Silicon Valley's Ambivalence Towards Trump Turns to Anger • Hacker News Board

Re: Silicon Valley's Ambivalence Towards Trump Turns to Anger

#41

Post by JPLeRouzic » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 7:11 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #38

a_j_c wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so tired of seeing all the blog posts and comments that think our problems are due to Trump and Republicans instead of taking a look at our own "progressive" party. Sure, Trump and the GOP are fucked up, but so are the Dems and the tech community seemed perfectly fine fawning over our "tech president" when he was bailing out the billionaires, expanding state surveillance powers, and ordering the murder of thousan…

The biggest thing against Hillary, geopolitically, was her hawkishness and the posture against a nuclear Russia. Obama-Putin was very rocky. Hillary-Putin would have been an abysmal and possibly dangerous relationship. Avoiding a hot war in Eastern Europe is worth the people affected by the new immigration bans.

In the past there was also people willing to deal with Germany when it tried to invade parts of Czechoslovakia. We can see how it was successful.[0]

I am in favor of peace as it is the best state for humanity to strive. But to maintain peace, we must have a good strategy, not a call to people like Putin such as "Please do anything you like".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

Re: Silicon Valley's Ambivalence Towards Trump Turns to Anger

#42

Post by legostormtroopr » Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 9:44 PM UTC

derenrich wrote: post #33

legostormtroopr wrote: post #28

Silicon Valley tech billionaires who will be un-impacted personally by migration, complain when they no longer have a cheap source of labour. The Valley isn't going to be hosting migrants and they aren't going to be competing against unskilled migrant labour. Why is it walls are just fine around LAs mansion estates and in closed gated communities, but as soon as the general populace wants them they become bad?

I almost never post here but this "mansion walls" to "Mexico wall" false equivalence bothers me. They are totally different things. Mansions have walls/hedges for lots of reasons: privacy, sound isolation, blocking unsightly views and sure perhaps some security. None of that has anything to do with whether we should build the world's longest modern wall to help enforce immigration policy. Sure they are both walls but…

My biggest concern is a group of people who will be unimpacted are dictating terms to the rest of us. I feel there is a strong comparison between private gated communities and strong borders (not necessarily walls).

Re: Silicon Valley's Ambivalence Towards Trump Turns to Anger

#43

Post by derenrich » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 12:52 AM UTC

legostormtroopr wrote: post #42

derenrich wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I almost never post here but this "mansion walls" to "Mexico wall" false equivalence bothers me. They are totally different things. Mansions have walls/hedges for lots of reasons: privacy, sound isolation, blocking unsightly views and sure perhaps some security. None of that has anything to do with whether we should build the world's longest modern wall to help enforce immigration policy. Sure they are both walls but…

My biggest concern is a group of people who will be unimpacted are dictating terms to the rest of us. I feel there is a strong comparison between private gated communities and strong borders (not necessarily walls).

Gated communities mean they are unimpacted? What is it you think the impact of the wall is? Most of it the justification for the wall I'm hearing is based on economic ("they're taking our jobs") or fairness ("they are stressing our social safety net") arguments. Gated communities don't shield you from those things.

Basically gated communities shield you from some kinds of crime. If you think Mexican immigrants are causing lots of crime then you should also think people in Maine or Michigan shouldn't have much say because of the lower concentrations of immigrants there.

Re: Silicon Valley's Ambivalence Towards Trump Turns to Anger

#44

Post by mc32 » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:48 AM UTC

JPLeRouzic wrote: post #41

mc32 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest thing against Hillary, geopolitically, was her hawkishness and the posture against a nuclear Russia. Obama-Putin was very rocky. Hillary-Putin would have been an abysmal and possibly dangerous relationship. Avoiding a hot war in Eastern Europe is worth the people affected by the new immigration bans.

In the past there was also people willing to deal with Germany when it tried to invade parts of Czechoslovakia. We can see how it was successful.[0] I am in favor of peace as it is the best state for humanity to strive. But to maintain peace, we must have a good strategy, not a call to people like Putin such as "Please do anything you like". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

It's about striking a balance and it looks like some of Putin's actions were due to his thinking he was "provoked" by Nato expansion into his backyard and his being an authoritarian could not allow himself to look like a supplicant or submissive to Us action in the area so he goes about and dusts things up a bit.

I think Obama and his advisers sorely missed someone like a Condoleezza or a Cohen, etc. people who would give him some good insight into Putin's thinking and why he acts the way he does.

I mean, at the end of the Obama presidency US-Russia relations were hotting up beyond my comfort.