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

601–610 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#601

Post by ThomPete »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #572
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…

Well yes, but with Trump you get Eric Cartman come to life: all the problems of Clinton, plus vulgarity, plus neo-Nazism.

Some would claim you already have that.

Re: undefined

#602

Post by orf »

gallonofmilk wrote: post #232
stephenboyd wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that opposition to Trump is either based on disagreements with his public policy statements or 'just emotional'. Sometimes people are just not qualified for a position, even if they can occasionally say some of the right answers at the interview. If a tech company is considering hiring a CEO or CTO who has ruined several companies, refused to do business with black people until speci…

Trump is orders of magnitude more qualified than Hillary Clinton.

Well that's just not true is it

Re: undefined

#603

Post by mst »

mattmanser wrote: post #325
Shivetya wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sadly I find his opponent to be more dangerous as the press and Congress will likely never call her out regardless of what she chooses to do. already a proven welfare warfare queen we can expect simply more of the same. At least with Trump we know the press will nip his heels everyday and misstep and Congress will not be friendly. we haven't had an adversarial press in eight years and only one adversarial party in th…

As a foreigner, I really don't get this attitude. Hillary's a hawk, so let's support the obviously erratic, racist, bigoted, tax-dodging, incompetent, incoherent, sexually assaulting idiot who looks very much like a new Hitler and thinks if you win an election you get to lock up your opponents like a crazy third world state. Boggles my mind that 'Murica' 'Freedom' can bring out such a petty, childish and obviously se…

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on... is probably the best article I've seen as a 'splainer for those of us from this side of the pond.

https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/ is also excellent reading.

Re: undefined

#604

Post by AsyncAwait »

briandear wrote: post #411
himynameistimli wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually if he loses, he becomes the first investor in a ultra conservative right-wing media empire, Trump Media, which appears to already have quite a large following.

Ultra-conservative? Not by a long shot. I was a Ted Cruz backer and Trump to me is as bad as Clinton. Trump isn't conservative. He's a big government populist. Completely different despite him having an 'R' next to his name. He is about as close to Cruz as Sanders was to Clinton (in terms of policy philosophy.) By the way, I understand downvotes because I mentioned Cruz in a positive way, however let's keep in mind t…

> Ultra-conservative? Not by a long shot. I was a Ted Cruz backer and Trump to me is as bad as Clinton.

As bad as Trump is, at least he is not a theocrat.

Re: undefined

#605

Post by datashovel »

Nydhal wrote: post #582
datashovel wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Antifragile.

I believe we're thinking about this at different orders of magnitude.

My initial reaction was that it would very likely lead to a nuclear holocaust.

Re: undefined

#606

Post by atomi »

kazagistar wrote: post #471
atomi wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's mass deportations are a form of ethnic cleansing.

This is the sort of BS that ruins any chance of dialogue. Just calling someone or some action a label is not productive, just like anti-abortion activists calling it baby killing or whatever. The people who support those actions aren't going to think they are any less good, just, fair, moral etc just because you gave it an overly dramatic label. Why not discuss impact, moral principles, or whatever else actually make…

I don't care what you call it. I caution you to not let the pretense of law and order obfuscate the real consequences of some of these abhorrent policies.

Re: undefined

#607

Post by code_sardaukar »

kybernetikos wrote: post #197
easyd wrote: post #144

Everyone seems to think it's about maximizing his ROI or, less cynical, about economics. But here's a quote from Thiel's speech at the republican convention: "Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don't need to see Hillary Clinton's deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. She pushed for a war in Libya, and today it's a training ground for ISIS. On this most important issue, Donald…

George W Bush came to power claiming that it was time to stop being the worlds police and to rebuild the country instead.

This is a very real problem for Trump. Trump has already been forced to change his rhetoric on Israel, and even Pence doesn't support Trump's plan for Syria (letting Russia/Assad win).

On the other hand, Trump has a huge amount of support for him personally that hasn't been seen before, so maybe he can leverage this against the neocons in his own party.

Re: undefined

#608

Post by AsyncAwait »

threeseed wrote: post #158
himynameistimli wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually if he loses, he becomes the first investor in a ultra conservative right-wing media empire, Trump Media, which appears to already have quite a large following.

This is exactly what is happening. You have the personalities in Trump and Giuliani etc. You have the news content courtesy of Brietbart. You have lifestyle content courtesy of his real estate assets e.g. golf/travel shows etc. And he already owns a TV production company that made the Apprentice. And don't forget that Lachlan Murdoch is now firmly in charge of Fox News and has always talked about it being less alt-ri…

You also have Roger Ailes advising Trump, if he helps him to get anywhere near Fox News size of audience, they're both big winners.

Re: undefined

#609

Post by zo1 »

coding123 wrote: post #594
wsgeorge wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't looked into this myself, but your definition of "libertarian" fits exactly with my concept of an ideal government: one that's sole purpose is to protect the freedoms and dignities of all those within its jurisdiction, and within that framework, allowing everything else to be more or less self-determined, so long as the freedoms and dignity of all those within it are not harmed.

In my simple way of understanding this, then, is that libertarians are un-developed democrats. They think Democrats are "wrong" because of what they are, but when you extend this line of thought for many, many many years, you find yourself a democrat. Democrats can be easily criticized for overthinking bathroom rights, but doesn't that argument boil down to freedoms of the oppressed transgendered person? Freedom for…

All those things you mention violate the Non-Aggression Principle, and are thus incredibly non-libertarian.

Libertarianism make few exceptions to that principle in order to allow for such things as limited government policing, courts and defence.

Bathroom laws require forcing companies to pay for additional bathrooms, and by extension, pay for the policing required to prevent gender-mixing in the non-approved bathrooms.

Environmental regulations force companies to pay for expensive pollution-limiting equipment. Pollution is already handled by libertarianism as pollution means either damage to people's health, or damage to people's property. Both of which are violations of the non-aggression principle. No environmental "regulations" necessary as the repercussions far outweigh the benefits of pollution.

Gun-laws means imprisoning people for owning a piece of property. Same thing with drug-prohibition.

If you force people to do something with the threat of losing money/property/freedom then your policy is not even remotely libertarian. If you are genuinely curious, I suggest you not rely on this mini-thread to define libertarian-concepts to you. Rather research it.

Re: undefined

#610

Post by code_sardaukar »

tekni5 wrote: post #226
code_sardaukar wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clinton's plan for Syria is scary. Ironically it displays the kind of toughness that Trump claims to represent. Personally I think it is a bad move, and Russia has already been reasonable, e.g. backing the Iran deal. You don't even need to be a libertarian or an isolationist to believe that the neoconservative approach is wrong.

This is the only issue that really worries me, Clinton might actually attempt to get some leverage over Russia as she says. In such a bold move, Russia will feel so cornered that it may break out into a major war, with possible use of limited nuclear weapons. The western world doesn't understand the mentality of Russia, they have had two regime collapses this century already. Putin believes that everything needs to b…

I wish the press would call her out on using the term "leverage". If the US military confront Russia's proxies at the no-fly-zone and force them to turn back, then this would given them leverage against Russia. That's what the term implies. Changing that situation on the ground and then going to Russia and saying "now what". When Clinton uses the term "leverage" it's misleading voters, who don't realize that enforcing the no-fly-zone will require confronting Russian planes directly.
Post reply on HN