11 ms·

The Importance of Donald Trump

111 points by aerocapture 11y ago

dang 11y ago
This story was killed by user flags, whereupon another user emailed to plead the case for the article as more thoughtful and substantive than it sounds. The median Donald Trump article is obviously off topic for this site, but arguably his rise is also "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" [1]. So let's try turning flags off on this post as an experiment and see if everyone can keep the discussion thoughtful. Edit: I read the article. Trump is a natural subject for Rich, a political journalist with a (much longer) background as an entertainment critic. What makes the article good is that he takes Trump seriously and uses him to make 'serious' politics look buffoonish, reversing the usual trope. If anyone knows a better analysis of Trump, please post the link in this thread—I'm sure many readers would like to see it. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- davidw 11y ago
  You could argue that the rise of Trump is not really anything new; Italy has had Berlusconi in politics since the early 90ies, and there are a lot of similarities: https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/watch-a-conversation-with-luigi-zingales-c5ed3601a8f0 https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/watch-a-conversa...
  - dang 11y ago
    I think it's fair to see each of those two as new in his context. The article makes a case for Trump as new: a pop culture character coming to life in real politics. The fictional antecedents he brings up are fascinating. It's a good article—so good it's too bad he didn't go the whole hog and resist any usual partisan swipes, but that's probably too much to ask of Frank Rich. I'd say it easily passes the HN bar for on-topicness in a political story, though we'll still penalize the thread if it goes flamewar.
eevilspock 11y ago
This post got flagged and killed. Daniel kindly unkilled it at my request. I'm not a Trump fan (and neither is the article) but I agree with its counter-intuitive observation. > In the short time since Trump declared his candidacy, he has performed a public service by exposing, however crudely and at times inadvertently, the posturings of both the Republicans and the Democrats and the foolishness and obsolescence of much of the political culture they share. He is, as many say, making a mockery of the entire political process with his bull-in-a-china-shop antics. But the mockery in this case may be overdue, highly warranted, and ultimately a spur to reform rather than the crime against civic order that has scandalized those who see him, in the words of the former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, as “dangerous to democracy.” It's no surprise that Michael Gerson labels Trump "dangerous to democracy." Trump is actually dangerous to the GOP establishment and Gerson stands for that establishment. What does it say about American democracy that it takes a self-aggrandizimg billionaire to speak openly about buying politicians and offers to be bought in a presidential election debate? It's the job of the moderators to force such an issue into the open, but they don't dare anger the party for fear of never hosting again. If you watched the first debate, you can see that Fox News was tough on Trump (as they should be), but nowhere near as tough on the rest (as they should have been). Even CNN seemed to be a proxy for the Republican establishment in the second debate. EDIT: Ross Perot was was the last candidate to truly upset the political establishment, and he also was a billionaire. Hmmmm....
- jonathanjaeger 11y ago
  Well there is Larry Lessig, who raised more than his $1MM goal from smaller donors to run as a referendum candidate with the sole purpose of getting money out of politics. That being said, he has zero name recognition when compared to Trump and is certainly not going to be as "entertaining".
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  It's a good call. I thought about posting it yesterday but was uncertain about the political content. I think it's interesting to hackers insofar as it identifies some meta-trends in politics that are characteristic of systems disruption. Other organs such as the Economist have also observed that Something is Amiss when the three leading candidates are all non-politicians and easily outpoll candidates with experience in governance (even if you dislike their policies). http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21665014-party-faithful-are-keen-decapitate-politicians-experience-politics-regicidal?zid=311&ah=308cac674cccf554ce65cf926868bbc2 http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21665014-party-f... I've said for some time that the world is drifting back towards a place of deep political instability, and this election has the unpleasant air of looming disaster about it. Whoever is elected president is almost certainly going to be regarded as illegitimate or intolerable by a large segment of the population, due to a mix of the internet and demographic sorting a la http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php I feel we underestimate the influence of the internet on social dynamics. It's much easier to get near-immediate social validation for any given identity group, and something about the combination of anonymity and depersonalization in discussion forums provides psychosocial rewards for antagonistic/oppositional behavior when viewpoints collide.
gliese1337 11y ago
On a similar note: http://imgur.com/gallery/qpNZ7 http://imgur.com/gallery/qpNZ7 While NYMag seems to be more about Trump revealing the ridiculousness of our political system in general, the imgur guy focuses on how he's attracting republicans by showing off specifically how useless their own leadership has been for the last several years. Both seem like valid points, which need to be understood by everyone who hates the idea of Trump as president and hopes to find a way to defeat him (myself included).
Camillo 11y ago
There seems to be a sizable number of people who do not feel represented by the narrow range of options that the political establishment has deigned to offer them, and who are tired of having to accept what the powers that be have declared inevitable. Because of the way the American political system works, this dissatisfaction seldom finds expression ("what, are you going to waste your vote?"), but when an outsider with deep pockets appears, suddenly it can coalesce around him. Therefore, I suspect that the question of Trump's competence is moot for many voters. If you just want to break the way the system works, four years with an ineffective president may not seem like a high price to pay. OTOH, I find it curious that the article found no room for a very obvious real-world parallel amidst all the fictional characters Trump was likened to. Twenty years ago, another first-world country saw a political void filled by a boisterous tycoon who paid for his own campaign. It didn't turn out well, nor was it over quickly.
- linkregister 11y ago
  Which country are you referring to?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - oxymoron 11y ago
    I'm guessing Italy.
    - triangleman 11y ago
      Not Ross Perot in the U.S.?
    - Camillo 11y ago
      Correct.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Mr Bunga Bunga underage girls Berlusconi.
bra-ket 11y ago
God forbid America will be ruled by Trump and Russia by Zhirinovsky, this is a recipe for a nuclear extinction event
- ars 11y ago
  Nah. A good president really only needs just one skill: Knowing how to hire good people. Other than that the president himself can be just a figurehead for entertainment. Trump clearly knows how to hire good people, so while I would not vote for him, I'm also not really worried about what will happen if he does win. If you think about it, the skillset needed to win an election, is not the same skillset you need for making good calculated decisions. So IMO we really should not be evaluating candidates on their personal qualifications, but rather on how good they are at hiring good people to do the real work.
  - onedev 11y ago
    This is a really interesting viewpoint that I'd not considered before.
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    You're assuming that Trump's definition of "good" is the same as yours. Trump may know how to hire people who accomplish what Trump wants accomplished, but that doesn't mean the results will be good for you or anyone.
    - mikeyouse 11y ago
      He's also assuming that Trump will hire "good" people.. Is there evidence whatsoever that he possesses that skill? How would he evaluate what's "good" in areas that he literally knows nothing about?
      - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
        That, too. The fact that he's run four companies into bankruptcy in the recent past suggests that, if he does hire "good" people, he doesn't listen to them.
kelukelugames 11y ago
I don't want to believe this. Had to be a 4chan raid on the polls, right? > It took a village of birthers to get Republicans to the point where only 29 percent of them now believe that Obama was born in America (and 54 percent identify him as a Muslim), according to an August survey by Public Policy Polling. Far from being a fake Republican, Trump speaks for the party’s overwhelming majority. Edit: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/trump-supporters-think-obama-is-a-muslim-born-in-another-country.html http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/trump-suppor... someone please tell me that is a joke.
- fjarlq 11y ago
  There are a lot of people who believe surprising things. For example, from a 2013 Harris poll: 58% believe in The Devil (26% don't) 47% believe in evolution (29% don't) 42% believe in ghosts (37% don't) 36% believe in UFOs (35% don't) 26% believe in witches (54% don't) -- http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1353/Default.aspx http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/...
sandworm101 11y ago
NewsRadio 29 s3e01 - Jimmy (Stephen Root) runs for president. @18:39 "With all due respect sir, are you running for president just to meet women?" I was going to provide a youtube link, but this isn't the place for piracy. Feel free to find it yourself.
rebootthesystem 11y ago
It's interesting and confusing to watch. I have long thought we need far less lawyers and professional politicians in government and a lot more (a LOT more) people like us. In this age of technology it is truly sad to see dinosaurs who would be challenged to use a scientific calculator running our country (all parties, all ideologies). I do believe there's something fundamentally wrong with politics as it exists today. This is heresy in some systems but I am someone who believes texts written hundreds of years ago cannot possibly remain viable, current and applicable. Certainly not in their entirety. Yes, I am daring to suggest that the US Constitution might need some tweaks here and there. And, of course, the problem is this is just about as impossible as me flying using two feathers. You have people in Congress who simply will not go away. If we gave them one or two terms and somehow encouraged young/er people to come to the forefront things could look very different. Then there's the question of how our form of government might very well have devolved into something that conspires against the very progress we need to make. The last few decades have been characterized by not being able to do much of significance other than wage war. We do that very well. And it is sick. Yes, yes, I get it. But, fuck me, when is the world going to figure out how to coexist? Yes, part of the problem is we still have whole regions operating from the mentality of pre-medieval humans. That's a huge problem. I am not smart enough to know what the solution might be. It could be somewhere between total isolation and total intervention. Don't know. These things ultimately lead to wars. I wish someone would come forward with the one genius idea to bring some stability to this planet. As intelligent as we are we seem want to prove we are a species that is content allowing a very small percentage of our people to just fuck things up beyond recognition. Most people are good. Yet, most people do nothing when the assholes piss all over what's been built for centuries. Back to Trump. I have long contended that we, the US, need professional accomplished business people running the show. Contrary to what some might want to believe, business people, even those running large corporations, are not evil. Yeah, some are. The vast majority, by far, are not. What Trump is putting on the table in no uncertain terms is the difference between "normal" people and politicians. And, to go farther, entrepreneurs or business people in general and politicians. When you listen to the two dozen professional politicians in the presidential race it isn't hard to see everyone is playing back the same old recordings. Sometimes I wonder if they have a pull-cord on their back like Woody that plays back the same old shit over and over. They say the same things, with the same neutered-human tone they've been saying for the last 50 years or more. Trump comes along and their brains short-circuit. They have no clue. There's a general approach to business and entrepreneurship that does not jive with the way politicians work. The idea of attacking problems head on, proposing and testing solutions, quickly discarding what doesn't work, throwing fuel at things that do, being fiscally conservative yet not being shy about making large investments that will pay off with time and, in general, operating from the idea that we don't have to know everything before we get going. How many of you started your businesses knowing absolutely everything there was to know about that business and having it all planned out before you even launched? Right. The more likely scenario is that you launched without fear, wearing your ignorance as a badge, and figured it out as you went along. Some things you just can't know or plan. I am not proposing Trump is the solution. For me he still sits somewhere between a clown and a genius. I have no clue where this is going. Right now, it's interesting. I wish he'd spend more time showing the world how things are done outside of politics rather than lobbing insults at people. I sometimes secretly hope this is part of his media plan. One where, once half the herd has been killed off will have him get in front of the camera to spend a solid hour or two explaining his plans and theories as one might expect from someone who came out of Wharton and has as much real-world experience as he does. Yes, I am disgusted with politics in the US. We are going nowhere. We are certainly not moving forward. With every passing year we fail to change our ways it will become exponentially more difficult for anything to have an effect. One has to be in awe of what a country like China has accomplished during the last, say, 25 years. Without really bold action we are all living through an era that is producing a massive industrial, financial and intellectual shift in the world. I am convinced that not one of the professional politicians running today, regardless of party, has the ability to do a darn thing about anything. They are in it to win for their own sake. Once in, they'll be gutless and powerless. Not saying Trump is the solution. Yet, "they" are not the solution either.
JacobAldridge 11y ago
I'm standing by my prediction that Donald Trump will withdraw himself from the nomination prior to the Iowa primaries (and it will take these poll numbers continuing past Christmas for me to think otherwise) [1]. If anyone has a chance at derailing my beliefs so far, it's been Scott Adams (of Dilbert) and his ongoing series of blogs posts about the 'Master Wizard Hypothesis' [2]. He's essentially arguing that linguistic wizardry can trump (sorry) policy and credibility, and that the Donald is a master. Likely for entertainment purposes only, but he's been right on this matter more than Nate Silver so far! Every time you see 'low energy' Bush, 'nice guy' Carson, or 'that face' Fiorina in the press, Adams makes more sense. [1] https://twitter.com/jacobaldridge/status/632163459388432384 https://twitter.com/jacobaldridge/status/632163459388432384 [2] http://blog.dilbert.com/ http://blog.dilbert.com/
- venomsnake 11y ago
  I love how the media missed both Kelly and Fiorina jabs. Especially Fiorina - do you want someone with the stern face of an bureaucratic principal, ready to discipline you, to look you from the white house for 4 years.
- tim333 11y ago
  I've been following Adams and the Trump thing with amusement. Aside from the 'Master Wizard' bit Trump's been against lobbyists, tax breaks for hedge funds and the Iraq war, all which could work in his favour. He even beat Clinton in one poll although it was a bit of a blip http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton-in-poll-and-gets-25-percent-among-blacks/article/2571545 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-beats-hillary...
- joezydeco 11y ago
  I kind of believe this as well, but why would you pull out with such large polling numbers? What if he parlays this into a VP position? Every other candidate would fall over themselves to grab his market share.
  - JacobAldridge 11y ago
peterwwillis 11y ago
“Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F#ck Hope.” -- George Carlin
- sid- 11y ago
  Wow. Really loved that. Pretty insightful...maybe we should elect this guy
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - jqm 11y ago
    I agree. We should have. But it's too late now. He's dead.
    - peterwwillis 11y ago
      Corpses have been elected before. It's just usually only on local ballots.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      He cannot do less than current congress if elected. So votes away.
mhd 11y ago
There are other examples of intentionally silly candidates abroad, including the UK's famous "Monster Raving Loony Party", Icelands's "Best Party" (several seats in parliament) or Germany's "Die Partei" (1 seat in EU parliament). But you really need someone who's supposedly in it for real for things to look really, really weird. A case of the Uncanny Valley effect?
brandonmenc 11y ago
> he’s exposing all its phoniness and corruption in ways as serious as he is not Trump will definitely make a full run at the Presidency if he believes he has a chance - and it appears he does. This guy wants to be the President. This is not a publicity stunt, if it ever was. Continuing to pretend he's a cartoon character will just make the hangover worse. Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter.
- hga 11y ago
  Reminds me of the disparagement of the Reagan as a "B-movie actor". He was playing quite a "role" when he was the first president to try to end, rather than contain, the Soviet Union, and then achieved that.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > He was playing quite a "role" when he was the first president to try to end, rather than contain, the Soviet Union, and then achieved that. There is no concrete way in which his policies were more substantially more aimed at ending the USSR than containing it compared to prior administrations (in many ways, it was perfectly within the range of approaches taken by prior regimes; the most substantial differentiating element that people tend to point to was the big ramp up in defense spending -- which was a policy initiated by Carter at the end of his term.) And his administration did not achieve ending the USSR, either.
alkonaut 11y ago
This is the core paragraph of this article: The best news about Trump is that he is wreaking this havoc on the status quo while having no chance of ascending to the presidency. You can’t win the Electoral College in 2016 by driving away women, Hispanics, blacks, and Asian-Americans, no matter how large the margins you pile up in deep-red states. This whole clown show lets people express their dissatisfaction with the status quo, yet the risk of the US going full retard politically is pretty slim.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jrcii 11y ago
  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/28/donald-trump-has-huge-lead-among-republican-women-/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/28/donald-trump... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/donald-trump-has-black-supporters-really.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/donald-trum... The idea that all minorities hate him probably sits well with your wishes and that of the author of the article but it's not necessarily true.
  - alkonaut 11y ago
    I don't believe he's hated by women/minority voters, but he doesn't have the support needed to win the presidency, and he certainly appears to do everything he can to reduce that support.
    - bruceb 11y ago
      Hispanics and Asians are generally in non competitive states CA and TX come to mind. Who says this? Nate Cohn: "This idea may seem jarring, given that Mitt Romney took just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote in his 2012 loss to Mr. Obama, according to the exit polls, while George W. Bush won about 40 percent in his 2004 victory. But in 2016 Hispanics will represent just 12 percent of eligible voters, and between 9 and 10 percent of actual voters. That’s a lot, but it’s not large enough to grant or deny Republicans the presidency.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/upshot/hispanic-voters-are-important-for-republicans-but-not-indispensable.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/upshot/hispanic-voters-are... Not an an endorsement of candidate or party but simply pointing out mis-information by special interest groups.
yk 11y ago
Dan Carlin proposed the theory that Trump understood that only trying to win the GOP primary is a winning strategy for the primary.[0] Basically the primary caucus is a lot more radical than the general electorate and normal candidates have to run on a just a little bit more conservative platform than the next leading candidate, while preparing to turn around as soon as they have secured the nomination. A candidate like Trump can run on a platform that is much better suited for the primary election, because he is not planning to win the presidential election. As an outside observer ( I am German), I think that the theory sounds interesting. However, it is possible that he tries a different maneuver to win the general election. His refusal to found a PAC may mean, that he plans to run on an anti-corruption, Washington outsider platform and basically form a analogous coalition as Syriza did in Greece. Syriza's coalition partner is a right wing populist party, they basically formed a anybody but the old boys club coalition. And my guess is, that assuming Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, there are quite a few moderates who find such a candidate attractive, even if he is a reality TV star. [0] http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-295-trumping-the-playbook/ http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-295-trumping-t...
- flycaliguy 11y ago
  Interesting theory. It's overtaking my currently conspiratorial feeling that he is a Jeb stooge who is hogging to spotlight from anyone who can't afford to fight a billionaire... only to putter out over the winter as everybody embraces the newly "pro-hispanic" Republican establishment.
  - xlm1717 11y ago
    It's funny how everyone has a conspiracy theory on Trump. The right wants to believe he's employed by Clinton to split the Republican vote, and the left want to believe he's employed by the RNC to safely pander to the racist element of the Republican Party. Jeb definitely looks "pro-Hispanic" compared with Trump. He even learned Spanish!
interesting_att 11y ago
What I find so fascinating about the Trump candidacy is that it is more a conversation about the current cultural climate of America than any specific policies. It seems that we are more interested in talking about how we become so PC than actual policies. I, for one, have given up on hoping the government will enact forward thinking policies.
graycat 11y ago
In one word, the OP plays with the accusation that what Trump says isn't real. Okay, let's consider what in the OP is/is not real. Here I am not talking for/against abortion but about eighth grade civics on the SCOTUS and US Constitution: "But the party’s real stand on the sanctity of female biology had been encapsulated in the debate by Walker’s and Marco Rubio’s endorsement of a ban on abortions for women who have been raped or risk dying in childbirth." Real? That's about where I want to stop reading the OP. Why? I know that for me eighth grade civics was a long time ago, but as I recall (1) the SCOTUS case of Roe v Wade that made abortion legal is now 40+ years old; (2) to change that decision need (A) a lot of what would be, say, unlikely new SCOTUS nominations or (B) a Constitutional amendment that would take 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the states. So, first-cut, intuitively, IMHO, for either (A) or (B), any way to have "a ban on abortions" is decades away. Considering how often we have Constitutional amendments, maybe centuries. Real? Talking about "a ban on abortions" is real? I don't think so.
- zimpenfish 11y ago
  > So, first-cut, intuitively, IMHO, for either (A) or (B), any way to have "a ban on abortions" is decades away. Presumably, then, you'd expect any serious competent candidate to know this and not make statements suggesting that such a thing could happen? (I'm in the UK, we have our own flavour of crazy.)
  - graycat 11y ago
    IMHO the usual explanation of why some US politicians talk about making abortion illegal is simple and obvious: Such politicians want publicity, votes, and then power in elected office. Then, one level deeper, the reason a politician suspects that talking about making abortion illegal would lead to votes is (A) many voters regard abortion as murder of a human life, (B) an appeal to the strong moral objections to murder, (C) an appeal to the desire for traditional family values that cherishes children and, thus, finds abortion repugnant murder, (D) etc. So, with (A)-(D), can hope to get some voters up on their hind legs, get votes, win, take office, have power. IMHO, that's the usual explanation. Again, my point here is not about pro/con on abortion but just on the process and politics: In particular, with my understanding of the US legal system, talking about making abortion illegal is talking about something that has slim to no chance of happening, divisive, a distraction from issues where something might be done, a spit to windward, etc. A conspiracy explanation would be that the US Republicans have a list of favorite issues, heavily to make the rich richer, don't want to talk about those issues in public in political campaigns, so come up with issues, e.g., abortion, that will serve as misdirections to permit winning elections without talking about or addressing in public in campaigns the real issues they have in mind. For more, the explanation goes that wealthy backers of the Republicans, e.g., the Koch brothers, with their money for political campaign contributions, are setting the real agenda of the Republican party and pulling strings of the candidates as if they were all puppets. For me, I don't know how real that explanation is: E.g., I know next to nothing about the Koch brothers or other candidate string pullers. And I don't know the extent to which politicians have strings to be pulled. Money, Koch brothers, strings, puppets, all aside, again, just from the process, I see slim to no chances of making abortion illegal within 100 years so am irritated that our political process and the OP are still talking about abortion as if there might be some change in the law. So, I find the OP not very real and, thus, find some irony in the OP talking about Trump as not very real. Then, is Trump real? Tough for me to know: His poll numbers are, for whatever they say that is real, look real. His main slogan about "great again" is not very, say, solid as in, say, a legal document, a research paper in physical science or mathematics, an engineering document for, say, a long bridge, a detailed business plan, etc., but, then, for whatever reasons, US politics doesn't have a lot of documents nearly that solid. So, if must evaluate a politician, and if vote then do have to do that, then have to go on evidence less solid than would want. Or, maybe pay attention to the least un-solid evidence can get. It looks like politics is not very competitive, that is, doesn't offer very solid products, so that in comparison, if the auto industry were that uncompetitive, then the average distance a new car could travel without falling apart would be about 10 miles -- on a good day! I don't want to evaluate Trump or any particular politician here. Instead, again, my point was to question how real the OP was; at the place I indicated, I found the OP to be not real enough and soon quit reading. So, I was shooting at the OP. So, I'm not really discussing politics or even abortion but just editorial writing.
meeper16 11y ago
Auto Summarized Content (Algorithm: Tuatara GS1) And thanks to another unintended consequence of the GOP 's Citizens United victory, the PACs it enables will keep hopeless presidential candidates financially afloat no matter how poorly they are faring in polls and primaries, thereby crippling the party 's ability to unite early behind a single anti-Trump alternative...When Trump 's presidential rivals attended a David and Charles Koch retreat, he tweeted: I wish good luck to all of the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc... Auto Extracted Ranked Tags (Algorithm: Tuatara GS1) trump, republican, candidate, gop, campaign, party, clinton, american, political, grand, bush, debate, presidential, politic, voter, run, actor, guy, story, women, money, billionaire, conservative, man, america, bulworth, day, comic, fiorina, president, television http://52.11.1.7/TuataraSum/app/tuatarasum http://52.11.1.7/TuataraSum/app/tuatarasum
anon8764 11y ago
Has Obama submitted a valid birth certificate verifying he even meets the requirements to be president? To my knowledge, all we have received was a heavily modified, layered birth certificate pdf, with key layers being the dates and signatures... raising high suspicion that it was a falsified document. Until a valid birth certificate is submitted, along with all the other bare minimum variables/requirements validated, is there a valid president, or has this role been null and void the entire time? I wonder.
- hvoiiita 11y ago
  what. his mom is a certifiable US citizen and all doubts are clearly entrenched inside racism.
  - anon8764 11y ago
    Seems they have diluted/modified the rules: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/is-your-child-a-us-citizen-if-born-abroad https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/is-your-child-a-us-citize... "As with other areas of immigration and naturalization in this post-9/11 world, the guidelines change often. As such, these rules only apply to those children born on or after the effective date of the CCA." I'm not even sure this applies to Obama, so again, the validity is questionable. So anyways, we would just need to validate the rules with all presidents. Where can we currently view that these rulesets have been validated and view their corresponding documents? Does anyone know? This seems like a somewhat important question if someone wants to be called president. Also, why did you bring up race? This validation process should be applied to every potential president regardless of race. Politely, get off your politically correct high horse.
    - dang 11y ago
      > get off your politically correct high horse Comments like this break the HN guidelines about civility. Obama's birth certificate surely also qualifies as a "classic flamewar topic", so you've broken the guidelines there too. We ban accounts that do that repeatedly, so please read and follow them when posting on this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

111 points by aerocapture 11y ago

dang 11y ago

This story was killed by user flags, whereupon another user emailed to plead the case for the article as more thoughtful and substantive than it sounds. The median Donald Trump article is obviously off topic for this site, but arguably his rise is also "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" [1]. So let's try turning flags off on this post as an experiment and see if everyone can keep the discussion thoughtful. Edit: I read the article. Trump is a natural subject for Rich, a political journalist with a (much longer) background as an entertainment critic. What makes the article good is that he takes Trump seriously and uses him to make 'serious' politics look buffoonish, reversing the usual trope. If anyone knows a better analysis of Trump, please post the link in this thread—I'm sure many readers would like to see it. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

davidw 11y ago
You could argue that the rise of Trump is not really anything new; Italy has had Berlusconi in politics since the early 90ies, and there are a lot of similarities: https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/watch-a-conversation-with-luigi-zingales-c5ed3601a8f0 https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/watch-a-conversa...
- dang 11y ago
  I think it's fair to see each of those two as new in his context. The article makes a case for Trump as new: a pop culture character coming to life in real politics. The fictional antecedents he brings up are fascinating. It's a good article—so good it's too bad he didn't go the whole hog and resist any usual partisan swipes, but that's probably too much to ask of Frank Rich. I'd say it easily passes the HN bar for on-topicness in a political story, though we'll still penalize the thread if it goes flamewar.

eevilspock 11y ago

This post got flagged and killed. Daniel kindly unkilled it at my request. I'm not a Trump fan (and neither is the article) but I agree with its counter-intuitive observation. > In the short time since Trump declared his candidacy, he has performed a public service by exposing, however crudely and at times inadvertently, the posturings of both the Republicans and the Democrats and the foolishness and obsolescence of much of the political culture they share. He is, as many say, making a mockery of the entire political process with his bull-in-a-china-shop antics. But the mockery in this case may be overdue, highly warranted, and ultimately a spur to reform rather than the crime against civic order that has scandalized those who see him, in the words of the former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, as “dangerous to democracy.” It's no surprise that Michael Gerson labels Trump "dangerous to democracy." Trump is actually dangerous to the GOP establishment and Gerson stands for that establishment. What does it say about American democracy that it takes a self-aggrandizimg billionaire to speak openly about buying politicians and offers to be bought in a presidential election debate? It's the job of the moderators to force such an issue into the open, but they don't dare anger the party for fear of never hosting again. If you watched the first debate, you can see that Fox News was tough on Trump (as they should be), but nowhere near as tough on the rest (as they should have been). Even CNN seemed to be a proxy for the Republican establishment in the second debate. EDIT: Ross Perot was was the last candidate to truly upset the political establishment, and he also was a billionaire. Hmmmm....

jonathanjaeger 11y ago
Well there is Larry Lessig, who raised more than his $1MM goal from smaller donors to run as a referendum candidate with the sole purpose of getting money out of politics. That being said, he has zero name recognition when compared to Trump and is certainly not going to be as "entertaining".
anigbrowl 11y ago
It's a good call. I thought about posting it yesterday but was uncertain about the political content. I think it's interesting to hackers insofar as it identifies some meta-trends in politics that are characteristic of systems disruption. Other organs such as the Economist have also observed that Something is Amiss when the three leading candidates are all non-politicians and easily outpoll candidates with experience in governance (even if you dislike their policies). http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21665014-party-faithful-are-keen-decapitate-politicians-experience-politics-regicidal?zid=311&ah=308cac674cccf554ce65cf926868bbc2 http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21665014-party-f... I've said for some time that the world is drifting back towards a place of deep political instability, and this election has the unpleasant air of looming disaster about it. Whoever is elected president is almost certainly going to be regarded as illegitimate or intolerable by a large segment of the population, due to a mix of the internet and demographic sorting a la http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php http://www.thebigsort.com/home.php I feel we underestimate the influence of the internet on social dynamics. It's much easier to get near-immediate social validation for any given identity group, and something about the combination of anonymity and depersonalization in discussion forums provides psychosocial rewards for antagonistic/oppositional behavior when viewpoints collide.

gliese1337 11y ago

On a similar note: http://imgur.com/gallery/qpNZ7 http://imgur.com/gallery/qpNZ7 While NYMag seems to be more about Trump revealing the ridiculousness of our political system in general, the imgur guy focuses on how he's attracting republicans by showing off specifically how useless their own leadership has been for the last several years. Both seem like valid points, which need to be understood by everyone who hates the idea of Trump as president and hopes to find a way to defeat him (myself included).

Camillo 11y ago

There seems to be a sizable number of people who do not feel represented by the narrow range of options that the political establishment has deigned to offer them, and who are tired of having to accept what the powers that be have declared inevitable. Because of the way the American political system works, this dissatisfaction seldom finds expression ("what, are you going to waste your vote?"), but when an outsider with deep pockets appears, suddenly it can coalesce around him. Therefore, I suspect that the question of Trump's competence is moot for many voters. If you just want to break the way the system works, four years with an ineffective president may not seem like a high price to pay. OTOH, I find it curious that the article found no room for a very obvious real-world parallel amidst all the fictional characters Trump was likened to. Twenty years ago, another first-world country saw a political void filled by a boisterous tycoon who paid for his own campaign. It didn't turn out well, nor was it over quickly.

linkregister 11y ago
Which country are you referring to?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- oxymoron 11y ago
  I'm guessing Italy.
  - triangleman 11y ago
    Not Ross Perot in the U.S.?
  - Camillo 11y ago
    Correct.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Mr Bunga Bunga underage girls Berlusconi.

bra-ket 11y ago

God forbid America will be ruled by Trump and Russia by Zhirinovsky, this is a recipe for a nuclear extinction event

ars 11y ago
Nah. A good president really only needs just one skill: Knowing how to hire good people. Other than that the president himself can be just a figurehead for entertainment. Trump clearly knows how to hire good people, so while I would not vote for him, I'm also not really worried about what will happen if he does win. If you think about it, the skillset needed to win an election, is not the same skillset you need for making good calculated decisions. So IMO we really should not be evaluating candidates on their personal qualifications, but rather on how good they are at hiring good people to do the real work.
- onedev 11y ago
  This is a really interesting viewpoint that I'd not considered before.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  You're assuming that Trump's definition of "good" is the same as yours. Trump may know how to hire people who accomplish what Trump wants accomplished, but that doesn't mean the results will be good for you or anyone.
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    He's also assuming that Trump will hire "good" people.. Is there evidence whatsoever that he possesses that skill? How would he evaluate what's "good" in areas that he literally knows nothing about?
    - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
      That, too. The fact that he's run four companies into bankruptcy in the recent past suggests that, if he does hire "good" people, he doesn't listen to them.

kelukelugames 11y ago

I don't want to believe this. Had to be a 4chan raid on the polls, right? > It took a village of birthers to get Republicans to the point where only 29 percent of them now believe that Obama was born in America (and 54 percent identify him as a Muslim), according to an August survey by Public Policy Polling. Far from being a fake Republican, Trump speaks for the party’s overwhelming majority. Edit: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/trump-supporters-think-obama-is-a-muslim-born-in-another-country.html http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/08/trump-suppor... someone please tell me that is a joke.

fjarlq 11y ago
There are a lot of people who believe surprising things. For example, from a 2013 Harris poll: 58% believe in The Devil (26% don't) 47% believe in evolution (29% don't) 42% believe in ghosts (37% don't) 36% believe in UFOs (35% don't) 26% believe in witches (54% don't) -- http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1353/Default.aspx http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/...

sandworm101 11y ago

NewsRadio 29 s3e01 - Jimmy (Stephen Root) runs for president. @18:39 "With all due respect sir, are you running for president just to meet women?" I was going to provide a youtube link, but this isn't the place for piracy. Feel free to find it yourself.

rebootthesystem 11y ago

It's interesting and confusing to watch. I have long thought we need far less lawyers and professional politicians in government and a lot more (a LOT more) people like us. In this age of technology it is truly sad to see dinosaurs who would be challenged to use a scientific calculator running our country (all parties, all ideologies). I do believe there's something fundamentally wrong with politics as it exists today. This is heresy in some systems but I am someone who believes texts written hundreds of years ago cannot possibly remain viable, current and applicable. Certainly not in their entirety. Yes, I am daring to suggest that the US Constitution might need some tweaks here and there. And, of course, the problem is this is just about as impossible as me flying using two feathers. You have people in Congress who simply will not go away. If we gave them one or two terms and somehow encouraged young/er people to come to the forefront things could look very different. Then there's the question of how our form of government might very well have devolved into something that conspires against the very progress we need to make. The last few decades have been characterized by not being able to do much of significance other than wage war. We do that very well. And it is sick. Yes, yes, I get it. But, fuck me, when is the world going to figure out how to coexist? Yes, part of the problem is we still have whole regions operating from the mentality of pre-medieval humans. That's a huge problem. I am not smart enough to know what the solution might be. It could be somewhere between total isolation and total intervention. Don't know. These things ultimately lead to wars. I wish someone would come forward with the one genius idea to bring some stability to this planet. As intelligent as we are we seem want to prove we are a species that is content allowing a very small percentage of our people to just fuck things up beyond recognition. Most people are good. Yet, most people do nothing when the assholes piss all over what's been built for centuries. Back to Trump. I have long contended that we, the US, need professional accomplished business people running the show. Contrary to what some might want to believe, business people, even those running large corporations, are not evil. Yeah, some are. The vast majority, by far, are not. What Trump is putting on the table in no uncertain terms is the difference between "normal" people and politicians. And, to go farther, entrepreneurs or business people in general and politicians. When you listen to the two dozen professional politicians in the presidential race it isn't hard to see everyone is playing back the same old recordings. Sometimes I wonder if they have a pull-cord on their back like Woody that plays back the same old shit over and over. They say the same things, with the same neutered-human tone they've been saying for the last 50 years or more. Trump comes along and their brains short-circuit. They have no clue. There's a general approach to business and entrepreneurship that does not jive with the way politicians work. The idea of attacking problems head on, proposing and testing solutions, quickly discarding what doesn't work, throwing fuel at things that do, being fiscally conservative yet not being shy about making large investments that will pay off with time and, in general, operating from the idea that we don't have to know everything before we get going. How many of you started your businesses knowing absolutely everything there was to know about that business and having it all planned out before you even launched? Right. The more likely scenario is that you launched without fear, wearing your ignorance as a badge, and figured it out as you went along. Some things you just can't know or plan. I am not proposing Trump is the solution. For me he still sits somewhere between a clown and a genius. I have no clue where this is going. Right now, it's interesting. I wish he'd spend more time showing the world how things are done outside of politics rather than lobbing insults at people. I sometimes secretly hope this is part of his media plan. One where, once half the herd has been killed off will have him get in front of the camera to spend a solid hour or two explaining his plans and theories as one might expect from someone who came out of Wharton and has as much real-world experience as he does. Yes, I am disgusted with politics in the US. We are going nowhere. We are certainly not moving forward. With every passing year we fail to change our ways it will become exponentially more difficult for anything to have an effect. One has to be in awe of what a country like China has accomplished during the last, say, 25 years. Without really bold action we are all living through an era that is producing a massive industrial, financial and intellectual shift in the world. I am convinced that not one of the professional politicians running today, regardless of party, has the ability to do a darn thing about anything. They are in it to win for their own sake. Once in, they'll be gutless and powerless. Not saying Trump is the solution. Yet, "they" are not the solution either.

JacobAldridge 11y ago

I'm standing by my prediction that Donald Trump will withdraw himself from the nomination prior to the Iowa primaries (and it will take these poll numbers continuing past Christmas for me to think otherwise) [1]. If anyone has a chance at derailing my beliefs so far, it's been Scott Adams (of Dilbert) and his ongoing series of blogs posts about the 'Master Wizard Hypothesis' [2]. He's essentially arguing that linguistic wizardry can trump (sorry) policy and credibility, and that the Donald is a master. Likely for entertainment purposes only, but he's been right on this matter more than Nate Silver so far! Every time you see 'low energy' Bush, 'nice guy' Carson, or 'that face' Fiorina in the press, Adams makes more sense. [1] https://twitter.com/jacobaldridge/status/632163459388432384 https://twitter.com/jacobaldridge/status/632163459388432384 [2] http://blog.dilbert.com/ http://blog.dilbert.com/

venomsnake 11y ago
I love how the media missed both Kelly and Fiorina jabs. Especially Fiorina - do you want someone with the stern face of an bureaucratic principal, ready to discipline you, to look you from the white house for 4 years.
tim333 11y ago
I've been following Adams and the Trump thing with amusement. Aside from the 'Master Wizard' bit Trump's been against lobbyists, tax breaks for hedge funds and the Iraq war, all which could work in his favour. He even beat Clinton in one poll although it was a bit of a blip http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton-in-poll-and-gets-25-percent-among-blacks/article/2571545 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-beats-hillary...
joezydeco 11y ago
I kind of believe this as well, but why would you pull out with such large polling numbers? What if he parlays this into a VP position? Every other candidate would fall over themselves to grab his market share.
- JacobAldridge 11y ago

peterwwillis 11y ago

“Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F#ck Hope.” -- George Carlin

sid- 11y ago
Wow. Really loved that. Pretty insightful...maybe we should elect this guy
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jqm 11y ago
  I agree. We should have. But it's too late now. He's dead.
  - peterwwillis 11y ago
    Corpses have been elected before. It's just usually only on local ballots.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    He cannot do less than current congress if elected. So votes away.

mhd 11y ago

There are other examples of intentionally silly candidates abroad, including the UK's famous "Monster Raving Loony Party", Icelands's "Best Party" (several seats in parliament) or Germany's "Die Partei" (1 seat in EU parliament). But you really need someone who's supposedly in it for real for things to look really, really weird. A case of the Uncanny Valley effect?

brandonmenc 11y ago

> he’s exposing all its phoniness and corruption in ways as serious as he is not Trump will definitely make a full run at the Presidency if he believes he has a chance - and it appears he does. This guy wants to be the President. This is not a publicity stunt, if it ever was. Continuing to pretend he's a cartoon character will just make the hangover worse. Disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter.

hga 11y ago
Reminds me of the disparagement of the Reagan as a "B-movie actor". He was playing quite a "role" when he was the first president to try to end, rather than contain, the Soviet Union, and then achieved that.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > He was playing quite a "role" when he was the first president to try to end, rather than contain, the Soviet Union, and then achieved that. There is no concrete way in which his policies were more substantially more aimed at ending the USSR than containing it compared to prior administrations (in many ways, it was perfectly within the range of approaches taken by prior regimes; the most substantial differentiating element that people tend to point to was the big ramp up in defense spending -- which was a policy initiated by Carter at the end of his term.) And his administration did not achieve ending the USSR, either.

alkonaut 11y ago

This is the core paragraph of this article: The best news about Trump is that he is wreaking this havoc on the status quo while having no chance of ascending to the presidency. You can’t win the Electoral College in 2016 by driving away women, Hispanics, blacks, and Asian-Americans, no matter how large the margins you pile up in deep-red states. This whole clown show lets people express their dissatisfaction with the status quo, yet the risk of the US going full retard politically is pretty slim.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jrcii 11y ago
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/28/donald-trump-has-huge-lead-among-republican-women-/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/28/donald-trump... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/donald-trump-has-black-supporters-really.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/donald-trum... The idea that all minorities hate him probably sits well with your wishes and that of the author of the article but it's not necessarily true.
- alkonaut 11y ago
  I don't believe he's hated by women/minority voters, but he doesn't have the support needed to win the presidency, and he certainly appears to do everything he can to reduce that support.
  - bruceb 11y ago
    Hispanics and Asians are generally in non competitive states CA and TX come to mind. Who says this? Nate Cohn: "This idea may seem jarring, given that Mitt Romney took just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote in his 2012 loss to Mr. Obama, according to the exit polls, while George W. Bush won about 40 percent in his 2004 victory. But in 2016 Hispanics will represent just 12 percent of eligible voters, and between 9 and 10 percent of actual voters. That’s a lot, but it’s not large enough to grant or deny Republicans the presidency.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/upshot/hispanic-voters-are-important-for-republicans-but-not-indispensable.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/upshot/hispanic-voters-are... Not an an endorsement of candidate or party but simply pointing out mis-information by special interest groups.

yk 11y ago

Dan Carlin proposed the theory that Trump understood that only trying to win the GOP primary is a winning strategy for the primary.[0] Basically the primary caucus is a lot more radical than the general electorate and normal candidates have to run on a just a little bit more conservative platform than the next leading candidate, while preparing to turn around as soon as they have secured the nomination. A candidate like Trump can run on a platform that is much better suited for the primary election, because he is not planning to win the presidential election. As an outside observer ( I am German), I think that the theory sounds interesting. However, it is possible that he tries a different maneuver to win the general election. His refusal to found a PAC may mean, that he plans to run on an anti-corruption, Washington outsider platform and basically form a analogous coalition as Syriza did in Greece. Syriza's coalition partner is a right wing populist party, they basically formed a anybody but the old boys club coalition. And my guess is, that assuming Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, there are quite a few moderates who find such a candidate attractive, even if he is a reality TV star. [0] http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-295-trumping-the-playbook/ http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-295-trumping-t...

flycaliguy 11y ago
Interesting theory. It's overtaking my currently conspiratorial feeling that he is a Jeb stooge who is hogging to spotlight from anyone who can't afford to fight a billionaire... only to putter out over the winter as everybody embraces the newly "pro-hispanic" Republican establishment.
- xlm1717 11y ago
  It's funny how everyone has a conspiracy theory on Trump. The right wants to believe he's employed by Clinton to split the Republican vote, and the left want to believe he's employed by the RNC to safely pander to the racist element of the Republican Party. Jeb definitely looks "pro-Hispanic" compared with Trump. He even learned Spanish!

interesting_att 11y ago

What I find so fascinating about the Trump candidacy is that it is more a conversation about the current cultural climate of America than any specific policies. It seems that we are more interested in talking about how we become so PC than actual policies. I, for one, have given up on hoping the government will enact forward thinking policies.

graycat 11y ago

In one word, the OP plays with the accusation that what Trump says isn't real. Okay, let's consider what in the OP is/is not real. Here I am not talking for/against abortion but about eighth grade civics on the SCOTUS and US Constitution: "But the party’s real stand on the sanctity of female biology had been encapsulated in the debate by Walker’s and Marco Rubio’s endorsement of a ban on abortions for women who have been raped or risk dying in childbirth." Real? That's about where I want to stop reading the OP. Why? I know that for me eighth grade civics was a long time ago, but as I recall (1) the SCOTUS case of Roe v Wade that made abortion legal is now 40+ years old; (2) to change that decision need (A) a lot of what would be, say, unlikely new SCOTUS nominations or (B) a Constitutional amendment that would take 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate, and 3/4ths of the states. So, first-cut, intuitively, IMHO, for either (A) or (B), any way to have "a ban on abortions" is decades away. Considering how often we have Constitutional amendments, maybe centuries. Real? Talking about "a ban on abortions" is real? I don't think so.

zimpenfish 11y ago
> So, first-cut, intuitively, IMHO, for either (A) or (B), any way to have "a ban on abortions" is decades away. Presumably, then, you'd expect any serious competent candidate to know this and not make statements suggesting that such a thing could happen? (I'm in the UK, we have our own flavour of crazy.)
- graycat 11y ago
  IMHO the usual explanation of why some US politicians talk about making abortion illegal is simple and obvious: Such politicians want publicity, votes, and then power in elected office. Then, one level deeper, the reason a politician suspects that talking about making abortion illegal would lead to votes is (A) many voters regard abortion as murder of a human life, (B) an appeal to the strong moral objections to murder, (C) an appeal to the desire for traditional family values that cherishes children and, thus, finds abortion repugnant murder, (D) etc. So, with (A)-(D), can hope to get some voters up on their hind legs, get votes, win, take office, have power. IMHO, that's the usual explanation. Again, my point here is not about pro/con on abortion but just on the process and politics: In particular, with my understanding of the US legal system, talking about making abortion illegal is talking about something that has slim to no chance of happening, divisive, a distraction from issues where something might be done, a spit to windward, etc. A conspiracy explanation would be that the US Republicans have a list of favorite issues, heavily to make the rich richer, don't want to talk about those issues in public in political campaigns, so come up with issues, e.g., abortion, that will serve as misdirections to permit winning elections without talking about or addressing in public in campaigns the real issues they have in mind. For more, the explanation goes that wealthy backers of the Republicans, e.g., the Koch brothers, with their money for political campaign contributions, are setting the real agenda of the Republican party and pulling strings of the candidates as if they were all puppets. For me, I don't know how real that explanation is: E.g., I know next to nothing about the Koch brothers or other candidate string pullers. And I don't know the extent to which politicians have strings to be pulled. Money, Koch brothers, strings, puppets, all aside, again, just from the process, I see slim to no chances of making abortion illegal within 100 years so am irritated that our political process and the OP are still talking about abortion as if there might be some change in the law. So, I find the OP not very real and, thus, find some irony in the OP talking about Trump as not very real. Then, is Trump real? Tough for me to know: His poll numbers are, for whatever they say that is real, look real. His main slogan about "great again" is not very, say, solid as in, say, a legal document, a research paper in physical science or mathematics, an engineering document for, say, a long bridge, a detailed business plan, etc., but, then, for whatever reasons, US politics doesn't have a lot of documents nearly that solid. So, if must evaluate a politician, and if vote then do have to do that, then have to go on evidence less solid than would want. Or, maybe pay attention to the least un-solid evidence can get. It looks like politics is not very competitive, that is, doesn't offer very solid products, so that in comparison, if the auto industry were that uncompetitive, then the average distance a new car could travel without falling apart would be about 10 miles -- on a good day! I don't want to evaluate Trump or any particular politician here. Instead, again, my point was to question how real the OP was; at the place I indicated, I found the OP to be not real enough and soon quit reading. So, I was shooting at the OP. So, I'm not really discussing politics or even abortion but just editorial writing.

meeper16 11y ago

Auto Summarized Content (Algorithm: Tuatara GS1) And thanks to another unintended consequence of the GOP 's Citizens United victory, the PACs it enables will keep hopeless presidential candidates financially afloat no matter how poorly they are faring in polls and primaries, thereby crippling the party 's ability to unite early behind a single anti-Trump alternative...When Trump 's presidential rivals attended a David and Charles Koch retreat, he tweeted: I wish good luck to all of the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc... Auto Extracted Ranked Tags (Algorithm: Tuatara GS1) trump, republican, candidate, gop, campaign, party, clinton, american, political, grand, bush, debate, presidential, politic, voter, run, actor, guy, story, women, money, billionaire, conservative, man, america, bulworth, day, comic, fiorina, president, television http://52.11.1.7/TuataraSum/app/tuatarasum http://52.11.1.7/TuataraSum/app/tuatarasum

anon8764 11y ago

Has Obama submitted a valid birth certificate verifying he even meets the requirements to be president? To my knowledge, all we have received was a heavily modified, layered birth certificate pdf, with key layers being the dates and signatures... raising high suspicion that it was a falsified document. Until a valid birth certificate is submitted, along with all the other bare minimum variables/requirements validated, is there a valid president, or has this role been null and void the entire time? I wonder.

hvoiiita 11y ago
what. his mom is a certifiable US citizen and all doubts are clearly entrenched inside racism.
- anon8764 11y ago
  Seems they have diluted/modified the rules: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/is-your-child-a-us-citizen-if-born-abroad https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/is-your-child-a-us-citize... "As with other areas of immigration and naturalization in this post-9/11 world, the guidelines change often. As such, these rules only apply to those children born on or after the effective date of the CCA." I'm not even sure this applies to Obama, so again, the validity is questionable. So anyways, we would just need to validate the rules with all presidents. Where can we currently view that these rulesets have been validated and view their corresponding documents? Does anyone know? This seems like a somewhat important question if someone wants to be called president. Also, why did you bring up race? This validation process should be applied to every potential president regardless of race. Politely, get off your politically correct high horse.
  - dang 11y ago
    > get off your politically correct high horse Comments like this break the HN guidelines about civility. Obama's birth certificate surely also qualifies as a "classic flamewar topic", so you've broken the guidelines there too. We ban accounts that do that repeatedly, so please read and follow them when posting on this site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html