Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What I Heard from Trump Supporters

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 906 posts

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#861

Post by mjevans »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #738
mjevans wrote: post #88

I want to be constructive about this topic. The /next/ president of the United States should be/campaign on: * A new new deal; end 'handouts', make it the government's job to offer productive job placement. ** This includes retraining for such ** or if that really can't work out (disability/age/etc) *** then 'retire' someone (frame the handout with a different name). * Simplify taxes (single plugin equation for base…

After a cursory read-through, I can find nothing in that list that I would support - and nothing that would appeal to the majority of those on the right.

What would your ideal candidate focus on?

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#862

Post by SnowFace »

spinlock wrote: post #832
SnowFace wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The San Diego La Raza Lawyer's Association, the group the judge belonged to, gave scholarships to illegal immigrants. You're nit-picking to detract from my point, that the judge had a reasonable chance of bias, and Trump was right to point it out.

1. Trump said the judge was not qualified because of his race not affiliations. This is ex-post-facto reasoning and it's intellectually dishonest. 2. It's also fake news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/... I see comments like yours and want to give up on dialogue. Why should I play into your game?

1. Trump defended is statements in follow-ups. It's not post-facto reasoning. The media jumped immediately to racism though, just like the other day when they claimed Trump lied about a supposed Sweden terrorist attack, when he was talking about a TV segment. Real journalists would state the facts instead of narrativizing and follow-up to ask what he means.

2. I strongly encourage you question your own beliefs a little. That article has a lot of spin. "La Raza" is not just some innocent phrase. La Raza is dog whistle term for hispanic racism. Somewhere, in another universe, Deshaun Trump in on trial by a judge from the San Diego Klan Lawyer's Association, as people claim "it has no relation with the KKK!" (despite having a link to the parent organization on its own website). Go look up Reconquista [1]. The goal of the Reconquista is to “reconquer” these “lost” or “stolen” territories for “La Raza”—the race indigenous to Mexico. The SDLRLA has a very questionable history, and at the very least, it raises reasonable concern of bias in the case.

[1] http://humanevents.com/2006/07/27/the-emreconquistaem-moveme...

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#863

Post by arca_vorago »

digler999 wrote: post #346
cylinder wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing, even with long-time friends, if I am trying to counter their hysteria (they're reading and sharing "fake news," too, and I just want to point out the inaccuracy of their statements or test them with logic, I'm called an "alt-right fascist." Honestly, the level of discourse in this country is an absolute joke. It doesn't matter what side you are on.

> the level of discourse in this country is an absolute joke This is the main reason I'm thankful for HN and the mods. Reading and participating in the discussions has challenged me to work on my discourse technique. Particularly with reigning in my level of emotional investment in my positions, which for me is and has been difficult.

This indeed, and I'm still learning. I had an exchange with another veteran that was anti 2nd amendment and I got really heated about it (because I am a huge constitutionalist), and I got in trouble with dang who chastised me in a way I felt was unfair (the guy made fun of my ptsd and got no rebuke from him), but after stepping away and coming back I realized dang was right, I was being overly aggressive and emotional, and in doing so I ruined the level of discourse.

That incident really has stuck in my mind, in that even on topics of passion, a calm more detached approach can eek out information and points of view we wouldn't otherwise get.

That's a hard but important lesson for even the best of us to learn. Especially for myself being a combat vet type of alpha male who learned the contrarian and abrasive style of debate from Christopher Hitchens. (Though I think that method still has a time in place, I think there are less situations where it's appropriate)

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#864

Post by callumlocke »

creaghpatr wrote: post #334
AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #95

I can give him a data point from outside the US, from one of the other progressive, English speaking countries in the world, New Zealand: I don't know if it has fully sunk in yet to the US populace how completely they have humiliated themselves, on the world stage. We don't get exposed to Fox, or Breitbart, or even CNN. I get most of my international news from the BBC, for example. From our perspective, the election…

BBC is state-controlled media with a vested interest in shaping your perception, for better or for worse.

The BBC has its own biases, like any media organisation. But it's not state-controlled.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#865

Post by jstimpfle »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #807
boona wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wrote an interesting piece on this topic. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-pro...

Scott Adams doesn't believe in fossils and thinks that wishing can makes things true. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scott_Adams It's hardly surprising therefore that he has issues with Climate Science and supports Trump.

Thanks - very good to know. Puts things in relation for me (I'm not deeply invested in climate science)

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#866

Post by jstimpfle »

freehunter wrote: post #752
Cookingboy wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I would also like to point out that no one has ever had an abortion "for no reason at all" and shame on you for trying to squeeze that one in there." I grew up in China, people there have abortions ALL THE TIME, sometimes just for reasons like changing mind about having a kid last minute. I didn't think too much about that. But now thinking about it, it does seem messed up to me and no, I'm not squeezing that one in…

That's very clearly not "no reason at all" though. They didn't want a kid. That is a reason.

So if I kill my friend just because "I want", that's also "a reason"? If yes, what was the point of your original argument?

You really, really need to learn to just give in when someone proves you wrong.

That kind of argumentation leads nowhere. These are straw mans at best.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#867

Post by dang »

mozumder wrote: post #740

Libertarianism is probably the most accurate description of most white-male tech workers... lots of ideas that work in theory that fall apart once you actually meet real people.

On HN, please don't make grand ideological claims without evidence. It takes discussion in exactly the opposite direction of substantive. As seen below.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13698904 and marked it off-topic.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#868

Post by FussyZeus »

croon wrote: post #802
hkmurakami wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the Eich and Thiel situations were downright appalling in how they mirrored the exact kind of Witch hunt and ostracizing that liberalism historically and morally should be against. The fact that people didn't seem to grasp the hypocrisy and danger of their actions made it even more chilling.

I'm more inclined to suggest that liberals are getting tired of being the diplomatic party and reaching across the isle [1] [2], and are starting to play the same game. I'm not saying tit for tat is constructive, but going by this election cycle, dirty seems to be what's working. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-pol... [2] https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/06/n...

I'm inclined to agree. The Republican party the last few cycles has just become the party of NO, no to this policy, no to that law, undo, remove, etc. etc. They don't seem to have any ideas to show except to destroy everything the Democrats do, good and bad.

Trump was the last straw for me. I voted McCain and Romney but Trump was just too far into the deep end (that and Mitch McConnell has been one of the most obstructionist politicians in American history).

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#869

Post by Arizhel »

macintux wrote: post #771
Arizhel wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part about her helping her husband prey on women has at least some truth to it. There's no shortage of women over the decades who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault; I think it's rather silly to claim that Billy is completely innocent. So just as with any rapist, a woman who insists on staying married to such a man and backing him up in public can be seen as "enabling" him. Honestly, I don't think all th…

The frustrating part about this, of course, is that while Hillary was accused of being an enabler, Trump has been accused of not only being an admitted sexual assaulter but actually raping an underage girl. Not "merely" statutory rape either. Such a proud day for our country when he was elected.

Such a proud day for our country back in November when we had these two "fine" people running against each other for the highest office in the land.

Honestly, if Hillary was the best we could do for an opposing candidate, then maybe we deserve Trump, if not someone much worse.

Re: What I Heard from Trump Supporters

#870

Post by LyndsySimon »

mjevans wrote: post #861
LyndsySimon wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After a cursory read-through, I can find nothing in that list that I would support - and nothing that would appeal to the majority of those on the right.

What would your ideal candidate focus on?

Reducing the size and scope of government.
Post reply on HN