111–120 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm under no obligation to read his past statements and works before I comment on a blog post of his. Good morning, Mr. Trump. Didn't see you coming in this early.
Instead of counter-trolling, it would be better if you just downvoted, flagged the comment, or mailed hn@ycombinator.com.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're referencing talks between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Trump, not Mrs. Clinton. And then you try and draw conclusions about how similar Mrs. Clinton's and Mr. Trump's presidencies would have been?
People that have been married for decades tend to be pretty similar.
Pretty similar, huh? So you're inclined to believe that Hillary has said worse things to Trump on the golf course too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly the point of the quote... The list would have looked much the same. Or am I missing something?
The following sentence is "Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win." And I think that's a bunch of poppycock. The threats would be no less under a Clinton administration. The battles would be no easier. Have we all forgotten the Clipper Chip debacle under the last Clinton administration?
A) The tech industry so far generally has leaned Democrat overall when it comes to lobbying / political gaming. Their power on influencing an all-GOP government thus might be quite diminished as a result of this election cycle.
B) Donald Trump's a wildcard to me. I don't see Trump as a certainty to be worse than Clinton. But he might be. It's possible that Donald Trump performs simply as GOP figurehead, in which case we know what to expect (roughly the same as Clinton, to be honest, minus the diminished influence). It's also possible that Donald Trump is blatantly okay with using state-sponsored hacking / surveillance / etc. for personal political reasons or even just grudge-settling. Under this circumstance, I do believe that probably would be worse than a speculative Clinton administration.
It's not like Clinton was great on computer security issues at all; I think Bruce's post made that perfectly clear.
> Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. And the political polarization and bantering continue. But at least there is some truth in there.
The context of the next line is somewhat important: > Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.
> And if there's a major terrorist attack under Trump's watch, it'll be open season on our liberties. I'm starting to believe that there is not a single world leader who is more than one crisis away from "reluctantly" assuming dictatorial powers. And the populations of advanced economies have no conception of the value of their liberty, since they so willingly give it away.
I don't think it could be compared to Trump's reaction in the hypothetical case where there was a similar terrorist attack in e.g. New York.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I think an administration that is business-minded can yield great economic prosperity but might not necessarily have interests in maintaining the rights of American citizens." I don't think we've seen an administration in the last 25 years that had an interest in maintaining the rights of American citizens.
And have any failed to be business-minded?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The context of the next line is somewhat important: > Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.
Except the author never gets around to adding substance to his claims about how EITHER Clinton or Trump would be incrementally worse than Obama regarding "government/corporate surveillance." I think it's off-topic[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I was watching the 'Dunkirk' trailer the other day and a line stuck out to me: An older fishing boat captain is talking to a younger and soggy rescued solider and says: "There's no hiding from this, boy", referring to the coming of WW2 in general and the captain having to turn to boat back into the melee to search for more survivors. I think that line is also what Bruce is trying to say to a lot of the EFF supporters…
I think he should plan for 8 years :) Trump might get another term. Trump probably will win the next election because he knows how to attract populace. At least this has worked beautifully in other places. To be fair a lot of thing he talk about are sensible. But he doesn't have a clue on how to fix them so he won't bring any meaningful change. He did the talking and won. He will talk again and win again.
> Trump probably will win the next election because he knows how to attract populace. Trump only won because fewer Liberals voted. I don't think that will happen 4 years from now.
On the other hand, Trump needs to deliver, or have a mighty good reason why not. Talking big won't be enough next time. If he hasn't actually done anything for job creation, saying "I'll create jobs" won't cut it.
Yes, he'll have the incumbent's advantage. But people turned to Trump because they were desperate, because the status quo was failing them. That won't be enough to get Trump another four years if he doesn't deliver during the first four. It will just make people desperate for something different.