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

Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#91

Post by ethbro »

kbenson wrote: post #84
ethbro wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That people can equate breaking the rules using a personal email server with recorded audio of a candidate condoning and admitting sexual assault. I think most Trump supporters saw a pattern of behavior in Clinton that they trusted even less than Trump's gaffes. Not so much that they condoned sexual assault, but they'd rather the devil who speaks clearly than the devil who seems to have a secret in every closet.

> but they'd rather the devil who speaks clearly than the devil who seems to have a secret in every closet. I understand that sentiment, but I never took Trump as one who spoke clearly. He spoke simply , but not clearly. I think Clinton was actually the clearer speaker by far , with her specific proposals and plans, but she didn't speak simply (and for what it's worth, I'm not sure we should optimize for candidates t…

There's clarity in simplicity, in the same way that a 900 page TOS is not as clear as a 2 page TOS regardless of how precise the former's language is. Whether or not you trust and believe Trump is a different matter.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#92

Post by pmelendez »

oldmanjay wrote: post #88
pmelendez wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. You are underestimating the effect of a racist speech coming from a person in a position of power. Racists tend to keep their views for their own when are not sure they can speak freely without being…

What you seem to be saying is that you believe if you shame people enough that they keep their views hidden, you've accomplished something. I find that pretty amusing.

That's not at all what I am saying. I am talking about the same effect that exists with social desirability bias(0)

People just self-regulate their views depending on how is perceived in the environment

(0) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#93

Post by lingben »

oldmanjay wrote: post #38
lingben wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's just no need to keep pretending that your opinion is the only rational choice when you've been repudiated so completely. You do realize that Clinton won the popular vote, right? the majority of Americans agree with her policies and voted for her. Trump won because of the arcane 18th century election structure unique to the US called an electoral college.

Ahh, is it time to cry about the electoral college again? I suppose if no one knew going in that it was the way things were done, I'd care. Since everyone knew, it's just the worst kind of monday-morning quarterbacking. The thorough repudiation is that Hillary Clinton was anointed the next president, anointed the "only" "sane" choice, and lost. It's a fact, no matter what tears people dredge up now. I say this with n…

this infographic shows just how razor thin the win was for Trump and how it was delivered via the electoral college:

http://i.imgur.com/FZEjdCF.jpg

these are facts, one can decide to deride them in a childish attempt to obfuscate or wallow in ignorance or one can choose to objectively discuss them as they are

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#94

Post by kbenson »

ethbro wrote: post #91
kbenson wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they'd rather the devil who speaks clearly than the devil who seems to have a secret in every closet. I understand that sentiment, but I never took Trump as one who spoke clearly. He spoke simply , but not clearly. I think Clinton was actually the clearer speaker by far , with her specific proposals and plans, but she didn't speak simply (and for what it's worth, I'm not sure we should optimize for candidates t…

There's clarity in simplicity, in the same way that a 900 page TOS is not as clear as a 2 page TOS regardless of how precise the former's language is. Whether or not you trust and believe Trump is a different matter.

There can be clarity in simplicity, but it's not ensured. It's easily possible to simplify to the point where clarity is lost. The canonical example here is "I will replace it with something great". That's very simple, but also not clear at all. That is, while it's clear what he wants to do, it's not clear at all what he plans to do, because that information has been removed in the name of simplicity (assuming it ever existed).

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#95

Post by oldmanjay »

pmelendez wrote: post #92
oldmanjay wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you seem to be saying is that you believe if you shame people enough that they keep their views hidden, you've accomplished something. I find that pretty amusing.

That's not at all what I am saying. I am talking about the same effect that exists with social desirability bias(0) People just self-regulate their views depending on how is perceived in the environment (0) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias

People self-regulate their expression. I'll agree to that as self-evident. Nothing indicates that their views fall under the same regulation.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#96

Post by ethbro »

kbenson wrote: post #94
ethbro wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's clarity in simplicity, in the same way that a 900 page TOS is not as clear as a 2 page TOS regardless of how precise the former's language is. Whether or not you trust and believe Trump is a different matter.

There can be clarity in simplicity, but it's not ensured. It's easily possible to simplify to the point where clarity is lost. The canonical example here is "I will replace it with something great". That's very simple, but also not clear at all. That is, while it's clear what he wants to do, it's not clear at all what he plans to do, because that information has been removed in the name of simplicity (assuming it eve…

Granted, but I would argue the counter-example is true too: that clarity can be lessened by adding complexity. And I would argue that's currently a bigger problem in our society (particular with matters legal and political) than the one you outlined.

I feel there has to be a formula that defines how many people stop reading for each additional word you add to an informative document.

If you have written a 20,000 word document every time you're asked "Do you support the war in Iraq?" then I'm going to call bullshit.

Holding people accountable for their promises by a democratic electorate is impossible for promises over a certain level of complexity -- the voting mass simply doesn't have the time. And proxying personal research to biased, for-profit news organizations seems to be another feature that's gotten us into this mess.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#97

Post by reitanqild »

pg314 wrote: post #24
chronic6l wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I voted for Trump. I'm also a distinguished engineer at Google in Mountain View, CA.

Can you share why you think he would make a good president?

Not GP, but maybe I can shed some light:

The last 24 hours I have catched a glimpse of it as a number of people have emptied their heartfelt contempt for

* uneducated white males,

* every person who voted Trump

* etc

I don't like Trump. I was surprised at every step that he got so far. I wouldn't have voted for him myself.

But since yesterday I might have started to understand why Americans did.

Sorry to all reasonable democrats (I guess you are the vast majority) but I think your allies actually might have secured Trumps victory.

Sincerely, Someone who lives in Europe

Edit: won't answer your question on why he would be a good president, only the question you didn't ask about why he became a president-elect.

Neither will I say that he won't become a good president, cause frankly at this point I don't get it more.

I will continue to respect democracy and American people and their rules for choosing presidents.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#98

Post by CamperBob2 »

reitanqild wrote: post #97
pg314 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you share why you think he would make a good president?

Not GP, but maybe I can shed some light: The last 24 hours I have catched a glimpse of it as a number of people have emptied their heartfelt contempt for * uneducated white males, * every person who voted Trump * etc I don't like Trump. I was surprised at every step that he got so far. I wouldn't have voted for him myself. But since yesterday I might have started to understand why Americans did. Sorry to all reasonab…

Sorry to all reasonable democrats (I guess you are the vast majority) but I think your allies actually might have secured Trumps victory.

It's very clear that this is indeed what happened, and more directly than you think. According to Wikileaks, the Democrats conspired to tilt the Republican primary field in favor of candidates that they expected to be easy to defeat in the general election. One of those candidates was Donald Trump.

https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=pied+piper+candidates+wik...

This act of self-destructive subversion on the DNC's part shouldn't be forgotten, but for some reason hardly anyone seems to care. This memo should be a huge deal because it explains something that wasn't clear before: how Trump ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of free publicity from left-leaning US media outlets, even when he was considered a joke candidate. It is now indisputable that our media outlets take their marching orders straight from the Democratic headquarters.

I will continue to respect democracy and American people and their rules for choosing presidents.

Thanks. That respect is more than we deserve.

Re: Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big

#99

Post by oldmanjay »

lingben wrote: post #93
oldmanjay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, is it time to cry about the electoral college again? I suppose if no one knew going in that it was the way things were done, I'd care. Since everyone knew, it's just the worst kind of monday-morning quarterbacking. The thorough repudiation is that Hillary Clinton was anointed the next president, anointed the "only" "sane" choice, and lost. It's a fact, no matter what tears people dredge up now. I say this with n…

this infographic shows just how razor thin the win was for Trump and how it was delivered via the electoral college: http://i.imgur.com/FZEjdCF.jpg these are facts, one can decide to deride them in a childish attempt to obfuscate or wallow in ignorance or one can choose to objectively discuss them as they are

Literally every presidential victory is delivered by the electoral college, as has been required by the US Constitution since long before Donald Trump was a dirty thought. What is to discuss? For that matter, what is being obfuscated?
Post reply on HN