14 ms·

This is really unfortunate. If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? And if you're pro-Trum

This is really unfortunate. If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? And if you're pro-Trump, this also is a good thing. The underlying problem in the US is we've stopped talking to each other. We only hurl partsisan-charged invectives at each other. Kalanack's choice here is a visible example demonstrating that "not talking" is the solution. I am saddened by his choice and I am ashamed of my fellow Americans, from all walks of the political spectrum for their choices to sling mud instead of speaking to each other and finding ways to cooperate with each other. I also highly doubt this move will have the intended effect of mitigating the #deleteuber campaign. Even considering the facts about some of Lyft's key investors being Trump supporters. Mostly because people as a whole can't hear reason any more. Sure, #deleteuber is hurting Raisier LLC, but you know who it's really hurting? The immigrant Uber drivers who are renting/leasing their vehicle through one of Uber's partners, and are contractually obliged to drive only for Uber. There's no reasoning there. No critical thought. Just "fuck you #deleteuber".

mcphage 10y ago
> The underlying problem in the US is we've stopped talking to each other. I think the real underlying problem is that 45.9% of the voters decided to elect a fascist to be leader of the free world.
- brixon 10y ago
  The real problem complacency. Too many Democrats assumed Hillary could not lose and did not bother to vote.
  - appleflaxen 10y ago
    the real problem is that the democratic party rigged the system against a candidate who could have beat trump, and ended up with the only candidate who could have lost to him.
    - vorotato 10y ago
      Exactly, this is the thing that many moderate democrats aren't even facing! I voted for Hillary begrudgingly because Trump was so horrible, but I didn't like her at all.
    - zimpenfish 10y ago
      I've yet to see a cogent political analysis that shows how Sanders could have beaten Trump. Do you have an example?
      - jokermatt999 10y ago
        Honestly, even as a former Bernie supporter, I don't know if political analysis that indicated it can still be called reliable. I've heard his team produced data showing Bernie would win versus Trump, but most polls also thought it was a sure victory for Clinton. While 538 pointed out there was just a "normal polling error"[1] between Clinton and Trump (and I haven't dug as much into the post election analysis due to being distracted by more urgent matters) it seems like the polling clearly missed support for Trump. I think he would have done a good job at picking up votes from the "disaffected" crowd that voted Trump over Clinton as a protest, but there's certainly the possibility that he would be lose votes for being too far left. At this point, I certainly still wish Bernie won, seeing as Trump is president regardless, but I don't think there's necessarily a solid counterfactual that he would've beaten Trump. Either way, I think some of the blame can certainly be placed on Democrats pushing more of the same when people were clearly calling for a change. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- robert_foss 10y ago
  > leader of the free world Seeing the US referred to in this way really makes you get a sense for how effective nationalistic propaganda is. * leader of the free world * greatest nation on earth * freest nation in the world None of which is quantifiable or accurate.
  - HillaryBriss 10y ago
    Not only is it inaccurate, it feeds American exceptionalism. And that seems to justify our self-issued license to undertake all manner of insensible, irresponsible, destructive acts.
  - mcphage 10y ago
    ::shrug:: it refers to the US having the largest economy, military, and cultural influence. "Greatest", and "Freest", those are somewhere between meaningless and false. But "leader" is a statement of influence, although it is waning.
- rainbowcandy 10y ago
  You're proving his point. "He's just a fascist, so everything he says should be immediately ignored and disregarded." That's not having a conversation. That isn't talking anymore. I know you 100% believe he is a fascist, and history may look back on you and say "man that guy is so right" but the 45.9% of voters disagree with you. Calling them supporters of a fascist regime isn't going to change their mind, hell it seems to strengthen it. His point was we need to have conversations and real moderate intelligent people surrounding someone like Trump. You push those people away by calling them nazis and the only thing you're doing is leaving a gap for people who don't care if you call them nazis....you know...like actual nazis.
  - mcphage 10y ago
    Do you think people voted for Trump because they wanted a conversation? Is there anything in his leadership style which leads you to believe he or his voters are interested in coming to the table for a discussion?
    - grzm 10y ago
      I've heard many express that many voted for Trump because they felt they weren't being heard. A large part of the problem in my opinion is that conversations aren't being had. Even if people are reluctant or not willing to have engage right now I think we all need to be willing to and attempt to talk with each other.
    - true_religion 10y ago
      I was a voter---and I wont' say which way---and I'd like to have a conversation but I am afraid that if I express any views then this will happen: 1. I will be called a member of a neo-fascist party 2. People will say that I am a racist, sexist, bigot. 3. I will be fired from my job because I no longer fit the "company culture". 4. People will see me at a public workspace, and move away from me, and refuse to partner with me. Eventually I will be asked to leave because I am making people uncomfortable with my mere presence. 5. My acquaintances will shun me, and speak about me in whispers of "I didn't know he/she was like that..." This is why I do not speak. I simply cast my vote, and move on.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  He's not my leader and I think I still live in the 'free world' (or at least, as free as it gets for now).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- dreaminvm 10y ago
  I really don't see the value in reiterating this statistic over and over again. The POTUS is decided by the electoral vote. If the process was by the popular vote, the candidates would have campaigned very differently and the voter turnout could be much higher.
  - sundaeofshock 10y ago
    It is valuable becuase it shows that the vast majority wanted someone other then Trump as president. It means he does not have a popular mandate to do the things he wants to do.
    - dreaminvm 10y ago
      The only point I am arguing here is that the popular vote for any election is meaningless (except an electoral tie) when the POTUS is decided by the electoral colleges. If the popular vote decided the POTUS, then Trump voters in traditionally Democratic states (think Pacific NorthWest) might have turned out in droves and vice-versa for Hilary.
      - altern8tif 10y ago
        I beg to differ. While the presidency is determined by the electoral college, the popular vote is not meaningless. A hypothetical president who won only 30% of the popular vote, while winning the electoral college, will be enacting policies that 70% of the electorate explicitly voted against. Even with these numbers, a more moderate (and reasonable) president might still be able to mend the fences put up during the campaign trail. But with such a polarising president, the dissatisfaction amongst the populace will be even more pronounced. This is exactly what we're seeing now.
      - Lagged2Death 10y ago
        ...the popular vote for any election is meaningless... Yet the administration itself keeps bringing it up. Making up stories to explain it away. As if it mattered quite a lot.
    - 10y ago
- loafa 10y ago
  No, if you think that's the problem, you're part of the problem.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kafkaesq 10y ago
If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? Based on his actions since Jan 20, he should be isolated, shunned, denounced and blocked by all available means until he either resigns or is impeached. It doesn't seem like "reason" is something that he will ever listen to, by this point. That said, in principle it can be useful to have people capable of exerting the kinds of influence he seems to understand better (force, and threats of force). But not a hidebound accommodationist of dubious ethical principles like Kalanack. (EDIT: apologies, didn't see the upvotes before revising the above substantially).
- anbende 10y ago
  If that were completely true then he wouldn't have a council of tech advisors that all hold views counter to his own. If the man is willing to talk to you about the things you care about, then why on earth wouldn't you?
  - kevinstubbs 10y ago
    I've independently come to the same conclusion as you and OP, but some of my liberal friends on Facebook don't agree. I don't really understand the argument to "isolate and shun" by not joining his advisory boards. If there is pressure to keep Trump's ideological enemies out of the process, then that only leaves his supporters... Which leads to all of his sources of information supporting his decisions.
    - zimpenfish 10y ago
      > Which leads to all of his sources of information supporting his decisions. What, in the last 18 months, gives you the impression he listens to anyone outside of his coterie of right-wing schmoozers anyway?
      - anbende 10y ago
        The fact that he spends time physically present and apparently listening to the left wing technocrats. Nobody is expecting a radical shift in his policies, but even minor shifts on key issues are arguably worth the small time investment. The man is self-interested, and self-interested people can generally be bargained with if you can find the places where their interests align with yours. In this case money and public opinion are good targets.
zouhair 10y ago
I doubt Kalanack and the way he manages Uber to be the voice of reason.
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
Other than a protest wasn't Uber fine until they didn't honor the Taxi strike at the airport? Seemed the #DeleteUber campaign really kicked into gear after that. I'm not saying your statement of having smart people in Trump's ear being a good thing is wrong I just thought that the outrage mostly stemmed from the strike and not with his being on the team. Granted maybe that doesn't matter; this is likely the only way to possibly reverse the #DeleteUber campaign. Though I'd be really curious as to how effective it has been (if at all though I'm assuming it has).
akhilcacharya 10y ago
>don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? I highly doubt he actually cares.
davidw 10y ago
I'm happy to talk with someone like Evan McMullin, or our local Republican state representative who has some good ideas on housing (and other ideas I don't like). Indeed, I recently sat down and chatted with him and found him to be a very well-informed, bright guy. It was a pleasant experience and makes me all the more remorseful that the national election turned out the way it did. It is, however, pretty difficult to talk with people who are ever more convinced that the truth comes directly from Dear Leader via Twitter. Look at the whole inauguration photo thing - he's telling people to ignore what they see and believe him. That is very worrying. It's easy to have different ideas about the facts and what to do about them, but if you can't even agree on the facts, there's really not much to talk about.
- probablybanned 10y ago
  The media's attempt to create relevance for that misshapen CIA goon was one of the strangest things about this election cycle. Americans didn't want the TPP, didn't want mass refugee resettlement, and didn't want to side with Al Qaeda in Syria. Sorry!
  - davidw 10y ago
    No one wanted to "side with Al Quaeda" - that sounds like alternative facts to me. Syria is a complete and total mess without much in the way of identifiable "good guys". The other issues are things people can certainly disagree on without calling one another 'goons'.
    - probablybanned 10y ago
      Sorry for the belated response. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225 The "it's a big mess" excuse is just a fig leaf to cover the functional US policy in Syria, which has been to support Jihadists against Assad.
    - probablybanned 10y ago
      Supplemental: Listen to this and tell me how enthusiastic these "moderates" are about a democratic future for Syria. At this point you cannot convince me that they are anything but utopian Islamists who want to manipulate the United States into killing for them. If we dispensed with Assad, they would immediately get down to the business of fighting each other. https://youtu.be/e4phB-_pXDM?t=1548 https://youtu.be/e4phB-_pXDM?t=1548 I have no patience for people who cry crocodile tears for a supposed loss of civility and use it as cover to push utterly cynical policies that will have massive real world impact. It's disgusting, actually, and not so different from the crybully Left.
chickenfries 10y ago
Honestly, what good do you think Kalanack could do in his position on the advisory council?
jacquesm 10y ago
> We only hurl partsisan-charged invectives at each other. Kalanack's choice here is a visible example demonstrating that "not talking" is the solution. It's Kalanick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Kalanick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Kalanick
valkea 10y ago
> don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? Generally, yes. However, I believe there is a line that can be crossed where this is no longer a good idea. The association will always lend some credibility to the administration, and when the administration commits an action like the immigration ban, you should stop assisting them in any way, period.
CalChris 10y ago
If I'm in the Trump is a mad man camp, and I am in the Trump is a mad man camp, why do you think that a voice of reason will get through to a mad man? I think Kalanack just lends respectability to a mad man.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  > I think Kalanack just lends respectability to a mad man. What confuses me most is the notion that suddenly Kalanick has all this tremendous personal influence and respectability, from people who are plenty happy to jump on him in other contexts. Is there a single person who was saying, "Well, I wasn't sure about Trump, but that Uber guy supports him..."? It seems like many of the other names on the committee have much more favorable mind-share, and so in that dimension must be doing more harm, and yet are getting less criticism.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    The significant figure here is Trump. So anyone associating with him will be tainted by that association.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      Except that we are seeing far less of a reaction to Bob Iger or Jack Welch being involved with the exact same thing. What portion of people #DeletingUber are switching away from Pepsi products? Has the media failed to cover substantial new protest of JP Morgan?
      - CalChris 10y ago
        Jack Welch is retired. So there's no consumer pressure that can be brought to bear on him. Bob Iger is the chairman of the Walt Disney Company. He hasn't resigned from the panel but after consumer pressure he's refusing to attend: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bob-iger-wont-attend-trump-white-house-meeting-971437 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bob-iger-wont-attend-t...
xnu 10y ago
> The underlying problem in the US is we've stopped talking to each other. Yes, but this is not just in the US, unfortunately. I have relatives in many places of the world, and things are escalating everywhere. I blame social media for that. People can't look at each other in the eye anymore, so they forget what it is like to feel empathy. They congregate around small online bubbles, and a lot of people is almost PTSD-anxious about talking to people of other bubbles. So they resort to humiliation and other tactics. When they try to talk the same way IRL, they get shunned, which makes them feel victimized and justified in their hate. Now we're seeing real politicians espousing the crazy ideas we'd only see in comment sections ten years ago. It's a downward spiral, unfortunately.
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  People can't look at each other in the eye anymore, so they forget what it is like to feel empathy. I hear a line of reasoning like this quite often and I have yet to understand it. I simply don't accept that empathy is a necessary precondition to productive conversation. I can have a productive disagreement with someone that I don't empathize with. I can have a productive disagreement with someone I loathe and can barely force myself to maintain eye contact. It's called being an adult.
HillaryBriss 10y ago
Trump craves praise and approval. He needs people to think he's great. At the same time he reflexively rejects/attacks/hates anyone at all, even a potential ally, who criticizes him. Furthermore, when the people protest his decisions or angrily criticize him, it actually fuels his ego and makes him more convinced that his decisions are correct. We've seen this again and again and again. Should my goal be to remain untainted by association or contact with Trump? Or should it be to coax the confused monster away from his destructive path?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  The only thing that will get Trump of his path is a giant whack with a clue bat. The contrast between various previous US presidents and Trump could not be greater (Bush the elder, Obama just to name two from opposing sides), he defiles the position.
dbroockman 10y ago
> This is really unfortunate. If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? I see the point, but this business council isn't going to meaningfully influence policy. The policymaking apparatus is huge and this is a tiny, tiny piece of it. However, it does send a signal to Republicans in Congress that the tech $ they want will not play along with Trump. That's a quite important signal.
msabalau 10y ago
I look forward to Republicans acknowledging what they said before, and working cooperatively with democrats to end the Trump presidency, impeaching him for violating the Emoluments Clause cause of the constitution. “We’re on the verge of having someone take over the conservative movement who is a con artist,” Rubio said, accusing Trump of spending his career “sticking it to working Americans.” "This man is a pathological liar.", Ted Cruz "Utterly amoral." "You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell." Lindsey Graham.
- clessg 10y ago
  Sarcasm? (Legitimate question)
clessg 10y ago
These sorts of "centrist" comments bother me. You're acting as if Trump is a normal president, that any disagreements can be distilled down to "partisanship", and that he can actually be reasoned with if only he hears the right people. The disagreements with the travel ban are not partisan or political — this ban will have very serious consequences for millions of people, and maybe more in the future, given what the president has said during the campaign. So far, he has delivered on his campaign promises, and has demonstrated that he cannot be reasoned with. Some of us gave us him a chance, but now it's clear he's not going to change. If we don't take action now and prevent him from being normalized soon, it will be too late. Nobody likes comparisons with Hitler, but I think in 30 years we may very well view Trump in a similar light — if I were there, I would've said something, why didn't anybody stop him?
- CodeWriter23 10y ago
  I'm not saying he can be reasoned with. Just that it's better to keep talking, regardless of the result. With talk, there is hope. When we turn our backs on our fellow Americans, there is only alienation and hatred, and all the dysfunction that brings with it.
  - davidw 10y ago
    There are two things here: talking with other people, which we should absolutely do without insulting them for having voted the 'wrong' way or some such: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21715732-scolding-trump-voters-will-not-carry-democrats-back-power-rise-herbal-tea?frsc=dg%7Cd http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21715732-scoldin... Another thing is talking with Trump and Bannon and the like. It may not be possible.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > Just that it's better to keep talking, regardless of the result. Opposition and talking are mutually exclusive at times and then you have to choose. Trump is marching forward while people try to talk to him, using their credibility to bolster his attack. If he's ready to talk, he can always call a cease-fire and do so. These responses are very reminiscent to me of Chamberlain before WWII, who said the same about another madman, and ceded much ground and many lives of others, and then it was too late. Talking with other Americans is an entirely different matter.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? No, were I in that camp I would not. First, because I don't see any evidence that I particularly want voices like Kalanick's in anybody's ear, particularly a mad man, and second because retaining the ear of a madman in a position of strength typically requires maintaining a degree of visible support for the madness to demonstrate loyalty, the harm from which often more than compensates for any benefit from whispering in his ear. Reason and discussion is how you influence the rational, not the "mad man".
brudgers 10y ago
Uber's business practices have at times exhibited a disregard for the rule of law and in Austin a disregard for the will of of the people expressed through local democratic process. The Uber CEO's tech celebrity status does not impart status as a voice of reason (nor does it disqualify them) assuming that we have a solid definition of what constitutes a voice of reason. My take is that the Uber CEO's action was political speech for political and business ends and that like all political speech it came with political benefits and political costs. I also doubt it will mitigate the effect of the Uber hashtag. I don't think there's much general goodwill among most people because most people have had crappy jobs and see the sharing economy for what it is...surge pricing and no health care and no paid vacation and a job that might go away because some drunk complained of insufficient kowtow. Uber didn't get out front of the hashtag and is playing PR catchup against a well constructed propaganda campaign and some group of investors is making money and money is always associated with White House politics and smart money plays both parties (and only having two parties keeps costs down). Finally, in my opinion it is usually a political mistake to dismiss one's opponents actions as naive or lacking reason or absent of critical thought. Expressing political will is a naked form of reasoned thought and the hashtag is such an expression for many people.
ciconia 10y ago
> I am saddened by his choice It wasn't necessarily Kalanick's choice. I think he there's a good chance he was made to leave.

mcphage 10y ago

> The underlying problem in the US is we've stopped talking to each other. I think the real underlying problem is that 45.9% of the voters decided to elect a fascist to be leader of the free world.

brixon 10y ago
The real problem complacency. Too many Democrats assumed Hillary could not lose and did not bother to vote.
- appleflaxen 10y ago
  the real problem is that the democratic party rigged the system against a candidate who could have beat trump, and ended up with the only candidate who could have lost to him.
  - vorotato 10y ago
    Exactly, this is the thing that many moderate democrats aren't even facing! I voted for Hillary begrudgingly because Trump was so horrible, but I didn't like her at all.
  - zimpenfish 10y ago
    I've yet to see a cogent political analysis that shows how Sanders could have beaten Trump. Do you have an example?
    - jokermatt999 10y ago
      Honestly, even as a former Bernie supporter, I don't know if political analysis that indicated it can still be called reliable. I've heard his team produced data showing Bernie would win versus Trump, but most polls also thought it was a sure victory for Clinton. While 538 pointed out there was just a "normal polling error"[1] between Clinton and Trump (and I haven't dug as much into the post election analysis due to being distracted by more urgent matters) it seems like the polling clearly missed support for Trump. I think he would have done a good job at picking up votes from the "disaffected" crowd that voted Trump over Clinton as a protest, but there's certainly the possibility that he would be lose votes for being too far left. At this point, I certainly still wish Bernie won, seeing as Trump is president regardless, but I don't think there's necessarily a solid counterfactual that he would've beaten Trump. Either way, I think some of the blame can certainly be placed on Democrats pushing more of the same when people were clearly calling for a change. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
robert_foss 10y ago
> leader of the free world Seeing the US referred to in this way really makes you get a sense for how effective nationalistic propaganda is. * leader of the free world * greatest nation on earth * freest nation in the world None of which is quantifiable or accurate.
- HillaryBriss 10y ago
  Not only is it inaccurate, it feeds American exceptionalism. And that seems to justify our self-issued license to undertake all manner of insensible, irresponsible, destructive acts.
- mcphage 10y ago
  ::shrug:: it refers to the US having the largest economy, military, and cultural influence. "Greatest", and "Freest", those are somewhere between meaningless and false. But "leader" is a statement of influence, although it is waning.
rainbowcandy 10y ago
You're proving his point. "He's just a fascist, so everything he says should be immediately ignored and disregarded." That's not having a conversation. That isn't talking anymore. I know you 100% believe he is a fascist, and history may look back on you and say "man that guy is so right" but the 45.9% of voters disagree with you. Calling them supporters of a fascist regime isn't going to change their mind, hell it seems to strengthen it. His point was we need to have conversations and real moderate intelligent people surrounding someone like Trump. You push those people away by calling them nazis and the only thing you're doing is leaving a gap for people who don't care if you call them nazis....you know...like actual nazis.
- mcphage 10y ago
  Do you think people voted for Trump because they wanted a conversation? Is there anything in his leadership style which leads you to believe he or his voters are interested in coming to the table for a discussion?
  - grzm 10y ago
    I've heard many express that many voted for Trump because they felt they weren't being heard. A large part of the problem in my opinion is that conversations aren't being had. Even if people are reluctant or not willing to have engage right now I think we all need to be willing to and attempt to talk with each other.
  - true_religion 10y ago
    I was a voter---and I wont' say which way---and I'd like to have a conversation but I am afraid that if I express any views then this will happen: 1. I will be called a member of a neo-fascist party 2. People will say that I am a racist, sexist, bigot. 3. I will be fired from my job because I no longer fit the "company culture". 4. People will see me at a public workspace, and move away from me, and refuse to partner with me. Eventually I will be asked to leave because I am making people uncomfortable with my mere presence. 5. My acquaintances will shun me, and speak about me in whispers of "I didn't know he/she was like that..." This is why I do not speak. I simply cast my vote, and move on.
jacquesm 10y ago
He's not my leader and I think I still live in the 'free world' (or at least, as free as it gets for now).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dreaminvm 10y ago
I really don't see the value in reiterating this statistic over and over again. The POTUS is decided by the electoral vote. If the process was by the popular vote, the candidates would have campaigned very differently and the voter turnout could be much higher.
- sundaeofshock 10y ago
  It is valuable becuase it shows that the vast majority wanted someone other then Trump as president. It means he does not have a popular mandate to do the things he wants to do.
  - dreaminvm 10y ago
    The only point I am arguing here is that the popular vote for any election is meaningless (except an electoral tie) when the POTUS is decided by the electoral colleges. If the popular vote decided the POTUS, then Trump voters in traditionally Democratic states (think Pacific NorthWest) might have turned out in droves and vice-versa for Hilary.
    - altern8tif 10y ago
      I beg to differ. While the presidency is determined by the electoral college, the popular vote is not meaningless. A hypothetical president who won only 30% of the popular vote, while winning the electoral college, will be enacting policies that 70% of the electorate explicitly voted against. Even with these numbers, a more moderate (and reasonable) president might still be able to mend the fences put up during the campaign trail. But with such a polarising president, the dissatisfaction amongst the populace will be even more pronounced. This is exactly what we're seeing now.
    - Lagged2Death 10y ago
      ...the popular vote for any election is meaningless... Yet the administration itself keeps bringing it up. Making up stories to explain it away. As if it mattered quite a lot.
  - 10y ago
loafa 10y ago
No, if you think that's the problem, you're part of the problem.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kafkaesq 10y ago

If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? Based on his actions since Jan 20, he should be isolated, shunned, denounced and blocked by all available means until he either resigns or is impeached. It doesn't seem like "reason" is something that he will ever listen to, by this point. That said, in principle it can be useful to have people capable of exerting the kinds of influence he seems to understand better (force, and threats of force). But not a hidebound accommodationist of dubious ethical principles like Kalanack. (EDIT: apologies, didn't see the upvotes before revising the above substantially).

anbende 10y ago
If that were completely true then he wouldn't have a council of tech advisors that all hold views counter to his own. If the man is willing to talk to you about the things you care about, then why on earth wouldn't you?
- kevinstubbs 10y ago
  I've independently come to the same conclusion as you and OP, but some of my liberal friends on Facebook don't agree. I don't really understand the argument to "isolate and shun" by not joining his advisory boards. If there is pressure to keep Trump's ideological enemies out of the process, then that only leaves his supporters... Which leads to all of his sources of information supporting his decisions.
  - zimpenfish 10y ago
    > Which leads to all of his sources of information supporting his decisions. What, in the last 18 months, gives you the impression he listens to anyone outside of his coterie of right-wing schmoozers anyway?
    - anbende 10y ago
      The fact that he spends time physically present and apparently listening to the left wing technocrats. Nobody is expecting a radical shift in his policies, but even minor shifts on key issues are arguably worth the small time investment. The man is self-interested, and self-interested people can generally be bargained with if you can find the places where their interests align with yours. In this case money and public opinion are good targets.

zouhair 10y ago

I doubt Kalanack and the way he manages Uber to be the voice of reason.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

Other than a protest wasn't Uber fine until they didn't honor the Taxi strike at the airport? Seemed the #DeleteUber campaign really kicked into gear after that. I'm not saying your statement of having smart people in Trump's ear being a good thing is wrong I just thought that the outrage mostly stemmed from the strike and not with his being on the team. Granted maybe that doesn't matter; this is likely the only way to possibly reverse the #DeleteUber campaign. Though I'd be really curious as to how effective it has been (if at all though I'm assuming it has).

akhilcacharya 10y ago

>don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? I highly doubt he actually cares.

davidw 10y ago

I'm happy to talk with someone like Evan McMullin, or our local Republican state representative who has some good ideas on housing (and other ideas I don't like). Indeed, I recently sat down and chatted with him and found him to be a very well-informed, bright guy. It was a pleasant experience and makes me all the more remorseful that the national election turned out the way it did. It is, however, pretty difficult to talk with people who are ever more convinced that the truth comes directly from Dear Leader via Twitter. Look at the whole inauguration photo thing - he's telling people to ignore what they see and believe him. That is very worrying. It's easy to have different ideas about the facts and what to do about them, but if you can't even agree on the facts, there's really not much to talk about.

probablybanned 10y ago
The media's attempt to create relevance for that misshapen CIA goon was one of the strangest things about this election cycle. Americans didn't want the TPP, didn't want mass refugee resettlement, and didn't want to side with Al Qaeda in Syria. Sorry!
- davidw 10y ago
  No one wanted to "side with Al Quaeda" - that sounds like alternative facts to me. Syria is a complete and total mess without much in the way of identifiable "good guys". The other issues are things people can certainly disagree on without calling one another 'goons'.
  - probablybanned 10y ago
    Sorry for the belated response. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225 The "it's a big mess" excuse is just a fig leaf to cover the functional US policy in Syria, which has been to support Jihadists against Assad.
  - probablybanned 10y ago
    Supplemental: Listen to this and tell me how enthusiastic these "moderates" are about a democratic future for Syria. At this point you cannot convince me that they are anything but utopian Islamists who want to manipulate the United States into killing for them. If we dispensed with Assad, they would immediately get down to the business of fighting each other. https://youtu.be/e4phB-_pXDM?t=1548 https://youtu.be/e4phB-_pXDM?t=1548 I have no patience for people who cry crocodile tears for a supposed loss of civility and use it as cover to push utterly cynical policies that will have massive real world impact. It's disgusting, actually, and not so different from the crybully Left.

chickenfries 10y ago

Honestly, what good do you think Kalanack could do in his position on the advisory council?

jacquesm 10y ago

> We only hurl partsisan-charged invectives at each other. Kalanack's choice here is a visible example demonstrating that "not talking" is the solution. It's Kalanick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Kalanick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Kalanick

valkea 10y ago

> don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? Generally, yes. However, I believe there is a line that can be crossed where this is no longer a good idea. The association will always lend some credibility to the administration, and when the administration commits an action like the immigration ban, you should stop assisting them in any way, period.

CalChris 10y ago

If I'm in the Trump is a mad man camp, and I am in the Trump is a mad man camp, why do you think that a voice of reason will get through to a mad man? I think Kalanack just lends respectability to a mad man.

dllthomas 10y ago
> I think Kalanack just lends respectability to a mad man. What confuses me most is the notion that suddenly Kalanick has all this tremendous personal influence and respectability, from people who are plenty happy to jump on him in other contexts. Is there a single person who was saying, "Well, I wasn't sure about Trump, but that Uber guy supports him..."? It seems like many of the other names on the committee have much more favorable mind-share, and so in that dimension must be doing more harm, and yet are getting less criticism.
- CalChris 10y ago
  The significant figure here is Trump. So anyone associating with him will be tainted by that association.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    Except that we are seeing far less of a reaction to Bob Iger or Jack Welch being involved with the exact same thing. What portion of people #DeletingUber are switching away from Pepsi products? Has the media failed to cover substantial new protest of JP Morgan?
    - CalChris 10y ago
      Jack Welch is retired. So there's no consumer pressure that can be brought to bear on him. Bob Iger is the chairman of the Walt Disney Company. He hasn't resigned from the panel but after consumer pressure he's refusing to attend: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bob-iger-wont-attend-trump-white-house-meeting-971437 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bob-iger-wont-attend-t...

xnu 10y ago

> The underlying problem in the US is we've stopped talking to each other. Yes, but this is not just in the US, unfortunately. I have relatives in many places of the world, and things are escalating everywhere. I blame social media for that. People can't look at each other in the eye anymore, so they forget what it is like to feel empathy. They congregate around small online bubbles, and a lot of people is almost PTSD-anxious about talking to people of other bubbles. So they resort to humiliation and other tactics. When they try to talk the same way IRL, they get shunned, which makes them feel victimized and justified in their hate. Now we're seeing real politicians espousing the crazy ideas we'd only see in comment sections ten years ago. It's a downward spiral, unfortunately.

forgottenpass 10y ago
People can't look at each other in the eye anymore, so they forget what it is like to feel empathy. I hear a line of reasoning like this quite often and I have yet to understand it. I simply don't accept that empathy is a necessary precondition to productive conversation. I can have a productive disagreement with someone that I don't empathize with. I can have a productive disagreement with someone I loathe and can barely force myself to maintain eye contact. It's called being an adult.

HillaryBriss 10y ago

Trump craves praise and approval. He needs people to think he's great. At the same time he reflexively rejects/attacks/hates anyone at all, even a potential ally, who criticizes him. Furthermore, when the people protest his decisions or angrily criticize him, it actually fuels his ego and makes him more convinced that his decisions are correct. We've seen this again and again and again. Should my goal be to remain untainted by association or contact with Trump? Or should it be to coax the confused monster away from his destructive path?

jacquesm 10y ago
The only thing that will get Trump of his path is a giant whack with a clue bat. The contrast between various previous US presidents and Trump could not be greater (Bush the elder, Obama just to name two from opposing sides), he defiles the position.

dbroockman 10y ago

> This is really unfortunate. If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? I see the point, but this business council isn't going to meaningfully influence policy. The policymaking apparatus is huge and this is a tiny, tiny piece of it. However, it does send a signal to Republicans in Congress that the tech $ they want will not play along with Trump. That's a quite important signal.

msabalau 10y ago

I look forward to Republicans acknowledging what they said before, and working cooperatively with democrats to end the Trump presidency, impeaching him for violating the Emoluments Clause cause of the constitution. “We’re on the verge of having someone take over the conservative movement who is a con artist,” Rubio said, accusing Trump of spending his career “sticking it to working Americans.” "This man is a pathological liar.", Ted Cruz "Utterly amoral." "You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell." Lindsey Graham.

clessg 10y ago
Sarcasm? (Legitimate question)

clessg 10y ago

These sorts of "centrist" comments bother me. You're acting as if Trump is a normal president, that any disagreements can be distilled down to "partisanship", and that he can actually be reasoned with if only he hears the right people. The disagreements with the travel ban are not partisan or political — this ban will have very serious consequences for millions of people, and maybe more in the future, given what the president has said during the campaign. So far, he has delivered on his campaign promises, and has demonstrated that he cannot be reasoned with. Some of us gave us him a chance, but now it's clear he's not going to change. If we don't take action now and prevent him from being normalized soon, it will be too late. Nobody likes comparisons with Hitler, but I think in 30 years we may very well view Trump in a similar light — if I were there, I would've said something, why didn't anybody stop him?

CodeWriter23 10y ago
I'm not saying he can be reasoned with. Just that it's better to keep talking, regardless of the result. With talk, there is hope. When we turn our backs on our fellow Americans, there is only alienation and hatred, and all the dysfunction that brings with it.
- davidw 10y ago
  There are two things here: talking with other people, which we should absolutely do without insulting them for having voted the 'wrong' way or some such: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21715732-scolding-trump-voters-will-not-carry-democrats-back-power-rise-herbal-tea?frsc=dg%7Cd http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21715732-scoldin... Another thing is talking with Trump and Bannon and the like. It may not be possible.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Just that it's better to keep talking, regardless of the result. Opposition and talking are mutually exclusive at times and then you have to choose. Trump is marching forward while people try to talk to him, using their credibility to bolster his attack. If he's ready to talk, he can always call a cease-fire and do so. These responses are very reminiscent to me of Chamberlain before WWII, who said the same about another madman, and ceded much ground and many lives of others, and then it was too late. Talking with other Americans is an entirely different matter.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear? No, were I in that camp I would not. First, because I don't see any evidence that I particularly want voices like Kalanick's in anybody's ear, particularly a mad man, and second because retaining the ear of a madman in a position of strength typically requires maintaining a degree of visible support for the madness to demonstrate loyalty, the harm from which often more than compensates for any benefit from whispering in his ear. Reason and discussion is how you influence the rational, not the "mad man".

brudgers 10y ago

Uber's business practices have at times exhibited a disregard for the rule of law and in Austin a disregard for the will of of the people expressed through local democratic process. The Uber CEO's tech celebrity status does not impart status as a voice of reason (nor does it disqualify them) assuming that we have a solid definition of what constitutes a voice of reason. My take is that the Uber CEO's action was political speech for political and business ends and that like all political speech it came with political benefits and political costs. I also doubt it will mitigate the effect of the Uber hashtag. I don't think there's much general goodwill among most people because most people have had crappy jobs and see the sharing economy for what it is...surge pricing and no health care and no paid vacation and a job that might go away because some drunk complained of insufficient kowtow. Uber didn't get out front of the hashtag and is playing PR catchup against a well constructed propaganda campaign and some group of investors is making money and money is always associated with White House politics and smart money plays both parties (and only having two parties keeps costs down). Finally, in my opinion it is usually a political mistake to dismiss one's opponents actions as naive or lacking reason or absent of critical thought. Expressing political will is a naked form of reasoned thought and the hashtag is such an expression for many people.

ciconia 10y ago

> I am saddened by his choice It wasn't necessarily Kalanick's choice. I think he there's a good chance he was made to leave.