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

341–350 of 646 posts

Re: The 2016 Election

#341

Post by CoryG89 »

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…

A few points:

1. Donating to the Clinton Foundation is not the same as donating to the Clinton campaign.

2. Buying an album is not the same as donating money to a campaign or voting, both of which can meaningfully affect a large number of other people, unlike buying an album.

3. If you knowingly fund criminal operations without actually committing said crimes yourself you can definitely be held accountable for it by the law.

4. The US Supreme Court did rule that donating money is a form of free speech in Buckley v. Valeo, but this doesn't imply that free speech is limitless. As with other forms of speech, Congress has the power to place reasonable limits on it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

Re: The 2016 Election

#342

Post by the_watcher »

> The only two vocal Trump supporters I am close to are Peter Thiel and my grandma.

Ignoring the Thiel stuff in this particular comment to focus on the grandma part. If you read this, sama, is her support based on anything more than him being the Republican nominee? I ask because my grandparents (from a very rural upbringing, and lifelong Republicans) are also the only Trump supporters I'm close to. It's been illuminating to me, as they vehemently opposed him in the primaries, and his policy positions (if you can call them that) are at odds with everything they've ever discussed believing in. Their justification seems to be based on a simple assumption that once he's elected, he'll just become a generic Republican, and that everything he says during the election is irrelevant bluster. It honestly has made me question if they'd vote for Hillary had she run as the Republican nominee.

Re: The 2016 Election

#344

Post by [deleted] »

noir_lord wrote: post #283
eternalban wrote: post #257

> His racist, isolationist policies ... Had to take a pause right there. (Disclosure: I am a Muslim, naturalized American citizen that emigrated to US in '79.) Critiques of Trump's positions are as exagerated as the candidate's own verbiage, perhaps even more so. I will not touch the "racist" item :) but as to "isolationist", this is false at face value. Non-aggression is not isolationism. Very clearly stating that U…

> Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. In that instance not racist since Islam isn't a race however that complete lack of nuance and the absolute torrent of shit he has said makes him incredibly dangerous.

[deleted]

Re: The 2016 Election

#345

Post by ZenoArrow »

xorgar831 wrote: post #128
lhnz wrote: post #6

> We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. > But I’d like to find out, because we have to include > everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to > stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, > we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020. > > That kind of…

This is what demagogues do, they raley and gain power through uniting groups of people over fear. The extreme political tactics by the GOP lead to the scenario we have today, and Trump is building off of what the GOP laid the groundwork for over the past 40-50 years.

> "This is what demagogues do, they raley and gain power through uniting groups of people over fear."

Which candidate are you referring to? Both major candidates are aiming to pick up votes by spreading fear of the other candidate. I'd argue that's pretty much their strongest argument at this point.

Re: The 2016 Election

#346

Post by Bartweiss »

mashmac2 wrote: post #180
Aloha wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You made the comment I was going to make. Though I would have included the following too: > The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less. When it comes down to it.. its bec…

>its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper. The key there is that they _feel_ like they're not getting ahead - a very different thing than not actually getting ahead, and much more dangerous.

A lot of them actually aren't, though, by any reasonable metric.

Health? Number of close friends? Lifespan? Addiction rate? Income? Unemployment rate? Labor participation rate?

By any of those metrics, life in a lot of rural-red communities is getting worse, and has been for years. I'm aware of the "better but it feels worse" pattern - crime rates are the prime example - but it's far too glib to say that covers everything. Inconvenient as it is, sometimes you have to actually improve things to make people feel better.

I suspect that most people will not accept any definition of 'ahead' which leaves them sicker, poorer, lonelier, and dying younger. And I don't think there's any reason that they should accept it.

Re: The 2016 Election

#347

Post by gjolund »

darawk wrote: post #260
gjolund wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 la…

I agree with most of that. And I agree that her campaign is mostly about fear tactics. I suppose the difference between us then is just that I think, despite the lameness of fear-as-platform, I think that fear is pretty justified by the thought of Trump being president. When you honestly consider that prospect, does it not terrify you? I don't mean that question rhetorically.

We have checks and balances in place. Trump would be gridlocked for 4 years.

Hillary however has a paved road ahead of her, and what will be branded as a "mandate".

I am truly scared of what this country will be after 8 years of her rule.

Re: The 2016 Election

#348

Post by findjashua »

gkoberger wrote: post #29
lhnz wrote: post #6

> We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. > But I’d like to find out, because we have to include > everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to > stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, > we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020. > > That kind of…

Sam tweeted that this was his favorite article about the election: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on... It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters.

The Guardian also published a really good article explaining how blue-collar workers are hurting because of their jobs being off-shored, and how Trump's promise to end free-trade agreements and bring those jobs back to the US is the biggest reason behind his appeal:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald...

Re: The 2016 Election

#349

Post by falsestprophet »

gizmo wrote: post #24

Except Thiel is saying many of the repugnant things that made Trump popular. - Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump. - Thiel believes that the 19th amendment destroyed democracy, because women vote in favor for anti-libertarian welfare measures. When faced with the choice between saving democracy and capitalism, Thiel chooses capitalism. Trump shares this antidemocratic se…

"Except Thiel is saying many of the repugnant things that made Trump popular.

- Thiel wants to restrict immigration to highly educated people. Just like Trump."

Why is this repugnant?

One would expect a country to institute immigration policy that benefited that country. If it is the case that some immigration restrictions are beneficial, isn't that a fair and reasonable policy?

Is the only acceptable immigration system random selection? Or are no restrictions acceptable?

Re: The 2016 Election

#350

Post by [deleted] »

mashmac2 wrote: post #180
Aloha wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You made the comment I was going to make. Though I would have included the following too: > The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less. When it comes down to it.. its bec…

>its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper. The key there is that they _feel_ like they're not getting ahead - a very different thing than not actually getting ahead, and much more dangerous.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN