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

221–230 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#221

Post by rwmj »

eeks wrote: post #90
rwmj wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He explained pretty clearly in the article why Trump is objectively wrong.

No, "subjectively" wrong. Trump is wrong from Altman's standpoint, not from an absolute "good" or "evil" standpoint. Except if you do believe the latter, and in that case any discussion is moot.

No, objectively. Granted sama doesn't provide detailed references, but you can find factual backing for statements such as these ones easily if you look:

"A Trump presidency would be a disaster for the American economy."

"He has no real plan to restore economic growth."

"His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer"

"He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage. He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants."

"Trump shows little respect for the Constitution"

Re: The 2016 Election

#222

Post by adrr »

burkaman wrote: post #104
sp527 wrote: post #5

> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying. Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalis…

No he isn't. Since Trump has donated to the Clinton Foundation (edit: and Hillary's senate and presidential campaigns), does that mean that he is effectively saying everything that Hillary is saying? Does buying an album mean I agree with every lyric on it? If I donate to someone who then incites violence, can I be prosecuted? Also, the Supreme Court does not believe money is speech. If they did, campaign contributio…

Clinton foundation is a charity that initiatives include preventing Malaria, Obesity, HIV/AIDS, poverty etc.

Re: The 2016 Election

#223

Post by darawk »

linkregister wrote: post #183
darawk wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say women shouldn't be able to vote. He said that giving women the right to vote has eroded some of his libertarian ideals, because women tend to oppose those ideals. Which is a true statement.

It seems to imply a hell of a lot. "I'm not saying that darawk's down/up-voting should be revoked, but he sometimes upvotes things that aren't the best for our country." The above (wrong) sentence would be an example of this type of implication.

It's not really fair to hang someone by what you infer from a truthful statement. You could say "Ending slavery caused enormous economic problems for the south" without supporting slavery. In reading the full context of what he said, it doesn't seem to me that he's implying we should take away women's suffrage.

My reading of what he said is more akin to recognition of a marketing problem. That he thinks libertarians haven't presented themselves sufficiently well towards women, and there is room for improvement there.

Re: The 2016 Election

#224

Post by braythwayt »

DougN7 wrote: post #161
braythwayt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, not a good analogy. What it omits is the power factor. Were Mr. Thiel a founder, and a powerful VC blacklisted him because of his political views, we would have the powerful trampling the weak. If HN banned everyone who defended Mr. Thiel, we would have a purge. But choosing not to do business with a billionaire that is actually spending money to support Mr. Trump is not a case of the powerful oppressing the w…

What about Brendan Eich? I don't know if he is a billionaire, but he lost a job. Losing a job for having a particular view is oppression. Next election cycle, should you lose your job if you support Clinton? No. We're losing civil discourse by going this way.

Great discussion to be had, but you seem to be working this towards a slippery slope argument that if we don't choose to do business with billionaires to give millions and stump at the RNC convention, it won't be long before we're firing 43% of the workforce.

I can accept that YC may choose not to cut Mr. Thiel loose, but I'm not convinced that there is a moral imperative not to cut him loose.

Re: The 2016 Election

#225

Post by gjolund »

darawk wrote: post #151
koolba wrote: post #129

I am officially endorsing Donald Trump for president. I doubt my endorsement, coming from an anonymous commenter on HN, has much weight but I'll put it out here for one reason in particular: As a message to anybody else who's feeling the same but feels that even announcing something like this will cause you to be shamed.

I upvoted your comment because I think it's important, even though I disagree with you. Would you mind explaining your position? I think it might be helpful in furthering people's understanding, although it does run some risk of devolving into an argument.

Trump is a new player in politics, whereas Hillary represents business as usual.

Hillary means more drone strikes, corporate appeasment, global interventions, weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, and a complete lack of transparency into government.

I will not vote for a candidate that represents so much of what is wrong with this country, solely becuase she wants me to believe the other guy is worse.

Fear tactics are the last resort of tyrants, my mind was made up after the DNC Leaks.

Re: The 2016 Election

#226

Post by nickysielicki »

sp527 wrote: post #5

> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying. Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalis…

> If money is speech [...] and [someone donates money to a] campaign, then [they effectively are] saying what [the candidate] is saying.

No, they're just saying they support that candidate. Maybe they support every position they hold, but that's not a corollary. Maybe they just really dislike the alternative candidates, and maybe they made this decision solely based on comparing two candidates on a single issue.

This rant isn't directed at you (or the article for that matter), but I have a disdain for people who decry single-issue voters. For whatever reason, being a single-issue voter is seen as this taboo that any educated and cultured individual ought to stay away from. I think that's bullshit, especially in a political realm as polarized as ours. In my eyes, there's nothing "wrong" with being a single issue voter. For any given individual, certain topics in politics affect them disproportionately. The idea that people shouldn't account for that when making their decision comes entirely from an ego-driven world of journalists, politicians, and academics who need to convince themselves that they consider politics from a hilltop, above and beyond the mere peasants who only care about themselves and their personal life.

And to bring this back to the topic at hand, if you agree with what I'm saying about single-issue voting, I think it's inconsistent to think that it reflects personally on someone to support Trump.

If you are a single issue voter that is:

    * against foreign intervention
    * concerned about the federal budget
    * against the ACA
    * against common core and the department of education
    * for allowing marijuana legalization by individual states
    * etc. etc. etc.
You might find yourself supporting Trump. And you still might not like what he says sometimes. And you might not be a horrible person to your core.

Re: The 2016 Election

#227

Post by DougN7 »

archagon wrote: post #145
sremani wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People need to understand, about 43% of eligible electorate are going to Vote for Trump. Its better trying to understand them rather than demonize them. What next, no funding to start-ups in Texas since it voted Trump. Trump is obnoxious but Stalinist purges are not an answer for it.

Funny you should mention Stalin, because it seems that people on Clinton's side are mostly using free speech to express their disgust, while Trump's camp has literally advocated mass deportation and legislating unsympathetic newspapers out of existence.

Yeah, Clinton's side is all rainbows and ponies. This whole post is about Clinton's side wanting to throw Thiel out because of his views! Like happened to Eich. That doesn't clear Trump in any way, but don't you see both sides are the same? That's the problem!

Re: The 2016 Election

#228

Post by kyrre »

endorsing hillary because of claims that Trump is "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic..." must be the very definition of a low-information voter. you have the knowledge of the world at your fingertips and wikileaks is giving you direct view into the inner workings of the dnc.

i don't understand how engineers that were horrified by the wage-fixing pacts of apple, google, etc. can vote for open-borders. is this the tech version of 'everyone thinks they will be rich someday'? at this rate we will end up in childless marriages with flatmates.

some serious gaslighting going on. don't let them steal your future :(

Re: The 2016 Election

#229

Post by ttcards »

Meta notes on the comments so far

1. YC banning companies that supported SOPA was a mistake. I'm sure they now acknowledge that.

2. Mr Thiel donating $1M does not mean he believes or endorses in everything Trump stands for or says. I don't happen to agree he should have made the donation, but please use common sense.

3. Mr Altman used his personal blog not the YC blog. This is important. But the line is blurred between this being a personal statement or a statement on behalf of a corporation (YC).

4. Nobody should be persecuted or fired a political belief that a large part of a country endorses. This point is clearly stated and easily defended. Those attacking it should have a deep think about representative democracy - both the good parts and bad. Representative democracy is a decent, practical system but it is not perfect and America's flavor of it could do with a lot of refinement. This election cycle should make that pretty clear to the average HN reader.

Post reply on HN