38 ms·

Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved aro

Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved around election. After that their political interest is non existing. It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between what you vote for and what you get. In reality however it's much more complicated. For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. A group who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and so on. Marcos is all about form. Trumps form is admittedly not pretty but there are some important issues and for Theil a different political goal than Trump which isn't represented by Hillary. If you can't understand that then you make the mistakes of Marco et all. You confuse rhetorics with whats at stake. If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency. Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. These are complicated matters by the very nature of them being about human relationships. So don't be the very thing your object to. And no I don't want to defend Trump or Theil but rather the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions. Life is complicated and it happens all the time not just around election. There are many good reasons to be against Trump or Peter Theils endorsement of him, Marcos reasons just arent any of them. They are purely superficial understanding of what's really at stake here.

pron 10y ago
> he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/d... > the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society.
- dlss 10y ago
  > > the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions > This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society. While this is literally true, I feel the need to point out that increased restrictions on speech, and increased repercussions for speech seem to correlate strongly with non-democracies.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Exposure to criticism is not a "restriction on speech".
    - Senji 10y ago
      Agitating for people to be fired based on pilitical affiliation is not "criticizm". If you think it is consider how you would feel about it when you are on tbe receiving end.
- makomk 10y ago
  Read this: https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-from-here/ https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-f... The very same Gallup study which that Vox article relied on to argue that Trump support was correlated with higher, not lower income also found that blue collar and less educated workers were disproportionately likely to vote for Trump, and Vox intentionally omitted that fact. This is particularly dishonest of Vox because the result they did quote was after correcting for the fact that working-class status and education are correlated with income, and they didn't mention that either. That is, any correlation with income that appeared to be better explained by both being correlated with being working-class or anything else was excluded, and worse still there's no guarantee that the attribution to a particular category (say, class instead of income) is the result of anything other than random chance.
  - pron 10y ago
    Very interesting. I actually read this as a more nuanced take on the Vox article (which I'd read more as saying "it's not economic anxiety" rather than "it's this other thing than economic anxiety"). The verdict seems to be, we cannot tell whether it's economic anxiety or something else. Anyway, interesting blog, which I've now added to my subscriptions, so thanks for that!
maxerickson 10y ago
I'm pretty sure a huge portion of Trump's support is from people that are essentially single issue tax and supreme court voters (for the presidential election). Or even a Yuuuge portion. Jerry Falwell Jr. isn't struggling or left out of the political process. I also don't understand what everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions is supposed to mean. If someone repeatedly says stupid things, one of the repercussions is that I'm going to start thinking they aren't very thoughtful. Do they have a right to not be judged by me? Or are you referring to some grayer area of repercussions that they should not have to face?
- prh8 10y ago
  I think the idea is that you thinking they are stupid is much different from being fired from a job (or removed as a partner, however you would frame this scenario). The changing externalities leads to that gray area.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    Political viewpoint should never be in my opinion a contributor towards dismissal. The problem here, is that I can easily see some of the Trump-style racial discomfort that he exploited leading to being fired from a job / removed as a partner, or at the very least hindering advancement, for actual non-political reasons. In any internationally exposed company, Muslims and Mexicans (and other nationalities / religious groups, but these have been the focal points of the Trump campaign) might be your customers. They might even be some of your employees. Now, say you are one of those with said Trump-exploited racial discomfort and you quite often babble about how evil the Muslims are or how nasty those Mexican immigrants are etc. One can certainly infer that one does not really want to put this person anywhere near any job where they might be on a team with actual Muslims or Mexicans, let alone exec type of positions where you may be visiting Muslim/Mexican employees or customers directly. I really don't care for Marco's attempt to strong-arm YCombinator based on a political candidate (not all Trump supporters are supporting him for the racial discomfort type thing anyways). But I do sometimes wonder whether those holding racial discomfort viewpoints do in fact have a potential barrier to life progress and even whether this sort of thing is a potential contributor to the inequality gap. The challenge to me is how to reduce this without resorting to the often condescending / insulting / I'm-holier-than-thou type responses you frequently see in discussions about this topic.
prawn 10y ago
Does he really represent that group of people? Or does he appeal to them because no one actually represents them? I think he's there for himself and whoever will give people the impression that he's winning. Obviously there are many disillusioned people but I certainly don't think Trump is the best option for them. I'd like to see far more real attention and representation given to the crowd you speak of.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
tomgp 10y ago
Wrong. This exactly the kind of sophistry that Marco refutes. Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive >in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions No, that's not what free speech is. You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences.
- civilian 10y ago
  Political positions are not moral positions. There's more than one way to accomplish a goal, and even if you share goals, it might be that you just think that the priority of these goals are different. I think the best way to increase the American quality of life is to allow more choices, more trade, and reduce taxation. This gets me branded as being "anti-poor". I want the same thing as you, I just think there's different ways to go about it. I'll granted that sometimes political positions come from moral positions, but they are not a 1:1 match, and you can't claim you know the best way to enact a set of moral positions.
  - genericpseudo 10y ago
    All positions on anything at all are moral positions; including your willingness to compromise to achieve goals.
- daxorid 10y ago
  You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences. So, for the sale of argument: if Trump is democratically elected and then begins reprisals of his political enemies, you must accept those consequences?
  - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
    The right to free speech means the government cannot or should not punish you for speech (save for when it poses a danger, like creating imminent threat to someone else's wellbeing). Everyone else is free to respond to and criticize someone for their speech (as long as that response doesn't involve, say, assault). This includes the writing of articles against someone else's decision of where to spend their money.
galactus 10y ago
"the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions" I think you are mixing things, Democracy does not give anyone the right to be liked even when they say awful stuff. Marco is not saying that supporting Trump should be illegal, he is saying that supporting Trump is shameful, and that supporting someone who supports Trump at such scale is shameful too.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Oh i agree on that. Just like i can say he isnt really making an argument, just stating an opinion on a very simplistic base. Questioning peoples morales is always shaky ground. No one is just one thing.
- dmix 10y ago
  `Supporting` someone who supports Trump? You do realize he's not their employee, he's wealthy, and most certainly wouldn't change his mind if YC or all of you disagreed with him, right? This is all political/"moral outrage" theater.
  - 7Z7 10y ago
    Only if you presume the point is to change Thiel's mind - which it clearly isn't.
    - dmix 10y ago
      Right, since that can't possibly be the point, then the point is to demonstrate moral outrage at someone's political position by proxy of YC?
- michaelsbradley 10y ago
  > I think you are mixing things, Democracy does not give anyone the right to be liked even when they say awful stuff ... support[ing shameful things/people] at such scale is shameful too. I have some sympathy for both perspectives (Marco's and Altman's), and I have a great dislike of Trump, but ultimately this leads to some very difficult questions related to the intersection of public and private life, and how the same intersection could and should affect (or not) employment, eligibility–recognition (e.g. for scholarships, invitations to speak, awards, public office, etc.) and other junctions of persons and institutions. Without intending (at any level, in this context) to dive into some of the issues I'll mention shortly, I want to consider the implications from a personal angle. The Catholic Faith is important to me, and I consider it an obligation – as occasions arise – to be something of an apologist for any/all of the Catholic Church's teachings, no matter how unpopular: on contraception, abortion, the nature of marriage, sexual morality, and so on. I have, do, and will speak and write publicly about those things. I have been and will likely continue – on occasion – to be chastised for doing so. I get no enjoyment from vitriol, but as I said, I think I have a moral obligation to speak up. So, in a society that largely rejects such teachings, what should the consequences be for my publicly defending and promoting those beliefs? Is it desirable that (if not now, eventually) I should not be able to be gainfully employed among, say, the mainstream tech crowd? If I were launching a startup, should my venture be disqualified from funding by VCs or other investors that learn of my views and public defense–promotion of the same? Should I be disallowed to speak at popular tech conferences if I applied to do so? Should the answers to those questions be different if the way I go about my unpopular activities is devoid of personal attacks and discourtesy (i.e. shown to individuals with whom I have disagreements in public or private). The reason I've made this so personal is because I've actually worried, a bit, about these matters in recent years. I've wondered too, if I have children, and if they follow in my footsteps in these matters (I hope they would), what would be the consequences for them? But the personal angle is really just for perspective. More broadly, how should our society treat those with unpopular views (even very unpopular ones)? I suppose one might judge that exclusion–rejection at the level of affecting quality of life and participation in "the mainstream" might be a deterrent to such views or might even "cleanse" them from individuals and communities. But where does it stop, and what does it mean if tolerance convulses into its opposite? I worry we're only headed toward a deeper fracturing of our society and ideological ghettoization. I don't think that will make our society stronger; no, quite the opposite.
munin 10y ago
> he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years No he doesn't. He doesn't appeal to or represent poor whites, those vote D. He also doesn't appeal to or represent minorities, immigrants, or women. Those also vote D. He appeals to and represents white men that have a household income slightly higher than the median. Those people have been nothing but listened to for the last 140 years.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  You've been talking with a different set of poor whites than I have. I'm not a Trump supporter or potential voter, but we fool ourselves when we invoke this caricature.
  - aljones 10y ago
    Hopefully their information doesn't come from talking to people. There are better sources. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-...
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Primary voters in early May? Are they somehow relevant?
- alextheparrot 10y ago
  I think the group he is referring to is my parent's demographic, working class Americans in factories. Whereas the Democratic party once supported labor movements and unionization as a primary cause, social welfare and rights issue have moved to be the primary (Please note this is a generalization, but mirrors their perspective). The result is that they see a candidate who promises isolationist policies (Keep our manufacturing jobs here, as they've seen them go to China and Mexico for decades) as a more viable candidate than one who continues to drive for more globalization. In passing, I'd like to note that my father actually preferred Cruz, which may match your description slightly better, while my mother preferred Trump largely for the reasons I listed above.
tptacek 10y ago
That is in fact not a fundamental principle of democracy. There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions". What is a principle of liberal philosophy, though, is that we should be tolerant of the beliefs of others (in the sense of not intervening to suppress them), including intolerant beliefs, until those intolerant beliefs threaten society. You may not believe Trump is a real thread to society. I disagree. So far, so good. The issue here is: Sam Altman and Paul Graham disagree too. Both of them compare Trump to a dictator. Paul Graham compared him to Stalin. Both Altman and Graham believe, like I do, that Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. Sam Altman cannot coherently believe this while supporting Peter Thiel, who is not just a Trump supporter, but an important part of the Trump campaign. Even most leaders of the Republican party refused to get on stage at the RNC to support Trump. Thiel did. When he did, he used his time to claim that Donald Trump was the only honest candidate in the race. He bundled millions of dollars of donations for Trump. And, just last week, after Trump pivoted his campaign as a crusade against the legitimacy of our elections and of the black vote, Thiel donated $1.25MM more. Nobody denies Sam Altman's right to support Peter Thiel, or, for that matter, Thiel's right to support Trump. But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism.
- ceterum_censeo 10y ago
  > But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism. Why are you entitled to do it in the most publicly way you are able?
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Because he is willing to face the repercussions of doing so.
    - ceterum_censeo 10y ago
      What repercussions? The situation strikes me as asymmetric: no matter what action Altman or Graham take they will be heavily criticized; for Ptacek, the worst would seem to be disagreement with his well-reasoned dialogue. It seems unfair to force this to become a very public conversation.
jaegerpicker 10y ago
That Trump's and by extension Theil's actions have a very real set of consequences has NOTHING to do with democracy. The government is not taking action against them, we the people are. The very idea of democracy is that it's the expressed will of the people, filtered through mechanics to make it possible to administrate. In this case the will of a great number of people, including Marco according to the post, is remove support from people who choose to say these damaging things. It's not an incomplete understanding, it's that in their value system, the things being said can have no possible balance and anyone supporting them represents a clear danger to what they feel makes a democratic country great. That you would suggest a lack of understanding and try and use that to defend the very people moving to limit and harm democracy in the USA is condescending and harmful in my opinion. Of course everyone is feel to support who they wish but no one is free from dealing with the fall out from standing with the hateful and bigoted.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  And just by that you became what you claim to be against. I am not for Trump or for Hillary, i am for the right to have a discussion about bigger issues without being painted as a supporter of biggotry which only serves to detract from the issues this country has. But i guess that makes me the naive part here.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Nothing anywhere gave you the right to have a "discussion about bigger issues" without "being painted" as anything. You will find no legal foundation for that entitlement in the US Constitution, nor will you find a philosophical foundation for it anywhere in the theory of liberal democracy. You have a right to express your views, and I have a right to criticize them. Both rights are inalienable.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      As long as you dont confuse my views of marcos post with my political views I have no problem with that.
criddell 10y ago
> For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. Is there a line that Trump could cross where you would start to say he's dangerous and doesn't deserve his spot at the table?
- exstudent2 10y ago
  > doesn't deserve his spot at the table? No one gets to decide who gets a spot at the table. It doesn't really matter if you think Trump is "dangerous", the idea that if you think the "right" way you're entitled to shape the dialogue by censorship if needed is exactly what people who are anti-anti-Trump are trying to fight.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - criddell 10y ago
    > No one gets to decide who gets a spot at the table. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein (and many others) would like to have a word with you.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      Gary Johnson and Jill Stein should have a seat at the table, too.
spraak 10y ago
I see you wrote words here but they're not really saying anything.. what is your point then? What really is at stake here? If racism and sexism aren't* just that, what are they? Who is this excluded group you're talking about? > he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed What are those points then? Please, let's discuss them *Edit
- speeder 10y ago
  I don't live in US, and I think Trump is a terrible person. But if I lived in US, I probably would still vote for him. First, some points of why to avoid voting Hillary and voting in any of the other candidates (including the weaker ones). 1. Hillary should be in jail, specially after the home e-mail server. 2. Hillary foreign policy style caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. 3. Hillary want to make that foreign policy even stronger, Hillary's and her friends and employees rhetoric about Syria suggests she is fully willing to outright attack Russia military there to ensure her goals, risking a WW3 scenario. 4. Hillary is clearly in the banks pockets, and will help them cause whatever 2008-style crisis is next, even if unintentionally. ----------- Now some specific Trump points. 1. Trump wants to bring manufacturing back to US, this is very attractive to a massive number of poor men, that currently are just out of the labour force to the point of not even counting in unemployment statistics anymore. 2. Trump, despite being a unstable madman, also made clear he thinks US foreign policy should be related to leaving other countries alone and stop meddling, US is in serious need of a president that believes that, because all the presidents in the last 30 or 40 years were interventionists. 3. Trump wants to fix several social and economic problems of poor rural americans, unfortunately this topic is huge by itself, and I can't explain in detail, also I am not sure Trump knows what he is doing, but he wants to do /something/, differently from Hillary that called these people "deplorables" and think laws should be made harsher and 'punish' them more for being 'oppressors' of women and blacks.
  - spraak 10y ago
    LOL for REAL. You say Hilary should be in jail, which you're right, but Trump similarly has criminal accusations against him. > Trump, despite being a unstable madman ... REALLY?! How can anything valid proceed from that?
d7oaks 10y ago
I disagree. I think Marco’s point, which I strongly agree with, is that donating to Trump goes beyond just supporting a political candidate that you don’t happen to agree with. The fact that Trump has some valid policy ideas is completely besides the point. Amongst other things he is inciting racial and ethnic hatred, undermining trust in American democracy, encouraging violence and legitimising sexual assault. When you donate to Trump you are supporting this behaviour just as much as his policy ideas. This is the problem and is what is completely immoral in my opinion. I think I should also mention that I am not a US citizen and do not live in the US so I speak as an outsider here.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  So it's ok supporting Hillary even though she is largely responsible for huge parts of US foreign policy having sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for a bigger political goal. Yet somehow the very words of Trump is immoral. I guess I just don't get it.
  - tylersmith 10y ago
    She wasnt with Billy Bush while condemning people to die so it's not entertaining enough for people to care.
  - knz 10y ago
    > So it's ok supporting Hillary even though she is largely responsible for huge parts of US foreign policy having sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for a bigger political goal. I'm 99% certain that the Republican party is as deeply entrenched in the foreign policy directly responsible for the War on Terror, the War on Drugs (and all of the "lovely" people in Central/South America associated with that conflict), and many other conflicts related to the Cold War (Iran, the first Indochina War, Malayan emergency, Suez Crisis, Congo, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, Mozambique, India-Pakistan, Libya, Cambodia, Chile, Israel and its neighbours, Afghanistan in the 70s, Grenada, Panama and many others). Every conflict has two sides so let's not pretend that other actors aren't working the opposite side. But let's also not pretend that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are somehow more responsible for the consequences of US foreign policy. Every Western nation and its government is actively involved in this policy to some degree.
pif 10y ago
> Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. They are just wrong and they have no place in a modern western democracy.
- jshevek 10y ago
  This is true. The debate about Trump is made more complicated by the racism and sexism demonstrated by (those that happen to also be among) the most ardent Trump haters.
  - pif 10y ago
    Following the USA campaign from far away, I hadn't yet heard of similar examples. Could you please elaborate a bit, or just post a link? Thanks in advance!
    - jshevek 10y ago
      My assessment is based on (a) personal conversations with scores of strongly left-leaning people, as well as (b) many hundreds left-leaning blog posts, videos, left-leaning podcasts, and the like. Some of this evidence pre-dates Trump's involvement in the election. Tangent, but related: I've noticed a very strong correlation between (a) those that think racism is exclusively "prejudice plus power" and (b) those who casually engage in some of the most despicable, hateful, and violent racism that I've seen in my lifetime. When you and your community find it very easy to wash your hands of any wrong doing simply by redefining words, you are well on your path to losing your moral compass and doing terrible things in the world. In response to your question I've looked for a blogger that has aggregated a body of evidence in one place. The only entities I found doing that are very strongly right-leaning, and I hesitate to link to them. I think it's a shame that left-leaning media seems to be ignoring this uptick in socially sanctioned racism.
      - pif 10y ago
        Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tlogan 10y ago
The problem is: Trump supporters just cannot comprehend how non-white people and immigrants are terrified and scared of Trump.
youforpresident 10y ago
"Everyone have the right to say and mean". I see a problem here because people do things, perhaps it would be better if they only say or mean something.
matt4077 10y ago
That's a lot of hand-waving high-minded rhetoric. The problem is that Trump does not represent those 40% in any significant way. - "free speech" is a protection against the government, not against Marcos/YC/whoever no longer working with you, which is also a form of speech. - Trump is not and has never been part of the white, male underclass that makes up his support. He connects with them on exactly one level: hate. Hate against the "other", from foreigners, non-whites, or women, to people with a college degree and actually to poor people ("losers"). He has spent a week in a vendetta against some woman who apparently gained weight or something, less than two months before an election to the most powerful office in the world. I'm a big fan of nuance and complexity and I usually mistrust people with strong convictions. Here, this one time, it happens to be warranted. More importantly, people don't fear his "policies", whatever they may be. There have been enough Republicans with trickle-down fantasies that we know it won't work, and probably kill a few poor people at the margins, but the republic will live on. The unique quality, setting him apart from GWB or Romney, is the damage he's planning to do to the sausage factory itself: he has explicitly advocated the jailing of his political opponents, laws making it illegal to criticize him, bills of attainer etc. That's playing with fire, and it's past the point where people can agree to disagree and tolerate it. Even Republicans, some of them retiring and therefore free to follow their conscience and nothing else, are scared of him. So no, there's no right to be spared the consequences of you words. That's actually quite a strange idea, considering speech without consequences seems useless. There is however a burden to push back against proto-fascists burning the constitution and wrapping themselves in the flag.
- applecore 10y ago
  You're conflating the First Amendment with free speech. The First Amendment is a protection against the government. Free speech is a natural right that could be exercised in the absence of government.
  - adamlett 10y ago
    There are no such things as «natural rights».
throwaway_415 10y ago
The problem is the racial manner in which he has chosen to conduct his campaign. Today we see the normalisation of hatred and marginalisation of entire races and religions. It's not even dog whistles, rather flat out villification purely based on observable groups. It might not bother the average white male, but believe it or not, there are other groups in society who will uprise one day in a very violent manner if this kind of rhetoric continues.
- Zarath 10y ago
  What about the normalization of hatred against an even larger portion of the population, those that support Trump? Speaking of uprising, ever think that Trump is a reaction to the marginalization and demonization of a certain subset of the population?
  - throwaway_415 10y ago
    You cannot be serious. I have no sympathy and absolutely pure hatred for white nationalist nazi types on Breitbart. That is justified. I can't wait for all the racist old whites to die out in 3 to 4 decades resulting in world peace.
    - Zarath 10y ago
      > You cannot be serious. I have no sympathy and absolutely pure hatred for white nationalist nazi types on Breitbart. That is justified. I can't wait for all the racist old whites to die out in 3 to 4 decades resulting in world peace. Man you should read your own writing. You admit to being full of hatred and can't wait for a certain race of people to die out. Sounds about as bad as something a Nazi might say (oh if only a certain group of people was gone, the world would be perfect!!!). And who said anything about Breitbart?
  - throwaway_415 10y ago
    Oh just realised you only have 3 posts none tech related. Back to DailyStormer for you my friend.
AsyncAwait 10y ago
> he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. A group who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and so on. I honestly think there's not a good choice in this election, but I find it ironic that the people who regularly make fun of poor people, call them "leeches" etc. want to cut social spending etc. and are known to hold the belief that "you probably didn't work hard enough" are now the ones left behind, "not working hard enough" to pull their own in modern society, yet still advocate for the same things as they were when in control...
- knucklesandwich 10y ago
  Because it's utter bullshit. All of the polling tells us the Trump voters skew higher in wealth and wages than Clinton voters and that hate for "the other" is largely motivating their choice. It's a narrative Republicans love because it gives them some tie to authentic "real Americans" and an argument to deflect from their pure, naked racism and neoliberal Democrats love because it allows them to pin Trump on the working class, but it's completely wrong.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    You accurately describe what I've seen of primary polling, but not what little general election polling I've seen that breaks out income levels, e.g., http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-election-preferences/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-elec...
    - knucklesandwich 10y ago
      Read the poll, this still shows that Clinton has a larger slice of low income voters. Also who do you think Trump's base is? The people who voted for him given a pick at any of the potential nominees for president, or the people who had additional choices eliminated and were encouraged to vote based on partisan loyalty? Also I've included polling data that is past the primary, and includes voter sentiment for the general election, such as the gallop poll. The trend towards upper-middle craftsmen jobs remains.
dalore 10y ago
Yes. This is the similar point about Brexit. When the Brexit vote was on, instead of seeing that the Brexit leave people had some points that they wanted address, the remain people vilified them. Making sure that none of the points they wanted to get across was address. This furthered the gap and caused the divide. The people who voted Brexit leave were disillusioned voters who think the current system is bad and their voices weren't being heard. But the remain camp instead of listening to them, pushed them away. The leave vote was a form of dissent from people who were upset with the current system. Yes they might have been racists amongst them, but they courted people who were excluded.
1024core 10y ago
This is the worst kind of argument anyone can read about this topic. What you are conveniently and deliberately ignoring is that the offense is being taken not at Trump's policies, but at his actions and his bigoted views. Back in the day, you would have been making the same argument about apartheid in South Africa: who are we to criticize them? They're a sovereign country, they have their own ways of doing things! Forcing them to accept equal rights and democracy is cultural imperialism! Give me a fucking break. Trump is an asshole because of his actions and his lies. No one uses these terms to describe McCain, Romney, etc. Why? Because while they are Republicans, they are not assholes. Trump calls hardworking Mexican immigrants "rapists" and "criminals". He calls for a religious test to enter the country, banning all Muslims. He kept questioning Obama's citizenship, not because he really doubted where Obama was born, but because he couldn't get himself to admit that a BLACK man had won the WHITE house; and by denying Obama's legitimacy, you can deny his victory. Finally, he quickly discarded this position for political expediency, it having served its purpose to get him atop the GOP ticket. And in the latest revelations, Trump crows about grabbing women's pussies and assaulting them. THIS IS WHAT IS OBJECTIONABLE about Trump, not his ideas (or lack thereof). He's a liar and a bigot. So it IS fair to question anyone who puts such significant resources into getting Trump elected. It is one thing to vote for Trump; but quite another to spend millions on getting him into the dictator's seat he covets. Don't give me this "it's against democracy" bullshit. Coming back to South Africa: if we had not put in place the sanctions and economic boycotts, the black would still be feeling the batons today.
cmurf 10y ago
Yes, Trump is extremely valuable. He's exposing America's dirty laundry in a way that couldn't happen otherwise. There is a significant minority who want some autocracy in their government, or they don't care if that's what they get as long as the dear leader calls it like he sees it, even if how he sees the world is demonstrably wrong, and will give the undeniably very wealthy a tax break they may want but don't need. He has some important points. White people are scared of the brown? They like their white privilege and don't want to give it up? They're attached to their misogyny in ways they can only articulate when off camera? Yes. Important. Just like it's important to look for blood in your stool. I generally agree, that America since roughly the 1980s, has regressed politically. It puts its dirty diapers into the hamper, out of site out of mind, until the next election. It increasingly likes emotional tug of war, stoking anger and acrimony, rather than persistent converse. And that's how a con man has so impressively conned so much of the country. He couldn't care less about the gripes of those who have a legitimate complaint about how things aren't going all that well for them, but he's all too happy to exploit it. He can't fix any of these problems aside from obsoleting the Congress. I think he'd like that. Trump TV, the next con. I think the original idea of running in the first place was just to sell his brand, not lead a country. He doesn't act like a leader at all, rather an ordinary stick that just likes stirring the pot. He's done nothing his entire life to make this country better, or the lot of those he now claims advocacy. What's really at stake is making the leader of the country someone who resorts to name calling as his primary art of diplomacy. He was easily manipulated by Howard Stern, and there will be more gifted manipulators on the Hill, and around the world. Donald is out of his element. There is no bankruptcy lifeline for him at this level.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
To support your position it's more complex than it appears I'm going to repost this article that correctly describes many issues leading to Trump support: 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's from an entertainment site but many claims in here are exactly what rural people tell me in person in 3 states plus online in a few more. That Duck Dynasty treated and portrayed them positively is why that show exploded in popularity to great confusion of many liberals. Trump is tapping into concerns of half the country that doesn't exist or is "a bunch of fucktards" in the minds of many (most?) city-dwelling and liberal Americans. I actually took time to listen to them to find many of their positions make more sense when you actually understand their lifestyle, businesses, upbringing, etc. My agreement was a mix with mostly disagreement but I saw where they're coming from. Shit like Trump's rise doesn't happen in a vacuum. The sooner liberals and Silicon Valley start understanding rural America the better. They'll be able to target them with better political candidates, businesses, etc. There might also be increased cooperation instead of fighting. We might get more Trumps in the future if the disconnect remains and continues to increase.
bkmn 10y ago
> Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. Yes, yes they are.
mikeash 10y ago
At this point, with the constant talk of how the election will be rigged and occasional talk of assassinating his opponent, a vote for Trump is a vote against the very foundations of democracy itself. It's no longer about decency, but about preserving the basis of our nation. I respect everyone's right to express their views, whatever they may be, but there's no obligation to support people whose views I find reprehensible. And when someone supports those reprehensible views with a big chunk of cash, why shouldn't I object?
smsm42 10y ago
> Most only get involved around election Which I am afraid indicates it has much more to do with "our team winning" than supposed goal of politics - i.e. making things work better. So when I read such demands as the parent post I can't help thinking "virtue signaling".
DavidWanjiru 10y ago
What is the relationship between what is at stake here and the suitability of Trump as the person most suited to realizing whatever real and true issues that his supporters want realized? Does wanting those issues to be addressed mean wanting a man like Trump for president as a matter of necessity? Does the importance of the issues Trump speaks to or purports to speak to trump the quality of the man?
munificent 10y ago
> For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very > important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a > group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. A group > who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own > form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are > benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and > so on. You are exactly right, and this is something many of my current friends who are generally well-to-do and live in a highly progressive city are unaware of. I grew up in the South, and I have friends and family who have very much ended up on the "have-not" side of the economic equation over the past couple of decades. The US today is a shittier place if you're anywhere near the bottom half of the income chart. If you grew up poor in a poor state and didn't happen to get a good education, our country doesn't know what to do with you. We took away your low-knowledge-but-high-skills manufacturing jobs. Those got outsourced or automated away. The chronic pain you likely suffer from those back breaking jobs is even worse today. First your doctor got you hooked on Oxy, then that was taken away, so there's a real chance you're self-medicating with any of a cornucopia of drugs up to and including heroin and meth. You don't have an employer to provide you healthcare, and you can't afford it on your own. You're sick, tired, and unemployed. And you didn't do anything to deserve it. You took the public education you were offerred and worked hard at the jobs you could find. You're too poor to move away from your shithole town. You rely on your constellation of family and friends so you have no mobility. Even if you could move, your lack of service skills and the booming real estate market means you couldn't find a job in a big city that paid enough for you to survive. These people are angry, and justifiably so. The wealthy and the urban progressives have reshaped the country to their benefit and left a lot of people behind. It's a great time to be a skilled service worker in a big city, and not a great time to be much else. So I totally get where Trump supporters are coming from. If you listen to his rhetoric, he knows exactly the pain these people feel and speaks directly to them. I don't blame them for supporting him. The problem is that he's full of shit and not a single thing he is promising them will come to pass, or is even a coherent proposal. The heartbreaking part of this election is not that people support Trump who is a raging asshole, but sadly that they believe he would even help them if he won. This is basically a zero-win election for the poor in the US.
whybroke 10y ago
Is criticizing someone who plans to jail his political opponent also suppressing him too? Why should we suppose there is any other agenda than what he says it is? >he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years He _appeals_ to that group but what he has said does not indicate any serious intention to benefit it. An utter disinterest in the details of how to bring it about such a benefit and a near total focus on blame shifting to vulnerable groups and conspiracy theories makes it painfully clear this is merely a self interested demagogue. This is very deeply regrettable because the group he appeals to does in fact need help. But as has happened repeatedly historical, they have instead been lured in by an aggressively anti-democracy demagogue.
madmax96 10y ago
This is so wise and respectful. I really appreciate this comment. Someone supporting Trump does not imply that they are sexist or racist. The issues are complex. Ultimately, if an employee has shown nothing but respect for fellow coworkers and is performing their job adequately, then I don't think you have a good reason to fire them. What if I fired an employee for donating to a church? Or to the Clinton campaign? Regardless of the legality of the action, I would never do this. I believe it would be dishonorable. Now, if the employee were causing problems at work, then this is an entirely different situation. We must respect each other's differences. Firing Marcos would only succeed in alienating him, further entrenching him in his perspective. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Firing someone on the basis of a political donation (to a major candidate, nonetheless) seems pretty hateful to me. Respect for the parent commenter, and Sam Altman for doing (what I think) is the difficult but honorable thing.
- knz 10y ago
  Great post. People seem to lose track of the fact that political views exist on a spectrum and that our individual views can be quite different than the "team" ideology (conservatives who support gay marriage and liberals who support gun rights etc). We need more people willing to work the middle ground and find reasonable compromises.
moefogs 10y ago
> If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency. Thank you for making crystal clear that there is literally ZERO value in engaging with you. You're such a closed-minded piece of shit the you're willing to accuse anybody who disagrees with you of being dumb autocrats. The arrogance and stupidity of that sentiment is overwhelming. The lack of humanity required to write it and click post... wow... you're absolute garbage. FUCK YOU TOO
moefogs 10y ago
LET'S ALL LISTEN TO WHAT THE WHITE MAN HAS TO SAY ABOUT RACISM, SEXISM, AND WHY TRUMP IS GREAT! Oh wait... only a fucking garbage person would write what Thompete wrote.
knucklesandwich 10y ago
The implication here is that Trump voters are working class people who have been drawn to Trump by virtue of their economic anxiety, concern about loss of their jobs via globalization or immigration, etc. The image in mind is coal or steel workers or industrial factory workers in rust belt cities that have lost their jobs. It's a seductive narrative to Republicans to try to claim the working class, and to classist Democrats to pin Trump on dumb hicks. It's also fundamentally at odds with what all the data tells us. The first thing that's wrong about this is the assumption that the most economically disenfranchised vote at all. The least financially secure voters have some of the lowest turnout in America, with only about 20% of them voting [1]. These people fundamentally don't vote. The second problem is to try to pretend like Trump actually has a claim on the working class as his base to a greater extent than other candidates. He doesn't [2]. The median income on Trump supporters from the primaries was higher than that of Clinton supporters or Bernie supporters. He also claims a larger take of the wealthiest voters, who compose 9% of his voters in the primary, vs. Clinton and Sanders' 7% and 5% respectively. Fundamentally, his demographic skews more wealthy than the democrats. A recent gallop survey with a large sample size shows that Trump's base don't live in areas that experience job loss due to companies moving overseas, nor do they live in areas with large immigrant populations [3]. They live in areas that are largely racially segregated (largely white). They have tradecraft jobs like HVAC repairmen, plumber, etc. and live relatively comfortably. Fundamentally though, these people have low exposure to people of color, which might explain their bigotry. Finally, surveys tend to show that Trump voters have a more negative opinion of muslims and people of color [4], which should be of no surprise. So no, please pedal your "Trump's voters are the economically anxious white workers of America" narrative somewhere else. The truth is that Trump voters are bigots. [1]: http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/08/the-politics-of-financial-insecurity-a-democratic-tilt-undercut-by-low-participation/ http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/08/the-politics-of-finan... [2]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-... [3]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822059 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822059 [4]: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/d...
- 10y ago
morg0e 10y ago
> If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency. Thank you for making super clear that if we disagree with your position, that we're ill-informed, dishonest, and indecent. You arrogant cunt. > Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. These are complicated matters by the very nature of them being about human relationships. OH PLEASE MISTER WHITE MAN TELL ME ABOUT RACISM AND SEXISM. You utter and complete cunt. You simply CAN NOT start a conversation the way you started it, and have it end well. It can't happen. You can't say that only idiots disagree with you and that nobody else understands the issues and have it go well. If HN was a decent website, you'd be banned for a few weeks for this DUMB FUCKING POST of yourse. Sadly, HN isn't decent at all, and you didn't use profanity, so your arrogant bullshit will be upvoted by other white men.
- sctb 10y ago
  We've banned this account.
puppetmaster3 10y ago
You for sure flagged my post here.
yyyyylmao12 10y ago
this is the most condescending and hypocritical post i think I may have ever read in my life. dear lord. > Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved around election. After that their political interest is non existing. Translation: he disagrees with me therefore he must not follow or understand politics. Do I have any proof of this? No. Reality: Those that actually follow politics and keep informed are the ones who are really disgusted by Trump. >It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between what you vote for and what you get. Translation: I'm assuming people who disagree with me have this simplistic view of politics without any proof. Reality: Trump is a unique and scary fascist beast. McCain and Romney and every other candidate for decades has been a great, upstanding, person morally. They had the fitness to lead and I simply disagreed with them on some policy points. This is a different beast entirely. The fact that you don't see this actually tells me you don't follow politics at all and are assuming that this election is the same as others. >If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency. Translation: If you disagree with me or rebuke racism and sexism you must not want dissent. Reality: dissent is fine and encouraged. We'd have loved Rubio or Jeb but that isn't what we got.

pron 10y ago

> he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/d... > the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society.

dlss 10y ago
> > the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions > This is not a principle, let alone a fundamental one, in any democracy or any other kind of society. While this is literally true, I feel the need to point out that increased restrictions on speech, and increased repercussions for speech seem to correlate strongly with non-democracies.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Exposure to criticism is not a "restriction on speech".
  - Senji 10y ago
    Agitating for people to be fired based on pilitical affiliation is not "criticizm". If you think it is consider how you would feel about it when you are on tbe receiving end.
makomk 10y ago
Read this: https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-from-here/ https://baselinescenario.com/2016/10/17/you-cant-get-there-f... The very same Gallup study which that Vox article relied on to argue that Trump support was correlated with higher, not lower income also found that blue collar and less educated workers were disproportionately likely to vote for Trump, and Vox intentionally omitted that fact. This is particularly dishonest of Vox because the result they did quote was after correcting for the fact that working-class status and education are correlated with income, and they didn't mention that either. That is, any correlation with income that appeared to be better explained by both being correlated with being working-class or anything else was excluded, and worse still there's no guarantee that the attribution to a particular category (say, class instead of income) is the result of anything other than random chance.
- pron 10y ago
  Very interesting. I actually read this as a more nuanced take on the Vox article (which I'd read more as saying "it's not economic anxiety" rather than "it's this other thing than economic anxiety"). The verdict seems to be, we cannot tell whether it's economic anxiety or something else. Anyway, interesting blog, which I've now added to my subscriptions, so thanks for that!

maxerickson 10y ago

I'm pretty sure a huge portion of Trump's support is from people that are essentially single issue tax and supreme court voters (for the presidential election). Or even a Yuuuge portion. Jerry Falwell Jr. isn't struggling or left out of the political process. I also don't understand what everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions is supposed to mean. If someone repeatedly says stupid things, one of the repercussions is that I'm going to start thinking they aren't very thoughtful. Do they have a right to not be judged by me? Or are you referring to some grayer area of repercussions that they should not have to face?

prh8 10y ago
I think the idea is that you thinking they are stupid is much different from being fired from a job (or removed as a partner, however you would frame this scenario). The changing externalities leads to that gray area.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  Political viewpoint should never be in my opinion a contributor towards dismissal. The problem here, is that I can easily see some of the Trump-style racial discomfort that he exploited leading to being fired from a job / removed as a partner, or at the very least hindering advancement, for actual non-political reasons. In any internationally exposed company, Muslims and Mexicans (and other nationalities / religious groups, but these have been the focal points of the Trump campaign) might be your customers. They might even be some of your employees. Now, say you are one of those with said Trump-exploited racial discomfort and you quite often babble about how evil the Muslims are or how nasty those Mexican immigrants are etc. One can certainly infer that one does not really want to put this person anywhere near any job where they might be on a team with actual Muslims or Mexicans, let alone exec type of positions where you may be visiting Muslim/Mexican employees or customers directly. I really don't care for Marco's attempt to strong-arm YCombinator based on a political candidate (not all Trump supporters are supporting him for the racial discomfort type thing anyways). But I do sometimes wonder whether those holding racial discomfort viewpoints do in fact have a potential barrier to life progress and even whether this sort of thing is a potential contributor to the inequality gap. The challenge to me is how to reduce this without resorting to the often condescending / insulting / I'm-holier-than-thou type responses you frequently see in discussions about this topic.

prawn 10y ago

Does he really represent that group of people? Or does he appeal to them because no one actually represents them? I think he's there for himself and whoever will give people the impression that he's winning. Obviously there are many disillusioned people but I certainly don't think Trump is the best option for them. I'd like to see far more real attention and representation given to the crowd you speak of.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

tomgp 10y ago

Wrong. This exactly the kind of sophistry that Marco refutes. Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive >in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions No, that's not what free speech is. You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences.

civilian 10y ago
Political positions are not moral positions. There's more than one way to accomplish a goal, and even if you share goals, it might be that you just think that the priority of these goals are different. I think the best way to increase the American quality of life is to allow more choices, more trade, and reduce taxation. This gets me branded as being "anti-poor". I want the same thing as you, I just think there's different ways to go about it. I'll granted that sometimes political positions come from moral positions, but they are not a 1:1 match, and you can't claim you know the best way to enact a set of moral positions.
- genericpseudo 10y ago
  All positions on anything at all are moral positions; including your willingness to compromise to achieve goals.
daxorid 10y ago
You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences. So, for the sale of argument: if Trump is democratically elected and then begins reprisals of his political enemies, you must accept those consequences?
- SolaceQuantum 10y ago
  The right to free speech means the government cannot or should not punish you for speech (save for when it poses a danger, like creating imminent threat to someone else's wellbeing). Everyone else is free to respond to and criticize someone for their speech (as long as that response doesn't involve, say, assault). This includes the writing of articles against someone else's decision of where to spend their money.

galactus 10y ago

"the fundamental principle that no matter what in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions" I think you are mixing things, Democracy does not give anyone the right to be liked even when they say awful stuff. Marco is not saying that supporting Trump should be illegal, he is saying that supporting Trump is shameful, and that supporting someone who supports Trump at such scale is shameful too.

ThomPete 10y ago
Oh i agree on that. Just like i can say he isnt really making an argument, just stating an opinion on a very simplistic base. Questioning peoples morales is always shaky ground. No one is just one thing.
dmix 10y ago
`Supporting` someone who supports Trump? You do realize he's not their employee, he's wealthy, and most certainly wouldn't change his mind if YC or all of you disagreed with him, right? This is all political/"moral outrage" theater.
- 7Z7 10y ago
  Only if you presume the point is to change Thiel's mind - which it clearly isn't.
  - dmix 10y ago
    Right, since that can't possibly be the point, then the point is to demonstrate moral outrage at someone's political position by proxy of YC?
michaelsbradley 10y ago
> I think you are mixing things, Democracy does not give anyone the right to be liked even when they say awful stuff ... support[ing shameful things/people] at such scale is shameful too. I have some sympathy for both perspectives (Marco's and Altman's), and I have a great dislike of Trump, but ultimately this leads to some very difficult questions related to the intersection of public and private life, and how the same intersection could and should affect (or not) employment, eligibility–recognition (e.g. for scholarships, invitations to speak, awards, public office, etc.) and other junctions of persons and institutions. Without intending (at any level, in this context) to dive into some of the issues I'll mention shortly, I want to consider the implications from a personal angle. The Catholic Faith is important to me, and I consider it an obligation – as occasions arise – to be something of an apologist for any/all of the Catholic Church's teachings, no matter how unpopular: on contraception, abortion, the nature of marriage, sexual morality, and so on. I have, do, and will speak and write publicly about those things. I have been and will likely continue – on occasion – to be chastised for doing so. I get no enjoyment from vitriol, but as I said, I think I have a moral obligation to speak up. So, in a society that largely rejects such teachings, what should the consequences be for my publicly defending and promoting those beliefs? Is it desirable that (if not now, eventually) I should not be able to be gainfully employed among, say, the mainstream tech crowd? If I were launching a startup, should my venture be disqualified from funding by VCs or other investors that learn of my views and public defense–promotion of the same? Should I be disallowed to speak at popular tech conferences if I applied to do so? Should the answers to those questions be different if the way I go about my unpopular activities is devoid of personal attacks and discourtesy (i.e. shown to individuals with whom I have disagreements in public or private). The reason I've made this so personal is because I've actually worried, a bit, about these matters in recent years. I've wondered too, if I have children, and if they follow in my footsteps in these matters (I hope they would), what would be the consequences for them? But the personal angle is really just for perspective. More broadly, how should our society treat those with unpopular views (even very unpopular ones)? I suppose one might judge that exclusion–rejection at the level of affecting quality of life and participation in "the mainstream" might be a deterrent to such views or might even "cleanse" them from individuals and communities. But where does it stop, and what does it mean if tolerance convulses into its opposite? I worry we're only headed toward a deeper fracturing of our society and ideological ghettoization. I don't think that will make our society stronger; no, quite the opposite.

munin 10y ago

> he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years No he doesn't. He doesn't appeal to or represent poor whites, those vote D. He also doesn't appeal to or represent minorities, immigrants, or women. Those also vote D. He appeals to and represents white men that have a household income slightly higher than the median. Those people have been nothing but listened to for the last 140 years.

jessaustin 10y ago
You've been talking with a different set of poor whites than I have. I'm not a Trump supporter or potential voter, but we fool ourselves when we invoke this caricature.
- aljones 10y ago
  Hopefully their information doesn't come from talking to people. There are better sources. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-...
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Primary voters in early May? Are they somehow relevant?
alextheparrot 10y ago
I think the group he is referring to is my parent's demographic, working class Americans in factories. Whereas the Democratic party once supported labor movements and unionization as a primary cause, social welfare and rights issue have moved to be the primary (Please note this is a generalization, but mirrors their perspective). The result is that they see a candidate who promises isolationist policies (Keep our manufacturing jobs here, as they've seen them go to China and Mexico for decades) as a more viable candidate than one who continues to drive for more globalization. In passing, I'd like to note that my father actually preferred Cruz, which may match your description slightly better, while my mother preferred Trump largely for the reasons I listed above.

tptacek 10y ago

That is in fact not a fundamental principle of democracy. There is no work of political philosophy anywhere that suggests we should be able to say whatever we'd like "without fear of repercussions". What is a principle of liberal philosophy, though, is that we should be tolerant of the beliefs of others (in the sense of not intervening to suppress them), including intolerant beliefs, until those intolerant beliefs threaten society. You may not believe Trump is a real thread to society. I disagree. So far, so good. The issue here is: Sam Altman and Paul Graham disagree too. Both of them compare Trump to a dictator. Paul Graham compared him to Stalin. Both Altman and Graham believe, like I do, that Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. Sam Altman cannot coherently believe this while supporting Peter Thiel, who is not just a Trump supporter, but an important part of the Trump campaign. Even most leaders of the Republican party refused to get on stage at the RNC to support Trump. Thiel did. When he did, he used his time to claim that Donald Trump was the only honest candidate in the race. He bundled millions of dollars of donations for Trump. And, just last week, after Trump pivoted his campaign as a crusade against the legitimacy of our elections and of the black vote, Thiel donated $1.25MM more. Nobody denies Sam Altman's right to support Peter Thiel, or, for that matter, Thiel's right to support Trump. But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism.

ceterum_censeo 10y ago
> But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing, and we would be doing Altman no favors by withholding that criticism. Why are you entitled to do it in the most publicly way you are able?
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Because he is willing to face the repercussions of doing so.
  - ceterum_censeo 10y ago
    What repercussions? The situation strikes me as asymmetric: no matter what action Altman or Graham take they will be heavily criticized; for Ptacek, the worst would seem to be disagreement with his well-reasoned dialogue. It seems unfair to force this to become a very public conversation.

jaegerpicker 10y ago

That Trump's and by extension Theil's actions have a very real set of consequences has NOTHING to do with democracy. The government is not taking action against them, we the people are. The very idea of democracy is that it's the expressed will of the people, filtered through mechanics to make it possible to administrate. In this case the will of a great number of people, including Marco according to the post, is remove support from people who choose to say these damaging things. It's not an incomplete understanding, it's that in their value system, the things being said can have no possible balance and anyone supporting them represents a clear danger to what they feel makes a democratic country great. That you would suggest a lack of understanding and try and use that to defend the very people moving to limit and harm democracy in the USA is condescending and harmful in my opinion. Of course everyone is feel to support who they wish but no one is free from dealing with the fall out from standing with the hateful and bigoted.

ThomPete 10y ago
And just by that you became what you claim to be against. I am not for Trump or for Hillary, i am for the right to have a discussion about bigger issues without being painted as a supporter of biggotry which only serves to detract from the issues this country has. But i guess that makes me the naive part here.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Nothing anywhere gave you the right to have a "discussion about bigger issues" without "being painted" as anything. You will find no legal foundation for that entitlement in the US Constitution, nor will you find a philosophical foundation for it anywhere in the theory of liberal democracy. You have a right to express your views, and I have a right to criticize them. Both rights are inalienable.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    As long as you dont confuse my views of marcos post with my political views I have no problem with that.

criddell 10y ago

> For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. Is there a line that Trump could cross where you would start to say he's dangerous and doesn't deserve his spot at the table?

exstudent2 10y ago
> doesn't deserve his spot at the table? No one gets to decide who gets a spot at the table. It doesn't really matter if you think Trump is "dangerous", the idea that if you think the "right" way you're entitled to shape the dialogue by censorship if needed is exactly what people who are anti-anti-Trump are trying to fight.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- criddell 10y ago
  > No one gets to decide who gets a spot at the table. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein (and many others) would like to have a word with you.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    Gary Johnson and Jill Stein should have a seat at the table, too.

spraak 10y ago

I see you wrote words here but they're not really saying anything.. what is your point then? What really is at stake here? If racism and sexism aren't* just that, what are they? Who is this excluded group you're talking about? > he has some very important points which needs to be addressed and discussed What are those points then? Please, let's discuss them *Edit

speeder 10y ago
I don't live in US, and I think Trump is a terrible person. But if I lived in US, I probably would still vote for him. First, some points of why to avoid voting Hillary and voting in any of the other candidates (including the weaker ones). 1. Hillary should be in jail, specially after the home e-mail server. 2. Hillary foreign policy style caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. 3. Hillary want to make that foreign policy even stronger, Hillary's and her friends and employees rhetoric about Syria suggests she is fully willing to outright attack Russia military there to ensure her goals, risking a WW3 scenario. 4. Hillary is clearly in the banks pockets, and will help them cause whatever 2008-style crisis is next, even if unintentionally. ----------- Now some specific Trump points. 1. Trump wants to bring manufacturing back to US, this is very attractive to a massive number of poor men, that currently are just out of the labour force to the point of not even counting in unemployment statistics anymore. 2. Trump, despite being a unstable madman, also made clear he thinks US foreign policy should be related to leaving other countries alone and stop meddling, US is in serious need of a president that believes that, because all the presidents in the last 30 or 40 years were interventionists. 3. Trump wants to fix several social and economic problems of poor rural americans, unfortunately this topic is huge by itself, and I can't explain in detail, also I am not sure Trump knows what he is doing, but he wants to do /something/, differently from Hillary that called these people "deplorables" and think laws should be made harsher and 'punish' them more for being 'oppressors' of women and blacks.
- spraak 10y ago
  LOL for REAL. You say Hilary should be in jail, which you're right, but Trump similarly has criminal accusations against him. > Trump, despite being a unstable madman ... REALLY?! How can anything valid proceed from that?

d7oaks 10y ago

I disagree. I think Marco’s point, which I strongly agree with, is that donating to Trump goes beyond just supporting a political candidate that you don’t happen to agree with. The fact that Trump has some valid policy ideas is completely besides the point. Amongst other things he is inciting racial and ethnic hatred, undermining trust in American democracy, encouraging violence and legitimising sexual assault. When you donate to Trump you are supporting this behaviour just as much as his policy ideas. This is the problem and is what is completely immoral in my opinion. I think I should also mention that I am not a US citizen and do not live in the US so I speak as an outsider here.

ThomPete 10y ago
So it's ok supporting Hillary even though she is largely responsible for huge parts of US foreign policy having sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for a bigger political goal. Yet somehow the very words of Trump is immoral. I guess I just don't get it.
- tylersmith 10y ago
  She wasnt with Billy Bush while condemning people to die so it's not entertaining enough for people to care.
- knz 10y ago
  > So it's ok supporting Hillary even though she is largely responsible for huge parts of US foreign policy having sacrificed hundreds of thousands of innocent people as collateral damage for a bigger political goal. I'm 99% certain that the Republican party is as deeply entrenched in the foreign policy directly responsible for the War on Terror, the War on Drugs (and all of the "lovely" people in Central/South America associated with that conflict), and many other conflicts related to the Cold War (Iran, the first Indochina War, Malayan emergency, Suez Crisis, Congo, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, Rhodesia, Mozambique, India-Pakistan, Libya, Cambodia, Chile, Israel and its neighbours, Afghanistan in the 70s, Grenada, Panama and many others). Every conflict has two sides so let's not pretend that other actors aren't working the opposite side. But let's also not pretend that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are somehow more responsible for the consequences of US foreign policy. Every Western nation and its government is actively involved in this policy to some degree.

pif 10y ago

> Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. They are just wrong and they have no place in a modern western democracy.

jshevek 10y ago
This is true. The debate about Trump is made more complicated by the racism and sexism demonstrated by (those that happen to also be among) the most ardent Trump haters.
- pif 10y ago
  Following the USA campaign from far away, I hadn't yet heard of similar examples. Could you please elaborate a bit, or just post a link? Thanks in advance!
  - jshevek 10y ago
    My assessment is based on (a) personal conversations with scores of strongly left-leaning people, as well as (b) many hundreds left-leaning blog posts, videos, left-leaning podcasts, and the like. Some of this evidence pre-dates Trump's involvement in the election. Tangent, but related: I've noticed a very strong correlation between (a) those that think racism is exclusively "prejudice plus power" and (b) those who casually engage in some of the most despicable, hateful, and violent racism that I've seen in my lifetime. When you and your community find it very easy to wash your hands of any wrong doing simply by redefining words, you are well on your path to losing your moral compass and doing terrible things in the world. In response to your question I've looked for a blogger that has aggregated a body of evidence in one place. The only entities I found doing that are very strongly right-leaning, and I hesitate to link to them. I think it's a shame that left-leaning media seems to be ignoring this uptick in socially sanctioned racism.
    - pif 10y ago
      Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tlogan 10y ago

The problem is: Trump supporters just cannot comprehend how non-white people and immigrants are terrified and scared of Trump.

youforpresident 10y ago

"Everyone have the right to say and mean". I see a problem here because people do things, perhaps it would be better if they only say or mean something.

matt4077 10y ago

That's a lot of hand-waving high-minded rhetoric. The problem is that Trump does not represent those 40% in any significant way. - "free speech" is a protection against the government, not against Marcos/YC/whoever no longer working with you, which is also a form of speech. - Trump is not and has never been part of the white, male underclass that makes up his support. He connects with them on exactly one level: hate. Hate against the "other", from foreigners, non-whites, or women, to people with a college degree and actually to poor people ("losers"). He has spent a week in a vendetta against some woman who apparently gained weight or something, less than two months before an election to the most powerful office in the world. I'm a big fan of nuance and complexity and I usually mistrust people with strong convictions. Here, this one time, it happens to be warranted. More importantly, people don't fear his "policies", whatever they may be. There have been enough Republicans with trickle-down fantasies that we know it won't work, and probably kill a few poor people at the margins, but the republic will live on. The unique quality, setting him apart from GWB or Romney, is the damage he's planning to do to the sausage factory itself: he has explicitly advocated the jailing of his political opponents, laws making it illegal to criticize him, bills of attainer etc. That's playing with fire, and it's past the point where people can agree to disagree and tolerate it. Even Republicans, some of them retiring and therefore free to follow their conscience and nothing else, are scared of him. So no, there's no right to be spared the consequences of you words. That's actually quite a strange idea, considering speech without consequences seems useless. There is however a burden to push back against proto-fascists burning the constitution and wrapping themselves in the flag.

applecore 10y ago
You're conflating the First Amendment with free speech. The First Amendment is a protection against the government. Free speech is a natural right that could be exercised in the absence of government.
- adamlett 10y ago
  There are no such things as «natural rights».

throwaway_415 10y ago

The problem is the racial manner in which he has chosen to conduct his campaign. Today we see the normalisation of hatred and marginalisation of entire races and religions. It's not even dog whistles, rather flat out villification purely based on observable groups. It might not bother the average white male, but believe it or not, there are other groups in society who will uprise one day in a very violent manner if this kind of rhetoric continues.

Zarath 10y ago
What about the normalization of hatred against an even larger portion of the population, those that support Trump? Speaking of uprising, ever think that Trump is a reaction to the marginalization and demonization of a certain subset of the population?
- throwaway_415 10y ago
  You cannot be serious. I have no sympathy and absolutely pure hatred for white nationalist nazi types on Breitbart. That is justified. I can't wait for all the racist old whites to die out in 3 to 4 decades resulting in world peace.
  - Zarath 10y ago
    > You cannot be serious. I have no sympathy and absolutely pure hatred for white nationalist nazi types on Breitbart. That is justified. I can't wait for all the racist old whites to die out in 3 to 4 decades resulting in world peace. Man you should read your own writing. You admit to being full of hatred and can't wait for a certain race of people to die out. Sounds about as bad as something a Nazi might say (oh if only a certain group of people was gone, the world would be perfect!!!). And who said anything about Breitbart?
- throwaway_415 10y ago
  Oh just realised you only have 3 posts none tech related. Back to DailyStormer for you my friend.

AsyncAwait 10y ago

> he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. A group who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and so on. I honestly think there's not a good choice in this election, but I find it ironic that the people who regularly make fun of poor people, call them "leeches" etc. want to cut social spending etc. and are known to hold the belief that "you probably didn't work hard enough" are now the ones left behind, "not working hard enough" to pull their own in modern society, yet still advocate for the same things as they were when in control...

knucklesandwich 10y ago
Because it's utter bullshit. All of the polling tells us the Trump voters skew higher in wealth and wages than Clinton voters and that hate for "the other" is largely motivating their choice. It's a narrative Republicans love because it gives them some tie to authentic "real Americans" and an argument to deflect from their pure, naked racism and neoliberal Democrats love because it allows them to pin Trump on the working class, but it's completely wrong.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  You accurately describe what I've seen of primary polling, but not what little general election polling I've seen that breaks out income levels, e.g., http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-election-preferences/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/18/1-voters-general-elec...
  - knucklesandwich 10y ago
    Read the poll, this still shows that Clinton has a larger slice of low income voters. Also who do you think Trump's base is? The people who voted for him given a pick at any of the potential nominees for president, or the people who had additional choices eliminated and were encouraged to vote based on partisan loyalty? Also I've included polling data that is past the primary, and includes voter sentiment for the general election, such as the gallop poll. The trend towards upper-middle craftsmen jobs remains.

dalore 10y ago

Yes. This is the similar point about Brexit. When the Brexit vote was on, instead of seeing that the Brexit leave people had some points that they wanted address, the remain people vilified them. Making sure that none of the points they wanted to get across was address. This furthered the gap and caused the divide. The people who voted Brexit leave were disillusioned voters who think the current system is bad and their voices weren't being heard. But the remain camp instead of listening to them, pushed them away. The leave vote was a form of dissent from people who were upset with the current system. Yes they might have been racists amongst them, but they courted people who were excluded.

1024core 10y ago

This is the worst kind of argument anyone can read about this topic. What you are conveniently and deliberately ignoring is that the offense is being taken not at Trump's policies, but at his actions and his bigoted views. Back in the day, you would have been making the same argument about apartheid in South Africa: who are we to criticize them? They're a sovereign country, they have their own ways of doing things! Forcing them to accept equal rights and democracy is cultural imperialism! Give me a fucking break. Trump is an asshole because of his actions and his lies. No one uses these terms to describe McCain, Romney, etc. Why? Because while they are Republicans, they are not assholes. Trump calls hardworking Mexican immigrants "rapists" and "criminals". He calls for a religious test to enter the country, banning all Muslims. He kept questioning Obama's citizenship, not because he really doubted where Obama was born, but because he couldn't get himself to admit that a BLACK man had won the WHITE house; and by denying Obama's legitimacy, you can deny his victory. Finally, he quickly discarded this position for political expediency, it having served its purpose to get him atop the GOP ticket. And in the latest revelations, Trump crows about grabbing women's pussies and assaulting them. THIS IS WHAT IS OBJECTIONABLE about Trump, not his ideas (or lack thereof). He's a liar and a bigot. So it IS fair to question anyone who puts such significant resources into getting Trump elected. It is one thing to vote for Trump; but quite another to spend millions on getting him into the dictator's seat he covets. Don't give me this "it's against democracy" bullshit. Coming back to South Africa: if we had not put in place the sanctions and economic boycotts, the black would still be feeling the batons today.

cmurf 10y ago

Yes, Trump is extremely valuable. He's exposing America's dirty laundry in a way that couldn't happen otherwise. There is a significant minority who want some autocracy in their government, or they don't care if that's what they get as long as the dear leader calls it like he sees it, even if how he sees the world is demonstrably wrong, and will give the undeniably very wealthy a tax break they may want but don't need. He has some important points. White people are scared of the brown? They like their white privilege and don't want to give it up? They're attached to their misogyny in ways they can only articulate when off camera? Yes. Important. Just like it's important to look for blood in your stool. I generally agree, that America since roughly the 1980s, has regressed politically. It puts its dirty diapers into the hamper, out of site out of mind, until the next election. It increasingly likes emotional tug of war, stoking anger and acrimony, rather than persistent converse. And that's how a con man has so impressively conned so much of the country. He couldn't care less about the gripes of those who have a legitimate complaint about how things aren't going all that well for them, but he's all too happy to exploit it. He can't fix any of these problems aside from obsoleting the Congress. I think he'd like that. Trump TV, the next con. I think the original idea of running in the first place was just to sell his brand, not lead a country. He doesn't act like a leader at all, rather an ordinary stick that just likes stirring the pot. He's done nothing his entire life to make this country better, or the lot of those he now claims advocacy. What's really at stake is making the leader of the country someone who resorts to name calling as his primary art of diplomacy. He was easily manipulated by Howard Stern, and there will be more gifted manipulators on the Hill, and around the world. Donald is out of his element. There is no bankruptcy lifeline for him at this level.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

To support your position it's more complex than it appears I'm going to repost this article that correctly describes many issues leading to Trump support: 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's from an entertainment site but many claims in here are exactly what rural people tell me in person in 3 states plus online in a few more. That Duck Dynasty treated and portrayed them positively is why that show exploded in popularity to great confusion of many liberals. Trump is tapping into concerns of half the country that doesn't exist or is "a bunch of fucktards" in the minds of many (most?) city-dwelling and liberal Americans. I actually took time to listen to them to find many of their positions make more sense when you actually understand their lifestyle, businesses, upbringing, etc. My agreement was a mix with mostly disagreement but I saw where they're coming from. Shit like Trump's rise doesn't happen in a vacuum. The sooner liberals and Silicon Valley start understanding rural America the better. They'll be able to target them with better political candidates, businesses, etc. There might also be increased cooperation instead of fighting. We might get more Trumps in the future if the disconnect remains and continues to increase.

bkmn 10y ago

> Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. Yes, yes they are.

mikeash 10y ago

At this point, with the constant talk of how the election will be rigged and occasional talk of assassinating his opponent, a vote for Trump is a vote against the very foundations of democracy itself. It's no longer about decency, but about preserving the basis of our nation. I respect everyone's right to express their views, whatever they may be, but there's no obligation to support people whose views I find reprehensible. And when someone supports those reprehensible views with a big chunk of cash, why shouldn't I object?

smsm42 10y ago

> Most only get involved around election Which I am afraid indicates it has much more to do with "our team winning" than supposed goal of politics - i.e. making things work better. So when I read such demands as the parent post I can't help thinking "virtue signaling".

DavidWanjiru 10y ago

What is the relationship between what is at stake here and the suitability of Trump as the person most suited to realizing whatever real and true issues that his supporters want realized? Does wanting those issues to be addressed mean wanting a man like Trump for president as a matter of necessity? Does the importance of the issues Trump speaks to or purports to speak to trump the quality of the man?

munificent 10y ago

> For all the crazy things Trump says, for all is egoism he has some very > important points which needs to be addressed and discussed and he represents a > group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years. A group > who are themselves excluded from society. A group who experience their own > form of discrimination by the likes of Marcos, me and everyone else who are > benefitting from the progress of technology, globalization, taxation rules and > so on. You are exactly right, and this is something many of my current friends who are generally well-to-do and live in a highly progressive city are unaware of. I grew up in the South, and I have friends and family who have very much ended up on the "have-not" side of the economic equation over the past couple of decades. The US today is a shittier place if you're anywhere near the bottom half of the income chart. If you grew up poor in a poor state and didn't happen to get a good education, our country doesn't know what to do with you. We took away your low-knowledge-but-high-skills manufacturing jobs. Those got outsourced or automated away. The chronic pain you likely suffer from those back breaking jobs is even worse today. First your doctor got you hooked on Oxy, then that was taken away, so there's a real chance you're self-medicating with any of a cornucopia of drugs up to and including heroin and meth. You don't have an employer to provide you healthcare, and you can't afford it on your own. You're sick, tired, and unemployed. And you didn't do anything to deserve it. You took the public education you were offerred and worked hard at the jobs you could find. You're too poor to move away from your shithole town. You rely on your constellation of family and friends so you have no mobility. Even if you could move, your lack of service skills and the booming real estate market means you couldn't find a job in a big city that paid enough for you to survive. These people are angry, and justifiably so. The wealthy and the urban progressives have reshaped the country to their benefit and left a lot of people behind. It's a great time to be a skilled service worker in a big city, and not a great time to be much else. So I totally get where Trump supporters are coming from. If you listen to his rhetoric, he knows exactly the pain these people feel and speaks directly to them. I don't blame them for supporting him. The problem is that he's full of shit and not a single thing he is promising them will come to pass, or is even a coherent proposal. The heartbreaking part of this election is not that people support Trump who is a raging asshole, but sadly that they believe he would even help them if he won. This is basically a zero-win election for the poor in the US.

whybroke 10y ago

Is criticizing someone who plans to jail his political opponent also suppressing him too? Why should we suppose there is any other agenda than what he says it is? >he represents a group of people who haven't been represented for the last 40 years He _appeals_ to that group but what he has said does not indicate any serious intention to benefit it. An utter disinterest in the details of how to bring it about such a benefit and a near total focus on blame shifting to vulnerable groups and conspiracy theories makes it painfully clear this is merely a self interested demagogue. This is very deeply regrettable because the group he appeals to does in fact need help. But as has happened repeatedly historical, they have instead been lured in by an aggressively anti-democracy demagogue.

madmax96 10y ago

This is so wise and respectful. I really appreciate this comment. Someone supporting Trump does not imply that they are sexist or racist. The issues are complex. Ultimately, if an employee has shown nothing but respect for fellow coworkers and is performing their job adequately, then I don't think you have a good reason to fire them. What if I fired an employee for donating to a church? Or to the Clinton campaign? Regardless of the legality of the action, I would never do this. I believe it would be dishonorable. Now, if the employee were causing problems at work, then this is an entirely different situation. We must respect each other's differences. Firing Marcos would only succeed in alienating him, further entrenching him in his perspective. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Firing someone on the basis of a political donation (to a major candidate, nonetheless) seems pretty hateful to me. Respect for the parent commenter, and Sam Altman for doing (what I think) is the difficult but honorable thing.

knz 10y ago
Great post. People seem to lose track of the fact that political views exist on a spectrum and that our individual views can be quite different than the "team" ideology (conservatives who support gay marriage and liberals who support gun rights etc). We need more people willing to work the middle ground and find reasonable compromises.

moefogs 10y ago

> If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency. Thank you for making crystal clear that there is literally ZERO value in engaging with you. You're such a closed-minded piece of shit the you're willing to accuse anybody who disagrees with you of being dumb autocrats. The arrogance and stupidity of that sentiment is overwhelming. The lack of humanity required to write it and click post... wow... you're absolute garbage. FUCK YOU TOO

moefogs 10y ago

LET'S ALL LISTEN TO WHAT THE WHITE MAN HAS TO SAY ABOUT RACISM, SEXISM, AND WHY TRUMP IS GREAT! Oh wait... only a fucking garbage person would write what Thompete wrote.

knucklesandwich 10y ago

The implication here is that Trump voters are working class people who have been drawn to Trump by virtue of their economic anxiety, concern about loss of their jobs via globalization or immigration, etc. The image in mind is coal or steel workers or industrial factory workers in rust belt cities that have lost their jobs. It's a seductive narrative to Republicans to try to claim the working class, and to classist Democrats to pin Trump on dumb hicks. It's also fundamentally at odds with what all the data tells us. The first thing that's wrong about this is the assumption that the most economically disenfranchised vote at all. The least financially secure voters have some of the lowest turnout in America, with only about 20% of them voting [1]. These people fundamentally don't vote. The second problem is to try to pretend like Trump actually has a claim on the working class as his base to a greater extent than other candidates. He doesn't [2]. The median income on Trump supporters from the primaries was higher than that of Clinton supporters or Bernie supporters. He also claims a larger take of the wealthiest voters, who compose 9% of his voters in the primary, vs. Clinton and Sanders' 7% and 5% respectively. Fundamentally, his demographic skews more wealthy than the democrats. A recent gallop survey with a large sample size shows that Trump's base don't live in areas that experience job loss due to companies moving overseas, nor do they live in areas with large immigrant populations [3]. They live in areas that are largely racially segregated (largely white). They have tradecraft jobs like HVAC repairmen, plumber, etc. and live relatively comfortably. Fundamentally though, these people have low exposure to people of color, which might explain their bigotry. Finally, surveys tend to show that Trump voters have a more negative opinion of muslims and people of color [4], which should be of no surprise. So no, please pedal your "Trump's voters are the economically anxious white workers of America" narrative somewhere else. The truth is that Trump voters are bigots. [1]: http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/08/the-politics-of-financial-insecurity-a-democratic-tilt-undercut-by-low-participation/ http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/08/the-politics-of-finan... [2]: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-... [3]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822059 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2822059 [4]: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/d...

10y ago

morg0e 10y ago

> If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency. Thank you for making super clear that if we disagree with your position, that we're ill-informed, dishonest, and indecent. You arrogant cunt. > Racism is not just racism, sexism is not just sexism. These are complicated matters by the very nature of them being about human relationships. OH PLEASE MISTER WHITE MAN TELL ME ABOUT RACISM AND SEXISM. You utter and complete cunt. You simply CAN NOT start a conversation the way you started it, and have it end well. It can't happen. You can't say that only idiots disagree with you and that nobody else understands the issues and have it go well. If HN was a decent website, you'd be banned for a few weeks for this DUMB FUCKING POST of yourse. Sadly, HN isn't decent at all, and you didn't use profanity, so your arrogant bullshit will be upvoted by other white men.

sctb 10y ago
We've banned this account.

puppetmaster3 10y ago

You for sure flagged my post here.

yyyyylmao12 10y ago

this is the most condescending and hypocritical post i think I may have ever read in my life. dear lord. > Marcos understanding of this situation is extremely telling for a fundamental problem with many americans relationship with politics. Most only get involved around election. After that their political interest is non existing. Translation: he disagrees with me therefore he must not follow or understand politics. Do I have any proof of this? No. Reality: Those that actually follow politics and keep informed are the ones who are really disgusted by Trump. >It's easy to get lured into the idea that politics is a simple choice between the moral good and the moral bad, that the choice is simple and that there is a one to one relationship between what you vote for and what you get. Translation: I'm assuming people who disagree with me have this simplistic view of politics without any proof. Reality: Trump is a unique and scary fascist beast. McCain and Romney and every other candidate for decades has been a great, upstanding, person morally. They had the fitness to lead and I simply disagreed with them on some policy points. This is a different beast entirely. The fact that you don't see this actually tells me you don't follow politics at all and are assuming that this election is the same as others. >If you don't want dissent, fine just admit it. That way at least you are being honest. Don't wrap your lack of political understanding into some claim of decency. Translation: If you disagree with me or rebuke racism and sexism you must not want dissent. Reality: dissent is fine and encouraged. We'd have loved Rubio or Jeb but that isn't what we got.