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

681–690 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#681

Post by orf »

gallonofmilk wrote: post #656
orf wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's just not true is it

Actually, it is. Prove that Hillary's 30 years of being a political stooge qualifies her to lead the largest democracy in the world? When has she ever created an actual job? How did she make her hundreds of millions of dollars? Did she produce anything? Did she build a product and sell it? Did she build a company? Did she follow through on her promise to create 200,000 jobs in New York as a Senator? How have her fore…

> When has she ever created an actual job?

The Clinton foundation employees 2,000 people for starters. I'm sure there is much more, shes been in politics 30 years. You don't go that long without doing something.

> The left is so hyper-focused on trying to assassinate Trumps character that they can't even talk about her dismal record as a career politician and complete lack of real leadership skills.

Despite the fact she hasn't got the best record it's still shiny compared to Trumps. Nobody is saying shes the best ever, but shes the best compared to Trump in every respect. And by the way it's not "the left", it's everyone but your bubble. It's the world, it's the left and it's most of the right. Who wants a fascist[1] in power?

> Pathetic.

Out of 320 million people it's pathetic that the best you can produce is two old, unhealthy liars. One a serial conman seemingly from another planet and the other a serial politician from somewhere just as bad.

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/a_f...

Re: undefined

#682

Post by scholia »

chrissnell wrote: post #493
idlewords wrote: post #429

Peter Thiel is a YCombinator partner, yet YC has steadfastly refused to disavow him. In a Twitter exchange with David Heinemeier Hansson, Paul Graham suggested that to do so would somehow be the equivalent of firing an employee for having a distateful political opinion. YC's silence on a partner's outspoken support of Trump is disgraceful, and sends the most shameful message about our industry.

Unbelievable. I'm disgusted that you would suggest the blackballing of an investor simply because you don't agree with his political opinion--an opinion, I might add, that is shared amongst a large percentage of our country. Trump say a lot of nutty things but he's not far off the mark when he speaks of a liberal conspiracy to ruin him in this election. Your suggestion is a textbook example of this: using out-of-band…

Trump is a racist and a misogynist, a serial adulterer and a sexual predator, a pathological liar and a con-man. He is totally unfit to stand let alone serve. His supporters are mostly either alt-right racists or Republicans who don't have the guts to do the right thing and put their country before their party.

Dozens of senior Republicans have done this and are backing Hillary Clinton. Staunch Republican newspapers such as the Arizona Republic and the Cincinnati Enquirer have also endorsed Clinton.

The suggestion that there's a liberal conspiracy is a totally crackpot theory, like most of Trump's. In fact, Trump has got far further than anybody expected because the reverse has happened: Clinton has been attacked by the liberal media, which hates her, while Trump was -- until recently -- given a free ride.

When you have a candidate who lies all the time, boasts about not paying taxes (and won't release his returns), insults Gold Star families and vets like McCain, makes racist attacks on Mexicans and US-born Hispanic judges, admires dictators and spouts Russian propaganda, runs a crooked Foundation, is involved with fraudulent scams like Trump University, is a serial adulterer who boasts about being a sexual predator, and is accused of raping a 13 year old girl, you really don't need a conspiracy theory. No other candidate could have such an appalling record and still be in the race.

Trump is a blot on the character of anyone who still supports him, and globally, he's a blot on America's character. In the UK and Ireland, we put Trump's picture in urinals and piss on him -- a first for a US presidential candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/opinion/sunday/if-hillary-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/30/he...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-endorsements-n...

http://mashable.com/2016/09/21/trumpinals-are-a-thing-now/

Re: undefined

#683

Post by welanes »

idlewords wrote: post #660
chrissnell wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unbelievable. I'm disgusted that you would suggest the blackballing of an investor simply because you don't agree with his political opinion--an opinion, I might add, that is shared amongst a large percentage of our country. Trump say a lot of nutty things but he's not far off the mark when he speaks of a liberal conspiracy to ruin him in this election. Your suggestion is a textbook example of this: using out-of-band…

I'm suggesting Thiel face consequences for supporting a sexually predatory bigot. I'm literally just a guy with a Twitter account, so the idea that I'm strong-arming billionaires with my ruthless tweets is a little hard to credit.

You're demanding a struggle session because someone openly supports one of the two candidates. The one that you don't like. What consequences do you have in mind for the millions of others that will vote Trump in November?

Don't you find it dangerous to try to witch-hunt individuals for their political choices?

Re: undefined

#684

Post by WalterBright »

dagss wrote: post #329
WalterBright wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarianism isn't about doing whatever you want. It's about protecting your rights and the rights of others. This means you can do what you want, as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. That last clause is often overlooked or misunderstood, but it is critical.

But but...that is what communism is about too, just with a different set of rights. Making "rights" some abstract thing means you end up saying nothing at all.

> you end up saying nothing at all.

Any discussion can devolve to reductio-ad-absurdum if one is determined to do so.

Re: undefined

#685

Post by marcusgarvey »

SixSigma wrote: post #629
jphillipsio wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean what's left that supports your views?

No. When CNN tells you reading things is illegal and you should only listen to their opinion, a line has been crossed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

I hope this spreads wide and far. This is unbelievable.

Re: undefined

#686

Post by marcusgarvey »

SixSigma wrote: post #629
jphillipsio wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean what's left that supports your views?

No. When CNN tells you reading things is illegal and you should only listen to their opinion, a line has been crossed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

I hope this spreads wide and far. This is unbelievable.

Re: undefined

#687

Post by tptacek »

welanes wrote: post #683
idlewords wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm suggesting Thiel face consequences for supporting a sexually predatory bigot. I'm literally just a guy with a Twitter account, so the idea that I'm strong-arming billionaires with my ruthless tweets is a little hard to credit.

You're demanding a struggle session because someone openly supports one of the two candidates. The one that you don't like. What consequences do you have in mind for the millions of others that will vote Trump in November? Don't you find it dangerous to try to witch-hunt individuals for their political choices?

That's not what he's doing. Paul Graham and Sam Altman have both openly repudiated Trump, not as someone whose ideas they disagree with but as someone whose efforts threaten the fabric of our society. Both Graham and Altman has publicly (and correctly) called Trump an aspiring dictator.

It is not then a "struggle session" when we point out to both of them that their actions and beliefs are incoherent: that they can comfortably disavow Trump while continuing to collaborate with one of Trump's chief enablers.

They are both, in a very small but (I think) meaningful way, working for the benefit of Donald Trump and the forces that make Trump possible.

If you support Trump, you are arguably in a safer moral position than Graham and Altman. Both of them believe you to be supporting a modern-day Mussolini. They have no regard at all for your politics. But they're both willing to continue profiting from and generating profit for Thiel through their entirely voluntary association with him.

(If you support Trump, I would implore you to reconsider).

Re: undefined

#688

Post by justin66 »

hilop wrote: post #635
justin66 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is he kidding? I can't tell if I'm reading satire there, but I don't follow his blog. Edit: I'm flipping through his blog and the extent to which politics, for him, is about the meta stuff is honestly kind of surreal

He has said himself -- he says whatever pops into his head, and he's "clearly joking" about anything that is offensive or ridiculous.

Saying whatever pops into his head is hardly unique among bloggers.

The thing that appears to set him apart is a complete indifference to the issues, in favor of a focus on his pet topic, the art of persuasion. He dismisses the correct answers to policy questions that come up as unknowable (wow). Except, amusingly, the question of what his own estate taxes ought to be. He somehow managed to cobble together an opinion on that.

> he's "clearly joking" about anything that is offensive or ridiculous.

We should all go through life with such a disclaimer in place.

Re: undefined

#689

Post by grzm »

tptacek wrote: post #687
welanes wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're demanding a struggle session because someone openly supports one of the two candidates. The one that you don't like. What consequences do you have in mind for the millions of others that will vote Trump in November? Don't you find it dangerous to try to witch-hunt individuals for their political choices?

That's not what he's doing. Paul Graham and Sam Altman have both openly repudiated Trump, not as someone whose ideas they disagree with but as someone whose efforts threaten the fabric of our society. Both Graham and Altman has publicly (and correctly) called Trump an aspiring dictator. It is not then a "struggle session" when we point out to both of them that their actions and beliefs are incoherent: that they can c…

I understand where you're coming from. That said, how do you recommend we heal what's dividing people? Do we stop associating with people that don't share our beliefs? What level of association is acceptable? I know I don't have the answer, but I don't think increasing the separation between people is a good general solution. I think calling out in a constructive way behavior we think is problematic is useful. And maybe there's a distinction to be made between someone in Thiel's position and someone who isn't so prominent.

If I'm putting words in your mouth, I apologize. And please don't interpret my comment as supporting one side or the other. And there's a significant number of people on either side. There's a lot of vitriol on both sides that I hope we as a society can overcome.

Re: undefined

#690

Post by timehastoldme »

idlewords wrote: post #429

Peter Thiel is a YCombinator partner, yet YC has steadfastly refused to disavow him. In a Twitter exchange with David Heinemeier Hansson, Paul Graham suggested that to do so would somehow be the equivalent of firing an employee for having a distateful political opinion. YC's silence on a partner's outspoken support of Trump is disgraceful, and sends the most shameful message about our industry.

Right there with you.

I'd like to know your perspective of the explicit amorality of the SV "quirky-elite", especially the YC-Facebook nexus. To me, Altman, Zuckerberg, and Thiel all very obviously have ulterior scifi motives (live forever, solve the question they think underlies existence, etc) predicated upon a sort of über anthropic principle, i.e., "I'm one in a million so there is a special underlying meaning to my life."

I'm only guessing this from afar. Do you think I'm on base with this, or is their issue just hubris?

Post reply on HN