8 ms·

Meanwhile, Trump's already got an RFS in waiting: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716

• GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  YC's got a friend with a direct connection to the president-elect, they're not going to do a dang thing about Thiel now.
  • dudisbrie 10y ago
    They plan to do NOTHING from the beginning.
• jerf 10y ago
  Yes, that's a great plan for YC. Go up to the next President of the United States and stick their finger in his eye. That'll really show him. That'll Win Friends and Influence People. Can't possibly harm their startups, either, to stick a finger in the President's eye like that. I'm sure they never want to fund a startup ever again that might interact with the Federal government in any way.
  • _pius 10y ago
    Great moral courage there. YC has a choice: do what IBM did in the 1930's or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust And before you say I'm "going Godwin," remember: It was Sam and Paul who've said they think Trump is a threat of similar proportions. If Sam really thinks that, the moral thing to do is cut ties. And yes, it'll be hard. Would have been easier to do before the election. It will only get harder.
    • AvenueIngres 10y ago
      I guess that makes YC complicit of extrajudicial murders w/ Obama's drone program as well? Somehow actual mass murders didn't matter at the time, but now that a non-progressive candidate has won the general election... YC has to do something about the mean things that candidate said. Wew lad, are you OK? I genuinely feel like it's been a rough ride for you
    • ikeboy 10y ago
      Wouldn't the point where it becomes morally obligatory to do that be once Trump actually starts doing things that are comparable? Right now we don't really know which of his promises he plans on actually keeping.
      • fucking_tragedy 10y ago
        We can go by his stated intentions to help determine where in the realm of possibility his future actions might play out. Mass deportations and a retreat on civil rights and equality are within that realm.
        • ikeboy 10y ago
          I'm not saying there's no chance he'll do those things. I'm saying that it's not certain enough to obligate people to not cooperate with him. (Also, if the Holocaust had only consisted of mass deportations it wouldn't be nearly as bad or remembered. Have some perspective.)
          • fucking_tragedy 10y ago
            > (Also, if the Holocaust had only consisted of mass deportations it wouldn't be nearly as bad or remembered. Have some perspective.) We already tried this and have seen the results. We rounded up and deported more than a million Mexicans twice in our history. It is remembered, California apologized for their hand in it a couple of years ago. Millions of families could be uprooted, torn apart and be left stranded without ID, possessions or money[1] and left to die[2]. Mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors, co-workers and classmates could disappear. My perspective is that 'exactly as bad as the Holocaust' isn't the bar to pass to be a potential tragedy. I didn't make a comparison to the Holocaust, but since we're there: deportation and mass ordered removal is part of what made the Holocaust a tragedy. It took years of deportations (of the traditional sense), forced relocations and imprisonment before people were shipped to the ovens in droves. [1] http://immigrationimpact.com/2016/04/07/deported-immigrants-possessions/ http://immigrationimpact.com/2016/04/07/deported-immigrants-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback#Consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback#Consequences
• thatswrong0 10y ago
  > NOV 20 2015, 9:27 AM Yeah I'll believe it when I see it
• daxorid 10y ago
  What is "the right thing"?
• throwawayIndian 10y ago
  Don't agree! I'd blame the democrats alone (the party, leadership, delegates, superdelegates and a section of voters + ~~liar~~ media) for giving away the presidency to Trump. For free, literally. How is Peter Thiel or anyone else (Trump's supporters) responsible for what comes out of the man's mouth when at the same time the other party is clearly doing what's downright corruption/stifling a democratic nomination? ICYMI, Peter Thiel did mention that he'd have preferred a race between Sanders and Trump instead (watch his interview to the press club) -- where he quotes: "because they get it" -- and that Trump gets the big things right even though his behavior isn't acceptable. I don't see any reason for YC or any other organization to follow through with your advice. It is also mind numbing that a portion of democrats who made a joke of Trump when he said "he will accept the results only if he wins" are unable to accept the result of the election themselves. Move on folks, open your ears and do your job. On downvotes: I'm pretty sure downvoting over here is symptomatic behavior of a community that doesn't like to listen. Thank you for proving the point. I am happy that Trump is leading us and he is the elected premier for this country despite his weaknesses.
  • user837387 10y ago
    >>blame the democrats Don't blame me for Trump. I voted for Hillary. Each of us are responsible for their own vote. Nobody made you vote for Trump. I blame the people who voted for Trump for making him President. After all, we are all adults here, and although Trump never accepts any responsibility for his actions I think that the Trump supporters accept that they voted for him. So yeah, blaming the Democrats for the Trump presidency is an oxymoron.
    • toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Clinton and her machine threw the only candidate who could beat Trump under the bus. She deserves her loss, and should apologize to the American people for prioritizing her selfish ambition over the good of the country. Hopefully the Democrats learn about running someone electable before 2018. I have already prepared my donation fund for Bernie Sanders' or Tulsi Gabbard's 2020 presidential race (and I'll not vote again in 4 years if the Dems run yet another establishment candidate, learn your lesson already). Your chance for your opinion to matter was when the primaries took place. Don't save your outrage for after it doesn't go the way you wanted.
• fib739mbbh 10y ago
  As usual, the media distorts what Trump actually said. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/...
  • davesque 10y ago
    Not entirely. Trump was extremely unclear and dodgy when asked more about his comments in the days after that interview. People asked him very directly on several occasions if he would, in fact, implement a Muslim database. He never denied that he would. In fact, he confirmed that he wants a database for Syrian refugees.
    • smsm42 10y ago
      "Never denied he would" is not exactly the same as "Would for sure do it". > he confirmed that he wants a database for Syrian refugees. Doesn't the government already have database of all immigrants? I even have a nice card with a number, I'm pretty sure this number refers to a record in the database. Before I had that, I also had to fill in and send out certain forms, which I am pretty sure also went to some government database. So how exactly Syrian refugees are different and what exactly makes the thing that US - and pretty much every other, as far as I know - government routinely does so beyond the pale?
      • leesalminen 10y ago
        Most everyone is just a record in a database. Where we live, go, work, eat, watch, listen to... it's all just a record in a database.
  • kafkaesq 10y ago
    Apparently, the "certainly implement" part was a misattribution. But if you follow the analysis in the article you posted, it's quite clear that Trump basically does favor the idea of such a registry -- and that yes, it would be mandatory for all "legal" entries into the country: Friday, Nov. 20 The next day, an MSNBC reporter asked Trump, "Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?" "There should be a lot of systems," Trump responded. "Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems." Trump then digressed to talk about a wall along the southern border, before the reporter interjected, "But that’s something your White House would like to implement." "I would certainly implement that. Absolutely," Trump said. Here, we’re not clear if Trump is talking about implementing a wall or implementing a database. But a few seconds later, when asked how he would register people into a database, Trump said, "It would just be good management." Finally, the reporter asked if Muslims would legally have to be part of the database. "They have to be — they have to be," Trump said. "Let me just tell you: The key is people can come to the country, but they have to come legally."
• overgard 10y ago
  "The right thing". Tolerance means recognizing that people have different world views than your own. Sometimes the people you do business with have political opinions you don't agree with. The melodrama over Thiel's political opinions is pointless. If you demand Thiel steps down, are you personally just going to stop doing business with 49% of the country that voted differently? Personally I lean liberal, but I'm pretty disgusted with all the theatrics I've seen in this election from the left. The Trump phenomenon arguably occurred because half the country felt ostracized and decided to lob a brick through the window of washington in the form of donald trump. Maybe we should all get to understand our neighbors instead of doubling down on us-vs-them tribalism.
  • ben0x539 10y ago
    Nah, tolerance means that you gotta be ok with people from different religions, ethnic groups, w/e. The opinion thing isn't as important.
    • toomuchtodo 10y ago
      It's only tolerance when I agree with you /s "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
    • olioli 10y ago
      The guys who wrote the universal declaration of human rights seem to disagree with you. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." "All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
      • ben0x539 10y ago
        Yeah I'm not saying people with abhorrent opinions don't deserve human rights. That doesn't mean tolerance is all about being cool with your hypothetical Nazi neighbor. I'm pretty sure whoever came up with that declaration would be with me on the part where we aren't cool w/ Nazis.