6 ms·

> a prominent tech company claiming to invest in 'hackers' endorsing a candidate who had just been exposed as technically incompetent Her opponent is wildly in

by tiles 9y ago

> a prominent tech company claiming to invest in 'hackers' endorsing a candidate who had just been exposed as technically incompetent Her opponent is wildly incompetent with technology. I'm not sure why you latch onto this idea that Clinton was uniquely bad at IT. Googling comes up with exactly two photos of Trump ever using a computer. He doesn't even have a web browser on his phone [according to this NYT article](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/john-kelly-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/john-kelly-tr...).

mrschwabe 9y ago
Hillary, as Secretary of State, had an unauthorized email server running from a household bathroom that was being used to transmit classified material (that she lied about). If not technically incompetent, then sure - how about woefully ignorant, deceitful & corrupt and in no position to take lead role of the world's most powerful country. And that is not even taking into account the beef in the leaked emails, for example there are a lot of very curious tidbits in there not limited to the omnimous "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker"[0] statement by her campaign manager John Podesta. I don't know how any 'hacker' could honestly endorse this person, let alone the president of YC. No personal offense to Sam. I dont' judge people based on political opinion (especially cause an opinion is malleable; it can change and as such people shouldn't be judged based on them) but do like to point out anomalies & contradictions. [0]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082
- speedplane 9y ago
  > I dont' judge people based on political opinion ... but do like to point out anomalies & contradictions. Everyone has anomalies and contradictions. Chucking substance and just looking for red herrings is the exact opposite of the type of critical analysis people need to do.
  - mrschwabe 9y ago
    Fair point, but staying silent isn't a good option either. If everyone chucks substance perhaps at least there are those on the sidelines who can aggregate all of it, dig deeper, critically analyze & and make their own determinations.
- origami777 9y ago
  I think most of us could see that even with Hillary doing that, she would be a better president than Trump. Everything you list about Hillary can be applied to Trump several times over. Overall, it was two truly horrible candidates that we had to choose from; and the worst one won. I don't know how any 'hacker' could argue right now that Trump is a better president than Hillary could have been.
  - mrschwabe 9y ago
    We have a different definition of hacker.
kaendfinger 9y ago
A few logical errors: 1. He doesn't have a web browser because of the security concerns, and this is not unique to him. 2. Trump using a computer is a rare photo, same can be said for many many celebrities (career politicians at a computer is rather not rare due to public filming in Congressional buildings for example) 3. Trump has been known to be a late-night researcher (Cruz's father killed JFK?, InfoWars, etc.)

by tiles 9y ago

mrschwabe 9y ago

Hillary, as Secretary of State, had an unauthorized email server running from a household bathroom that was being used to transmit classified material (that she lied about). If not technically incompetent, then sure - how about woefully ignorant, deceitful & corrupt and in no position to take lead role of the world's most powerful country. And that is not even taking into account the beef in the leaked emails, for example there are a lot of very curious tidbits in there not limited to the omnimous "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker"[0] statement by her campaign manager John Podesta. I don't know how any 'hacker' could honestly endorse this person, let alone the president of YC. No personal offense to Sam. I dont' judge people based on political opinion (especially cause an opinion is malleable; it can change and as such people shouldn't be judged based on them) but do like to point out anomalies & contradictions. [0]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082

speedplane 9y ago
> I dont' judge people based on political opinion ... but do like to point out anomalies & contradictions. Everyone has anomalies and contradictions. Chucking substance and just looking for red herrings is the exact opposite of the type of critical analysis people need to do.
- mrschwabe 9y ago
  Fair point, but staying silent isn't a good option either. If everyone chucks substance perhaps at least there are those on the sidelines who can aggregate all of it, dig deeper, critically analyze & and make their own determinations.
origami777 9y ago
I think most of us could see that even with Hillary doing that, she would be a better president than Trump. Everything you list about Hillary can be applied to Trump several times over. Overall, it was two truly horrible candidates that we had to choose from; and the worst one won. I don't know how any 'hacker' could argue right now that Trump is a better president than Hillary could have been.
- mrschwabe 9y ago
  We have a different definition of hacker.

kaendfinger 9y ago

A few logical errors: 1. He doesn't have a web browser because of the security concerns, and this is not unique to him. 2. Trump using a computer is a rare photo, same can be said for many many celebrities (career politicians at a computer is rather not rare due to public filming in Congressional buildings for example) 3. Trump has been known to be a late-night researcher (Cruz's father killed JFK?, InfoWars, etc.)