4 ms·

This pretty much sums up while a silent majority kicked left's butts this election. Peter Thiel supported Trump and these people wanted Zuck to fire him. That

by tn13 10y ago

This pretty much sums up while a silent majority kicked left's butts this election. Peter Thiel supported Trump and these people wanted Zuck to fire him. That is absolutely ridiculous. Now, it is a democratic/free speech right to make a demand public but then there will be consequences. The consequence here was the mass consolidation of votes against the left. Even Sam Altman's recent piece suggests that people overwhelmingly voted "against left" rather than "for trump". I know bunch of Profs who got fired or cornered for nothing other then their support of one opinion v/s the popular leftist opinion.

wfo 10y ago
You need an actual majority in order for there to be a silent majority. The correct phrase would be "vocal minority, concentrated in a few specific geographic areas engineered to have more power over the electoral process" which is nearly the opposite of a silent majority.
- tn13 10y ago
  In American presidential elections the only majority that matters if of electoral college. The majority of heads does not matter, majority of head adjusted for privilege points does not matter, votes of global citizens do no matter. In that sense my use of the word "majority" is perfectly correct.
  - wfo 10y ago
    Why are you talking about privilege points? Who said anything about that? Why are you introducing things like privilege into this conversation? Perhaps you want to dodge the rest of the argument because you know you aren't correct and talk about your feelings about privilege instead, because feelings can't be wrong? I've seen the tactic before and nobody really falls for it outside of /r/the_donald. Certainly not on HN. You don't have a majority of American citizens. You don't have a majority of people living in America. You don't have a majority of American voters. You don't have a majority of people who voted in the 2016 presidential election. You have a majority of electors in the electoral college, but they are the opposite of silent. Their votes are published online for the world to see. They make public protest votes. Their lack of silence is how we know who won the election. 'Silent majority' could not be more wrong as a description of what is going on here.
- mschuster91 10y ago
  > vocal minority, concentrated in a few specific geographic areas engineered to have more power over the electoral process Speaking as someone who identifies as radical leftist: I disagree with this. That the "center of America" (same as for rural areas in Germany, which also heavily tend to vote conservative/right) has been vastly ignored by the left is a fact. While gerrymandering is certainly a problem on state-level elections, it is not so much a problem on US-wide elections and certainly the state borders have not been "gerrymandered" to result in the voting power differences that in turn resulted in Trump becoming president. The left parties, not just in the US, but also especially in Germany have for long left their roots as parties of the workers and instead shifted their focus to what one may call "the urban elite". While in Germany with Mr. Schulz there is a hope that he may win back the votes of former core SPD or Left party voters, I am not sure if the Democrats will be able to do the same in the US.
  - knz 10y ago
    > That the "center of America" (same as for rural areas in Germany, which also heavily tend to vote conservative/right) has been vastly ignored by the left is a fact. I disagree with this premise. Many of the signature policies of the "left" were specifically intended to address the issues facing "middle America" - the ACA/Obamacare was intended to address rising health care costs, Clinton was pushing a retraining program for workers in areas where jobs have migrated from, and both Sanders and Clinton were arguing for increasing access to tertiary education via free/discounted programs. I also think it's interesting that these areas complain they are "abandoned" by the left while continuing to elect Republicans. Blaming the Federal government (ostensibly "left" despite the Republican controlled House and Senate for the last 6 years) for the failings of State politicians and Governors, who have at least as much impact in your daily life, is another example of how absurd politics has become. We need to break the partisan nature of politics and start electing people who are interested in building a city/county/State/country for ALL of their constituents via compromise.
    - mschuster91 10y ago
      > I also think it's interesting that these areas complain they are "abandoned" by the left while continuing to elect Republicans. (disclaimer: the following may be inaccurate due to the fact that I'm a German and don't get reports on every activity of Clinton) From what I've seen in news reports, Trump has made a habit during his campaign to appear not only in contested swing states but also in areas where many jobs have been lost - be it due to the closure of coal mines, huge factories or whatever - and promised people to "make them great again" and "make their voices being heard". Clinton however focused on swing states and the DNC shot down the Sanders campaign. In Germany, it's the same - old miner towns or rural areas rarely get visits from campaigning politicians, except when there's a beer fest or a really huge factory opening. This is where that "we're abandoned" complaint comes from - it's not that local politicians abandon the population in these areas, it's that state/country politicians rarely turn up, and as a result the "abandoned" areas rarely get any media attention outside local newspapers (we don't really have the ultra-local TV stations like in the US). And if they do get mass media attention, it's mostly in the form of some TV team turning up and filming stuff like that abandoned houses get squatted by homeless people and the entire area gets dragged down by filth; not exactly what makes one proud of living in such areas. While Democrats and left-wings don't do anything, the right-wingers at least promise "we will help you", and that is - even if they don't have the slightest thought of keeping good on their promises - enough for the population to vote for them. On a sidenote, that is what really scares me about Trump. As bad as it is, but he is the first politician in long times to publically show "I am doing, to the letter, exactly that what I promised in my campaign", and people will vote for him and his party AGAIN because of this, while ignoring that what he promises is backwards, false loads of dung.
alexqgb 10y ago
The Dems won a clear majority of votes for the Presidency and enough votes to take the House as well. The GOP holds both because of unrepresentative electoral systems (the electoral college and gerrymandering) rendered a decisive number of votes irrelevant. The left is the majority. It lost because it didn't play as dirty as the right.
- TheGirondin 10y ago
  2016 elections: Republican 63,153,387 Democratic 61,776,218 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Represe...
  - dmix 10y ago
    Congress and Senate combined has far more power than executive as well. In fact the executive branch has grown significantly in power largely because of the ever growing pageantry of the elections. Everyone puts responsibility for all economic and social issues on the president. This eventually becomes a self fulfilling reality as we saw with Obama who signed more executive orders than anyone. The pressure is significant. When in practice the executive branch is in fact quite limited outside of offering an ideological leadership and his cabinet/court picks. I hope this is the ultimate result of the Trump Presidency. That executive power is further reduced rather than emboldened. This is how the founding fathers envisioned the political system. They didn't want an unlimited amount of power left to the whims of one man. But it seems everyone continually sees the problem as merely the wrong person rather than improving the system itself. The never ending belief that it will be better next time! Either way I've learned to be less pessimistic - despite the mounting hysteria these days - largely because the system still somewhat reflects it's intention. As we saw when the only really bad policy (Muslim ban) was shut down from within party ranks by a Republican in the judicial branch.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  The existence of the electoral college does not actually represent dirty play by the right...

by tn13 10y ago

wfo 10y ago

You need an actual majority in order for there to be a silent majority. The correct phrase would be "vocal minority, concentrated in a few specific geographic areas engineered to have more power over the electoral process" which is nearly the opposite of a silent majority.

tn13 10y ago
In American presidential elections the only majority that matters if of electoral college. The majority of heads does not matter, majority of head adjusted for privilege points does not matter, votes of global citizens do no matter. In that sense my use of the word "majority" is perfectly correct.
- wfo 10y ago
  Why are you talking about privilege points? Who said anything about that? Why are you introducing things like privilege into this conversation? Perhaps you want to dodge the rest of the argument because you know you aren't correct and talk about your feelings about privilege instead, because feelings can't be wrong? I've seen the tactic before and nobody really falls for it outside of /r/the_donald. Certainly not on HN. You don't have a majority of American citizens. You don't have a majority of people living in America. You don't have a majority of American voters. You don't have a majority of people who voted in the 2016 presidential election. You have a majority of electors in the electoral college, but they are the opposite of silent. Their votes are published online for the world to see. They make public protest votes. Their lack of silence is how we know who won the election. 'Silent majority' could not be more wrong as a description of what is going on here.
mschuster91 10y ago
> vocal minority, concentrated in a few specific geographic areas engineered to have more power over the electoral process Speaking as someone who identifies as radical leftist: I disagree with this. That the "center of America" (same as for rural areas in Germany, which also heavily tend to vote conservative/right) has been vastly ignored by the left is a fact. While gerrymandering is certainly a problem on state-level elections, it is not so much a problem on US-wide elections and certainly the state borders have not been "gerrymandered" to result in the voting power differences that in turn resulted in Trump becoming president. The left parties, not just in the US, but also especially in Germany have for long left their roots as parties of the workers and instead shifted their focus to what one may call "the urban elite". While in Germany with Mr. Schulz there is a hope that he may win back the votes of former core SPD or Left party voters, I am not sure if the Democrats will be able to do the same in the US.
- knz 10y ago
  > That the "center of America" (same as for rural areas in Germany, which also heavily tend to vote conservative/right) has been vastly ignored by the left is a fact. I disagree with this premise. Many of the signature policies of the "left" were specifically intended to address the issues facing "middle America" - the ACA/Obamacare was intended to address rising health care costs, Clinton was pushing a retraining program for workers in areas where jobs have migrated from, and both Sanders and Clinton were arguing for increasing access to tertiary education via free/discounted programs. I also think it's interesting that these areas complain they are "abandoned" by the left while continuing to elect Republicans. Blaming the Federal government (ostensibly "left" despite the Republican controlled House and Senate for the last 6 years) for the failings of State politicians and Governors, who have at least as much impact in your daily life, is another example of how absurd politics has become. We need to break the partisan nature of politics and start electing people who are interested in building a city/county/State/country for ALL of their constituents via compromise.
  - mschuster91 10y ago
    > I also think it's interesting that these areas complain they are "abandoned" by the left while continuing to elect Republicans. (disclaimer: the following may be inaccurate due to the fact that I'm a German and don't get reports on every activity of Clinton) From what I've seen in news reports, Trump has made a habit during his campaign to appear not only in contested swing states but also in areas where many jobs have been lost - be it due to the closure of coal mines, huge factories or whatever - and promised people to "make them great again" and "make their voices being heard". Clinton however focused on swing states and the DNC shot down the Sanders campaign. In Germany, it's the same - old miner towns or rural areas rarely get visits from campaigning politicians, except when there's a beer fest or a really huge factory opening. This is where that "we're abandoned" complaint comes from - it's not that local politicians abandon the population in these areas, it's that state/country politicians rarely turn up, and as a result the "abandoned" areas rarely get any media attention outside local newspapers (we don't really have the ultra-local TV stations like in the US). And if they do get mass media attention, it's mostly in the form of some TV team turning up and filming stuff like that abandoned houses get squatted by homeless people and the entire area gets dragged down by filth; not exactly what makes one proud of living in such areas. While Democrats and left-wings don't do anything, the right-wingers at least promise "we will help you", and that is - even if they don't have the slightest thought of keeping good on their promises - enough for the population to vote for them. On a sidenote, that is what really scares me about Trump. As bad as it is, but he is the first politician in long times to publically show "I am doing, to the letter, exactly that what I promised in my campaign", and people will vote for him and his party AGAIN because of this, while ignoring that what he promises is backwards, false loads of dung.

alexqgb 10y ago

The Dems won a clear majority of votes for the Presidency and enough votes to take the House as well. The GOP holds both because of unrepresentative electoral systems (the electoral college and gerrymandering) rendered a decisive number of votes irrelevant. The left is the majority. It lost because it didn't play as dirty as the right.

TheGirondin 10y ago
2016 elections: Republican 63,153,387 Democratic 61,776,218 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Represe...
- dmix 10y ago
  Congress and Senate combined has far more power than executive as well. In fact the executive branch has grown significantly in power largely because of the ever growing pageantry of the elections. Everyone puts responsibility for all economic and social issues on the president. This eventually becomes a self fulfilling reality as we saw with Obama who signed more executive orders than anyone. The pressure is significant. When in practice the executive branch is in fact quite limited outside of offering an ideological leadership and his cabinet/court picks. I hope this is the ultimate result of the Trump Presidency. That executive power is further reduced rather than emboldened. This is how the founding fathers envisioned the political system. They didn't want an unlimited amount of power left to the whims of one man. But it seems everyone continually sees the problem as merely the wrong person rather than improving the system itself. The never ending belief that it will be better next time! Either way I've learned to be less pessimistic - despite the mounting hysteria these days - largely because the system still somewhat reflects it's intention. As we saw when the only really bad policy (Muslim ban) was shut down from within party ranks by a Republican in the judicial branch.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
The existence of the electoral college does not actually represent dirty play by the right...