4 ms·

Google is basically running and funding the democratic party in the United States. This combined with their NSA compliance is a scary thing. I now find it sus

by 0x49 11y ago

Google is basically running and funding the democratic party in the United States. This combined with their NSA compliance is a scary thing. I now find it suspect whenever they want to make changes to the search results, especially when it always seems to favor their political party. Bernie Sanders will never win simply because his goal is to put a stop to this bullshit.

mudil 11y ago
Oh, c'mon. Bernie Sanders is an exciting candidate for you? Give me a break. Do Democrats have anyone, anyone, under 60?
- 0x49 11y ago
  no, I would never vote for him. I'm just giving a reason why I don't think he has a chance.
  - mudil 11y ago
    I thought Obama was suppose to deliver. Didn't we hear the same aspirations and justifications 8 and 4 years ago?
    - mudil 11y ago
      Sorry, I was wrong. Obama delivered. To GOOG/TWTR/YAHO/FB/etc and to Eric Schmidt-backed startup more than to the middle class. My bad.
      - mudil 11y ago
        And we should not forget that Obama also delivered to the NSA. He is the president. Can't blame Republicans for that.
      - Synaesthesia 11y ago
        In the US both political parties are very much pro-business and pro-big business. There is no true labour party that caters to the needs of ordinary workers.
        Natsu 11y ago
        Clinton might still win the labor vote due to the other side being even less palatable. Which is, frankly, pretty sad, considering that she was on the board of Wal-Mart for so many years. A company which has long been about as hostile to workers as one can possibly be. To pick one of the more egregious items from Wal-Mart history - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4146540/ns/business-us_business/t/suit-wal-mart-locked-janitors-stores/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4146540/ns/business-us_business/t/...
        patrickaljord 11y ago
        I guess you're suggesting labor party is better at helping ordinary workers than corporations are when it is a fact that free market capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty in countries like Peru where I used to live and all around the world. Before countries like Peru embraced free market like they did in the late 90's, they were extremely poor, they now have a great and growing economy unlike say Venezuela or Cuba who refused to embrace the free market and kept their "labour party that caters to the needs of ordinary workers". How did that work out?
        hackuser 11y ago
        Labor parties in Western countries are free market capitalists. They aren't purists but neither are the parties of business, who use government to aid their constituents and distort marketplaces. For a counter-example, the period of greatest (I think) growth in the 'West' was the 1950's and 60s, when their economies was much more highly regulated, government much more directly involved, and unions much stronger. Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated.
        patrickaljord 11y ago
- rabbyte 11y ago
  As far as I can tell (I opted out of election cycles), Bernie Sanders is the second leading candidate for the Democrats. Let's not feign surprise that there are people who find him exciting and be respectful.
  - 0x49 11y ago
    Be 'respectful'? I just saw an article about Trump linked here on HN and the people commenting ripped him apart and did not show any 'respect'. More and more I'm seeing comment guidelines used more as a way to limit and silence opposing view points rather than to get rid of trolls. If we can't have an honest discussion, the discussions is pretty much worthless.
    - rabbyte 11y ago
      I wasn't responsible for that. I believe honesty and respect are both possible in the same response so I'm advocating for more of that.
- Steko 11y ago
  The Democrats have many people under 60, they just aren't running because of the perceived Clinton juggernaut.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Bernie Sanders is an exciting candidate for you? Yes. > Do Democrats have anyone, anyone, under 60? Age is pretty much orthogonal to what makes a candidate exciting, to me at least. But, yes, the Democrats have lots of people under 60, including at least two of those running for the Presidential nomination in 2016: Martin O'Malley (52), and Lawrence Lessig (54).
- GauntletWizard 11y ago
  Lawrence Lessig is running[1]. He's only 54. But he's exciting to me for the same reasons that Trump is: He's out of left field. [1]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/lessig-lawrence-democrats-debate-2016-213215 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/lessig-lawren...
- dikdik 11y ago
  I like hearing him speak, I like the 'grumpy grandpa-ness' he espouses and his track record of consistency. I get excited by the actual alternative views he presents, typically it feels like Repubs and Dems are almost the same with only slight deviations on social issues (abortion, immigration, and gay marriage). I like that he doesn't toe party lines and will respectfully criticize Republicans as well as Obama. And again he has authenticity, his views seem to come from an actual place of concern and thought instead of a focus group or from trying to align himself within a particular political ideology.
Animats 11y ago
I dunno. Right now, we seem to be headed for Trump vs. Sanders. Bush and Clinton both imploded. It's hard to tell, though. Polls don't work any more. Gallup recently admitted this. Not only do half of Americans not have a landline (they can only call landlines), on 9 out of 10 calls Gallup makes, the other party won't talk to them.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > I dunno. Right now, we seem to be headed for Trump vs. Sanders. Bush and Clinton both imploded. 1) It's way too early for polls to be terribly meaningful. 2) It's way too early to write off the candidate who's currently leading in the polls[0] in every state but two[1], as well as racked up the largest number of endorsements faster than virtually any primary candidate in history. [0] And who's also already won the "invisible primary" (note how few candidates are running on the Democratic ticket - there's a reason most serious candidates opted out of this primary, and her name is Clinton.) [1] and only leading in those two states when polls include a candidate who's not even running (Biden)!
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Right now, we seem to be headed for Trump vs. Sanders. Bush and Clinton both imploded. Trump's been leading the Republican polls for some time, though he still has a pretty small overall share and Carson has been surging recently. Its pretty hard to justify a claim that its clearly heading toward any particular winner on that side (particularly since its not decided in a national election, but state-by-state elections to assign delegates in a manner which isn't proportionate to share of vote, and there's not frequent enough state-by-state polling to have a clear picture of even the current state of those, much less where they are likely to be by the times they are held.) On the other hand, while Sanders is doing well in some places, Clinton's still got a about a 20 percentage point lead in most national polling; she's hardly "imploded" the way Bush, widely perceived as an early Republican frontrunner, has. Many of the same concerns exist as discussed above with the Republican ticket as far as drawing conclusions go, but what you can read from polls doesn't show anything like a clear course to a Sanders win.
  - 11y ago

by 0x49 11y ago

mudil 11y ago

Oh, c'mon. Bernie Sanders is an exciting candidate for you? Give me a break. Do Democrats have anyone, anyone, under 60?

0x49 11y ago
no, I would never vote for him. I'm just giving a reason why I don't think he has a chance.
- mudil 11y ago
  I thought Obama was suppose to deliver. Didn't we hear the same aspirations and justifications 8 and 4 years ago?
  - mudil 11y ago
    Sorry, I was wrong. Obama delivered. To GOOG/TWTR/YAHO/FB/etc and to Eric Schmidt-backed startup more than to the middle class. My bad.
    - mudil 11y ago
      And we should not forget that Obama also delivered to the NSA. He is the president. Can't blame Republicans for that.
    - Synaesthesia 11y ago
      In the US both political parties are very much pro-business and pro-big business. There is no true labour party that caters to the needs of ordinary workers.
      - Natsu 11y ago
        Clinton might still win the labor vote due to the other side being even less palatable. Which is, frankly, pretty sad, considering that she was on the board of Wal-Mart for so many years. A company which has long been about as hostile to workers as one can possibly be. To pick one of the more egregious items from Wal-Mart history - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4146540/ns/business-us_business/t/suit-wal-mart-locked-janitors-stores/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4146540/ns/business-us_business/t/...
      - patrickaljord 11y ago
        I guess you're suggesting labor party is better at helping ordinary workers than corporations are when it is a fact that free market capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty in countries like Peru where I used to live and all around the world. Before countries like Peru embraced free market like they did in the late 90's, they were extremely poor, they now have a great and growing economy unlike say Venezuela or Cuba who refused to embrace the free market and kept their "labour party that caters to the needs of ordinary workers". How did that work out?
        hackuser 11y ago
        Labor parties in Western countries are free market capitalists. They aren't purists but neither are the parties of business, who use government to aid their constituents and distort marketplaces. For a counter-example, the period of greatest (I think) growth in the 'West' was the 1950's and 60s, when their economies was much more highly regulated, government much more directly involved, and unions much stronger. Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated.
        patrickaljord 11y ago
rabbyte 11y ago
As far as I can tell (I opted out of election cycles), Bernie Sanders is the second leading candidate for the Democrats. Let's not feign surprise that there are people who find him exciting and be respectful.
- 0x49 11y ago
  Be 'respectful'? I just saw an article about Trump linked here on HN and the people commenting ripped him apart and did not show any 'respect'. More and more I'm seeing comment guidelines used more as a way to limit and silence opposing view points rather than to get rid of trolls. If we can't have an honest discussion, the discussions is pretty much worthless.
  - rabbyte 11y ago
    I wasn't responsible for that. I believe honesty and respect are both possible in the same response so I'm advocating for more of that.
Steko 11y ago
The Democrats have many people under 60, they just aren't running because of the perceived Clinton juggernaut.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Bernie Sanders is an exciting candidate for you? Yes. > Do Democrats have anyone, anyone, under 60? Age is pretty much orthogonal to what makes a candidate exciting, to me at least. But, yes, the Democrats have lots of people under 60, including at least two of those running for the Presidential nomination in 2016: Martin O'Malley (52), and Lawrence Lessig (54).
GauntletWizard 11y ago
Lawrence Lessig is running[1]. He's only 54. But he's exciting to me for the same reasons that Trump is: He's out of left field. [1]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/lessig-lawrence-democrats-debate-2016-213215 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/lessig-lawren...
dikdik 11y ago
I like hearing him speak, I like the 'grumpy grandpa-ness' he espouses and his track record of consistency. I get excited by the actual alternative views he presents, typically it feels like Repubs and Dems are almost the same with only slight deviations on social issues (abortion, immigration, and gay marriage). I like that he doesn't toe party lines and will respectfully criticize Republicans as well as Obama. And again he has authenticity, his views seem to come from an actual place of concern and thought instead of a focus group or from trying to align himself within a particular political ideology.

Animats 11y ago

I dunno. Right now, we seem to be headed for Trump vs. Sanders. Bush and Clinton both imploded. It's hard to tell, though. Polls don't work any more. Gallup recently admitted this. Not only do half of Americans not have a landline (they can only call landlines), on 9 out of 10 calls Gallup makes, the other party won't talk to them.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> I dunno. Right now, we seem to be headed for Trump vs. Sanders. Bush and Clinton both imploded. 1) It's way too early for polls to be terribly meaningful. 2) It's way too early to write off the candidate who's currently leading in the polls[0] in every state but two[1], as well as racked up the largest number of endorsements faster than virtually any primary candidate in history. [0] And who's also already won the "invisible primary" (note how few candidates are running on the Democratic ticket - there's a reason most serious candidates opted out of this primary, and her name is Clinton.) [1] and only leading in those two states when polls include a candidate who's not even running (Biden)!
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Right now, we seem to be headed for Trump vs. Sanders. Bush and Clinton both imploded. Trump's been leading the Republican polls for some time, though he still has a pretty small overall share and Carson has been surging recently. Its pretty hard to justify a claim that its clearly heading toward any particular winner on that side (particularly since its not decided in a national election, but state-by-state elections to assign delegates in a manner which isn't proportionate to share of vote, and there's not frequent enough state-by-state polling to have a clear picture of even the current state of those, much less where they are likely to be by the times they are held.) On the other hand, while Sanders is doing well in some places, Clinton's still got a about a 20 percentage point lead in most national polling; she's hardly "imploded" the way Bush, widely perceived as an early Republican frontrunner, has. Many of the same concerns exist as discussed above with the Republican ticket as far as drawing conclusions go, but what you can read from polls doesn't show anything like a clear course to a Sanders win.
- 11y ago