the "not all voters" bull because every single one of them are complicit in how things are going now. Those people NEED to be called out. They need to be shown and constantly told that they made the WORST choice. I don't care about their feelings when the person that they voted for policies will criminalize me and a lot of people that I care about. Again, fuck their feelings
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment reeks of victim blaming. Nobody who voted for Trump and Pence should be allowed to escape being held accountable for what they support. If their "economic anxiety" was bad enough that they can ignore the rights of LGBT people and religious minorities, then they are all the more guilty. Those people were never centrists and knew exactly who they voted for.
So by voting you're responsible for everything the person you voted for does? That leads to nobody but the extremes voting. Has there ever been a candidate who even talked 100% of what you would approve of? If no, why did you vote (or have you ever)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump stated his intention to stabilize the region. So far he has demonstrated very clearly that he intends to keep his promises. All that needs to happen there is we need to stop arming ISIS, and join forces with Russia and Assad's government to destroy ISIS. It'll be over in a year or two. And if you find the US interventionism repugnant, congratulations, we now have a president who is against it, too.
Simple right? Just destroy them. I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem. He's well versed in Middle Eastern politics and warfare and crucially he's got a level head and able to think decisions through properly which he's proven since becoming president.
Well at least he'll stop arming them, that would be a good first step towards progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is the same kind of bullshit that's lost Hillary the election and got us here in the first place. Wasn't low democrat turnout part of the problem?
Wasn't running the most corrupt, least trustworthy candidate who couldn't cite a single accomplishment in 30 years of public "self service" THE problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is the same kind of bullshit that's lost Hillary the election and got us here in the first place. Wasn't low democrat turnout part of the problem?
Wasn't running the most corrupt, least trustworthy candidate who couldn't cite a single accomplishment in 30 years of public "self service" THE problem?
First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US. Other than Iran (which imo shouldn't be on the list) we're bombing and droning all of those countries at the moment. It's insane to accept mil…
> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. He's got his foot in the door. That's all he needs right now. > But there's another aspect of this that baffles me. Somehow Sam has no issues with democrats totally destabilizing the Middle East, and funding/arming ISIS to depose Assad. Yet the moment Trump attempts to mitigate the negative side effects of that to th…
That's a nice slippery slope you got in there. There's zero mention to muslims in the text of the order, and it's clearly stated that it's temporary, with several revision dates for assesment, the goal being to strengthen the vetting procedures.
I bet most people commenting here haven't read it. Do it. Now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying we're there yet, but, at the risk of waking Godwin, at what point in 1930s Germany would violent protest finally be OK? We'll start at "Never," and work back from there.
The issue with the Hitler argument is that he too lost an election. Start from there.