10 ms·
There are quite a few Trump supporters in the Valley, but they simply stay quiet because they will get 'racist' yelled at them and it will potentially hurt thei
by carsongross 10y ago
There are quite a few Trump supporters in the Valley, but they simply stay quiet because they will get 'racist' yelled at them and it will potentially hurt their careers.
- seany 10y agoI don't even think we're that rare. The more left leaning folks around here are just _really_ left though, so staying quiet makes more sense most of the time.
- josephlord 10y agoWhat do you like about him?
- James001 10y agoHe's not a murderer, unlike the other option
- seany 10y agoHonestly, Trump and Hillary aren't that different. He's a little less of a warhawk, speaks his mind, and is pro-2A. The last one is almost enough on its own for me, given Hillarys stance on that issue.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> He's a little less of a warhawk Given that he's criticized Obama/Clinton for being insufficiently aggressive in several areas, and praised Putin's aggressiveness, I'm not sure where that conclusion comes from, besides his after-the-fact claims to have opposed the Iraq War before it started (his only public statement on the war before it started appears to have been grudging support, not opposition, on the Howard Stern show in 2002, and stating that a decision on the war one way or another was important on Fox News in January 2003, without expressing support or opposition.)
- 13years 10y agoHe has criticized John McCain and Lindsey Graham over their pro war stances. In the debates he has mentioned problems with the interventionist foreign policy. Surprisingly he even attracted support of Michael Scheuer ( a huge critic of our interventionist foreign policy), although I believe he has pulled back a bit on that recently. However, yes he has also made somewhat contradictory statements as well. So, it is hard to draw any definitive conclusions what his actual policy would look like.
- sp527 10y agoHonest question: if that's really what you believe (that he's fundamentally unpredictable), why would you vote for him?
- 13years 10y agoI don't find him credible enough to vote for him. However, what I have observed is that some feel that Clinton is a certainty in continuing our existing foreign policy and that the choice is between certain more war and maybe less war and they are opting for the maybe less war. The one facet he has been mostly consistent on to my knowledge is at least he is not trying to push an aggressive provoking stance against Russia. It will be very interesting of Gary Johnson can succeed in getting into the debates. If he has a good performance, that could really change everything.
- 13years 10y agoHe has espoused a non-interventionalist foreign policy. Unfortunately though, he is not a man of principle; therefore, I don't have high hopes he would follow through unlike someone like Ron Paul. So for libertarian leaning voters, some might opt for Trump in hopes of less war. I feel that is a bit of a wildcard though. On the other hand, those same voters likely feel that Clinton is more certain of more war and debt.
- josephlord 10y agoI thought his policy was to "bomb the hell out of ISIS"? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/18/new_trump_ad_i_will_quickly_and_decisively_bomb_the_hell_out_of_isis.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/18/new_trump_...
- Apocryphon 10y agoHe's expressed a lot of contradictory statements, though. His recent rhetoric has been very gung ho about smashing ISIS and the like (to be fair, every candidate, even Sanders, following the Orlando attacks, has said the same). He's talked about killing the families of terrorists and bringing back torture methods worse than waterboarding. He might not be as canny or experienced as Clinton is at wielding this nation's military-intelligence systems to wage war with, but that doesn't mean he won't try, at some point. Trump just doesn't come across as a principled peace candidate. Not to mention, there seems to be a tendency for third party, or dark horse candidates, to run on non-interventionism. Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, George Wallace, even Charles Lindbergh- I think when one doesn't have previous political commitments to defense contractors and other entrenched pro-interventionist interests, there's no need to suck up on them. Instead, it becomes natural to run on a populist, America first, foreign policy deemphasized campaign to appeal to the common people. Trump is no longer dark horse, he's no longer fringe. He no longer needs to commit to non-interventionism. If anything, he is currently trying to outmaneuver Clinton as the candidate who can bring terrorism to heel.
- dforrestwilson 10y agoWhy not more Gary Johnson supporters?
- carsongross 10y agoBecause there has been a collapse in right-leaning libertarianism in the post Ron Paul era. Libertarianism has shifted to the left and there has been an exodus of right-libertarians to various flavors of nationalism. I think this is one of the major intellectual stories of the last decade, largely uncovered by the media.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoI would argue that it is the right's embrace of authoritarianism rooted in nativist and nationalist (some might even say racist) sentiments that pushed libertarians to the left, which is traditionally the sphere of people who have been historically oppressed or just want to be left alone.
- noobermin 10y ago>exodus of right-libertarians to various flavors of nationalism. How does a libertarian become a nationalist? Trump sure seems to facillitate "USA pride" but his politics and economics are not that libertarian at all. How can nationalistic pride win over what I thought was the center of the libertarian philosophy?
- dragonwriter 10y ago> How does a libertarian become a nationalist? Right-libertarians in the US already generally were nationalists (nationalism is a very common, if not defining, element of the right-wing orientation), and generally had the least opposition for government action in the same areas where authoritarian nationalists tend to focus on preferring government action, which is why lots of right-libertarians have always been within the Republican fold rather than voting for the Libertarian Party.
- carsongross 10y ago
- callcallcall 10y agoTrump has an extensive history of using racism to divide people for his own benefit.
- oh_sigh 10y agoExamples? Should be pretty easy to find if it is an "extensive history"
- wolfram74 10y agoSaying Gonzalo Curiel (born in Indiana) can't be impartial in a court case involving Trump "University" because he's mexican is one example.
- oh_sigh 10y ago1) Mexican isn't a race - it is a nationality. There are people of all races that are Mexican. 2) Curiels parents were illegal immigrants, and exactly the kind of people that Trump says he would deport. 3) Curiel has mentioned in the past (in a NYT article from the early 2000s, I can find a link if you like) that his Mexican heritage has had an impact in his practice of the law. 4) Curiel isn't a robot. Imagine if he ruled in favor of Trump...how popular would he be at the next family gathering? 5) Was it racist when Justice Sotomayor said that a "wise Latina" could make a better judicial decision than an old white man?
- whatyoucantsay 10y agoI'm curious which of these points downvoters are disagreeing with. I say this as someone with family members who look very much "Mexican" to most Americans. I don't like Trump's talk at all, but how would anyone with illegal immigrant parents would have comfortable family gatherings after supporting Trump? Job or not, family is strong. Is this just an example of herd HN behavior?
- meira 10y ago
- redwood 10y agoThere are plenty of racists around, that's true.
- oh_sigh 10y agoYup...and I'm quite curious how the author squares these two lines: > [Thiel] will become the most prominent public face of a species so endangered it might as well be called extinct: the Silicon Valley Trump supporter. and > The danger, then, is that not only could Mr. Thiel’s public embrace of Mr. Trump backfire on him, but it could also become another plot point in the larger story line that Silicon Valley is exclusionary and narrow-minded and that its innovations are advancing global inequality. So...the author thinks that there are almost no Trump supporters in the valley, and also thinks that a single public supporter of Trump will lead to people believing that Trump is the problem with Silicon valley...
- kamakazizuru 10y agoThat actually does make sense, negative signalling is powerful, there are many blaming silicon valley for all sorts of problems in society (AI killing jobs, rents in the bay area rising etc) and it would be easy to then take the views of a prominent valley figure and superimpose them onto all of the valley, even if <0,01% support trump.
- dguaraglia 10y agoWhich is not an incorrect assessment. People consistently fall for the trap of taking the worst possible exponent of a group and extrapolating what the whole group looks like. With Bernie Sanders supporters, it was the "Bernie bro", with Hillary Clinton it's the "nothing's wrong with her, she's perfect" supporters, with Trump is the cesspool of hatred that is /r/the_donald (people celebrating pictures of a guy armed with an assault-style rifle wearing a "cuckhunter" shirt at the RNC convention... let that sink in.) Tech workers already receive quite a bit of hate from some people (harassing at shuttle stops has become a semi-regular thing, I've been called a "fucking techie" when bar hopping, etc.) The last thing we need is the same people associating us with a political candidate who openly demonizes immigrants, insults women and disabled people, and who repeats "I'm RICH! SO RICH!" every time he's given an opportunity. I'm all for Peter Thiel supporting whoever he wants, but I definitely don't want him to be the representative for the majorly progressive Silicon Valley population.
- pbreit 10y agoDon't you think being a Trump supporter =should= hurt most people's careers? It's pretty poor judgment, for starters.
- saboot 10y agoMany prominent republicans have come to this same conclusion, so it's not an unreasonable fear.
- crusso 10y agoAllow me to meander a ways with extending what I view as your point: Should employers use whatever public records they have available to punish employees who donate money to the wrong party or candidates? Perhaps they should use this information in hiring? If political support is fair game for attacking people in other aspects of their lives, why as a society should we allow for votes to be made in secret? Maybe we should force people to vote on public record so we can really punish or reward each individual for his or her political choices.
- judah 10y agoNo. That's called thought-policing, and it's wrong. We should not harm people's livelihood just because we don't like their politics.
- googlryas 10y agoPat, that is a pretty disgusting thing to say. Please reconsider if political viewpoints are worthy of career punishment.
- serge2k 10y agoThey aren't... but can we make an exception?
- rsmckinney 10y agoThat's a good Nazi.
- pbreit 10y ago
- 3princip 10y agoOnes career being affected by a political opinion is very dangerous, especially since the goal-posts are constantly being moved by the thought-police. It's understandable how political opinions can affect how we view our peers, sometimes I question how a rational person could, for example, vote for Hillary Clinton. That does not change that persons professional proficiency nor would I hinder their career in any way because of it. It's a shame some people don't feel it inappropriate to cause harm because someone does not subscribe to their world view.
- noobermin 10y ago>It's understandable how political opinions can affect how we view our peers[...] That's how it happens. Even if you try to be impartial, it's hard to give someone the same respect and give them as much of a chance after they have a differing opinion from you. Not that you shouldn't try, but it's difficult.
- internaut 10y agoThat's why you have to go out of your way to talk to people you don't agree with. When you have an 'ugh' moment, you should notice this and put it to work. Some of my most interesting conversation have come from talking to persons who completely rejected the ideas I consider to be self evident. There are definite conflicts of interest that cannot be resolved but there are also major spheres of thought that 'the other side' does not even consider because they are orthogonal to their thinking. Gradually I have incorporated some of the enemy's thinking into my own conception of the world. If an idea is relevant it tends to seep in without you being consciously aware of it. If you've ever read old internet posts or comments you'd have made and thought "who the fuck is that guy and how is he/she so wrong" then you get it.
- patrickburke 10y agoThe narrative in this country is people who dont agree with the liberal establishment are mentally ill in the form of racism, sexism, etc. This is the level of political discourse we put up with.
- jasonmp85 10y ago> they will get 'racist' yelled This formulation implies they are victims of people irrationally yelling 'racist' at them. They just said they supported a particular political candidate! How unfair of the mob to slur them! You elide the underlying cause: they keep quiet to avoid having 'racist' yelled at them, because being a Trump supporter is supporting racism.
- carsongross 10y agoSee?
- Nadya 10y agoThis argument is often double-downed with "You're sexist if you don't support Hillary". You don't want to be a racist/sexist, right? Vote Hillary! Both arguments are increasingly why so many people are supporting Trump. They are emotional appeals based on presumptions that aren't necessarily true - and are more irritating than compelling. It also hurts the image of legitimate social issues. When everything is racist/sexist then being racist/sexist no longer holds any meaning.
- sp527 10y agoThis is a man who has demonstrated an extraordinary and heretofore unrivaled degree of ignorance and stupidity on the public stage. Clinton's no angel herself, but at least she has a brain. I think there's an IQ hurdle a potential candidate needs to clear and even though it's relatively low, Trump has managed the astonishing feat of not being able to meet it. That alone disqualifies him. Any further arguments are irrelevant. That's why one feels compelled to assume that Trump supporters - the ones we would otherwise assume are reasonably intelligent at least - must have an ulterior rationale for their vote. The most obvious explanation is closet bigotry.
- eevilspock 10y agoIf there is much squirming much of it has to be dishonest, because the popular attitudes that I see displayed in the Valley and here on HN are rather in line with Trump's anti-PC, dismissive-of-sexism-or-racism-claims, anti-afirmative action, pro-business, pro-money rhetoric.