5 ms·

as long as no one have actually formulated an argument based on facts how Trump is a threat to democracy I dont see how he is more dangerous than Hillary, Bush

• tptacek 10y ago
  If you believe that Trump is no more dangerous than Clinton, your support for Peter Thiel makes sense, and, while I'd implore you to reconsider, I'm content for us to agree to disagree. But Sam Altman and Paul Graham don't agree with you. They virulently disagree with you. They repeatedly compare Trump to a fascist dictator. They claim Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. Paul Graham said that if Trump wins, he'll "join the resistance". I agree with Altman and Graham on that. But I feel obligated to point out to them both --- Altman in particular --- that what they say about Trump is incompatible with the manner in which they affiliate with Peter Thiel, who is a part of the Trump campaign.
  • ThomPete 10y ago
    Or perhaps you are hijacking their words and misrepresent their actual opinions. Perhaps they dont believe its as litterally as you do. It would certainly make sense since claiming Trump is Stalin is as ill informed as it is absurd. Just like you are ready to ignore your principles for a bigger belief so is Theil. He is not voting for Trump he is voting for change. The very change everyone agrees is needed.
    • tptacek 10y ago
      I am not.
      • ThomPete 10y ago
        Apparently they dont believe him to be a big enough threat to cut ties with Thiel for supporting him. Make of that what you want.
        • tptacek 10y ago
          Thank you. This perception is exactly why we keep telling Sam Altman and Paul Graham that they need to reconsider their stance on Peter Thiel.
          • ThomPete 10y ago
            But that's in support of my point that perhaps they don't mean it the way you want them to not yours that they really believe that Trump is a threat to democracy.
            • edanm 10y ago
              You can decide to read what Sam Altman says and say "but maybe he doesn't really mean it", but that's a bit of a stretch. Just read their actual thoughts on the subject. tptacek is not misrepresenting what they are saying. From Altman: "His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer. But the man himself is even more dangerous than his policies. He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage. He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants, and I believe this reason alone more than disqualifies him to be president. [...] Trump shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if he becomes our president."
              • ThomPete 10y ago
                I am not saying he doesn't mean it, simply that he doesn't mean it enough (it would also be an absurd claim to compare Trump with Musolini) to do anything about it.
      • cconroy 10y ago
  • marchenko 10y ago
    This is a very good point. I do not think supporting Trump is outside the bounds of decency, and I would not disassociate from Thiel on these grounds. But Sam Altman stated that "If Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator." The recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision re-affirmed the intimate connection between monetary support and political speech. So this is a serious logical disjunction on sama's part. Every fascist is someone's friend.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
  • mcphage 10y ago
    No one will provide them here because (a) they're not hard to find, and (b) they're not really the topic of discussion, which is the disconnect between PG and SA's claims about Trump, and their lived actions. This article isn't about Trump's dangers, it's about YC's hypocrisy.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
    • jaegerpicker 10y ago
      Hasn't done anything because he isn't ELECTED and has never held office. We can only judge based on the words he has said. We have to take him at his word and react to what he plans to do. That's why people are so afraid of how dangerous he is.
    • bphogan 10y ago
      The candidate routinely throws around the phrase "Believe me." So people are.
• jaegerpicker 10y ago
  It's a simple comparison really: Trump - (paraphased) Muslims are evil, they should be registered and have special restrictions placed on them. He singled out a single religious group. Made them the target of a group of people that are disposed to hating them. It goes against the very spirit of modern western democracy. To many it represents a clear and unforseen threat to our country. Even Bush who was clearly the most aggressive of the recent presidents in dealing with Muslim states, stopped WAY short of that. Clinton has clearly not singled out any one group, clearly tried to bring more people together. To compare the two is blatantly overlooking the clear differences in Trump's campaign and nearly every other one in recent history.
  • dreta 10y ago
    There’s a major problem with Muslim refugees in Europe right now. My girlfriend used to love visiting Paris, now it’s basically a no-go zone even in daytime. What he’s saying is based on reality, even if it makes you feel all bad inside when you hear it. Even in the US, where the refugee problem doesn’t exist, you still learn after terrorist attacks that, f.e. the family knew, or that the attacker had bomb equipment all over the apartment, but nobody said anything. These are national security issues, and they need to be addressed by the president, i’m glad he’s doing it, same for illegal immigration, even if he’s doing it in a cringe-worthy, populist way. He’s not a life-long politician. Anytime a tragedy happens right now, first thing you hear is Obama and Clinton taking about guns being the problem, and wanting to disarm you, or that all Muslims are amazing people. You never hear the problem being addressed. It is rather scary to see your president, and potential future president do that.
    • bambax 10y ago
      > My girlfriend used to love visiting Paris, now it’s basically a no-go zone even in daytime. What are you talking about. I've lived in Paris for 40+ years, there is no special problems. We had terrorists attacks, we may have more, but basically nobody cares much about it or talks about it, and life is the same as it's always been (lots of traffic, lots of people in the subway, weather not great).
• dvdplm 10y ago
  > And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy. I don't think this is correct. It is 100% not correct in the EU and I doubt people in the countries where US foreign policy is more heavy-handed – you know, murdering people from the air without trial and all that – actually believe in substantial policy changes after the election. I am pretty sure many fear more of the bad stuff.
• 551199 10y ago
  Exactly. Hillary has stated there would be a military response to Russia because of the alleged hacking. Latest leak shows Evidence of Democrat organizers paying agitators to disrupt Trump rallies in efforts to smear Trump supporters. Discusses strategy for “initiating conflict by having leading conversations with people who are naturally psychotic” – Foval is referring to paying agitators to instigate trouble at Trump events here, calling Trump supporters “naturally psychotic.”[0][1] This is some evil dealings. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY [1] http://regated.com/2016/10/project-veritas-clinton-camp-corruption/ http://regated.com/2016/10/project-veritas-clinton-camp-corr...
  • teekert 10y ago
    Exactly, if the Hillary camp is capable of doing that, what more is fabricated of all the Trump weirdness in the news?
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• edanm 10y ago
  I'll tell you exactly why I think Trump is dangerous to democracy. He is acting in a way that has historically, as far as I remember, led to the downfall of democracy in other countries. Things he is doing in that vein: 1. Saying that he'd put his political opponents in jail. 2. Saying that the election is rigged. 3. Encouraging the idea that if he isn't elected, the election was illegitimate. These are the facts. If you still disagree, I think it has to be because of one of these reasons: 1. You disagree that Trump is doing these things. 2. You disagree that they historically have lead to the downfall of democracies. 3. You disagree that them having lead to the downfall of democracies means that it is good evidence that this is a danger to democracy. I'd appreciate if you could tell me which of the above is your stance? (Obviously, if I missed another possibility, I'd be happy to know about it!)
  • xaa 10y ago
    Not GP, but I share his general viewpoint. My response would be: 1. I do not believe he would actually be able to do this (like the wall). Thankfully, unlike other aspects of our government, our judiciary is generally functional and independent. I think what he is really saying here is something like this: "HRC should have been indicted for the e-mails. The FBI director and AG are both Obama appointees. Bill Clinton was seen meeting with the AG very shortly before the decision was announced. There are many documented cases of lower-level officials being indicted for lesser mishandling of classified information. Based on all of this, it seems reasonable to propose that her exoneration was primarily a political decision, and was unjust. I'd like to correct that." Not watertight, but a reasonable enough argument. In other words, I think he is saying that HRC should be in jail because he believes she performed a criminal act, not simply because she was his opponent. 2 & 3. My reading is that he is doing this, but not nearly as forcefully or frequently as the press implies he does. Furthermore, our elections can be and have been rigged in the past. There are numerous examples of this in the Democratic primaries this year. The real question is not whether both parties attempt to rig elections (they do: gerrymandering, voter ID laws, laws on criminal voting are all instances of this), but whether the rigging determines the election's outcome. Most people would say that it usually does not. So if he argues, even pre-emptively, that the elections will be rigged, it is quite likely he will have a fact-based case to make that they are. It will be a much harder slog to convince anyone that the rigging was what prevented him from being elected, and I think he will not be successful in this if he tries. I do not believe in criticizing people's statements based on consequentialist logic: i.e. "the things he is saying may or may not be true, but we should condemn them anyway because they are corrosive to democracy". My only real criterion for whether to accept or condemn statements is based on their truth or falsehood, or likelihood, or logic.
• morg0e 10y ago
  You've asserted without facts that Trump is not a problem. You've DIRECTLY STATED that only poorly informed autocrats could possibly disagree with you. And now you have the FUCKING NERVE to claim that you're making evidence based reasoning? FUCK YOU.