3 ms·
He explains his rational argument here[1]. Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously". 1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJq
by return0 10y ago
He explains his rational argument here[1]. Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously".
1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4
- andrewchambers 10y agoedit: link no longer missing
- sremani 10y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4
- kbenson 10y ago> Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously". Which I guess is great if you're a billionaire and probably get some time with Trump or someone close to him that knows what he actually plans to do. In the meantime, all the rest of us are left with "I'm going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something great." Forgive me if I would have preferred something a little more substantial. Then again, I would like other people to have preferred that as well. :/
- ErikVandeWater 10y agoCan any politician be taken literally, though? How did Obama's promises on the revolving door between lobbyists and his administration work out? Or his promise on health insurance premiums? These promises aren't the exception, they are the rule. Politicians (almost) always have to lie to win. So Trump not being specific as to what he will do seems unlikely to be any different to interpret than if he made very specific plans.
- kbenson 10y agoWell, I think there are differing levels of information that can be conveyed. You can say you want a healthcare system where everyone is insured. You can say you want a healthcare system where costs are lowered. You can say you want both. All these convey some information about the goals of the politician, and how they may or may not align with your own. What they eventually come up with, or not, will inform you how much they compromised on that position. I would hazard most politicians are less likely to compromise on specific goals they stated, and more likely to compromise on ones they didn't state. This allows you to steer yourself towards a candidate that may work for an outcome you want, even if there's obviously no guarantee. In this case, we have "I will make something great", as if every candidate wasn't implicitly setting out to to do the same and every voter wasn't hoping for the same. So, am I more or less likely to get the outcome I want in this situation? Who knows? I don't because there's no way to, but I would sure appreciate being empowered to at least try to figure that out.
- return0 10y agoCan't disagree with you on that. However it's very likely that most of his voters took him seriously. It's not likely that they are all bigoted idiots, and in fact, they were not: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters...
- pmelendez 10y agoBeing Venezuelan I am familiar with the whole "pay attention what he does instead of what it says", and that didn't work well for us. The problem with authoritarian governments is that they can delay plans but never forget about them. If Thiel really think that, then he is not only an opportunist but also a fool.