Live data from Hacker News

Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

stingingfly.org

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#71
post #16

Does anyone really believe he could be elected president someday? (mentioned in the article)

He could be the first Prime Minister of ROCOW, the Republic of California, Oregon and Washington, colloquially known as Yugofaangia.

I think you mean cascadia :)

but somehow I think that the more liberal leaning parts of it would say no ...

(note, some border lines of cascadia reach through big swaths of California, others do not).

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#72
post #49
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing about Trump that is antithetical to the role of POTUS, at least in the coastal elite / media sense, is that he ran as a Republican.

You see, this is why discussing politics here gets a bad rap. You are operating in a partisan manner and effectively trolling now. If you were actually interested in dialog, I would go to the effort of gathering evidence of members of the GOP trashing him before he attained power, as well as multiple prominent republicans who today are aghast at what he's done and is continuing to do. I'm against political parties (W…

> I'm guessing that might be a challenge for you so I won't bother trying. Let me know otherwise.

I was with you up until this ass-hattery.

Experience has taught me that any moderate / conservative opinion is going to get downvoted through the floor no matter how well you back it up. It's easier to just burn karma with short comments.

> I would go to the effort of gathering evidence of members of the GOP trashing him before he attained power

Yes. It's well known. Established politicians despise Trump. No contest there.

> I associate with the party that you clearly don't belong to

I identify as a "not-Democrat". It's true that I tend to vote Republican lately, but there is plenty that they do that I don't agree with. It's just that Democrats seem to do a more effective job of making me not want to vote for them. I may just go back to not voting in future elections.

Trump's main sin, besides being a member of the wrong party, is that he is the most transparent President in history. He has no qualms airing his dirty laundry and it drives people nuts.

But back to my original comment, the majority of the media is objectively left-leaning, which means they will see anything and everything Trump does in a negative light.

You can still glean useful information from their reporting, but I don't think anyone can pretend networks and individual reporters don't come pre-equipped with a heavy dose of bias.

Fox leans heavily right, no one disputes that. Somehow pointing out other outlets lean left has become controversial.

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#74
post #64
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just those who will make it their business to believe it’s possible (politcal consultants). Exhibit A: Bloomberg campaign If they were eligible, Schwarzeneggar (years ago) or Musk (now), would have a better shot —- still small —- because it would be a circus. And we have evidence that a circus can get you elected.

Schwarzenegger would be a walk-in, regardless of which party he gets behind him. There is a parallel reality where Democrats pushed hard to change the eligibility rules during Obama’s second term, selected Ahnold, and continued the Obama legacy of slow-going, moderate social progress. Sadly we are in a darker timeline.

[deleted]

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#75
post #72
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see, this is why discussing politics here gets a bad rap. You are operating in a partisan manner and effectively trolling now. If you were actually interested in dialog, I would go to the effort of gathering evidence of members of the GOP trashing him before he attained power, as well as multiple prominent republicans who today are aghast at what he's done and is continuing to do. I'm against political parties (W…

> I'm guessing that might be a challenge for you so I won't bother trying. Let me know otherwise. I was with you up until this ass-hattery. Experience has taught me that any moderate / conservative opinion is going to get downvoted through the floor no matter how well you back it up. It's easier to just burn karma with short comments. > I would go to the effort of gathering evidence of members of the GOP trashing him…

> I was with you up until this ass-hattery.

Your dialog to that point came across as that of a Trump loyalist. I've learned that there's no point in engaging there, but it looks like you want to talk further, so here we go.

> Trump's main sin, besides being a member of the wrong party, is that he is the most transparent President in history. He has no qualms airing his dirty laundry and it drives people nuts.

Wow. I'll give this a try...

* Trump had 3 marriages and cheated in all of them (contrary to the "family values) the GOP espouses.

* Trump was involved with organized crime, including money laundering (and likely is to this date).

* Trump is a pathological liar

* Trump is a racist (actually ok in the GOP playbook)

* Trump is a failed businessman

* Trump is a sexist and sexual predator (he makes Bill Clinton look like a boy scout (which he most certainly is not))

* Trump is a fake Christian

* Trump is ill-informed, near illiterate, and unintelligent (but is effectively an idiot savant at playing the media like a fiddle).

* Trump didn't actually want to become president, it was a grift to start his own TrumpTV. He's still pursing that and will be shaping OAN into his personal platform.

I could go on and on, but you'll either deny or disregard these points.

To show you that I can acknowledge the failures from "my side", I'll posit that Hillary Clinton was certainly far from perfect:

* She wanted the office as a mark of achievement more than to serve the country

* She is a corporatist

* She is a war hawk

* She is the typical "finger in the wind" politician regarding her convictions.

She also had a literal industry devoted to demonizing her, but that's a different story.

I take in information based on its merit, not to bolster my ideology. I'm still waiting to hear one good thing about Trump. Your point about "transparency" is puzzling. He doesn't air his dirty laundry, he says wild shit that keeps the news cycle in turmoil.

Tell me about all of his dirty laundry that he has willingly aired, please.

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#76
post #64
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just those who will make it their business to believe it’s possible (politcal consultants). Exhibit A: Bloomberg campaign If they were eligible, Schwarzeneggar (years ago) or Musk (now), would have a better shot —- still small —- because it would be a circus. And we have evidence that a circus can get you elected.

Schwarzenegger would be a walk-in, regardless of which party he gets behind him. There is a parallel reality where Democrats pushed hard to change the eligibility rules during Obama’s second term, selected Ahnold, and continued the Obama legacy of slow-going, moderate social progress. Sadly we are in a darker timeline.

Arnold took a political beating from both sides when he failed to accumulate the capital to push any of his ideas through, and the experience appears to have left the governor with no enthusiasm to continue.

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#77

Does anyone really believe he could be elected president someday? (mentioned in the article)

It's a longstanding American tradition that many of our politicians are successful businessmen who made a fortune and then used their wealth to finance their political campaign(s). This is more or less how our current president got into power.

I think Trump is the only American president who never held a political office before becoming president. He was wealthy and famous for decades as a very successful businessman and he apparently spent many years contemplating running for president.

I once wrote a blog post titled something like "The 70 Year Old Political Virgin." I suspect a lot of the drama we see with this presidency is rooted in the fact that he has no prior political experience.

He has prior experience with people talking about him because he was rich and wealth is a kind of power, but it's not the same as having real political power where you can command armies and what not. I think this is why he engages in so much inflammatory rhetoric, which isn't appropriate for the President of the US, and I think it's why he seems so thin-skinned about people saying things about him.

When he was merely famous for his wealth, people talked about him as gossip, basically. Now, people talk about him because what he says and does impacts their lives in significant ways and he doesn't seem to know how to deal with the fact that this is just part and parcel of holding a powerful office. It's not actually personal.

For much of the history of the US, the path to the presidency was rooted in "well, first you need to be a General in the military." From what I gather, that's not been true in recent decades.

My father and ex husband were both career military. The military has a culture steeped in ethics surrounding making hard decisions about who lives, who dies, who dies so that others will live, etc. I think it is good experience for taking the reins of power, in part because being the President of the US also makes you the Commander in Chief.

Heinlein wrote fiction about a future America where you had to have military service to run for political office. I am not comfortable with suggesting this should be a standard, but I do wonder if we should add a new proviso to the bid for presidency that you either need prior military experience or you need to have held some other political office first.

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#78
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I keep seeing the "well, Trump won!" argument anytime somebody suggests that a certain person wouldn't win an election. But that ignores Trump's unique characteristics that allowed him to gain a significant and loyal following. I feel like Zuckerberg trying to run would be a Mike Bloomberg situation. Remember when that happened?

Trump's unique characteristics were antithetical to the role of POTUS. Now cult leader, on the other hand...

Please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar. It leads nowhere good, as manifested below.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23407848 also, because that was an even worse step.

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#79
post #28
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's unique characteristics were antithetical to the role of POTUS. Now cult leader, on the other hand...

The only thing about Trump that is antithetical to the role of POTUS, at least in the coastal elite / media sense, is that he ran as a Republican.

Please don't take HN threads further into partisan flamewar. It leads nowhere good, as manifested below.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Bland God: Notes on Mark Zuckerberg (2018)

#80
post #49
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing about Trump that is antithetical to the role of POTUS, at least in the coastal elite / media sense, is that he ran as a Republican.

You see, this is why discussing politics here gets a bad rap. You are operating in a partisan manner and effectively trolling now. If you were actually interested in dialog, I would go to the effort of gathering evidence of members of the GOP trashing him before he attained power, as well as multiple prominent republicans who today are aghast at what he's done and is continuing to do. I'm against political parties (W…

Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. Maybe you don't owe your political opponents better, or don't feel you do; but you definitely owe this community better if you're posting to it. This kind of thing leads to its destruction, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN