Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#391

Post by maxerickson »

blhack wrote: post #32
vinhboy wrote: post #17

Politics aside. What does it say about his judgement to continue investing in something that is statistically on track to fail. Not only that, but its also a toxic brand to attach yourself to. Or do we just put this in the "expensive new hobby" section and leave it at that. ---- Update: I want to hijack my own comment to ponder something. As someone with no money and no influence, I find it hard to think about how to…

Trump isn't nearly as far behind as you may think: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/ Yes, this poll is an outlier because their methodology is very different than most other polls. Yes, Nate Silver has a very different outlook on the election, but Nate Silver was also not very reliable during the primary season (although that is, by his admission, because primaries don't have very good poll…

4% in national polls (that's the number averaging across the polls) is a huge difference given the strong alignment of so much of the electorate. And it isn't even the interesting way to analyze the election, winning the national popular vote isn't what wins the race.

If you look at states that are contested, things look bad for Trump, even in the ones where demographics favor him he is not getting polling results that point to a win (an example would be Pennsylvania).

Re: undefined

#392

Post by golemotron »

DominikR wrote: post #338
quirkafleeg wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We of all people should know better. Not if Austria's 2016 presidential elections are anything to go by.

I'm in Austria, it was a disgrace. All of media was attacking the right wing guy with no dissenting voices, and you have to be afraid of personal and professional consequences if you endorse him or say anything against the Socialist candidate they are trying to push. It's literally like in the Soviet Union, at least that's what my parents told me as they came from a Communist country.

Just like the US this year. This is not an exaggeration. Many people would have professional and personal consequences for supporting Trump in public. People like Peter Thiel and Scott Adams have enough money to not care. Scott isn't even endorsing him and he says that his speaking engagements have dried up.

We may see a big difference between the polling and the election results this year. The Shy Tory Effect came to America.

Re: undefined

#393

Post by briandear »

whack wrote: post #382
tvural wrote: post #264

Thiel might have ulterior motives, but his support of Trump is not too surprising if you've listened to his other ideas. He feels that the political agenda has been overrun by distractions, like "who can use which bathroom", at the expense of real problems, like the stagnation of median wages over the last forty years. He prefers the days when the national conversation was about how to beat the Soviets, and sees the…

Some of Trump's strongest policy prescriptions include 1) Clamping down on immigration 2) Clamping down on free trade I don't see how any libertarian can be a fan of either.

It isn't immigration, it's illegal immigration. It's also against the abuse of H1 visas. Incidentally Tata was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation and logically she supports H1 abuses:

Here's a document from the 2008 Obama campaign about Clinton and her coziness with Indian H1 abusers: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/memo1.pdf

Note that is a document from the Obama campaign -- not some republican hit piece.

Libertarians do favor free trade, however free trade doesn't exist as long as governments (such as China,) manipulate currency or (such as France, specifically with Airbus,) provide heavy state subsidization for certain industries in order to compete with companies that aren't as subsidized.

Free trade requires an end to all subsidies and market-distorting practices that disadvantage competitors.

Trumps trade stances aren't in opposition to free trade in as much as they're in opposition to unfair trade -- China being a great example. US companies have to compete in manufacturing essentially with one hand tied behind their back -- stricter environmental rules, tougher labor rules and much higher taxation compared to China. So allowing unrestricted Chinese trade isn't 'free trade.'

Not defending Trump or necessarily bashing Clinton, just providing some context for his 'opposition' to free trade and immigration.

Trump's trade positions aren't much different than the EU -- when I import an American product into France, I pay huge duties and taxes -- importing something to the US from France -- rarely do I get hit with a huge tax bill from FedEx or UPS.

I even had to pay taxes on $100 worth of kids clothes I ordered from the US. I've never had that happen when I bought something from the EU and had it shipped to the US.

Re: undefined

#394

Post by douche »

forgetsusername wrote: post #339
marincounty wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is different. Just say you were going to vote for Trump. Someone stops you on the street, or call you up; would you admit it? I wouldn't. The guy is an absolute joke of a person on so many levels. He's stupid. He's just aweful. But there's a tiny bit of Trump in a lot of us buried deep in that ID. Personally, I do think we need to get much more vigilant on immigration, even though Obama has sent more illegials h…

> And I have never believed in Globilization Sorry to tell you, data is in, and it's helping to pull billions out of abject poverty around the globe.

Depends on whether you care about the billions of people around the world or the millions in your own corner of it. I'm not sure most people are really ready to take in that expansive view of who their tribe is yet.

Re: undefined

#395

Post by 2AF3 »

rconti wrote: post #211
2AF3 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be great, but I trust it more than these dishonest polls

I'm sorry, but offhandedly dismissing "these dishonest polls", when, frankly, 1. They're the best data we have 2. We have no reason to believe they're incorrect 3. There is REALLY no reason to believe they're dishonest Is 100% intellectually dishonest. This is exactly what happened 4 years ago, and apparently some people have not learned from their tremendous mistake. If you want to know why "turnout at a campaign ev…

I'm in fantasy land? If you think the polls aren't manipulated for political advantage you are in fantasy land. You're appeal to 'real scientific data' is childish, since the data can be easy manipulated.

Re: undefined

#396

Post by briandear »

Udik wrote: post #362
morgante wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have a source for this? There are two different proposals I'm thinking of. One for making a national registry of all Muslims in the United States (a religious minority) and another for police being able to demand immigration papers at any time. The problem is that there isn't any way to look at someone and say they are an "illegal immigrant" so you end up with a totalitarian regime where police are stopping…

stuff straight out of a comic book authoritarian regime: "stop and show me your papers." In France, afaik, it is mandatory to carry an id card and, missing that, the police can stop you for up to 4 hours to verify your identity (according to Wikipedia). If you're a foreigner you have to prove that you are legally resident. The last time I checked, France is not an authoritarian regime out of a comic book.

That is a fact. My wife was detained for hours at a traffic stop because she had left her Carte de Sejour at home (despite having a valid driver's license, proper insurance, etc.) The traffic stop wasn't because she did anything wrong either -- it was a random checkpoint that police do from time to time.

Not that it matters, but she's white and speaks perfect French.

In Korea, I routinely got stopped on the street to show my ID card. In Mexico, it happens to people all the time (random checkpoints, car searches, etc.) I once spent theee hours -- WITH proper documents while the state police practically disassembled my car for no reason other than having Texas plates and driving while white.

You need to prove lawful presence in France to open a bank account, but in Los Angeles, an illegal immigrant can open a bank account without any form of US identification or proof of lawful presence.

Calling Trump or the US authoritarian isn't accurate if you measure authoritarianism by the actions of allegedly 'liberal' countries.

Re: undefined

#397

Post by nbouscal »

golemotron wrote: post #392
DominikR wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in Austria, it was a disgrace. All of media was attacking the right wing guy with no dissenting voices, and you have to be afraid of personal and professional consequences if you endorse him or say anything against the Socialist candidate they are trying to push. It's literally like in the Soviet Union, at least that's what my parents told me as they came from a Communist country.

Just like the US this year. This is not an exaggeration. Many people would have professional and personal consequences for supporting Trump in public. People like Peter Thiel and Scott Adams have enough money to not care. Scott isn't even endorsing him and he says that his speaking engagements have dried up. We may see a big difference between the polling and the election results this year. The Shy Tory Effect came t…

Scott Adams has been obviously supporting him since last August, his claims of endorsing other candidates have been very clearly not genuine.

Re: undefined

#398

Post by CalChris »

kyrre wrote: post #180
baytrailcat wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my thinking too. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that he doesn't have anything closer to a consistent policy in his platform. To be fair, there is a lot of copy-paste from standard GOP platform, but his own speeches and interviews give out the impression that he doesn't have a handle on any of them. So to think that Thiel might have hitched his wagon based on ideology or policy is illogical. On the…

He has been consistent on almost all issues. He only modified the "muslim ban".

Uh no.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-dona...

Re: undefined

#399

Post by briandear »

mrcarrot wrote: post #357
DominikR wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does not explicitly appeal to or endorse white identity politics. Where's the proof for your outrageous statement? And what exactly is wrong with wanting to "take back your country"? He's talking about enforcing existing laws like having borders.

He may not explicitly endorse them, but his dog-whistling is certainly resonating with a particular crowd[1]. [1]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hat...

Could it not be argued that Clinton engages in non-white identity politics? Her 'deplorables' comment was almost entirely referring to white people.

Plenty of deplorables that are Democrat and non-white but her comment was playing the identity card just as deftly as Trump's people have.

Re: undefined

#400

Post by sp332 »

dcposch wrote: post #334
dreta wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can argue whether Trump is an authoritarian or not, but what we can't argue about is that Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms. Democrats can call it "common sense" whatever, but that's what it is.

> Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms I'm pretty sure going sleeveless will still be legal in a Clinton presidency. Spelling aside, it's still incorrect. Nobody is proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Basic gun control-- for example, requiring a criminal background check with no gun show loophole-- is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.

Washington D.C. tried to ban handguns in some public places. The supreme court said they couldn't do that. Clinton wants states and cities to be able to enact their own bans, and she will be replacing at least one seat on the supreme court. So a lot of people might be losing their guns under a Clinton presidency.
Post reply on HN