6 ms·

IMO, you can even disregard all of Trump's dirty laundry in this calculation. He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happe

by untog 10y ago

IMO, you can even disregard all of Trump's dirty laundry in this calculation. He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire election is "rigged". He is attempting to undermine democracy in the country and I'm not sure you need a single additional reason to object to anyone who supports him. Thiel, of course, does not think "freedom and democracy are compatible": https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

sidcool 10y ago
Thiel reminds me of Zobrist from Dan Brown's novel and now a nice, The Inferno
Alex3917 10y ago
> He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened As we all should, since many/most electronic voting machines don't even have a paper trail. How is it that so many standard liberal positions from five or ten years ago have somehow now become ultra conservative?
- untog 10y ago
  His statements might have some level of validity if he was criticising the use of electronic voting machines. He is not. He is instead suggesting that his supporters go to "other areas" and "see what's going on over there" - if his objection was electronic voting machines then that request would make no sense.
- archagon 10y ago
  Surely you realize how disingenuous this statement is? Trump's mantra of "the media is conspiring against me, the polls are all rigged, the election will be stolen from under us" is a far cry from anything we've seen in previous years. This has nothing to do with electronic voting machines. This is straight FUD in the most primal possible sense.
  - Alex3917 10y ago
    > This is straight FUD in the most primal possible sense. Trump may be saying it for the wrong reasons, but he's absolutely right that the integrity of the election is in doubt.
    - archagon 10y ago
      No, he's not. Not in the way he's saying it. Every single poll is showing him losing at this point. Many political leaders, including those in his own party, have dismissed his claims as nonsense. As he always does whenever he's embarrassed in public, he's simply laying blame for his failure on something — anything! — outside his own incompetence. Unfortunately, his core supporters lap it right up.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      No, he absolutely is not. He is acting as a giant crybaby, and he will continue doing so after the election, with disastrous consequences.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      He's absolutely not right. It's fine to question things, but just saying "it's in doubt" with no argument is just Trump style FUD.
    - leshow 10y ago
      Saying the election is rigged with zero evidence is "saying it for the wrong reasons"
amyjess 10y ago
Just adding to this, claiming that a democratic election is rigged is one of Umberto Eco's 14 signs of Ur-Fascism [0]: > Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism. [0] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
- virgil_disgr4ce 10y ago
  Awesome find. Sharing this.
  - amyjess 10y ago
    You're welcome! You might also be interested in some analyses I found of how these points apply to Trump. Unfortunately some of these links are a few months old so they don't mention some more recent events (the second debate gave us plenty of more material for #3 and #14 and probably others, and the whole thing with the tape and the sexual assault allegations adds fuel to #12): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175456 http://lithub.com/umberto-eco-on-donald-trump-14-ways-of-looking-at-a-fascist/ http://lithub.com/umberto-eco-on-donald-trump-14-ways-of-loo... https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163 https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-che... http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/fascism/502841/ http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/fascism/502841/ (and if I find more within the edit window, I'll add them)
    - ScottBurson 10y ago
      If I may offer one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175380
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- grey-area 10y ago
  This is a wonderful and frightening summary of what makes fascism so superficially attractive and easy to slip into. Another point relevant to the current debate: For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason. Those on both sides of this debate who seek to silence and ostracise their opponents should rethink that position.
2AF3 10y ago
Meanwhile, there are wikileaks of HRC and Podesta discussing Wetworks (before Scalia's murder)
- untog 10y ago
  No, there are not. That anyone even interpreted those e-mails that way is indicative of the utterly ridiculous, paranoid mindset that is far too common these days. http://www.snopes.com/wikileaks-exposes-clinton-assassination-of-antonin-scalia/ http://www.snopes.com/wikileaks-exposes-clinton-assassinatio...
nostromo 10y ago
For what it's worth, I haven't heard many complaints about Bernie Sanders claiming elections are bought. > We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates. Let’s not kid ourselves. That is the reality right now. [1] (He also is fond of claiming "the system" is rigged, if not elections directly.) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-takes-on-billionaire-class-in-launching-2016-bid-against-clinton/2015/04/30/4849fe32-ef3a-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-takes-on-bil...
- tptacek 10y ago
  That's because Bernie Sanders is not in fact claiming that the election is rigged. In fact: he's been a reliable support of Clinton since the primaries ended.
  - pjwal 10y ago
    And therefore, he's a good guy now? lol.
- noobermin 10y ago
  I certainly heard them, at the very least, there was railing against Bernie supporters, not Bernie himself. His railing against the system regards economics and yes the foray of money into politics. It is in a similar category of statements but is very different than claiming the voting machines are rigged. Yes, some Bernie supporters alleged there was outright voting manipulation, but the Sanders campaign did not directly allege that.
- untog 10y ago
  He's making a different claim, though. That million/billionaires can donate to politicians and influence the legislation they write. Or that they can donate to SuperPACs, which will air ads that change people's minds about what candidate to support. That seems pretty true. Trump is suggesting that actual votes are being miscounted deliberately. That the entire voting system of the US cannot be trusted to provide the result the public give it. That's a very different charge, a very dangerous one, and utterly unproven.
Natsu 10y ago
> He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire election is "rigged". A) That's been done before (Gore, 2000). B) There's evidence of voter fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs I hope no one intimidates voters, though. That's not right no matter who does it or why.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
Because armies of Democrats, including pundits, elected officials, party functionaries, and the action Presidential nominees, never claimed 2000 or 2004 were rigged in any way. Please, spare us the pearl-clutching. You're only fooling people who don't know their history.

by untog 10y ago

sidcool 10y ago

Thiel reminds me of Zobrist from Dan Brown's novel and now a nice, The Inferno

Alex3917 10y ago

> He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened As we all should, since many/most electronic voting machines don't even have a paper trail. How is it that so many standard liberal positions from five or ten years ago have somehow now become ultra conservative?

untog 10y ago
His statements might have some level of validity if he was criticising the use of electronic voting machines. He is not. He is instead suggesting that his supporters go to "other areas" and "see what's going on over there" - if his objection was electronic voting machines then that request would make no sense.
archagon 10y ago
Surely you realize how disingenuous this statement is? Trump's mantra of "the media is conspiring against me, the polls are all rigged, the election will be stolen from under us" is a far cry from anything we've seen in previous years. This has nothing to do with electronic voting machines. This is straight FUD in the most primal possible sense.
- Alex3917 10y ago
  > This is straight FUD in the most primal possible sense. Trump may be saying it for the wrong reasons, but he's absolutely right that the integrity of the election is in doubt.
  - archagon 10y ago
    No, he's not. Not in the way he's saying it. Every single poll is showing him losing at this point. Many political leaders, including those in his own party, have dismissed his claims as nonsense. As he always does whenever he's embarrassed in public, he's simply laying blame for his failure on something — anything! — outside his own incompetence. Unfortunately, his core supporters lap it right up.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    No, he absolutely is not. He is acting as a giant crybaby, and he will continue doing so after the election, with disastrous consequences.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    He's absolutely not right. It's fine to question things, but just saying "it's in doubt" with no argument is just Trump style FUD.
  - leshow 10y ago
    Saying the election is rigged with zero evidence is "saying it for the wrong reasons"

amyjess 10y ago

Just adding to this, claiming that a democratic election is rigged is one of Umberto Eco's 14 signs of Ur-Fascism [0]: > Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism. [0] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

virgil_disgr4ce 10y ago
Awesome find. Sharing this.
- amyjess 10y ago
  You're welcome! You might also be interested in some analyses I found of how these points apply to Trump. Unfortunately some of these links are a few months old so they don't mention some more recent events (the second debate gave us plenty of more material for #3 and #14 and probably others, and the whole thing with the tape and the sexual assault allegations adds fuel to #12): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175456 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175456 http://lithub.com/umberto-eco-on-donald-trump-14-ways-of-looking-at-a-fascist/ http://lithub.com/umberto-eco-on-donald-trump-14-ways-of-loo... https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163 https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-che... http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/fascism/502841/ http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/fascism/502841/ (and if I find more within the edit window, I'll add them)
  - ScottBurson 10y ago
    If I may offer one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12175380
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
grey-area 10y ago
This is a wonderful and frightening summary of what makes fascism so superficially attractive and easy to slip into. Another point relevant to the current debate: For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason. Those on both sides of this debate who seek to silence and ostracise their opponents should rethink that position.

2AF3 10y ago

Meanwhile, there are wikileaks of HRC and Podesta discussing Wetworks (before Scalia's murder)

untog 10y ago
No, there are not. That anyone even interpreted those e-mails that way is indicative of the utterly ridiculous, paranoid mindset that is far too common these days. http://www.snopes.com/wikileaks-exposes-clinton-assassination-of-antonin-scalia/ http://www.snopes.com/wikileaks-exposes-clinton-assassinatio...

nostromo 10y ago

For what it's worth, I haven't heard many complaints about Bernie Sanders claiming elections are bought. > We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates. Let’s not kid ourselves. That is the reality right now. [1] (He also is fond of claiming "the system" is rigged, if not elections directly.) [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-takes-on-billionaire-class-in-launching-2016-bid-against-clinton/2015/04/30/4849fe32-ef3a-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-takes-on-bil...

tptacek 10y ago
That's because Bernie Sanders is not in fact claiming that the election is rigged. In fact: he's been a reliable support of Clinton since the primaries ended.
- pjwal 10y ago
  And therefore, he's a good guy now? lol.
noobermin 10y ago
I certainly heard them, at the very least, there was railing against Bernie supporters, not Bernie himself. His railing against the system regards economics and yes the foray of money into politics. It is in a similar category of statements but is very different than claiming the voting machines are rigged. Yes, some Bernie supporters alleged there was outright voting manipulation, but the Sanders campaign did not directly allege that.
untog 10y ago
He's making a different claim, though. That million/billionaires can donate to politicians and influence the legislation they write. Or that they can donate to SuperPACs, which will air ads that change people's minds about what candidate to support. That seems pretty true. Trump is suggesting that actual votes are being miscounted deliberately. That the entire voting system of the US cannot be trusted to provide the result the public give it. That's a very different charge, a very dangerous one, and utterly unproven.

Natsu 10y ago

> He is openly calling into doubt the result of this election before it's even happened, asking supporters to intimidate voters, and suggesting the entire election is "rigged". A) That's been done before (Gore, 2000). B) There's evidence of voter fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs I hope no one intimidates voters, though. That's not right no matter who does it or why.

mzw_mzw 10y ago

Because armies of Democrats, including pundits, elected officials, party functionaries, and the action Presidential nominees, never claimed 2000 or 2004 were rigged in any way. Please, spare us the pearl-clutching. You're only fooling people who don't know their history.