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

561–570 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#561

Post by josinalvo »

morgante wrote: post #69
nodesocket wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know about Brendan Eich. That makes me angry. He made a personal decision to donate a small amount to Prop 8, and extreme political activists completely annihilated him and forced him out of his job. "Critics of Eich within Mozilla tweeted to gay activists that he had donated $1,000 to California Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California until 2013, when it was declared unconstitutional and…

> I didn't know about Brendan Eich. That makes me angry. It makes me angry too, but also raises (for me) some interesting political questions around what level of disagreement is "too far." I would never fire someone for being a Republican and personally/privately opposing gay marriage. But I would also immediately fire someone if they were a Nazi. So where is the line if what's an acceptable level of tolerance (and…

I'll just repost an old comment, advocating that the limit is: is it speech and ideas? Then do not fire.

"I fundamentally disagree with you about this very important issue, and we should still find a way to cooperate" is a crucial idea, hard won and, as we are seeing, easily lost. It underpins multi-religious societies, working democracies, and in general, any group of people that need to do something. Unfortunately, right now we have groups of people that say the polar oposite: "It is good and moral to shun people who disagree with X".

I totally agree with marriage equality. But I think it can be (and mostly was) won on dialogue, not shunning. And I will always be against the shunners (though I hope not to shun them :P).

btw, all I just said applies just as well to klanspeople/nazis: Are they harming the employees? No? Are they aligned with the mission? Them keep them. And tell them they are stupid over a beer. Talk the shit out, and fight their stupid ideas in the right places. Do not allow political disagreement, even of the most grievous kind, to cut oportunities for dialogue and cooperation.

Re: undefined

#562

Post by ThomPete »

ting_bu_dung wrote: post #434
ThomPete wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real tragedy is how easily peoples attention are all about form not substance. For all the crazy things Trump is saying he actually have some points that are far more important to discuss than whatever he said about women or journalists. With Hillary you get a seasoned politician who is going to do what they have always been doing. Absolutely nothing. That's besides of course making a huge mess internationally. A…

the real tragedies is you are not aware you're just a little bit misogynistic yourself. "With Hillary you have a woman how is point her fingers at Trump". what does her being a woman have anything to do with your argument? let's face it, you're willing to overlook the fact that trump is a psychopathic, women hating, racist, russia-affiliated, tax-dodging scum because hillary. all the points you've raised about hillar…

How many innocent people are trump responsible for being killed vs hillary? You are right its not black and white which is exactly what i showed. Trump havent troops in war or approved airstrikrs killing innocent people. I am all too aware of the grayness of politics you are not given you call trump black. No one is we are humans and by definition gray. Calling someone black is exactly sign of the opposite ability you claim to hold high.

Re: undefined

#563

Post by josho »

nodesocket wrote: post #2

Not convinced this is Hacker News worthy. Let's keep politics in political forums.

I've enjoyed reading the well thought out arguments on this page. So, where is a better political forum? I've tired of reddit as the noise/signal ratio has grown intolerable.

Re: undefined

#564

Post by datashovel »

chrischen wrote: post #348
_tpzm wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He is a libertarian I just find this impossible to reconcile with his support for Trump, the most authoritarian presidential candidate in a very long time and possibly ever. I think many of his supporters would actually agree with that description, they like that about him, and they absolutely do not describe themselves as libertarian. They describe themselves as "conservatives" who want a "strong" president to "ta…

As a libertarian he believes in survival of the fittest, so a lot of his strategy involves "fuck shit up" and see what survives. Or just letting things sort themselves out.

I wonder what a world full of people who proactively "fuck shit up" would look like.

Re: undefined

#565

Post by pavlov »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #422
Jimmy wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Thiel understands that should Clinton win, there will be war Why is this?

Maybe because of Clinton's track record. While Sec. of State, she persuaded Obama to intervene in Libya, and in recent speeches she has suggested that the U.S. should take a more aggressive stance against Russian expansionism. She's more of a hawk than is either Obama or her husband. I would put her in roughly the same category of interventionism as Bush.

At least Clinton has a track record. Trump is completely unpredictable. Last month he said that he would order US ships to attack Iranian vessels if they approach:

"And by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures that our people -- that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/

That would be an abrupt act of war between the two countries, and on a completely different level than the NATO intervention in Libya which was based on a UN Security Council resolution.

Re: undefined

#566

Post by zo1 »

_tpzm wrote: post #282
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…

> He is a libertarian I just find this impossible to reconcile with his support for Trump, the most authoritarian presidential candidate in a very long time and possibly ever. I think many of his supporters would actually agree with that description, they like that about him, and they absolutely do not describe themselves as libertarian. They describe themselves as "conservatives" who want a "strong" president to "ta…

>"I've lived in America my whole life, but I was born in Austria, and German is my first language. It pains me to see a fellow German-speaking immigrant support a right-wing populist who appeals pretty explicitly to white identity politics. We of all people should know better."

As opposed to black identity politics? Or female identity politics? Would you feel better if the context was a place like South Africa where the white minority is actively being persecuted/discriminated against? Would that make white identity politics okay in your book?

>"I just find this impossible to reconcile with his support for Trump, the most authoritarian presidential candidate in a very long time and possibly ever."

I'm not an American, but I'm a libertarian and I definitely support Donald Trump. He represents an active regression back to a mean, rather than further towards the socialist-left. That is why I think it'll be better for him to be president, rather than someone like Hillary or Obama, or even Gary Johnson.

Re: undefined

#567

Post by daveguy »

AvenueIngres wrote: post #200
daveguy wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware either had a proven record of money for favors. Except maybe Trump's donation in Florida.

You are joking? The Clinton Foundation has left an overwhelming trail of evidence that points to their wrong doings, whether it is in Haiti, at the WHO or through the pay-to-play scheme and deals they have with petro-monarchies like Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The latest Wikileaks dump shows that Bill Clinton received a million dollar "birthday gift" through the Clinton Foundation directly from Qatar. At the very moment…

It is amusing that you think Bill Clinton actually received any of that money. Bill Clinton started the foundation for aids relief in Africa. None of the Clintons draw any salary from the foundation:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/...

So any donation would have gone to aids drugs for kids in Africa. Haven't you ever told anyone "don't get me anything, just donate to charity"?

Like Matt said, there was no benefit to the Saudi's either. They have long been allies of the US and that means visiting the state department is a regular thing.

It looks good as a conspiracy on infowars, but the truth is not particularly scandalous.

It is sad that when a conspiracy theory doesn't stick beyond a fringe group that lack of traction is used to fuel the claim "See! The media is in on it too!". Rather than "oh, multiple Republican led investigations found nothing -- looks like that was wishful thinking"

Re: undefined

#568

Post by ThomPete »

robbiemitchell wrote: post #553
ThomPete wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real tragedy is how easily peoples attention are all about form not substance. For all the crazy things Trump is saying he actually have some points that are far more important to discuss than whatever he said about women or journalists. With Hillary you get a seasoned politician who is going to do what they have always been doing. Absolutely nothing. That's besides of course making a huge mess internationally. A…

1. Taxpayer money was spent suing the Clintons for years. They ended up broke as a result. 2. HRC pays taxes. Lots of them. 3. Politicians on both sides earn lucrative speaking fees after leaving office. (Giuliani had a great thing going for a while.) Are you criticizing the practice in general or just HRC?

I am critiquing the double standards.

Re: undefined

#569

Post by [deleted] »

radmuzom wrote: post #340
nodesocket wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know about Brendan Eich. That makes me angry. He made a personal decision to donate a small amount to Prop 8, and extreme political activists completely annihilated him and forced him out of his job. "Critics of Eich within Mozilla tweeted to gay activists that he had donated $1,000 to California Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California until 2013, when it was declared unconstitutional and…

So now you're angry when liberals exercise their right to free speech?

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#570

Post by sctb »

gallonofmilk wrote: post #230
daveguy wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware either had a proven record of money for favors. Except maybe Trump's donation in Florida.

are you living in a cave or just brain washed by CNN?

This is neither civil nor substantive, like we asked. Please don't comment like this here.
Post reply on HN