10 ms·

> Why exactly am I meant to be comforted by the fact that the craven opportunists --- the lowest of the low of the Republican party [...] are getting the most i

• TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  Holy fucking shit. Thanks for pointing that out. That whole thread highlights to an extreme degree how broken politics is in the U.S.
• pcwalton 10y ago
  > As might be expected, Trump is now giving governmental positions to those who didn't distance themselves from him during the election. I don't find that surprising. Cronyism "might be expected" from politicians. (In fact it's very expected from self-serving, hubristic politicians like Donald Trump.) That doesn't make cronyism OK.
  • dlss 10y ago
    Cronyism in my understanding is essentially hiring friends who are unqualified for a given job. In this case, it looks to me like what's going on could better be described as not hiring otherwise qualified candidates who publicly denounced you. Or maybe more tactfully 'limiting the applicant pool to people who share the same vision.' To make this more concrete, in GGP Robert Gates is brought up as a respectable republican who Trump presumably would have appointed were he not engaged in cronyism. Google "Robert Gates Trump" then let me know if you really think cronyism is the best explanation for why Robert Gates didn't get the job.
    • pcwalton 10y ago
      We should expect the most powerful office in the world to hire the best people for the job. Saying that Donald Trump is "beyond repair" (which is a statement I happen to agree with) is not disqualifying. The idea that it is disqualifying has a word: cronyism.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      • michaelt 10y ago
        For political appointees who are implementing your promises that determine whether you get re-elected, loyalty is a very important qualification. We all know how easy it is for political promises to be broken - there are any number of ways to sabotage an effort you're in charge of, while appearing to act in good faith. You don't even have to do it deliberately - you just need to give 100% in a job that needs you to give 110%. Who do you think has more incentive to deliver your vision? A guy who hates you, and who thinks he'll get a better boss (maybe even be boss himself) if you're out of the way? Or a guy whose ship is tied to yours and if you go down, he'll never achieve such heights in his career again?
        • gm-conspiracy 10y ago
          What about Pete's character in Mad Men?
        • guptaneil 10y ago
          If you were working at a startup, your argument would be the equivalent of advocating hiring individuals who need you for their job and therefore won't be a threat to you. I would much rather hire and work with people smarter than me who can help me grow. You're only as good as your weakest link. There's certainly value for passion about the mission, but it shouldn't be confused with desperation.
          • torrances 10y ago
  • torrances 10y ago
    Is it really cronyism? It seems like most of the "qualified people" don't share his vision, so why would you hire someone that is so opposed to what you're doing? If Trump were a Silicon Valley CEO, we would be saying he's not hiring them due to a "cultural fit."
  • Mikeb85 10y ago
    Hiring qualified loyalists is different from giving favours to unqualified friends.
    • DefaultUserHN 10y ago
      Agreed. Hiring the best qualified people who wants to Make America Great Again is different from giving favors to unqualified foreigners who wants to screw over the American people.
      • grzm 10y ago
        "giving favors to unqualified foreigners who wants to screw over the American people." Would you expand on this? There's so much going back and forth that I sometimes have a hard time knowing what people are referring to.
        • DefaultUserHN 10y ago
          Talking about Hillary and the Saudis.
          • grzm 10y ago
            Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
• blahi 10y ago
  >Twenty-three days ago you and Marco sought to get Peter Thiel removed from YC for his support of Trump WOW. This is insane! Things like this and Mozilla's CEO situation are exactly why Trump won the destitute and the rich alike. Liberals shoving down their half-baked morals into everybody's throats. How condescending. So much for Egalitarianism. We are equal, just not with Trump voters. What a hypocrisy.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
    exactly why Trump won the destitute and the rich alike. That sounds a lot like the half-baked shoving you're trying to describe. I wouldn't be so convinced the 50+ million people who voted Trump fit neatly in to those two categories.
  • snikeris 10y ago
    Yeah it's intolerance. Coming from the party that's so concerned with calling everyone else intolerant.
    • peterclary 10y ago
      So we should all be tolerant of racism, sexism, outright sexual assualt ("grab 'em by the pussy") and boasting of same, mocking the disabled, stiffing contractors and suppliers?
      • DefaultUserHN 10y ago
        >So we should all be tolerant of racism, sexism, outright sexual assualt ("grab 'em by the pussy") and boasting of same, mocking the disabled, stiffing contractors and suppliers? The problem is, most Trump supporters are not racist or sexist. You're doing a witch hunt where you accuse someone of being a witch, and then justifying that it's okay to kill them them because they're witches. Do you see how wrong that is? You don't even know them personally, so how would you even know that they're witches?
        • 10y ago
• B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
  Props. That very much needed to be said. > just twenty-three days after your witch hunt, The thought processes of all these allegedly enlightened people are strange. For all the claims of "rationality", I can barely find difference with the psychology of the most primitive tribesmen. Just a better grade of pretexts. (The murderous rage of the "rationalists" in the French, Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, etc. revolutions, all conducted by very educated people, is well documented and quite sad.)
  • notahacker 10y ago
    Personally I'd argue that people building a campaign around the idea that one's neighbours are sending out vicious "rapists" and the solution is to build a wall and force the neighbours to pay for it is rather closer to primitive tribal psychology than arguments for boycotting individuals actively endorsing and funding the dissemination of said hate. YMMV. Regardless of whether one thinks boycotts are a reasonable way for people to express their view or unhelpful political pressure on other people's views, comparing them with mass murders conducted by revolutionaries is just unhinged.
• idlewords 10y ago
  That is not a true statement. tptacek never called for Thiel to be removed from YC, and I challenge you to point to any statement of his to the contrary.
  • jack9 10y ago
    > This is the problem with the needle Altman is trying to thread...If Altman means what he says, he should do what he can to shut this question down. > Thiel doesn't even get equity in YC. Thiel's participation in YC is almost literally just a marketing tactic --- it's a co-endorsement. We're telling Altman: rethink the endorsement. (this is actually copy-pasted again in another comment) tptacek all but says those exact words. I don't know what other interpretation but YC removal/exclusion is implied.
  • pfortuny 10y ago
    Your statement is mincing words, as you may infer from tptacek's posts.
• Confusion 10y ago
  The respectable Republicans distanced themselves from Trump But that shouldn't really matter, as both sides know it was all about posturing and publicity. Just like Trump is (hopefully?) going to be a much more reasonable president than his campaign antics would lead you to believe, so he can work with the respectable Republicans in a much better way than their campaign behaviour would you lead to believe. Twenty-three days ago [..] And one year ago Trump suggested the plurality vote should determine the presidency, in which case he would have lost. Neither he nor his supporters will agree to that now, nor will he acknowledge he was wrong. And there will be no consequences. Most people only have eye for short term problems, don't have a good memory or good associative capabilities and don't think beyond the outcome they hope for. Even if you are aware of longer term problems, consequences and have a good memory, you may still choose to pursue short term goals in your opinion-making, because those listening to you want you to address their immediate concerns. You don't need to worry about contradicting yourself or causing new problems: they won't notice. So congratulations on remembering that an action/proposal/opinion of 23 days ago opposes one now. Did you also realize back then what the consequences in face of an adverse outcome would be? That would be an extreme ability of foresight. And unfortunately it doesn't make a lick of difference.
  • dlss 10y ago
    > Just like Trump is (hopefully?) going to be a much more reasonable president than his campaign antics would lead you to believe Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by reasonable here. I have to admit I'm rather worried that Trump is actually an outsider / non-politician, and that this will result in some rather awful power struggles for the foreseeable future as the government undergoes the bureaucratic equivalent of (hopefully) chemotherapy, or (more pessimistically) leprosy. "Reasonable" to me basically means an exceedingly boring and predictable government. > Did you also realize back then what the consequences in face of an adverse outcome would be? Not in detail but in character, yes. I did what I could to calm and reason with the mob. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12734428 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12734428 for example. My basic position was and is that shunning, as a tactic, is net negative. Or at least is net negative when done to sophisticated opponents. If the person's wrong, kicking them out will just cause them to continue being wrong only this time with different people and without you around to correct them. If the person's right, kicking them out will just keep you wrong only this time without anyone to help you find the truth. > And unfortunately it doesn't make a lick of difference. hah, agree. If commenting on HN isn't its own reward, it's a waste of time :p
• tptacek 10y ago
  I stand by every comment I wrote on that thread. If you'd like to discuss one in particular, cite it.
  • vartmp 10y ago
    You used the phrase "threat to society" several times. The phrase implies a moral basis. What is your moral basis for determining what is a threat to society? Who is entitled to define what is a "threat to society"? Throughout history there have been many immoral governmental oppressions justified by some ruler's own definition of "threat to society", which many of the ruled people at the time were convinced to believe. I just used the word "immoral". As I said, this requires a basis. What is morality? Clearly it is not "what the majority of society believe in". The beliefs of society can and do change over time and circumstances. Does this mean that what is moral changes over time? If you say it does, I will say "then that is not morality". The basis for morality cannot be your own beliefs. Nor can it be the beliefs of a majority of "society". The only true and reliable basis for morality must be the character of the one true, just, righteous and unchanging eternal God, he whose name is "I AM WHO I AM".
    • tptacek 10y ago
      I am entitled to argue that something is a threat to society. You are entitled to attempt a rebuttal.