Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team • Hacker News Board

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#641

Post by jackmott » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 1:15 PM UTC

edblarney wrote: post #231

Rapzid wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

he is handing the epa to the oil industry.

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#642

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 1:17 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #639

joshvm wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can argue that a lot of people (Democrats included) didn't want to vote for Clinton either . By that argument you're justifying both candidates' character flaws by saying "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK".

I wasn't agreeing with the claims against Trump. I think they are wrong. I was commenting on the fact that you can find arguments for all those claims for Clinton. Which cancels out the argument - and requires each claim to be taken by itself without supporting evidence and reasoned arguments. The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber.

Except they're a classic smokescreen - every time one is refuted (and they all are, through expensive pointless investigation) another is invented to fill airtime.

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#643

Post by edblarney » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 1:18 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #517

hueving wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you scare quoting "illegally"? They are here in violation of the law. If you don't believe in controlled immigration, just state that up front rather than trying to hide behind an appeal to emotion via stories of tearing families apart. Your argument seems to be either that long time violators of a law should gain immunity to the law; or that we should grant citizenship to anyone who enters the country. Which…

> They are here in violation of the law. Serious question: which law?

"The illegal entry of non-nationals into the United States is a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits non-nationals from entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place which has not been designated by an immigration officer, and also prohibits non-nationals from eluding inspection by immigration officers"

Even though it's nice to know the specifics, really, it's absurd.

A nation will not exist unless in the 21st century unless it manages its borders reasonably.

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#644

Post by hamax » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 1:18 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #613

thenomad wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Can't speak for anyone else, though. We now HAVE Trump coming in as US president, so frankly I'd welcome a bit of hope that he might be good. I can't promise to agree with you, but I'm very willing to listen to arguments from those who hold opposing positions to mine.

> I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Please argue! And thank you for not slurring :) > Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I supported Obama. I always considered myself a liberal. I support gay marriage, I support gun control. I support universal health care. I support decent welfare and a safety net. As a programmer, the formative moment for my Trump suppo…

> One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say.

There was just one candidate in this election that wants to control what you can say. And it wasn't Hillary.

“We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

> This was non-sensical to me, and was bullying.

I agree that it was bullying and that it shouldn't happen. But again, one side wants to fight against online bullying and the other side thrives on it. Just check the Trump's twitter account if you want to see what bullying looks like.

On one side you're saying you're all for free speech, on the other hand you're against the people exercising the right. Especially people you don't agree with (like Black Lives Matter). This all just sounds like a front to silence people who are pushing society in direction you don't want it to go (social justice things like fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, ...).

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#645

Post by mch82 » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 1:19 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #634

mch82 wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not perceive the chanting of "crooked Hillary" and "lock that bitch up" to be examples of bullying and public shaming?

This is a public figure so there should be free reign. "lock that bitch up" - Her gender is irrelevant to her corruption so it does not make sense for it to be here. People are not chanting "lock that bitch up". They are chanting "lock her up". "crooked Hillary" - She has been under active investigation for almost the entire campaign, and the Clintons have been their entire careers. I don't see any problem with this.…

One example of "lock that bitch up" - http://mashable.com/2016/11/09/trump-victory-celebrations/#y...

Do you agree that (1) investigation is not the same as conviction, and (2) that repeating the phrase "crooked Hillary" ceaselessly is a marketing tactic designed to encourage a belief that Clinton is a criminal in order to undermine her legitimacy as a candidate?

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#646

Post by masondixon » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 1:20 PM UTC

prairiedogg wrote: post #617

masondixon wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how anyone could feel comfortable with him as commander in chief I understand what you are saying here. He struggles to speak eloquently, and does not have a statesman-like persona. He is no traditional president. But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is…

Hi masondixon! > But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise. So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis? Would it be fair then to say that becaus…

> So is your argument that "statesmen" have failed to avoid crisis, therefore someone who is not a "statesman" will be able to better avoid crisis?

Nope. Only the fact that a "statesman" doesn't imply good foreign policy.

Trump does imply more uncertainty though I would say.

We will see. Its worth trying out. Unless you think he will launch the nukes. Which is a big part of the liberal narrative.

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#647

Post by mrgordon » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 1:24 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #613

thenomad wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Can't speak for anyone else, though. We now HAVE Trump coming in as US president, so frankly I'd welcome a bit of hope that he might be good. I can't promise to agree with you, but I'm very willing to listen to arguments from those who hold opposing positions to mine.

> I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Please argue! And thank you for not slurring :) > Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I supported Obama. I always considered myself a liberal. I support gay marriage, I support gun control. I support universal health care. I support decent welfare and a safety net. As a programmer, the formative moment for my Trump suppo…

Keep in mind that Thiel sued Gawker to stop freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Trump doesn't care and will appoint Thiel to a major position in his administration anyway. Trump also repeatedly sued (or threatened to sue) newspapers who published factual stories about him as well as women who he sexually abused. This is a chilling precedent for free speech: if you are rich enough, then you can just sue to silence the opposition. I don't know how you can ignore the bullying by the right.

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#648

Post by mch82 » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 1:26 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #636

mercer wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but more than anything the biggest risk is the attacks on freedom of speech through the liberal's bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks. The latter strikes me as something that is an essential part of free speech. How would you address 'bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks' without also attacking free speech in the process? That's an honest question, by the way.

We would never try to ban any use of language. Its more like advice. We say: "Stop calling everything racist and sexist that is not racist or sexist because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your method is flawed." Then we win the election because you missed the point. This is why you will find such exuberant Trump supporters. There are many tears…

Muslims often say: "Stop calling all of us terrorists and stop saying Islam encourages terrorism because you are missing the real underlying issues. We want everyone to be happy just like you do, but we think your understanding of terrorism is flawed."

Can you recognize the parallel between your statement and the one I've paraphrased above?

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#649

Post by jbob2000 » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 1:27 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #613

thenomad wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Can't speak for anyone else, though. We now HAVE Trump coming in as US president, so frankly I'd welcome a bit of hope that he might be good. I can't promise to agree with you, but I'm very willing to listen to arguments from those who hold opposing positions to mine.

> I promise not to argue against you, and certainly not to slur you. Please argue! And thank you for not slurring :) > Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here? I supported Obama. I always considered myself a liberal. I support gay marriage, I support gun control. I support universal health care. I support decent welfare and a safety net. As a programmer, the formative moment for my Trump suppo…

You've hit the nail on the head. Liberalism has spent the last 10 years being the language and thought police. Where is the liberalism that brought us social security and desegregation? Why isn't liberalism talking about and fighting for basic income? None of that, just "use phrases and words as I want you to".

I am reminded of a common quip, which I am going to modify:

First they came for the word nigger, and I stopped using it because it was hurtful to black people. Then they came for the word faggot and I stopped using it because it was hurtful to gay people. Then they came for the word retarded and I stopped using it because it was hurtful to disabled people. Then they came after the words he and she, and I was called a bigot, racist, xenophobe for not bending my knee to "they".

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#650

Post by cyphax » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 1:30 PM UTC

masondixon wrote: post #632

cyphax wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Such as? Well, I'm thinking mostly same sex marriage, maybe the freedom of religion (which seems to be OK for most, unless you're a muslim). Trump promises a conservative SCOTUS nomination, so everything that comes out of that as a side effect has a risk of people's rights being take away, mostly the progress made under the Obama administration > I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals lis…

> Same sex marriage Trump: The Supreme Court has issued an opinion on this. Same-sex marriage is an issue that should have been decided by the states. There are many LGBT supporters of Trump. Milo Yiannopolous is a hero amongst all Trump supporters, and he is gay. The world has moved on - Democrats just want something to be angry about. > Freedom of religion It is about terrorism and not about religion. > He would "s…

I don't understand why you've started throwing in words like "vitriol". See, I'm not an American, nor do I live there. I don't really watch American news, and what I say about Trump is based on his own words.

If this were about terrorism and not religion, he wouldn't want to close the border for muslims but for terrorists, I would presume?

Replacing Scalia with a less conservative judge would be a win for democrats but it's fair game to have a different opinion. For me, however, it is most certainly a reason not to like a Trump presidency (though it has absolutely zero influence on me personally, obviously).

Trump did support the Iraq-war, unless he was lying when he replied "Yeah I guess so" when he was asked the question. Furthermore, he proposed a war crime to solve terrorisme when he proposed to kill terrorist family members (again; in a phone interview) and engages in such anti-war speech as "We'll bomb the hell out of ISIS", which, I would say, is pretty much waging war (not that I think we should just let ISIS slide...). So I don't agree with the sentiment that he's anti-war. Hopefully he's only not pro-war, like Bush was.

I said "possibly rich businessman" -- which I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why you'd call those words "dripping in vitriol" -- because I personally find it very suspicious that on the one hand he boasts about how succesful and how rich he is, and on the other hand he keeps the evidence firmly hidden. You're free to not find that shady, obviously.

I'm sorry if you lost friends over your political preference; I would certainly not have been one of them, that I promise you. But I do think you're misreading me: I'm doing my very best to stay rational (indirectly at your own request) and polite, so it's really unnecessary to feel attacked or anything. You're very much _free_ to support Trump, and I wouldn't have it any other way.