Trump is the most 'free' President in modern history. He has to buy the support of Congress. He'll give appointments to people who can stand to keep agreeing with him. At least Thiel is loyal to a persistent Republican theme, which is attacking higher education.
Does he go to congress though? His #1 item on his list was term limits. What if he goes directly to the people?
At some point he has to. He can't just impose term limits, and as I mentioned in another thread, term limits don't restore power to the voters unless gerrymandering and voter suppression are eliminated.
I don't see how he takes power away from the tea party, and the tea party is very much a bought party.
Is there a kind of "political correctness" that refuses the acknowledgment of facts and likelihoods that sound similar to irrational dismissal? Does that kind prevent people from hearing the following things which I think most people would agree to be true? -Donald Trump says he wants to completely deregulate the banking industry, which will most likely, in the long term, lead to a crisis on par with or greater than…
"Donald Trump and Paul Ryan plan to strip approximately 20 million people of health insurance, " No - they said they are going to repeal and replace Obamacare with something else. That does not mean they are going to strip people of their health insurance. "Donald Trump is part of a movement to dismantle pluralism in the United States, including the marginalization of immigrants and their descendants" This is a lie.…
So if Trump's problem is only with illegal immigrants, I'm sure he and his supporters would be more than happy to relax immigration policy and regularize the illegal immigrants that are already in the U.S., thus solving the issue?
1) Seems a bit strong to tell someone what they can and can't say. 2) He didn't get half the country to vote for him. It looks like around 55-60% of voters turned out this year (the whole tally isn't calculated yet). Of those, he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him). So at best he seems to have gotten around 30% of the voters to vote for him. Not everyone is a voter (age, other disqualifying factors…
I agree with gnarbarian. Being an extremist is defined as being far outside the norm. Even with a low voter count, it seems irrational to suggest that the majority of the people who voted in this election are people with views far outside the norm in America and the majority with ordinary views just didn't go to the polls. If someone can convince the large majority of voters in a country to pick them, I think it's a…
So you think, by definition, no democracy could ever elect an extremist?
> I generally regard him as intelligent and thoughtful Based on a YouTube video mentioned in another comment thread ( https://youtu.be/CoxxGhLFbw4?t=2m30s ), I wouldn't regard him as intelligent by any means.
After seeing him speak, I agree. He seems dumb, assholish, and lucky.
What luck that his publicly well-reasoned move supporting trump played out as he detailed, the dumb asshole.
It is "off-topic" how exactly? This is a misuse of flags, and instead you auto-zapped it.
It was obviously off topic; the topic is the news described in the title. Veering into most-controversial-generic-tangent-associated-with-controversial-thing is the worst direction politicized threads can take on HN, and they're borderline to begin with. Whimsical or unpredictable tangents are ok, but generic ideological tangents are always off-topic. They're black holes: they suck everything in, including all the ox…
You guys are going to need to find a way to back off on the US politics. I have no idea how... it's all I can think about myself right now, but it's a poisonous topic.
Perhaps California's exit from the union will hep YC re-establish its moral integrty. Sam Altman, you wanted to radically change the word (in a positive way)? Well now is your chance!
It might be the morally correct choice (I reserve judgment on that) for California to secede from the US, but it's certainly not a good idea pragmatically. Trump doesn't really have any consistent ideology about most things, but the one thing he never wavers on is his commitment to protectionist trade policy. If California seceded from the US to spite Trump, Trump will do everything in his power to block commerce bet…
California has access to all the West Coast trade-ports between the US and China. With these ports in place, we don't need to rust-belt states to ship-in goods. An our economy is centered information technology and entertainment, so we don't really need to worry about reduction of economically viable exported goods (all farmed and manufactured products will be consumed internally, thus bolstering that aspect of the California economy).
Japan is only culturally homogeneous, in the sense that everyone born and raised is japanese.
Japan is also a fiercely racist society, far more so than America.
Can I encourage you to get in the habit of phrasing this in terms of "many (but by no means all) Japanese people", "many Japanese institutions", "many Japanese people in positions of authority", or similar? I think we probably see eye to eye on the scope of the problem, but it is unfortunate to turn it into Japan's problem, because it is very, very important that folks are not presented with the choice "You can either be authentically Japanese or reject racism _but not both_." There are a number of people who believe and instruct that that is a choice; people of good will should give them no aid or comfort.
> I'm sure he'll see a very significant ROI on his $1M once the government starts awarding contracts very conveniently to companies of which he owns a portion. Wasn't Trump rallying against such crony corruption aka 'pay for play'?
"pay per play" is the game he has always played, that's why people like him can be fined for the many of his scandals[0] but still end up profitable in the long shot. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-t...
I mean, it's basically his platform, too. All the stuff about only doing anything abroad it other countries are paying the US...
If we believe all the recently headlines about who he's bringing in it appears pure "pay to play". Lots of individuals who Trump "owes" through either money or support they provided to him; pure cronyism. I'm not sure Trump realizes what worked best in business, or what he felt worked best for him in what business he has done, is not necessarily best for operating policy. I'm not sure he cares. I suspect he might tho…
"Lots of individuals who Trump "owes" through either money or support they provided to him; pure cronyism." Trump is the most 'free' President in modern history. He 'owes' the least, to the fewest people. This is one thing even the center-left press were talking about. As for Thiel - $1M might seem like a lot - but Trump doesn't really 'owe' Thiel anything, because Thiel doesn't have direct future influence etc., and…
This is some kind of creepy Randian thinking. The idea that playing developer-type leverage games make you "free" is a laughable fiction. Trump always called himself the King of Debt, and he owes many people, bigly. The banks were betting on Hillary because familiarity breeds contempt--they had already lost billions lending to him since the 80s. Just like the Trump Foundation, he hasn't put anything except his gold-painted name into s business for many years. Who does he owe: Putin, Russian oligarchs, Thiel, Mnuchin, 2nd and 3rd rate hucksters that bankroll his schemes (and pay him through his Foundation), and...who knows? He won't release his taxes. We just elected President the world's poorest billionaire, so you can bet everything will be for sale.
"Lots of individuals who Trump "owes" through either money or support they provided to him; pure cronyism." Trump is the most 'free' President in modern history. He 'owes' the least, to the fewest people. This is one thing even the center-left press were talking about. As for Thiel - $1M might seem like a lot - but Trump doesn't really 'owe' Thiel anything, because Thiel doesn't have direct future influence etc., and…
Why exactly am I meant to be comforted by the fact that the craven opportunists --- the lowest of the low of the Republican party, discredited outsiders like Newt Gingrich and John Bolton --- are getting the most important positions in the United States government for kowtowing to Trump? There are important thinkers in the Republican Party. People with ideas and a moral core, people who have given years of service to…
If it's any consolation, Gingrich supports space exploration, and is personally interested in the Mars Direct plan.