51 ms·

The 2016 Election

• sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
  > We shouldn’t start purging people for supporting the wrong political candidate. That's not how things are done in this country. Amen.
  • Koshkin 10y ago
    > the wrong This should be written in double quotes.
  • 1337biz 10y ago
    I am always skeptical when somebody takes his personal opinion as the metric to tell the world what right and wrong is.
    • rwmj 10y ago
      He explained pretty clearly in the article why Trump is objectively wrong.
      • eeks 10y ago
        No, "subjectively" wrong. Trump is wrong from Altman's standpoint, not from an absolute "good" or "evil" standpoint. Except if you do believe the latter, and in that case any discussion is moot.
        • rwmj 10y ago
          No, objectively. Granted sama doesn't provide detailed references, but you can find factual backing for statements such as these ones easily if you look: "A Trump presidency would be a disaster for the American economy." "He has no real plan to restore economic growth." "His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer" "He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage. He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants." "Trump shows little respect for the Constitution"
          • eeks 10y ago
            Not that I want to split hair but in the examples you gave: 1) Subjective This is an opinion, not a fact. 2) Objective I agree. But that does not make him "objectively" wrong. 3) Subjective Without starting a discussion about Trump alleged racism, whether or not a somewhat isolationist policy would either divide our country or make American innovation suffer is a matter of opinion, not facts. Some other prominent investors seem to disagree. Besides, examples in our history would tend to show the contrary (I am referring to Roosevelt policies after the '29 crash). 4) Subjective Unless SCOTUS rules that his stands are unconstitutional, it's only a matter of interpretation.
            • rwmj 10y ago
              A Trump presidency would be an economic disaster: Objectively true because his policies involve reducing taxes, increasing spending, and isolating the country from free trade (eg. withdrawing from NAFTA which has been shown to have created jobs and growth on both sides of the border). "American innovation would suffer": Because of economic consequences, so see above. "He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage": I don't even know how you can argue against this, just watch one of his speeches. "He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants": He personally is a threat to women, and his policies, such as they are, are now stiring up racial hatred. Again, an objective truth. "Trump shows little respect for the Constitution": He announced several completely unconstitutional plans, such as suspending the right of US citizens to return to the country if they are Muslims. You don't need a ruling from the Supreme Court on this.
    • sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
      Except that he made the case for why he thinks Trump is the wrong candidate. Keep in mind, he wrote a blog post earlier giving credit to Trump on topics that he is correct on.
      • 1337biz 10y ago
        Didn't the the other post. Thanks for pointing that out!
    • qntty 10y ago
      Could you say what it would mean to have an idea of right and wrong that isn't an opinion? What would it be if not an opinion?
    • sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
      What do you think 'right' and 'wrong' mean ? It will always be a matter of opinion. Especially since one side in this election is adamant to ignore empirical/scientific evidence when it comes to topics like global warming and discrimination.
  • braythwayt 10y ago
    Sorry, not a good analogy. What it omits is the power factor. Were Mr. Thiel a founder, and a powerful VC blacklisted him because of his political views, we would have the powerful trampling the weak. If HN banned everyone who defended Mr. Thiel, we would have a purge. But choosing not to do business with a billionaire that is actually spending money to support Mr. Trump is not a case of the powerful oppressing the weak, nor is it a case of the powerful purging voices from discourse. It's a choice, simple as that. Agree, disagree, fine. But it's not a purge, and it's not oppression.
    • DougN7 10y ago
      What about Brendan Eich? I don't know if he is a billionaire, but he lost a job. Losing a job for having a particular view is oppression. Next election cycle, should you lose your job if you support Clinton? No. We're losing civil discourse by going this way.
      • braythwayt 10y ago
        Great discussion to be had, but you seem to be working this towards a slippery slope argument that if we don't choose to do business with billionaires to give millions and stump at the RNC convention, it won't be long before we're firing 43% of the workforce. I can accept that YC may choose not to cut Mr. Thiel loose, but I'm not convinced that there is a moral imperative not to cut him loose.
        • DougN7 10y ago
          Where does it stop though? Where is the line where you say "I disagree with you, therefore I will not associate with you"? There is definitely a line. Supporting a candidate who says a lot of stuff probably isn't it. I knew people who were against Obama because his religious leader had said something that could be construed to be pro-satan. Obama is not a 100% mirror (or even a tiny bit) that religious leader. Not supporting Trump for what he says seems fine - he's 100% responsible for what he says. Not supporting someone else, who supports Trump, is not OK. That other person has separate thoughts, and input from hundreds/thousands of other people. It's like saying if you support someone who supports Clinton, you support top secret emails being on everyone's private servers. It's a tiny slice of the whole. Or, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water".
• 1123581321 10y ago
  Thanks for clarifying your support, Sam. You mentioned you'd like to understand Trump supporters. Have you considered asking people in your network to confidentially contact you to explain, and then publishing the anonymized findings? With your reach, it seems like you could really help build this bridge you want to see exist, and the results would probably be interesting to read.
• sethbannon 10y ago
  Bravo to Sam for the endorsement and for calling Trump out for what he is. On the issue of Peter Thiel, for those of you that believe it's wrong to fire someone based on their political actions, is there any limit? If David Duke ran for office, or the Ku Klux Klan fielded a candidate for president, and someone gave a high profile speech endorsing them and supported their campaign with a million dollars, would it still be wrong to part ways with that person?
  • dmix 10y ago
    Thinking in absolutes is dangerous and anti-intellectual, that's the whole problem here. Rabidly following an ideology where you will entirely dismiss a person because their privately held beliefs don't align with yours. There should be context to all decisions making. If the person has extreme views and, most importantly, they are very vocal about it to the point you don't think they'll fit into the culture of your organization, then I see no problem with not hiring them on that basis. But at the same time if the person is able to treat others respectfully, not force their views on others, and keep personal life and business separated, then I don't see the problem with hiring them regardless of their views. I'd be more concerned hiring a moderate democrat/republican/green/etc who forced their views on other people on the job, than hiring someone holding (what mainstream society considers) extreme views[^] and rarely talks about it at work. [^] Note: calling for violence and coercive behavior is another story.
  • rhaps0dy 10y ago
    It depends on what your goals are. If your goal is to do effective business, probably not. If your goal is to signal your political allegiance, possibly to not get fired yourself, then yes get them out. If your goals are a mix of both, weigh and decide.
  • 1337biz 10y ago
    We are talking here about 40-50% of the American electorate not some fringe maniac. If you think those people's opinion should be shunned than your world view seems very restricted to me.
    • 10y ago
• sp527 10y ago
  > of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying. Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalist.
  • xname2 10y ago
    With your logic, so Sam Altman effectively is saying half of trump of supporters are a basket of deplorables?
    • justjico 10y ago
      She apologized the next day though.
      • MrZongle2 10y ago
        "“Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that's never a good idea. I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong," Clinton said in a statement released Saturday afternoon." (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-basket-deplorables-227988 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-basket...) Apparently the apology was over "half" rather than "deplorables".
        • Latty 10y ago
          If you are claiming that calling a non-trivial proportion of Trump's supporters deplorable requires an apology, you disagree with me about what is deplorable.
          • MrZongle2 10y ago
            The fact that a candidate for President of the United States -- whichever party they represent -- would decide to dismiss a sizeable portion of the country as contemptible or wretched seems to be the issue. Mitt Romney dismissed 47% of the voting public in 2012 and was roundly criticized for dismissing the people he supposedly wanted to lead. If Clinton had said 46%, would that have made it ok?
• lhnz 10y ago
  > We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided. > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. > But I’d like to find out, because we have to include > everyone in our path forward. If our best ideas are to > stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us, > we’ll be facing this whole situation again in 2020. > > That kind of diversity is painful and unpopular, but > it is critical to health of a democratic and pluralistic > society. We shouldn’t start purging people for > supporting the wrong political candidate. > That's not how things are done in this country. This impresses me. That is exactly what I was trying to explain to somebody else in the other thread, and I was starting to feel like it was a position that nobody else held.
  • gkoberger 10y ago
    Sam tweeted that this was his favorite article about the election: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-on... It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters.
    • Alex3917 10y ago
      > It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters. I think what we're seeing are the results of taking 6 trillion dollars that should have been spent building infrastructure for working class Americans and instead wasting it in Iraq.
      • ones_and_zeros 10y ago
        Without the war there would not have been 6 trillion dollars to spend... I think Trump supporters are regular simple Americans who are looking around and seeing they haven't benefited from the economic prosperity at a rate equivalent to their output and are facing an all out assault on their labor via neo-liberal policies adopted by both major parties. Neither party is going to point back at themselves and Trump has seized their support by blaming common scapegoats and tapping in to populist racial, gender and religious discrimination. Democrats have and do do this too, ie "super predators", etc.
• bonaldi 10y ago
  YC: Happy to cut people off over SOPA support. YC: Can't bring itself to even censure a billionaire who only works with them "part-time" for supporting actual hatred and sexual abuse. I await this thread filling up with "but how you can be tolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance?!" and other Phil-101 Do You Sees
  • ilyanep 10y ago
    For what it's worth, the former was YC under pg and the latter is YC under Sam Altman. Maybe the two disagree about how things should be done?
    • nicklovescode 10y ago
      https://twitter.com/paulg https://twitter.com/paulg https://twitter.com/sama https://twitter.com/sama If you look at their respective Tweets they seem to agree.
  • Analemma_ 10y ago
    Might as well just copy-paste my comment from yesterday: "Taking the high road like this is only possible when it's not your neck on the chopping block. Thiel thinks giving women the right to vote was a mistake; Trump thinks all Mexicans and Muslims are violent madmen who should be barred from entering the United States. Hacker News can gregariously see past these faults because they're not in the crosshairs, but if Shanley Kane were a YC partner and saying "all men support rape culture, even if indirectly", there's no friggin way this comment section would be so sanguine."
    • qntty 10y ago
      Wow, I initially agreed with sama, but this makes me realize how much of a hypocrite I am.
    • postcarnival 10y ago
      > Trump thinks all Mexicans and Muslims are violent madmen who should be barred from entering the United States. ok honestly this is just outright wrong. you're just reciting false talking points from your liberal tv when you clearly haven't actually taken the time to listen to what Trump actually said. He never once called all Mexicans rapists yet you say he did. He never once said he wants to ban ALL Muslims from entering the US yet you did. For your information, the FBI notified congress and local governments that they currently are not confident that they can properly vet all incoming refugees. If the FBI is saying that, how on Earth can you claim it's wrong for Trump to call for a temporary stop until the FBI says it has a handle on it?
• ryana 10y ago
  So does Sam denounce the previous actions of YC banning companies who supported SOPA from demo day? Either YC is an organization that takes political stands or it's not.
  • sama 10y ago
    I think those organizations were wrong to support SOPA, and it was wrong for us to say we wouldn't invite them to Demo Day.
    • ryana 10y ago
      Thanks for the honest reply. I think that helps some of us square the circle on why you felt so strongly about not cutting ties. It does a lot to make sure this doesn't come off as "YC won't take a stand on political actors unless it directly affects almost all of our founders."
• mc32 10y ago
  Why would Sam not go for a third party who was less problematic? There are third party candidates available. Is it because they are unlikely to be elected? If so, this thinking keeps on trapping us into voting for the least bad of the bad.
  • bpicolo 10y ago
    > Donald Trump represents an unprecedented threat to America, and voting for Hillary is the best way to defend our country against it
  • sama 10y ago
    Yes--honestly, for me this is much more about not electing Trump than electing Clinton.
    • gragas 10y ago
      If you switch Trump and Clinton in that sentence, you'll get something that millions of Americans agree with as well.
      • the_watcher 10y ago
        To be fair, this pretty much describes why the two party system remains dominant despite increasingly fractured and contentious primaries. Take a look at how aggressively Hillary campaigned against Obama in the 2008 primaries, for example.
  • lotso 10y ago
    If you really care about improving the viability of third parties in this country, please do that in local and state elections where it is actually possible to elect third parties. Voting for 3rd parties in Presidential elections is fine, but really doesn't do much really and if you actually dig deep into 3rd party Presidential candidates, they're usually not great either.
    • dnautics 10y ago
• bleepbloop22 10y ago
  > (of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). So when he wrote that giving women the right to vote has been eroding capitalist democracy ... ?
  • Tycho 10y ago
    sounds like the difference between a normative statement and a positive statement might be relevant here
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • NoPiece 10y ago
    Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron. You can disagree with the statement, but why do you think it is punishable?
• misterbowfinger 10y ago
  > I will continue to try to change [his grandmother & Thiel's] minds. I can get behind that. > of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator sama should address the weird things Peter has said about women voting.
  • darawk 10y ago
    He didn't say women shouldn't be able to vote. He said that giving women the right to vote has eroded some of his libertarian ideals, because women tend to oppose those ideals. Which is a true statement.
    • linkregister 10y ago
      It seems to imply a hell of a lot. "I'm not saying that darawk's down/up-voting should be revoked, but he sometimes upvotes things that aren't the best for our country." The above (wrong) sentence would be an example of this type of implication.
      • darawk 10y ago
        It's not really fair to hang someone by what you infer from a truthful statement. You could say "Ending slavery caused enormous economic problems for the south" without supporting slavery. In reading the full context of what he said, it doesn't seem to me that he's implying we should take away women's suffrage. My reading of what he said is more akin to recognition of a marketing problem. That he thinks libertarians haven't presented themselves sufficiently well towards women, and there is room for improvement there.
        • linkregister 10y ago
          Thanks for clarifying; by your statement it does indeed appear that the quote is being unfairly taken out of context.
    • opendomain 10y ago
• mikebannister 10y ago
  > if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator That could be scary to employees of Y Combinator... what things fall on the blacklist? To me it's obvious that you will fire someone for saying racist or sexist remarks but it's not clear exactly what I can or cannot say to avoid being fired.
  • brandon272 10y ago
    I don't think it's that controversial a statement. Trump is basically a walking HR nightmare and would never be employable at a typical company given any of the things he says about (or does to) people.
  • ajamesm 10y ago
    then let me clarify for you: don't say things that literally any HR department would summarily fire you for, don't make a public position of condoning sexual assault
  • to3m 10y ago
    Partners are not employees.
• ad80 10y ago
  What is really bad here is that we have to vote against a very bad candidate, not for a good one. Hilary needs to commit to certain priorities for all those groups that decided to vote for her - potentially compromising what she has promised so far - simply voting against Trump. Otherwise voting for her is a lost vote...
• marcoperaza 10y ago
  The image I like to remember is the victorious Ulysses S. Grant telling the defeated Robert E. Lee and his officers to keep their horses, keep their sidearms, and go home to their families, but not before being fed from Union rations. Lee returned to his men and said: "Go and be as good a citizen as you were soldiers". And Grant went to his: "Stop the firing. The Rebels are our countrymen again." Lincoln later remarked: “To be harsh or spiteful, or punish them, or throw (the Union's) win in their face, was not going to do anybody any good.” If these great men could so magnanimous after a vicious and bloody war, what does it say about us that we are so spiteful and triumphalist in the course of ordinary politics.
• sidcool 10y ago
  Much needed clarification, Sam. You have said it like it is. Trump is dangerous.
• gizmo 10y ago
  Except Thiel is saying many of the repugnant things that made Trump popular. - Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump. - Thiel believes that the 19th amendment destroyed democracy, because women vote in favor for anti-libertarian welfare measures. When faced with the choice between saving democracy and capitalism, Thiel chooses capitalism. Trump shares this antidemocratic sentiment. - Thiel: "A startup is basically structured as a monarchy. We don’t call it that, of course." Trump shares this authoritarian leadership style. - Thiel wants to restrict immigration to highly educated people. Just like Trump. - Thiel is the (primary?) backer of Curtis Yarvin, the alt-right (read: white supremacist) thoughtleader about "human biodiversity" (read: why some races are biologically inferior). Trump has proudly declared his biologically superior ancestry. - Thiel is a climate skeptic: "The idea that human activity alters the climate is "more pseudoscience" than science". Trump famously called global warming a hoax invented by the Chinese. - They're both billionaires that want to lower taxes for the 1%. Thiel supports Trump because Thiel agrees with Trump. Really.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • some-guy 10y ago
    Right, we aren't talking about Mitt Romney here. If this were the 2012 election I would be defending him, but this isn't some "standard" GOP candidate. Funny how the "binders full of women" seems so tame today.
    • twoodfin 10y ago
      Funny how the "binders full of women" seems so tame today. I'd be the first to criticize Romney's campaign, but that 'gaffe' was trumped up from the word go. It's a fine way in colloquial English to describe the experience of having collected large stacks of women's resumes with the intent to populate state government with qualified female candidates, which, in fact, Romney did. It wouldn't have been racist if he said "binders full of minority candidates". It would make just as much sense and be just as anodyne if he'd said in a similar context "binders full of recent graduates", "binders full of men", or "binders full of lost pets". It blew up because it was a fun way for the media and the opposing campaign to play with his decidedly "square" image by suggesting it had some sexual connotation, which was, frankly, pretty juvenile. Also the '80's called and they want their foreign policy back.
• blfr 10y ago
  I already made this point today but Hillary Clinton, whom sama is endorsing, has directly contributed to starting two wars (in Syria and Libya). While Trump threatened to ban Muslims from entering the US, her actions have already led to thousands of Muslims being killed. Isn't that strictly worse?
  • dnautics 10y ago
    It's funny to me that sama says "try to understand the other people" and yet this comment is downvoted. Sometimes I think saying that is really an empty platitude.
  • joshmanders 10y ago
    Yeah I'm not quite sure I understand the whole "I'm voting Clinton because it's the only way to stop Trump" argument. No it's not. If enough people who are voting Clinton purely to stop Trump voted 3rd party, 3rd party would actually have a chance. In this overflowing toilet bowl we call the 2016 Presidential Election, your best bet to unclog it is to use a plunger, now throw another turd in. Vote for the plunger, not the turds.
    • Latty 10y ago
      They probably wouldn't. I think you overestimate the number of people voting Clinton just to stop Trump. A lot of people truly like her the most. (Not me, I'd like to note - not that I will be voting as an Englishman). It's also worth noting, what third party candidate? There isn't a perfect option there either. It's a first past the post system - third party candidates are never going to happen because of the psychology, number of ingrained voters, and the way electoral college votes work. If you are in that situation, the best thing is to vote Clinton, then instantly start putting as much pressure on her and other Democrats to change that system once she is in office. Start now, and get support for a candidate so in the next election you can have one you actually like standing, or at least push towards one. The biggest problem is people getting worked up in the presidential election, then when it's over, ignoring politics for four years. Change in politics does not happen quickly - generally it involves waiting for old people to die, because people are bad at changing their beliefs. I'd love to believe a third party vote was worthwhile, but the truth is, in reality, it's not. We know that. The system is broken. Work to change that. First past the post simply isn't democracy. It's a vague semblance of. Until you change that, you'll have two parties and your choice between a turd sandwich and a douche.
• redsn0w422 10y ago
  > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. But I’d like to find out, because we have to include everyone in our path forward. I think this video by the Guardian helps to clear up why some people are Trump supporters: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/12/west-virginia-donald-trump-supporters-mcdowell-county-poverty-video https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/oct/12/west-v...
• sidcool 10y ago
  This is what leaders do. Great one, Sam
• potency 10y ago
  Could I please, pretty please with a cherry on top, have one sanctuary that isn't infested with "Vote for X, because Y is unacceptable"? It's already been done everywhere else ad nauseam.
  • rdiddly 10y ago
    Yep. Same old "lesser of two evils" argument that allows the Dems to keep selling real liberals out.
  • linkregister 10y ago
    I think those are called "safe spaces". /s On a serious note, discussion of the Thiel/Trump topic has been flagged and reposted many times this past weekend and finally permitted to remain on the front page. The HN commenter community has been overwhelmingly interested in a statement from YC regarding this controversy. I share your wish that political party advocacy stay off of the HN front page. Yet we were both drawn to this article and commented on it. I don't know the right solution to this.
  • gjolund 10y ago
    That train of thought is the only thing keeping the Hillary campaign alive.
• mkaziz 10y ago
  What about Brendan Eich and Prop 8? It was acceptable to denounce him then. But supporting Thiel is okay?
  • throwsincenotpc 10y ago
    People can think what they want about Prop 8 he shouldn't have been forced out of Mozilla because of this. There is absolutely not 1 proof that he behaved inappropriately at Mozilla. His track record was almost flawless there. He was pushed out by people who clearly don't care about Mozilla, just about unrelated politics and of course ,nobody can ignore the cabal right here against Eich on HN. It was despicable back then it still is now. It's exactly the same things as the handful of idiots who tried to paint Doug Crockford as a misogynist and kicked him out of Nodevember conference. These people don't have the best interests of the technology community in mind. For them getting the head of this or that prominent guy is just about collecting trophies.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• chrisco255 10y ago
  The polarization in politics has gotten worse and worse. A lot of people are feeling marginalized and unheard. The echo chambers we find ourselves in make it difficult to even perceive how the other side could hold the views that they do. Yellow journalism is worse than I've ever seen. Viral social media posts that are more click bait than fact are spreading more misinformation than valuable insight. It's more than anyone can sort out. Even intelligent people are susceptible to bias and believing stories that align with their preconceived notions. What are we to do, as technologists, to alievate this problem?
  • gjolund 10y ago
    Build truly open communication platforms. Reddit, Twitter, HN, and Facebook have all shown heavy bias and a willingness to stifle conversation that they didn't agree with. I would like to see ad free communication platform that supports content creaters through donation and patronage.
• tyre 10y ago
  It's a slippery slope to not associate with people based on politics. It is also a slippery slope to continue to associate with people because the views they support are those of a politician. David Duke is running for senate. Does that make Holocaust-denial a political issue? There was a time when women having the right to vote was a political issue. Today it is not (though Thiel has raised concerns about what women's suffrage did for capitalist democracy[0].) There was a time when slavery was considered a political issue. Today it is not. I don't think sexual assault is in the realm of "personal politics". I don't think racism is either. Can I take the time to understand people who might advocate for these? Sure, but that doesn't mean I want them as leaders. Having Thiel as a partner in YC, when Silicon Valley has tremendous issues with diversity already, sends a strong message. It's not about supporting a political party. I'm sure the YC partners have a wide spectrum of political views. This isn't about politics. [0]: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
  • presidentender 10y ago
    > This isn't about politics. Of course not - it's about religion, and burning the heretics.
  • pb 10y ago
    If I believed that Clinton was going to start World War III, and that Trump would stop it, then I would vote for Trump despite all of his nastiness. In reality, I believe Trump is much more likely to start WWIII, which is yet another reason to be opposed to him, but it is extremely uncharitable to assume that all of his supporters support everything that he does. I think most Republican voters simply believe he's the lessor of two evils. I strongly disagree with them, but respect the democratic process.
    • rdl 10y ago
      I think Clinton and Trump would each start WW3 in different ways, which makes it harder to directly compare. He would do something stupid/impulsive which couldn't be walked back (most things can, thankfully), or would cripple long-term alliances making war more likely later. She would get involved in some situation (no one thinks Trump is competent enough to let him actually engage in an intentional expansion of a conflict), which then escalates out of control. I completely agree that being a single-issue voter on "preventing WW3" is the most moral thing possible. It's just really hard to tell which is less likely. And maybe if it is 0.00000001% vs. 0.000000011%, some other issue should have priority.
• rdiddly 10y ago
  FLAGGING FOR POLITICAL CONTENT (not because Trump but because the Thiel NY Times story was so mercilessly flagged)
  • mankash666 10y ago
    Here's the thing about HN - when it's political content that isn't palatable with the HN echo chamber, you get flagged. Else, you're a hero. Reminds me of the song "Orgasmatron" - "Hypocrisy made paramount, Paranoia the law."
  • rdiddly 10y ago
    Some consistency would be nice. If it's OK for the boss to talk about this, then bring back the Thiel piece out of flagblivion. If this is a politics-free forum, then absolutely flag the boss. Peter Thiel funds World's Worst Startup: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-donald-j-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/technology/peter-thiel-don...
• kennell 10y ago
  > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. But I’d like to find out. This is the attitude we need. Not the name calling and shaming. Instead, go grab a beer together, talk about the issues, agree to disagree and in 9 out of 10 cases you will usually find out the person voting for $theOtherCandidate isn't a huge asshole and probably cares about other people just as much as you do.
• jowiar 10y ago
  > (of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator) This is the difference, in my book, between casting a ballot and writing a big check. Casting a ballot is what you have the right to do privately, without judgement from the world. When you write a check (especially one of the 7-figure variety), and amplify the message, you bear far more responsibility than a voter. One of the best ways to fix our broken campaign finance system would be to hold asshats like Thiel responsible for what their dollars are funding.
  • gjolund 10y ago
    How about holding people like Clinton responsible for where their funding comes from?
    • jowiar 10y ago
      Sure (and to some extent, Obama did it in '08, and Bernie did it this year). It's 100% reasonable to run a campaign on a message of "My opponent is funded by $BANK and $PHARMA and whatnot. I'm funding this out of my own pocket / I'm funded by small-dollar donors / My entire staff is living off of ramen". Does it single-handedly win an election? Probably not. Does it win some # of votes? Most certainly.
• adamnemecek 10y ago
  As much as I hate Trump, I'm kind of hoping for him to win. Fundamentally, I think that 4 years of Trump might be better than 8 years of Hillary. Also, if Hillary wins, the DNC won't have to change. If Trump wins, in 2020, they will be forced to nominate maybe someone like Sanders. Trump winning will also really underscore how broken the US political system is and I'm hoping that him winning could be a catalyst for some change.
  • mcherm 10y ago
    I am tempted to respond to this and then I realize that I don't want HN to become yet another place for discussing partisan politics so I choose to hold my tongue (except for posting this sentence).
  • gjolund 10y ago
    I have been saying this for months. I would prefer 4 more years on congressional deadlock to the dystopian nightmare that Hillary will unleash. Force the DNC to address its shortcomings, and push a real progressive in the next election.
    • pnathan 10y ago
      > dystopian nightmare that Hillary will unleash What specifically will happen?
      • gjolund 10y ago
        Expansion of the surveillance state, even less government transparency, more money in politics. Not to mention her abysmal record on war, cyber security, election rigging, and media manipulation. After 4 years of Trump we will have a country that is willing to acknowledge its mistakes, and two parties in disarray looking for fresh candidates to invigorate the masses. After 8 years of Hillary we will have seen the trend of villifying the opposition reach its obvious conclusion. If you don't toe the party line you are racist/sexist/actualHitler. I voted for Obama twice and I regularly get called a racist online because I don't support Hillary. Hillary controls the media, is backed by all the money in the world, and is a war hawk. What will happen is whatever she wants to happen, and I can't think of a single positive impact she has had on my life.
• rtx 10y ago
  >unprecedented threat to America Hillary is an unprecedented threat to the world. But I guess Americans are so cut of from the rest of the world, it's hard for them to see things from others perspective. As a citizen of third world please don't unleash Hillary on us.
  • brianwawok 10y ago
    You would prefer Trump? Why? Serious question.
    • lintiness 10y ago
      to all you babies literally wetting yourselves over trump, what the actual fuck do you think he's going to be able to do with two parties that hate him controlling both houses?
      • noir_lord 10y ago
        > The War Powers Resolution requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution The US military can break a lot of things in 48 hours never mind 60 days.
        • lintiness 10y ago
          never going to happen. you people are crazier than trump is.
          • noir_lord 10y ago
            A sitting American president is never going to commit military forces without the consent of Congress? > During the 20th Century, forces were sent by various presidents into countries such as Nicaragua to suppress rebellions without asking Congress. During the Cold War, dodging Congress not only continued, it increased. For example, the Korean War, which the U.S. was involved in for three years, was never officially authorized by Congress. > In 2011, President Obama's failure to get Congressional approval for U.S. military actions in Libya raised accusations from both parties. http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/war-without-congress.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/war-without-congress...
• simonsarris 10y ago
  Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this one: > [Hillary] shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if [she] becomes our president. Other sentences would just exchange antonyms and not make it sound any better. You call Trump isolationist, they call Hillary interventionist. I fear that your reasoning for why you endorse Hillary and not Trump doesn't really speak to someone who likes Trump in the first place. Calling Trump racist, for instance, isn't going to flip anyone's voting bit. The only very cogent Hillary endorsement (or rather Not-Trump endorsement) I've read that would actually speak to conservatives is this one: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/28/ssc-endorses-clinton-johnson-or-stein/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/28/ssc-endorses-clinton-jo... Which is fairly long and not the kind of thing I'd suggest sharing with your Grandma or Thiel, but I think you could distill more convincing talking points from it that would appeal to people much more conservative than yourself. Note: My own opinion is too wordy for the small margins here, I'm just relaying sentiments of people I've talked to. I'm from New Hampshire, and people here, especially up north, have had Trump signs from very early on in this campaign, way before anyone in the media seemed to take him seriously.
  • burkaman 10y ago
    I don't think he's trying to convince anyone with this post. I think he's very honestly saying that he doesn't understand why someone would support Trump, and if you don't understand the support then you certainly can't make a persuasive argument.
  • chasing 10y ago
    > Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this one: > > [Hillary] shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if [she] becomes our president. Except one is based on a set of statements made by the candidate and his own campaign, the other is mostly built upon the massive pile of conspiracy theories and mountains-made-from-molehills that constitute the argument against Hillary.
• refurb 10y ago
  I'm sure I'll be labelled a cynic, but I'm pretty sure if Thiel didn't make a shit ton of money and is likely to make more money in the future, YC would have dumped him over politics a long time ago.
• 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Nice statement, to the point and a reasonable call for civility. It will be nice to see if / when a return to a more 'traditional' US political discourse can gain momentum; history is repeating itself in watching a party tear itself apart. Boehner rage-quitting opened my eyes quite a bit. As Katy Tur has frequently reported - and others as well - a significant portion of Trump supporters firmly refute easily provable facts (re: Birtherism) or outright believe lies (re: Actual Border Wall). It's unfortunate to sit back and reflect on this segment of the population, because, unlike the level-headed, rational post by Sam, such tactics are ineffective. These people are walking Poe's Law conundrums, and as nice as the intention is to include them in the big picture, that's a genuinely problematic proposition. It's why Donald Trump is such a ridiculous candidate - he's like a child, and his immaturity doesn't allow adults to have adult conversations. Fortunately, I'm quite able to sleep easily at night knowing that the mistakes of the political and journalistic mainstays (GOP in primaries, media enabling Trump) are quickly being rectified - the cannons are melting with how much ammunition is being shot his way and hitting over and over. It's a deluge, and I don't think it's over even as of this writing. This will be a lopsided outcome due to an extremely motivated voting populace by 2XXX standards. Glenn Beck and Michael Moore voting for the same person? I, um, didn't see that coming, but hey, here we are. What's wonderful about the US, as I learned from extensive study of both Hunter S. Thompson and Mark Twain, is that freedom of speech is great: People are free to speak their minds and show the world if there's anything inside of worth.
• gragas 10y ago
  This has no place on HN.
  • gjolund 10y ago
    There was a post the other day on the front page about how someone's wife got offended on a subway. This site has been shit for a while. Every now and then I pick up some new tech, but it is mostly news about SV housing market and self important "technologists" stroking their ego.
• xname2 10y ago
  One thing the author seems do not understand is that people could be non-racist but also refuse their own country be occupied by more and more illegal immigrants and people of different religion. They do not hate those people, but they just do not want this country to be taken over by a group of people very different from themselves. Is this OK to the author?
  • sharemywin 10y ago
    the part about "people of different religions" violates the 1st amendment to the constitution.
    • xname2 10y ago
      I was not talking about making laws, I was talking about people's feeling. Maybe you are right, even if the country is taking over by more and more Muslims, and Christians slowly become minority and they cannot legally do anything about it and should just swallow it.
• mankash666 10y ago
  Castigating/firing people for their opinions is illegal under the constitution. Even if Thiel said the things Trump did, it's his right to free speech, and YC, as an employer, cannot fire him on any constitutional ground. Disclaimer - before HN goes on a witch hunt, I do find Trump repugnant. But I'll defend his constitutional right to say it.
  • CJKinni 10y ago
    > Castigating/firing people for their opinions is illegal under the constitution. Citation Needed. Edit: Here's a link on the front page of a google search for 'firing people for their opinions is illegal under the constitution' that refutes your claims. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/your-money/speaking-about-politics-can-cost-you-your-job.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/your-money/speaking-about-... A private company certainly can fire people for their articulated political views (edit: under the constitution).
    • mankash666 10y ago
      It's not black and white. Depends on which state you live in. Quoting http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-ballman/can-you-be-fired-for-your_b_9154066.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-ballman/can-you-be-fired... "Activity outside work: Some states and localities prohibit employers for firing or disciplining employees for legal activities outside work. If you’re involved in a political campaign and you work in one of these states, you can’t be fired for your political activities as long as they are legal activities."
      • CJKinni 10y ago
        Good point. I was just pointing out that the US constitution itself doesn't provide a protection, as the original comment suggested. You're right that states certainly could place additional requirements on businesses. I edited my post to reflect that. Thanks
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• chubot 10y ago
  I'm glad he addressed this... I'm also a big Peter Thiel fan, but struggling to understand how he can possibly support Trump. I think there is an important distinction between "contrarian and right" and "contrarian and wrong", which supporting Trump doesn't seem to acknowledge. And I wondered what Thiel's peers thought of his support, so this clarified it a bit for me. But I also agree that the anti-Trump crowd should recognize that people in this country are angry, and Trump says what they want to say. Trump's not the solution but he's calling out the problems in a way that resonates with people. (Of course, even if he had the right solutions, to me it seems clear he wouldn't be able to execute... but that's a political argument.)
• err4nt 10y ago
  If you were to dissociate with Thiel over his political views it would lead to LESS diversity at Y Combinator!
• jackfrodo 10y ago
  > That kind of diversity is painful and unpopular, but > it is critical to health of a democratic and pluralistic > society. Is it? How does having someone who endorses xenophobia, sexism, etc, as one of the most visible members of your organization achieve these goals? If we tolerate this kind of thinking, how many opportunities are we losing out on because of people who couldn't get past the barriers it sets up?
  • 6stringmerc 10y ago
    I can relate to both sides, but I think the logic of wanting to engage is that at least having a dialogue path is an avenue to submit contrary evidence or examples for consideration. Sort of like "All X are like Y!" and then the refutation of showing "Several X are not like Y" without trying to attack the conversation participants. It takes both parties agreeing to the rules, and I'm not claiming either side always works through the dialogue in a mature or analytical fashion.
• plg 10y ago
  If I had an employee whose job description involved hiring (or providing advice about hiring) a high-level addition to our company, and said employee advised that we should hire an individual who is widely known to be: - racist - erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage - a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants - shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency I would conclude that my employee has bad judgement. Very bad judgement. I would fire said employee immediately. I would also likely shun said employee on a personal level. I don't think people get a pass on this one just because this decision is being made in the context of politics.
  • riot504 10y ago
    Everything you listed in why people support Trump over Clinton. They view the following: - erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage - a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants - shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency As major faults of Clinton.
  • menacingly 10y ago
    This is exactly the kind of "my politics are so certain they aren't even politics anymore" manipulation that I'm seeing everywhere. Movements don't exist in a vacuum. A massive trend like roughly half the country making a choice you don't agree with is pressing back against _something_, and one of the things it's pressing back against is attitudes like this.
    • plg 10y ago
      but since when is racist, bragging-about-sexual-assualt-against-women, anti-muslim, "politics"? I'm critical of supporters of Trump not because of his (Trump's) politics but because of his personal characteristics. If I was interviewing someone for a job at my company, and I saw a video of them bragging about how they like to sexually assault women, I would not hire that person. No matter how bad-ass a coder he/she was. Would you?
  • gjolund 10y ago
    So just to clarify. Trump supporter = racist is now a fact?
• ajamesm 10y ago
  I'm happy to take 'yes' for an answer. On some glorious day, notorious vampire Peter Thiel will be hoisted by his own petard, find himself stranded in the sunlight, and turn into a column of ash. In the meantime, this was an appropriate stance to take.
• imglorp 10y ago
  The problem I have with this campaign is that _both_ candidates present a legitimate threat to the republic, in different ways. Sam is of course correct, but a similar argument can be made for Hillary. Is there still time for a do-over?
• genericpseudo 10y ago
  > of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator He said them $1.25m times. Cut ties or lose deal-flow. It's on you.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• teekert 10y ago
  I'm not from the US but I'd vote for Trump. To me Hillary represent the imperial US, the economic Hitmen US, the could war US, the NSA US, the make sure Russia-Europe relations are poor US. She represents the elites, the Rothschilds, the banks, the family of secrets, the kill-list, the endless meddling in countries that have a lot of natural resources "for the common good". She represents Guantanamo bay, more drones and more trade agreements to sue poor countries if their companies behave poorly. She represents the lobbying culture, the Monsantos and the Bechtels. I will be downvoted, I am already looked at as if I'm less intelligent than all the others at work. But I honestly think the 3rd world war is less likely to happen under Trump. He wants to talk normally to Putin. He represents a more US focused US imho and I am convinced the mainstream media hates him because they are in the pockets of the current rulers.
  • gjolund 10y ago
    As an American I share your view of Hillary. There are other candidates besides Trump, but I feel like I am taking crazy pills trying to educate people on Hillary's history.
    • nogbit 10y ago
      And you will forever have that feeling as long as our K-12 education system continues to brainwash generations that participating in the two party system is synonymous with democracy. It's all they know or have heard of and anything else is foreign and not to be trusted.
  • perakojotgenije 10y ago
    Amen to that. Another non US citizen here with the same feeling about this election. You managed to successfully summarize what I feel towards Hillary for a few months now.
  • noir_lord 10y ago
    As a non-US citizen I have the exact opposite viewpoint, Hilary is more of the same sure but she isn't demonstrably fucking crazy. The better question is how this election became an election of the Unthinkable vs the Unelectable. The one thing I do like is that you make me feel like at least the UK isn't the only basketcase at the moment in terms of politics.
• jimjimjim 10y ago
  Remember before commenting: please do not to think in absolutes. us or them. with me or against me. true believer vs burn the heretics. it's a descent into tribal warfare where reason and logic give way to misunderstanding and escalation of perceived wrongs.
  • jimjimjim 10y ago
    ok, fine. stupid of me to expect thoughtful consideration of topics and ideas rather than political foghorn barking. ban politics.
• rrego 10y ago
  The only way I can see that someone can't understand why some people support Trump is because they have not made an attempt to understand the other side's positions. I agree with close to none of Trump's positions and abhor the man, but it is simply smug to dismiss his supporters (credit to Sam for not dismissing them as dumb). 1) Anti-Free trade. Bernie and Trump both were very popular with working class individuals who are out of work. Trade deals have definitely caused job loss for many workers. Many anti-NAFTA people blame it on causing the immigration from Mexico 2) Anti-Immigration. Job loss and racial identity are both at play here. Lack of homogeny in the country. Too much diversity etc. 3) Disgust with career politicians. They like how brash he is. 4) Lower taxes etc. FWIW, this is exactly the kind of post that shouldn't be on hacker news.
  • 7952 10y ago
    I am sure you are correct on those points. But I feel that something deeper is at play. American society has an excess of complexity that people are unwilling or unable to deal with. There is a desire for simplicity that is sated by Trump. The more comfortable you are with complexity in society the less you need Trump.
• koolba 10y ago
  I am officially endorsing Donald Trump for president. I doubt my endorsement, coming from an anonymous commenter on HN, has much weight but I'll put it out here for one reason in particular: As a message to anybody else who's feeling the same but feels that even announcing something like this will cause you to be shamed.
  • darawk 10y ago
    I upvoted your comment because I think it's important, even though I disagree with you. Would you mind explaining your position? I think it might be helpful in furthering people's understanding, although it does run some risk of devolving into an argument.
    • gjolund 10y ago
      Trump is a new player in politics, whereas Hillary represents business as usual. Hillary means more drone strikes, corporate appeasment, global interventions, weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, and a complete lack of transparency into government. I will not vote for a candidate that represents so much of what is wrong with this country, solely becuase she wants me to believe the other guy is worse. Fear tactics are the last resort of tyrants, my mind was made up after the DNC Leaks.
      • darawk 10y ago
        I agree with most of that. And I agree that her campaign is mostly about fear tactics. I suppose the difference between us then is just that I think, despite the lameness of fear-as-platform, I think that fear is pretty justified by the thought of Trump being president. When you honestly consider that prospect, does it not terrify you? I don't mean that question rhetorically.
        • gjolund 10y ago
          We have checks and balances in place. Trump would be gridlocked for 4 years. Hillary however has a paved road ahead of her, and what will be branded as a "mandate". I am truly scared of what this country will be after 8 years of her rule.
• protomyth 10y ago
  Its pretty simple why a lot of the country supports Trump. Every election the media brands the Republican party candidate the devil and stupid (Romney was tagged as a racist last election and stupid for thinking Russia might be a threat). They also read all the leaked e-mails calling them stupid and see what the Clinton Foundation has done. They aren't ignorant or stupid and see when a fix is in. Never mind the various people that Sec. Hilary has declared she will put out of business. I said it in another thread, "if you keep demonizing a group, expect them to send an actual demon eventually". I honestly believe if you cannot understand why people support Trump, then you just don't want to understand or believe that they are full of hate. They aren't full of hate. Most just don't believe the media anymore. Take the media outlets this morning blaming Trump for the burning of a GOP office. I think the quote that comes up most often is "If he were really that bad, NBC would have had to fire him during his time on TV and besides Bill is worse". The media outlets didn't do themselves any favors by holding onto tape from 2005 until after the convention and using it as an "October Surprise". As for me, I didn't get to vote in the primaries because of issues with the GOP and the ND GOP. My candidate didn't get in (Rubio), and the Libertarian candidate is a disaster. I was hoping the Libertarians could get that magic 5% like Perot's party did in 1992. I might still vote Libertarian. I really doesn't matter as far as electoral split. I am more interested in the governor's race. I won't vote for Hilary since she is an actual demonstrated threat.
• Koshkin 10y ago
  > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. Didn't Clinton "explain" that a few weeks back?
• tptacek 10y ago
  I'm heartened to hear that Thiel's support for Trump --- which is ongoing and extensive --- has been a strain on Altman's relationship with him. Thiel is not merely one of the 43% of Americans who supports Donald Trump. There are degrees of support, and there are different reasons to support him. Thiel has chosen to serve as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, appearing on stage for him at the RNC in a nationally televised event even as many of the leaders of the Republican party (including all of their previous Presidential candidates) refused to do the same. His support for Trump has continued even after Trump pivoted his election to run against the legitimacy of the US elections themselves. I strongly agree that we must avoid ostracizing Republicans because of the actions of a few monsters in their party. We should continue the work HRC and Obama started earlier in this election, to de-normalize Trump and separate him from the mainstream Republican party. The country needs a loyal opposition and a voice for limited government, the strengths of our private sector, and humility in regulation. HRC and Obama have stopped this work, believing that the outcome of the election is a foregone conclusion, and are now trying their best to tether the party to Trump in an effort to win downticket races. As a loyal, lifelong Democrat, I think they're making a terrible mistake. But that does not mean we should forget that the Trump campaign itself is truly monstrous, nor does it mean we're required to tolerate the least tolerant members of our society --- the white nationalist fringe that, according to Sam Wang at Princeton, has been within striking range of the Presidency for much of this election cycle. Thiel isn't just a supporter of this campaign; he's a part of it. We should recognize that, and not gloss over it, or pretend that the discussion we're having is the same as the kind we'd have with John Fund and Jonah Goldberg at The National Review. Thiel isn't William F. Buckley. He's a man that just last week mustered $1.25MM in an attempt to rend the fabric of the American political system, a system which he has repeatedly argued against. I don't ask that Altman sever formal ties with Peter Thiel. Shit's complicated. But as someone who has, yet again, acknowledged in writing the grave threat Trump poses to our country, I do ask that he live up to his own words and recognize publicly the role Thiel has played in this election. This post was a good start.
• sangd 10y ago
  > if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator. I find this logic is similar to the logic some GOPs use to support Donald Trump. Even though they condemned him for saying lewd/racist comments (or even committed to), they still give him the support. I don't know how you would continue dodging this for Peter when Donald Trump is being sued for actually committing to a criminal offense. YC needs to draw a line instead of playing this blurred line.
• grandalf 10y ago
  Sam, could you add a paragraph or two with critiques of HRC that you acknowledge but which don't change your voting rationale?
• ChuckMcM 10y ago
  The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less. I see it differently than Sam here. My father is also a vocal Trump supporter. His path, and the path shared by his friends, appear to me to be driven not by what Trump says he will do, but by what they feel the government has not done. These people feel disenfranchised by their own government who appears unresponsive to their concerns and dismissive of their point of view. And in their world view, by reflecting their fears, Donald Trump appears to be listening to them. When you overlay this perception of listening, and the historical divide of the role of government (Is it there to take care of you or is it there to enable you to take care of yourself?) It surfaces a lot of Trump supporters.
• hmate9 10y ago
  By the way it seems like both presidential candidates' main selling point is is that they are not the other candidate. Really not how things should be.
• peter_retief 10y ago
  I have never really liked Donald Trump, he is an abrasive egocentric character and I quite like Hillary she being an attractive intelligent woman. Now I am not so sure, I find Hillary smug and untrustworthy and am finding Trump refreshing honest, if a little over-exited at times. its important to respect diverse views even if they fly contrary to your deeply held beliefs. Its not easy but if there is an open debate. thats probably a good thing
• buro9 10y ago
  There's another issues, both parties are courting the more extreme views within their parties. That is, the Democrats are looking further left/liberal, and the Republicans are looking more right/conservative. Neither is looking after the centre, they only seek to appease the more vocal within their ranks... the extremists. Typically when the pendulum swings things average out, but politicians have learned over the past several decades that if they want to gain 10 miles of political position they should negotiate for 100 miles from the outset and beat the other party into submission before settling on 20 miles (everyone's a winner). The entire system seems to promote seeking an extreme position even if such a position isn't desired by anyone.
  • gjolund 10y ago
    Not true. Bernie was pretty far left and he got crushed by neo-con Hillary.
  • int_19h 10y ago
    > That is, the Democrats are looking further left/liberal, and the Republicans are looking more right/conservative. True, but misleading without comparing the degree of the same on either side. For example, on the right, the manifestation of partisan polarization was the emergence of the Tea Party, which had successfully ran many candidates across the country, and significantly redefined the party platform at its peak of prominence. What's the left equivalent? Sanders? He came later, and his successes were far more limited. Here's a very simple exercise you can do. Look up Democratic and Republican platforms for every electoral cycle in the past decade. Observe how much each has changed.
• holman 10y ago
  I think a lot of the problems with the YC/Thiel discussion stems from the difference between how people view it: is it a political disagreement, or is it an ethical disagreement? In a "normal" election, this would be pretty cut-and-dry: it'd primarily be a political disagreement over taxes or something, and letting someone go because of their political beliefs would be viewed by many as being pretty extreme. Many people — myself included — view support for Trump today as an ethical problem. When you see him and his followers advocating misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, aggressiveness, and basically all the other -isms and -obias, it becomes much harder to "see the other side" of the debate. It's not political for many people who will see — and have seen throughout this election cycle — very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility that affects them every day in their lives. So yeah, there's a lot of anger with YC supporting someone in a leadership position here. I know YC keeps mentioning that Thiel is in a part time position, but he's still in an advisory position, which brings with it a lot of responsibility and ownership that we'd hope YC would be much more understanding about the impact of such a position. I appreciate that it's a tricky situation for Sam and others to be in, but I do hope that they'd reconsider their stance in the future. Until then, on a personal level, I'm not interested in applying to Y Combinator. That's one small thing that I can do in the meantime, at least.
  • andrewingram 10y ago
    Well said, my thoughts exactly.
  • MartinCron 10y ago
    It seems that your argument is that this particular election is pulling items from the sphere of deviance into the sphere of legitimate controversy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin%27s_spheres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin%27s_spheres
  • grzm 10y ago
    Thank you for sharing your thoughts in a civil, well-reasoned way. To me, this is a good example of how one can approach a divisive position in a way that has some hope of reaching people who may not agree with you. Much appreciated!
• ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  "The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are." There's a ton of value in this sentence, because I find especially amongst the tech crowd, people are so isolated in the echo chambers created by their local populations, their choice of friends on social media, etc. We seek out likeminded people, and eventually, once we surround ourselves with them, suddenly other views, even popular views, seem crazy and radical. But they do come from somewhere, and generally those people have legitimate reasons for feeling the way they do.
• kposehn 10y ago
  Sam, thanks for ending this on the most important note (imho): understanding. Not understanding each other is how we got into this mess.
• koliber 10y ago
  This Reddit post really opened up my eyes to why people support Trump: https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/579v4z/head_of_iowa_womens_gop_group_quits_over_trump/d8qafb4 https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/579v4z/head_of_iow...
• MichaelGG 10y ago
  >racist policies Citation needed. I expect better for a top story on HN. I'd also add that the US electing Clinton will show that corruption is now openly allowed in the US at the highest levels. That it simply doesn't matter. This sets a far more damaging precedent around the world than whatever it is people think Trump will do (like not starting a war).
• spdustin 10y ago
  I've said this in another thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728761) but in case that submission gets flagged off the page again, I'll include it here: From The Education of a Libertarian [0] --- "I believe that politics is way too intense. That’s why I’m a libertarian. Politics gets people angry, destroys relationships, and polarizes peoples’ vision: the world is us versus them; good people versus the other. Politics is about interfering with other people’s lives without their consent. That’s probably why, in the past, libertarians have made little progress in the political sphere. Thus, I advocate focusing energy elsewhere, onto peaceful projects that some consider utopian." - Peter Thiel [0] [0]: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio... --- Leaving aside all the drama surrounding YC and Peter Thiel, this is where it all breaks down for me. How am I supposed to take Thiel at his word today, when less than a decade ago he was convinced that politics is "too intense" because it angers people, divides them into us-vs-them groups, and tears them apart. Is it simply that he's changed who he is in that time? I mean, that's a legitimate reason, and one I could respect even if it means I don't agree with who he is today. I'd want to know what changed his mind. Or are there different Peter Thiel personas? I can understand this, too. As Hillary Clinton pointed out, Abraham Lincoln believed that politicians have a private and a public persona, because most of the electorate would shudder to see how our tasty, democratic sausage was being made. Or is he a capricious man who doesn't stick to his principals when motivated by financial or political need? That would be disappointing, but the cynic in me says it wouldn't be surprising. Without knowing who he truly is, and why there is such a divide between just 7 years ago (still fully within his adult life) and now, his whole persona just doesn't compute with me and I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that he's too chaotic to trust. Does anyone have any insight?
• grandalf 10y ago
  HRC has moved the Democratic Party to the right. This has left many poor and angry people in the dust. Many have gravitated toward Trump. Yes, poor people are more likely to be criminals and racists but let's be real, mainstream pols have been speaking racist language in a more coded and subtle way for a long time. It has always been ugly. HRC has done it herself when it benefits her. What irritates me about this essay and the "stop Trump" argument for HRC in general, is that it supposes that it is not necessary to hold one's chosen candidate accountable and that we should just get on board and be grateful someone is running against Trump. I could never vote for either candidate. But Trump's stark and unthinking narrative is matched by a similarly stark and unthinking anti-Trump narrative.
  • int_19h 10y ago
    > HRC has moved the Democratic Party to the right. Comparing the Democratic platform over the past several presidential cycles side by side does not support this assertion. Indeed, it has steadily moving left since Obama, and Clinton was pretty much forced to follow in the primaries. She didn't move as far left as the Sanders crowd (myself included) hoped, but we still got a pretty good platform this year.
    • grandalf 10y ago
      > Indeed, it has steadily moving left since Obama, I'm not sure you could possibly be serious. - Obama continued and escalated GWB's wars and ramped up the war on whistleblowers and the use of drone assassination and terror campaigns. - Obamacare was a big corporate giveaway, ushering in the new Halliburtons of Healthcare. The Mylan epi-pen fiasco is one example among many of how the program catered to corporate interests and profits extensively. Ironically this was one reason Obama beat HRC 8 years ago, his healthcare plan was much more open to compromises with incumbent pharma and medical supply companies. He signaled this effectively through a few minor differences with HRC's plan way back then, and it got him elected. - The only trending leftward has been inevitable changes in social values (support of gay marriage, marijuana legalization, etc.) that are an inevitable part of the oldest generation of social conservative voters dying off. Both Obama and HRC lagged by about 4-8 years on gay marriage (both opposed it until it was abundantly safe to support it). - There has been no serious reform of Wall Street, no serious GSE reform, and Obama has called for the significant expansion of student loan programs... which are the only kind of debt not discharged when someone declares bankruptcy, making them extremely socially regressive and akin to debt slavery. Someone who is 18 taking on massive debt to attend college is not an informed consumer and does not deserve debt that they will be straddled with no matter what circumstances befall them later. These are just a few examples. There is a reason why so many Republicans (including the Bush family) has endorsed HRC -- she's essentially running a Republican platform, with a few easily broken promises to the left thrown in.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• atmosx 10y ago
  As an outsider, I am having troubles understanding why the Democrats put against Trump the only candidate who had a poor enough track record to make this election "interesting". Why didn't they choose Sanders who is not as vulnerable as Hilton? By they I mean the Democrat elite.
  • qntty 10y ago
    You're right, polls showed that Sanders would do better than Clinton against Trump. The Democratic elite doesn't want Sanders because he doesn't represent their interests. BTW, you should know that, at this point, the election is basically over and Clinton has won. This election is far too polarizing for the kind of swing Trump would need to win (people who still have hope for Trump are basically hoping for a Brexit scenario where polls significantly underestimate his support). So their strategy worked, even if it was risky.
  • gjolund 10y ago
    Because this has nothing to do with democracy. Who needs votes when MSM, FB, Google, and Twitter are all pushing your agenda?
  • OmarIsmail 10y ago
    This is a common misconception. Look at how much stuff has come out from Trump's past. You probably thought Trump went through lots of vetting in the primaries, but the reality is that it was super light. The same thing is true of Sanders. Clinton went very easy on him and stayed positive for pretty much the entire primaries. The republicans would not have been as nice. I actually think that Clinton was the best choice against Trump because she is so thoroughly vetted. There's effectively nothing that could come out that we don't already know. Any other candidate could have a myriad of skeletons in their closets that would only come out with well resourced oppo. That's not even including Sanders' proposals that would result in a decent tax hike on middle class families. Republicans would have pushed that HARD and you have no idea how that would have been received.
• mrschwabe 10y ago
  Does Sam also endorse the DNC 'consultants' who are paid to incite violence at Trump rallies? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
  • gjolund 10y ago
    Or the firebombing of election offices?
    • plandis 10y ago
      Please provide a list of DNC officials that support from fire bombing. The candidate that he supports has said it was terrible. Democrats organized money specifically for the office to be rebuilt. You're not adding anything of value to the conversation here.
      • gjolund 10y ago
        It doesn't change the fact that the US population has been whipped into a frenzy by "Trump is literal hitler" rhetoric. We are in a thread that is debating the merits of a political purge in the workplace, the "value added" isn't up to you.
• kyrre 10y ago
  endorsing hillary because of claims that Trump is "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic..." must be the very definition of a low-information voter. you have the knowledge of the world at your fingertips and wikileaks is giving you direct view into the inner workings of the dnc. i don't understand how engineers that were horrified by the wage-fixing pacts of apple, google, etc. can vote for open-borders. is this the tech version of 'everyone thinks they will be rich someday'? at this rate we will end up in childless marriages with flatmates. some serious gaslighting going on. don't let them steal your future :(
• ttcards 10y ago
  Meta notes on the comments so far 1. YC banning companies that supported SOPA was a mistake. I'm sure they now acknowledge that. 2. Mr Thiel donating $1M does not mean he believes or endorses in everything Trump stands for or says. I don't happen to agree he should have made the donation, but please use common sense. 3. Mr Altman used his personal blog not the YC blog. This is important. But the line is blurred between this being a personal statement or a statement on behalf of a corporation (YC). 4. Nobody should be persecuted or fired a political belief that a large part of a country endorses. This point is clearly stated and easily defended. Those attacking it should have a deep think about representative democracy - both the good parts and bad. Representative democracy is a decent, practical system but it is not perfect and America's flavor of it could do with a lot of refinement. This election cycle should make that pretty clear to the average HN reader.
  • gjolund 10y ago
    "Representative democracy... practical system" Not anymore. We need to restructure if we the people are ever going to have say in government again.
• markhelo 10y ago
  Sam's entire post has one line about Hillary and ten about Trump. Instead of trying to demonize Trump, perhaps it is important for you to advocate for your candidate. As the president said, go work for your candidate. People are not dumb. The contrast will be clear and then people can make their own choice. I know its hard to compare, but would you say, "Buy my product to stop the other product from being successful because the other product makes claims that are outrageous". Rightly everyone then says, "Why buy any of the products?" Or "Let me try a third product".
• soccerdave 10y ago
  > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. But I’d like to find out So, have you not sat down with Thiel and asked him why he supports Trump? If so, what were his reasons.
• eternalban 10y ago
  > His racist, isolationist policies ... Had to take a pause right there. (Disclosure: I am a Muslim, naturalized American citizen that emigrated to US in '79.) Critiques of Trump's positions are as exagerated as the candidate's own verbiage, perhaps even more so. I will not touch the "racist" item :) but as to "isolationist", this is false at face value. Non-aggression is not isolationism. Very clearly stating that US should work with Russia, Syria, and Iran (!) to finish ISIS -- oh, the irony -- is not an "isolationist" position. There is a very clear choice on the table: Will US continue as one of the principle entities pushing for globalism, or, will we revert back to pre Bush '41 and let the globalist deal with their collapsing house of card in EU and elsewhere, while we reboot substantial industry (read: not "service" industry) in this nation. [p.s. I am endorsing Jill Stein, per my evaluation of the entailed Karmic risks in this election. /g]
  • noir_lord 10y ago
    > Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. In that instance not racist since Islam isn't a race however that complete lack of nuance and the absolute torrent of shit he has said makes him incredibly dangerous.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • eternalban 10y ago
      I've noted a moderation and more nuanced position lately. To be perfectly frank, sometimes I wonder if DJT is not the establishment's strawman designed to keep us with the globalist agenda. The globalists' agenda is directly responsible for the death of millions of Muslims and likely a substantial number of Iraqi and Syrian Christians, with Sam's choice of president being very much in the loop, starting with her husband's policies (that resulted in the official toll of 500,000 dead Iraqi children, which WJC's secratary of state famously considered as "worth it"), to the destruction of Libya and its attendant miseries, and in Syria with millions of dispossed, and yet another nation in ruin. As a Muslim, let me assure you, if I was the president, I would make sure every single person arriving from these war zones is fully vetted. Given that I am from West Asia (the so-called Middle East) you should note that neither racism nor aversion to Muslims would motivate that approach. It's just common sense. Further, while I fully agree that since we have instigated this global crisis and thus even beyond the call of human empathy are responsible and must sleep in the bed that we have made, let it be noted that the best way to help Syrians and refugees is to STOP THESE WARS so they can live in peace in their own homeland. Again, this is just common sense. Clinton and her fellow travellers (and they are quite a few of them!) are ideologues. And ideologues are dangerous, imo, since it is their ideological framework that does the thinking for them. You can practically substitute any other neo-con/liberal for Hillary Clinton and it would not make an iota of difference. That said, note, I am voting Jill Stein. I agree with the 10 Nuclear officers that in their recent open letter noted that the psychological profile of Donald Trump is that of a man that can easily be provoked (gamed).
• chamakits 10y ago
  There is definitely a core of this message that I agree with, but another part that when I think about it makes me disagree somewhat with it. I understand that a good chunk of the country supports Donald Trump. I also don't understand why, and I would also like to understand why. However, there are too many parallels between what Donald Trump publicly supports with things of the past that I cannot ignore. An example that some may believe to be an exaggeration but I think is a close parallel. Segregation. There was a time in which a person running for office would be in full public support of segregation. I did not live through those times. But I imagine that those that privately frowned upon those views regret not publicly distancing themselves from those that did support that view. Let's take that example into today. Where is the line that we draw when we talk about political opinion vs moral opinion? If Donald Trump was a public defender of segregation, would you then make an effort to publicly distance yourself from his associates? If so, what's the difference between segregation and xenophobia? Is the difference that many had to loose their lives and sacrifice their well being for years for us as a country to realize what an awful mistake we made? I'm not asking rhetorically. I'd like to understand where the line is drawn, because frankly I don't see this as a political difference but a moral one that I'd like to understand, but not to excuse it.
• bobsgame 10y ago
  I respect Sam's opinion, but I would like to hear any of his ideas for improving the economy in suburban and rural areas or creating greater opportunities for people who are less privileged or gifted. Much of intelligence is a natural ability gifted at birth, and it's often easy to lose touch with that when you are surrounded by highly skilled and intelligent peers, as many in Silicon Valley or cities often are. As an example, if you are an unskilled laborer looking for work, which is a large portion of the population, it may be directly applicable and not necessarily racism or xenophobia to be upset if illegal immigrants do indeed take those jobs. I have not been in that situation nor seen it directly, but I can envision scenarios in which it might be a valid frustration. If you wish to understand that 43%, you might not immediately dismiss the views that resonate with them as racist or threatening, and try to understand why they are agreeing with those ideas. Many of those people also likely do not use computers or have effective typing or competitive communication skills, and may be very frustrated by their inability to voice their complaints in intellectually competitive online communities. I think it's possible that Trump has employed many manual laborers or "blue collar workers" in the construction of his properties and he may been been exposed to certain types of complaints which are uncommon in other corporate environments, which he is now championing to address. Given these circumstances, I can understand how to a large group of people Trump would not appear as a monster or dangerous, but rather as a legitimate hero. Likewise, I believe Trump should do a better job of addressing how those policies might affect immigration as it applies to tech companies, and I can completely understand the emotional reactions to his policies from the tech industry.
  • sanjeetsuhag 10y ago
    > If you wish to understand that 43%, you might not immediately dismiss the views that resonate with them as racist or threatening, and try to understand why they are agreeing with those ideas. You mean, like how he did in his previous blog post acknowledging how Trump and his supporters are right on some issues? [1] http://blog.samaltman.com/trump http://blog.samaltman.com/trump
    • bobsgame 10y ago
      Thank you for posting this. I disagree that Trump does not have any real plans, but I don't see any alternative solutions proposed in this article, that's what I would like to hear from Sam. I would love to see the collective intelligence of Silicon Valley tackle some of these issues, regardless of who becomes president.
• pastProlog 10y ago
  > I don't understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. I don't understand how 43+% of the country supports Hillary. A lot of what Trump says makes sense to me - questioning why the US military is involved all over the world, questioning TPP etc. Hillary is more militaristic, historically more pro-TPP etc. It seems more sensible to get tough on people illegally crossing our border than to get tough secretly bombing Syria as she suggests in Wikileaks e-mails. She's picking a fight, he is not. Also, 43% of people don't fully support Trump. Some see him as the lesser of two evils. They may not like aspects of his personality or policies, but they prefer it to the alternative. The congress that will be elected will more accurately reflect how Americans think, with Trump and Clinton the choice is binary. I don't support Trump, mainly because I think he would increase tensions between Latinos and non-Latinos in the US. However I also don't like Hillary's desire for military adventurism, how she leaned towards TPP etc. before polls quieted that down etc. Trump is not the creation of yahoos from rural Indiana. He is the creation of the museum and concert hall sponsoring Koch brothers, whether their calculations include funding him or not. He is the creation of one of our media oligopolies, News Corp. He's the creation of neutered government regulators which allow scams like Trump University to exist. Rural white workers voted for FDR, Truman, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. They haven't changed, it's the Democratic party which changed. Soros and company have destroyed the decentralized, grassroots Democratic machine and replaced it by a centralized, technocratic, machine learning targeting party focused on fundraising, not voters, and the interests of wealthy and upper middle class urban liberals. From 1932 to 1996, West Virginia was a fairly reliable voter for the Democrats. Overwhelmingly white, poor and working class and rural. The Democratic leadership started writing them off, and the Republicans courted them, and now they vote Republican. Why do you think Trump and Pence drop mentions of supporting coal?
• binarray2000 10y ago
  Funny how two attendees of the 2016 Bilderberger meeting and partners in YC - Altman and Thiel - support opposing candidates - Clinton and Trump. USofA never ceases to amaze me.
• bjornlouser 10y ago
  Would YC keep Thiel if Trump were running as an independent polling at 10%?
• EdSharkey 10y ago
  I'm an American voter and I'm not voting for either creature. I did my civic duty in the primaries by not voting for either. For the election, I'll just write-in someone I prefer and sit this circus out. I have to assume that there were a LOT of uninformed voters that had their anger whipped up by Trump. I suspect there was a lot of cross-over voting in open primary states. Perhaps we've made it too convenient to register to vote, and the misinformed/lazy have stolen the show.
• menacingly 10y ago
  It seems like the list of things for which people want you to lose your job or business has experienced rampant growth
• gotchange 10y ago
  Is really Thiel just a mere supporter as Sam put it or more of a partner in crime? He's clearly investing in his vision for your country to turn them into reality, and therefore should be dealt with accordingly and not just dismissed as just some politically uninformed and misguided guy on the street who happened to espouse dangerous and vile political views but he'll grow out of it in due time.
• zxcvvcxz 10y ago
  > I don’t understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. Then you're really not gonna understand how he will win by a large margin. Here are the facts: people don't want to vote for Hillary. Trump supporters are extremely passionate. Consider the following online metrics: Facebook likes: Trump: 12.17M Clinton: 4.39M Recent Live Stream Videos (Oct 14): Trump: 135K likes, 18K shares, 1.5M views Clinton: 9K likes, <1K shares, 121K views Average Views Per Live Stream: Trump: 160K Clinton: 400 (5000% more views for Trump) Instagram Followers: Trump: 6.2M Clinton: 0.8M Reddit Subscribers (to their main subreddits): Trump: 230K Clinton: 21K "Do you plan on voting Hillary Clinton for President in 2016" 84% NO Source: MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-hillary-2016 http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-hillary-2016) EVEN WITH Clinton's "Correct The Record" online (and PAID) team of internet jokeys, she can't come close to competing with the passion of Trump supporters online. The key point: you cannot honestly believe that this disparity will not correlate with the popular vote. If you do, you're in denial and your candidate will probably lose. "Oh it's just online raids" - do you not think these people will be passionate enough to vote, but waste hours of their time for free discussing and liking the other candidate? One final comment: > I am endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. You mean the one that wanted to drone strike Julian Assange? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562/phot... Trump's said mean things, has different policies than typical liberals, and has had a ton of personal accusations conveniently come up 3 weeks before the presidential election -- after over 30 years in the public eye. Given how corrupt the democrats are and how they treated Bernie Sanders, how can one trust Clinton and the Dems at all? Many people think Bernie was cheated out of the nomination. And there are more than emails, some interesting studies, to show this as a strong possibility as well: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0/view?pref=2&pli=1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0...
• honyock 10y ago
  There are a lot of negative things about Trump in this post, but aren't any positive points about Hillary. It seems to me that if one were to endorse one candidate over another, they should talk about the policies of the candidate they're supporting in a positive light. > He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage. There are a slew of former Secret Service agents from Bill Clinton's detail who say the same exact things about Hillary. One even cites being hit in the back of the head with a Bible by Hillary. Also, is anyone even the slightest bit concerned about the revelations in the Podesta emails? One in particular that comes to mind is a conversation about Hillary hating the 'Everyday American.' To me, having done hours upon hours of intense research into the two major candidates, this post sounds more like a regurgitation of the narrative put forth by the mainstream media rather than a well thought out and informed point of view.
  • Tycho 10y ago
    The email was referring to hating "Everyday Americans" as a choice of slogan.
• jsolomon 10y ago
  > The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less. This really resonated. It's hard to overestimate how isolated we are from The Outgroup and how rarely we actually do anything about it. If anyone is genuinely interested in talking to someone who is very different than themselves, I'm volunteering to play recruiter/matchmaker and coordinate some (hopefully) interesting conversations. I started a Ask HN thread to discuss so please let me know: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=12729057 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=12729057
• the_watcher 10y ago
  > The only two vocal Trump supporters I am close to are Peter Thiel and my grandma. Ignoring the Thiel stuff in this particular comment to focus on the grandma part. If you read this, sama, is her support based on anything more than him being the Republican nominee? I ask because my grandparents (from a very rural upbringing, and lifelong Republicans) are also the only Trump supporters I'm close to. It's been illuminating to me, as they vehemently opposed him in the primaries, and his policy positions (if you can call them that) are at odds with everything they've ever discussed believing in. Their justification seems to be based on a simple assumption that once he's elected, he'll just become a generic Republican, and that everything he says during the election is irrelevant bluster. It honestly has made me question if they'd vote for Hillary had she run as the Republican nominee.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• dgregd 10y ago
  I live in central Europe. It is really sad to see so many manipulated people in the US by politics propaganda. 90% of people support Clinton/Trump because they dislike the other candidate more. That's it. Why do you offend each other? Both candidates aren't very good, so to speak. The real problem is the current political system. I would like to see some innovation here on HN, what can be done to unleash the potential of the wisdom of crowds, also in politics, similary what open source, stackoverflow, github etc. did for software engineering. PS. East Germany producted two awful cars: Trabant and Wartburg. But car owners were not offending owners of the other brand. Everybody knew that the socialist system was bad. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
• sctb 10y ago
  This submission has received a huge number of user flags. We've overridden flags and other software penalties for several of these stories already for being related to YC, but our primary duty is to the community and we have to let it protect itself from being ripped apart by politics. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12716825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12716825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12720673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12720673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12726970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12726970
• theduckling 10y ago
  >(of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says >himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator). Uh, what about the if "People acted the same way Hillary did while in office they would be in jail." This is not hyperbole. Perjury is still a crime (one that got her husband impeached). Her lies weren't to the public, they were to the Justice Department - not knowing that the red "C" stood for classified. Furthermore, her concealment and destruction of her emails were federal crimes (plural). Not only would this end in discharge for military personnel or removal from office of a government official, but criminal charges and restriction of civil liberties. Of the millions of federal employees, she's proven herself to be in the distinct minority as disqualified to hold a position of authority. See: 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I don’t see how anyone could support Hillary, based on her actions.
  • zeveb 10y ago
    > I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I don’t see how anyone could support Hillary, based on her actions. I feel that way about them both. Who can legitimately be excited by any of this? It's just degrading to see our republic reduced to these depths.
• orthoganol 10y ago
  Is it really that they support Trump or are just anti-Hillary? From this post, you are not really pro-Hillary, you are just anti-Trump, so consider that it goes the other way too.
• nolepointer 10y ago
  And I, an everyday young American, will still be voting for Trump.
  • OmarIsmail 10y ago
    Care to explain why? Let's start the dialog.
• plandis 10y ago
  I think this whole thread should be purged there is nothing substantive here. Just a bunch of people espousing opinions that approximately half of people disagree with (me included). I personally have gained nothing out of reading all of this and I suspect that this is the case for the majority of people here.
• teekert 10y ago
  Btw, how can this 383 (currently) points article, posted 1 hour ago be below a 34 point article of 16 hours ago. This feels like a multi-hour front-page article to me... Edit: Ah flags, just reading about what they are. We have to be protected from ourselves then.
  • douche 10y ago
    Most of the really interesting stuff to discuss gets blown away by flags all the time. It feels a little broken.
• throwsincenotpc 10y ago
  As a foreigner in his 30s, no need to say that the 2016 elections feel like one of the most obnoxious US elections ever, it's worse than Bush vs Gore. The amount of dishonesty, propaganda, spin, is ridiculous. Of course the internet isn't off the hook as most websites and social networks are heavily involved into the propaganda machine. The political divisions in US is at a all time high. But the US democratic process will survive, I'm pretty sure it has seen worse in the past. But the IT aspect is interesting. It seems that now, if you do not follow a specific political ideology, you will be automatically excluded from the american tech community as people will try to get you and ruin your career, your business and the lives of your families, prevent you from speaking at conferences, insult you on Twitter/Facebook and co because you broke the "ranks" and didn't follow the SF bay "political mindset" so you're fair game...
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• chx 10y ago
  The answer was written months ago: https://twitter.com/leyawn/status/747424519887925249 https://twitter.com/leyawn/status/747424519887925249
• jubalfh 10y ago
  > This submission has received a huge number of user flags. We've overridden flags and other software penalties for several of these stories already for being related to YC, but our primary duty is to the community and we have to let it protect itself from being ripped apart by politics. Surely, you jest.
• MicroBerto 10y ago
  Sam, do you have any comment on this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&t=9m35s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&t=9m35s
• Tycho 10y ago
  I'd never heard the phrase "crazy pills" before but I've read it three times in this one topic, from three different posters. Hmmm.
• zxcvvcxz 10y ago
  I am voting for Donald Trump. I have weighed the issues in reference to the interests of myself, my family, my community, and my country. As an independent, I kept seeing the same pattern: people on the right are open to discussing issues, people on the left want to alienate me and act hostile and throw around pejoratives without providing substantive evidence. That's honestly enough for me. But here's the real kicker - it is going to take an outsider to deal with corruption. This was the tipping point for me: https://i.sli.mg/jozAB1.jpg https://i.sli.mg/jozAB1.jpg
  • SnowProblem 10y ago
    That's what tipped it for me too. We have to fix corruption first because so much else depends on it. I just don't know when the next time we'll see an outsider get this far, and while there's plenty I disagree w/ him on, I'm willing to risk it can be corrected later.