5 ms·

Yea I understand that Trump is volatile and has talked about repealing Trade pacts, but he's still a billionaire republican that economically came of age in 198

by gph 10y ago

Yea I understand that Trump is volatile and has talked about repealing Trade pacts, but he's still a billionaire republican that economically came of age in 1980s NYC. You'd think Wall Street would love him from that description.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago
The Wall Street "elite" I think have mixed feelings toward him. On the one had he's against taxes and has vowed to remove some of the "worst" ones (estate tax, repatriation, etc). On the other hand he's been protectionist and not afraid to attack trade agreements that benefit large global corporations at the expense of American workers.
- jerf 10y ago
  I've been wondering if, once the hot blood of electoral politics simmers down, HN will develop a more "nuanced" view of Trump. I absolutely agree that there are things the HN gestalt won't like about Trump, like protectionism and closing the borders, so acclamation is not on the table, but on the other hand, there are also absolutely things the HN gestalt will like such as opposition to TPP, and probably having a significantly higher chance of getting the Feds out of marijuana enforcement than you would have seen under Clinton. I also think there's a much greater chance that Trump will pull back on the military interventions that it seems like many people don't even realize we're currently participating in. (We actually have a lot of military "actions" going on right now.) Much of that probably depends on what he actually does, but much of that also depends on whether people look at what he actually does instead of what they're told about what he does.
  - matwood 10y ago
    I've been having this exact conversation today. I didn't want either of them, but now that we have Trump what does that mean. The world is not going to end, and he is not taking away voting rights from women (legit comment on my FB feed this morning). But what will he actually do. If you look across the few things he has said not all GOP types of things, and some align much closer with a Sanders agenda. We definitely have to wait and see, and I think that is what really bugs people.
    - b_emery 10y ago
      No, what bugs me is the racism, the misogyny, the intolerance, the anti-immigrant rhetoric, and most of all that he rejects data that doesn't fit his views.
      - oldmanjay 10y ago
        Does the racism today against white people bother you? It's a genuine question, because the vehemence is cranked pretty high, but racism against white people is often automatically excused, so I'm curious where you fall.
        Hydraulix989 10y ago
        Can you give me an example?
        oldmanjay 10y ago
        A comment I posted earlier today details one, from 538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915950
        b_emery 10y ago
        Trump has expressed all of those characteristics. Labeling him and his supporters by proxy may be a stretch, but it's not racism. Call a spade a spade.
        oldmanjay 10y ago
        Whether you think it's a big deal or not isn't really the point - after all, do you not believe that, a person who expresses some racist belief, even a true one, about (for instance) a Mexican person feels just as justified in the belief? You can argue about who is actually justified for feeling what, but crucially, the only impact it ends up having is to further embed the feelings. In other words, it is not a solution to these problems, it is a cause.
  - b_emery 10y ago
    > Trump will pull back on the military interventions that it seems like many people don't even realize we're currently participating in. This directly contradicts what he has said he would do [1],[2]. Best case is we are much more involved in Syria/Iraq by this time next year. Worst case? War with Iran? Proxy war with Russia? Clinton would have been status quo, I give you that for sure. For Silicon Valley, (and HN by proxy I suppose) Trump immigration policy will be a problem. I think he will prevent/discourage the best and brightest from around the world to come here, work, and bring substantial benefit to our economy (rather than the economy of their homeland). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8 [2] http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/
    - jerf 10y ago
      "This directly contradicts what he has said he would do [1],[2]." I don't think it does, actually. Right now we're involved in a number of military interventions in a number of countries, and I can not articulate to you at all what our interests are in these interventions, or more accurately, what my interests are in these interventions. Theories about Saudi Arabia and Qatar giving money to the Clinton foundation and getting military services in Syria sound at least reasonable to me on the grounds that I have no other explanation for what the hell is going on in Syria, or how it interests me, a fairly common American voter. As near as I can tell, if we "lost" all of those engagements right now and just went home, perhaps with an apology, my geopolitical position would be improved as a result of that in every way, especially in less tension with Russia and other developing powers. (Aren't liberals supposed to be in favor of the proposition that the US is nothing special, and the world is becoming more multi-polar, and we ought to peacefully stand down and let the American Hegemony dissolve to some extent? As near as I can tell, all of our actions in the Middle East right now are primarily intended to try to hold on to American Hegemony out there. I don't want it, on almost every level, not least of which is our demonstrated inability to stabilize those countries. History tells us what it would take to do it. We don't want to do it. I don't want to do it. It's time to let American Hegemony in the Middle East go.) That's why I specified that he's more likely to pull back on the things that are currently going on that hardly anybody even seems to realize we're doing. It was actually amusing to me, in a grimdark sort of way, than ANSWER is already planning to start up its protests again [1], as if they could possibly make it any more obvious that they are simply a anti-(R) organization rather than an anti-war one. If they were really anti-war, they should have bee protesting continuously throughout the entire Obama administration, as big as they ever did (props to those rare few who actually have been), not starting it up the instant an (R) is back in office. Trump appears to be promising to wave a big stick at things that are actually in American interests; I rather anticipate that faced with the threat of much more focused action, those interests won't actually want direct war. It is also, ultimately, the only sane policy... you must threaten to retaliate when your interests are threatened, the game theory is clear, you can't promise to take a nuke to Boston and then sit back and be considered about the response... even if that is what you actually do. You still have to promise (credibly!) that you're going to retaliate. I think a lot of people are coming in with the assumption that Trump's foreign policy must necessarily be stupid and brutish, and of course, when you come in with that assumption, you'll find plenty of confirmation bias that it's true. I don't think it is. I think people are also coming in with a lot of false assumptions about our current policy and our current situation, such as the guy I saw on HN yesterday who appears to believe that Obama has actually shut down the war in Iraq and that we are currently at peace. We aren't. We're basically at war right now. Given the number of fronts we've got some sort of fight going on, if the situation we are currently in does end up breaking out into World War III, the start date historians assign for that conflict will probably be in our past, and Obama will get "credit" for being the President at its beginning. Personally, I think that a lot of people have a hard time understanding Trump's foreign policy because it's based on the situation that actually exists right now out there in the world, and you've been kept very carefully unaware of what's actually going on out there, so the resulting proposal looks like gibberish to you. Part of my vote for Trump was actually to avoid World War III, which contrary to the impression most people seem to have, is actually the course we are currently on. The powder keg is already going off. The question is not whether Trump will set it off, but whether he can successfully stop the explosion already in progress. From what I can see, he's taking the steps to do that. Yes, that even includes making clear declarations that we will defend our interests. That returns predictability to a situation that has become very unpredictable. The Middle East can not be stabilized when the US will decide to knock over your government so that a different government can run a pipeline through your country that you don't want, or whatever other dumbass reason we actually did it for. The Middle East will be stabilized (at least more so) when the US makes a clear declaration that we will only intervene when our direct interests are at stake. My personal opinion is that the Clinton campaign has done their best to claim that Trump is going to be a madman deploying our military every which way and nuking whomever he chooses precisely to cover up the fact that our current policy is deploying our military every which way for dubious reasons. [1]: https://www.facebook.com/events/1068785513242447/ https://www.facebook.com/events/1068785513242447/

by gph 10y ago

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

The Wall Street "elite" I think have mixed feelings toward him. On the one had he's against taxes and has vowed to remove some of the "worst" ones (estate tax, repatriation, etc). On the other hand he's been protectionist and not afraid to attack trade agreements that benefit large global corporations at the expense of American workers.

jerf 10y ago
I've been wondering if, once the hot blood of electoral politics simmers down, HN will develop a more "nuanced" view of Trump. I absolutely agree that there are things the HN gestalt won't like about Trump, like protectionism and closing the borders, so acclamation is not on the table, but on the other hand, there are also absolutely things the HN gestalt will like such as opposition to TPP, and probably having a significantly higher chance of getting the Feds out of marijuana enforcement than you would have seen under Clinton. I also think there's a much greater chance that Trump will pull back on the military interventions that it seems like many people don't even realize we're currently participating in. (We actually have a lot of military "actions" going on right now.) Much of that probably depends on what he actually does, but much of that also depends on whether people look at what he actually does instead of what they're told about what he does.
- matwood 10y ago
  I've been having this exact conversation today. I didn't want either of them, but now that we have Trump what does that mean. The world is not going to end, and he is not taking away voting rights from women (legit comment on my FB feed this morning). But what will he actually do. If you look across the few things he has said not all GOP types of things, and some align much closer with a Sanders agenda. We definitely have to wait and see, and I think that is what really bugs people.
  - b_emery 10y ago
    No, what bugs me is the racism, the misogyny, the intolerance, the anti-immigrant rhetoric, and most of all that he rejects data that doesn't fit his views.
    - oldmanjay 10y ago
      Does the racism today against white people bother you? It's a genuine question, because the vehemence is cranked pretty high, but racism against white people is often automatically excused, so I'm curious where you fall.
      - Hydraulix989 10y ago
        Can you give me an example?
        oldmanjay 10y ago
        A comment I posted earlier today details one, from 538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915950
        b_emery 10y ago
        Trump has expressed all of those characteristics. Labeling him and his supporters by proxy may be a stretch, but it's not racism. Call a spade a spade.
        oldmanjay 10y ago
        Whether you think it's a big deal or not isn't really the point - after all, do you not believe that, a person who expresses some racist belief, even a true one, about (for instance) a Mexican person feels just as justified in the belief? You can argue about who is actually justified for feeling what, but crucially, the only impact it ends up having is to further embed the feelings. In other words, it is not a solution to these problems, it is a cause.
- b_emery 10y ago
  > Trump will pull back on the military interventions that it seems like many people don't even realize we're currently participating in. This directly contradicts what he has said he would do [1],[2]. Best case is we are much more involved in Syria/Iraq by this time next year. Worst case? War with Iran? Proxy war with Russia? Clinton would have been status quo, I give you that for sure. For Silicon Valley, (and HN by proxy I suppose) Trump immigration policy will be a problem. I think he will prevent/discourage the best and brightest from around the world to come here, work, and bring substantial benefit to our economy (rather than the economy of their homeland). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWejiXvd-P8 [2] http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/
  - jerf 10y ago
    "This directly contradicts what he has said he would do [1],[2]." I don't think it does, actually. Right now we're involved in a number of military interventions in a number of countries, and I can not articulate to you at all what our interests are in these interventions, or more accurately, what my interests are in these interventions. Theories about Saudi Arabia and Qatar giving money to the Clinton foundation and getting military services in Syria sound at least reasonable to me on the grounds that I have no other explanation for what the hell is going on in Syria, or how it interests me, a fairly common American voter. As near as I can tell, if we "lost" all of those engagements right now and just went home, perhaps with an apology, my geopolitical position would be improved as a result of that in every way, especially in less tension with Russia and other developing powers. (Aren't liberals supposed to be in favor of the proposition that the US is nothing special, and the world is becoming more multi-polar, and we ought to peacefully stand down and let the American Hegemony dissolve to some extent? As near as I can tell, all of our actions in the Middle East right now are primarily intended to try to hold on to American Hegemony out there. I don't want it, on almost every level, not least of which is our demonstrated inability to stabilize those countries. History tells us what it would take to do it. We don't want to do it. I don't want to do it. It's time to let American Hegemony in the Middle East go.) That's why I specified that he's more likely to pull back on the things that are currently going on that hardly anybody even seems to realize we're doing. It was actually amusing to me, in a grimdark sort of way, than ANSWER is already planning to start up its protests again [1], as if they could possibly make it any more obvious that they are simply a anti-(R) organization rather than an anti-war one. If they were really anti-war, they should have bee protesting continuously throughout the entire Obama administration, as big as they ever did (props to those rare few who actually have been), not starting it up the instant an (R) is back in office. Trump appears to be promising to wave a big stick at things that are actually in American interests; I rather anticipate that faced with the threat of much more focused action, those interests won't actually want direct war. It is also, ultimately, the only sane policy... you must threaten to retaliate when your interests are threatened, the game theory is clear, you can't promise to take a nuke to Boston and then sit back and be considered about the response... even if that is what you actually do. You still have to promise (credibly!) that you're going to retaliate. I think a lot of people are coming in with the assumption that Trump's foreign policy must necessarily be stupid and brutish, and of course, when you come in with that assumption, you'll find plenty of confirmation bias that it's true. I don't think it is. I think people are also coming in with a lot of false assumptions about our current policy and our current situation, such as the guy I saw on HN yesterday who appears to believe that Obama has actually shut down the war in Iraq and that we are currently at peace. We aren't. We're basically at war right now. Given the number of fronts we've got some sort of fight going on, if the situation we are currently in does end up breaking out into World War III, the start date historians assign for that conflict will probably be in our past, and Obama will get "credit" for being the President at its beginning. Personally, I think that a lot of people have a hard time understanding Trump's foreign policy because it's based on the situation that actually exists right now out there in the world, and you've been kept very carefully unaware of what's actually going on out there, so the resulting proposal looks like gibberish to you. Part of my vote for Trump was actually to avoid World War III, which contrary to the impression most people seem to have, is actually the course we are currently on. The powder keg is already going off. The question is not whether Trump will set it off, but whether he can successfully stop the explosion already in progress. From what I can see, he's taking the steps to do that. Yes, that even includes making clear declarations that we will defend our interests. That returns predictability to a situation that has become very unpredictable. The Middle East can not be stabilized when the US will decide to knock over your government so that a different government can run a pipeline through your country that you don't want, or whatever other dumbass reason we actually did it for. The Middle East will be stabilized (at least more so) when the US makes a clear declaration that we will only intervene when our direct interests are at stake. My personal opinion is that the Clinton campaign has done their best to claim that Trump is going to be a madman deploying our military every which way and nuking whomever he chooses precisely to cover up the fact that our current policy is deploying our military every which way for dubious reasons. [1]: https://www.facebook.com/events/1068785513242447/ https://www.facebook.com/events/1068785513242447/