as long as no one have actually formulated an argument based on facts how Trump is a threat to democracy I dont see how he is more dangerous than Hillary, Bush or Obama. And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy.
So until someone show how the us system can be destroyed by Trump I stand by my position that Trump is no more dangerous than Hillary.
But you are basically saying that what you believe doesent apply in the case of Trump and so you are ok with ignoring your own principles while claiming he is the one who is guilty?
Exactly. Hillary has stated there would be a military response to Russia because of the alleged hacking.
Latest leak shows Evidence of Democrat organizers paying agitators to disrupt Trump rallies in efforts to smear Trump supporters.
Discusses strategy for “initiating conflict by having leading conversations with people who are naturally psychotic” – Foval is referring to paying agitators to instigate trouble at Trump events here, calling Trump supporters “naturally psychotic.”[0][1]
Trump - (paraphased) Muslims are evil, they should be registered and have special restrictions placed on them.
He singled out a single religious group. Made them the target of a group of people that are disposed to hating them. It goes against the very spirit of modern western democracy. To many it represents a clear and unforseen threat to our country. Even Bush who was clearly the most aggressive of the recent presidents in dealing with Muslim states, stopped WAY short of that. Clinton has clearly not singled out any one group, clearly tried to bring more people together. To compare the two is blatantly overlooking the clear differences in Trump's campaign and nearly every other one in recent history.
There’s a major problem with Muslim refugees in Europe right now. My girlfriend used to love visiting Paris, now it’s basically a no-go zone even in daytime. What he’s saying is based on reality, even if it makes you feel all bad inside when you hear it. Even in the US, where the refugee problem doesn’t exist, you still learn after terrorist attacks that, f.e. the family knew, or that the attacker had bomb equipment all over the apartment, but nobody said anything.
These are national security issues, and they need to be addressed by the president, i’m glad he’s doing it, same for illegal immigration, even if he’s doing it in a cringe-worthy, populist way. He’s not a life-long politician.
Anytime a tragedy happens right now, first thing you hear is Obama and Clinton taking about guns being the problem, and wanting to disarm you, or that all Muslims are amazing people. You never hear the problem being addressed. It is rather scary to see your president, and potential future president do that.
> My girlfriend used to love visiting Paris, now it’s basically a no-go zone even in daytime.
What are you talking about. I've lived in Paris for 40+ years, there is no special problems. We had terrorists attacks, we may have more, but basically nobody cares much about it or talks about it, and life is the same as it's always been (lots of traffic, lots of people in the subway, weather not great).
Marine Le Pen is polling above 30% in France (in the same type of polls that understated Brexit). It's a stretch to claim that "nobody cares" because clearly there is significant discontent being expressed politically.
My girlfriend used to love visiting Paris, now it’s basically a no-go zone even in daytime.
A bizarre thing to say, for multiple reasons. Most chiefly being, Paris has quite famously had a large Muslim population for several decades now -- which the recent refugee influx has hardly made a measurable impact on.
So he's saying his girlfriend "used to" love visiting Paris, with all its Muslims, up until about 2-3 years ago -- but now it's a "no-go zone"?
You are exaggerating, completely. But lets presume you are not.
How does Trump's fear mongering and threats of violating the constitution help? Opressing a group based on their religion have never in the course of history made a anything safer. It just creates bigger problems later. Once he opens the door to religious oppression how do you know that the next president won't use that power against you?
Trump is an existential threat to the United States.
I'm a theological noncognitivist so I couldn't care less about what religion is more "evil" but move any group (Muslim, Christian or even a bunch of Pastafarians) from such a condition to the middle of Europe, and you will get similar results. They are more human than they are Muslim.
I'm not going to go on about how not actually that bad the situation is because that is not the point.
No, you move a group of people, who don't share western values into the middle of the western civilization and this is what you get. Syria is not the only war-torn country on Earth.
“The police can’t apply the law in these areas, they are attacked. If the police can’t do their work it’s because there are criminals and delinquents who don’t respect the law.”
“It’s not just a problem with this government it’s a problem with all French governments over the last 20 years. Governments will never admit there are no-go zones because it’s a sign of a failed state."
There’s a major problem with Muslim refugees in Europe right now. My girlfriend used to love visiting Paris, now it’s basically a no-go zone even in daytime.
I think you and your racist girlfriend should probably go visit some other country instead. I am sure you can find some nice white safe space where you can fondle your your personal weaponry without being considered mentally unstable, but Europe is definitely not going to be to your liking.
I'll tell you exactly why I think Trump is dangerous to democracy. He is acting in a way that has historically, as far as I remember, led to the downfall of democracy in other countries.
Things he is doing in that vein:
1. Saying that he'd put his political opponents in jail.
2. Saying that the election is rigged.
3. Encouraging the idea that if he isn't elected, the election was illegitimate.
These are the facts. If you still disagree, I think it has to be because of one of these reasons:
1. You disagree that Trump is doing these things.
2. You disagree that they historically have lead to the downfall of democracies.
3. You disagree that them having lead to the downfall of democracies means that it is good evidence that this is a danger to democracy.
I'd appreciate if you could tell me which of the above is your stance?
(Obviously, if I missed another possibility, I'd be happy to know about it!)
Not GP, but I share his general viewpoint. My response would be:
1. I do not believe he would actually be able to do this (like the wall). Thankfully, unlike other aspects of our government, our judiciary is generally functional and independent. I think what he is really saying here is something like this:
"HRC should have been indicted for the e-mails. The FBI director and AG are both Obama appointees. Bill Clinton was seen meeting with the AG very shortly before the decision was announced. There are many documented cases of lower-level officials being indicted for lesser mishandling of classified information. Based on all of this, it seems reasonable to propose that her exoneration was primarily a political decision, and was unjust. I'd like to correct that."
Not watertight, but a reasonable enough argument. In other words, I think he is saying that HRC should be in jail because he believes she performed a criminal act, not simply because she was his opponent.
2 & 3. My reading is that he is doing this, but not nearly as forcefully or frequently as the press implies he does. Furthermore, our elections can be and have been rigged in the past. There are numerous examples of this in the Democratic primaries this year. The real question is not whether both parties attempt to rig elections (they do: gerrymandering, voter ID laws, laws on criminal voting are all instances of this), but whether the rigging determines the election's outcome. Most people would say that it usually does not.
So if he argues, even pre-emptively, that the elections will be rigged, it is quite likely he will have a fact-based case to make that they are. It will be a much harder slog to convince anyone that the rigging was what prevented him from being elected, and I think he will not be successful in this if he tries.
I do not believe in criticizing people's statements based on consequentialist logic: i.e. "the things he is saying may or may not be true, but we should condemn them anyway because they are corrosive to democracy". My only real criterion for whether to accept or condemn statements is based on their truth or falsehood, or likelihood, or logic.
>>1
I'm impressed by the 9th dimensional re-reading of "You'd be in jail" if he were president. I know your God Emperor loves that you help him complete his sentences and also tie his shoes.
>>2/3
Sure, Trump is a fact-based kind of guy! So after he cries fire in a crowded theater let's trust he's the the guy trying to stop the mob. /s
I'm not a Trump supporter. Actually I was a Bernie supporter. I dislike both remaining candidates, but I do try to take as charitable an interpretation of both candidates' statements as reasonably possible. I have not found it productive to work any other way.
I can take a charitable interpretation of one candidate's statements, but not the other -- in which case my thinking becomes biased, or I can take an uncharitable interpretation of all candidates' statements, in which case they all seem irredeemably evil. Or I can try to make a good-faith attempt to determine what each candidate seems to be trying to say, which at least makes logical (as opposed to purely tribal) discourse possible, even though my inferences may be wrong.
I'm also a contrarian -- so, even though I may appear to be defending Trump here, because HRC is so overwhelmingly favored on HN, I do exactly the opposite with my friends and family in the red state I live in.
Of course I am not saying Trump is an especially honest or fact-based person. I am simply saying that when we evaluate candidates and their statements, we should try to look at facts. In case I didn't make it clear enough:
#1 is supported by some facts, if you take the interpretation I have taken. If he means something different, maybe not.
If he means, "I would put her in jail if I became President simply for being my political opponent", then that would be very bad, and of course I wouldn't condone that. I just don't see any more evidence for that interpretation than for mine.
#2 could be supported by ample facts, or not, depending on what he means by "rigged". Actually the bar would be much higher if he said something like "the election is/was rigged in HRC's net favor". I strongly doubt that.
Those are all super good points. I am also a contrarian. So I understand your points.
But this is basically coming down to the sharp drop off in your world view. You give Trump a wide latitude in what he says. What if he puts her in jail? What if he meant that? What if he meant everything that he said but you explained it away?Were you complacent?
This fear based "what if" is what is moving us towards "tribal discourse" and is an existential danger to our country far more than Trump. Between safety above all else and the out-group is evil, we're looking at the end of civil discourse.
I agree Trump is mostly a symptom of polarization (although I would say "what if"-based fear is more of a rhetorical tactic than a problem in itself).
Bottom line: we have some very severe systemic issues that allowed Trump to get as far as he has. Even if he isn't elected, if the issues aren't addressed, there will just be another Trump, and that one might be successful. So it behooves everyone to at least listen and try to understand what his supporters want and why they feel underserved by the current system.
We won't be able to do that if we write off everything Trump says as crazytalk. Clearly, his supporters don't see it that way.
If you believe that Trump is no more dangerous than Clinton, your support for Peter Thiel makes sense, and, while I'd implore you to reconsider, I'm content for us to agree to disagree.
But Sam Altman and Paul Graham don't agree with you. They virulently disagree with you. They repeatedly compare Trump to a fascist dictator. They claim Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. Paul Graham said that if Trump wins, he'll "join the resistance".
I agree with Altman and Graham on that. But I feel obligated to point out to them both --- Altman in particular --- that what they say about Trump is incompatible with the manner in which they affiliate with Peter Thiel, who is a part of the Trump campaign.
Or perhaps you are hijacking their words and misrepresent their actual opinions.
Perhaps they dont believe its as litterally as you do. It would certainly make sense since claiming Trump is Stalin is as ill informed as it is absurd.
Just like you are ready to ignore your principles for a bigger belief so is Theil. He is not voting for Trump he is voting for change. The very change everyone agrees is needed.
Of course a decent person can support Trump, if by decent you mean hard working, honest, responsible, etc.
This isn't about the decency or not of Trump supporters. It's about indirectly supporting Trump and thereby increasing the chances he'll be elected.
Altman's and YC's non-disavowal of Thiel supports that outcome. Altman's support is a layer removed from writing a check for Trump, but it's still support.
If Altman believes (as he seems to) that a Trump presidency would be very bad for America, it's hard to see why he would not specifically repudiate Thiel's actions. That's different from repudiating a friendship.
If you had a friend who used their considerable resources to publicly and materially support what you believed to be a truly bad outcome for America, would you not consider saying, "I can't go there with you, and I can't let my company's prestige support you while you do."?
He's NOT indirectly supporting Trump though. You shouldn't HAVE to fire everyone who disagrees with you politically in order to convince "ridgeguy" that you support your own views.
If Altman is comfortable with the idea that his actions are encouraging people to comfortably support Donald Trump, then I'm comfortable with him continuing to endorse Peter Thiel.
But that's in support of my point that perhaps they don't mean it the way you want them to not yours that they really believe that Trump is a threat to democracy.
You can decide to read what Sam Altman says and say "but maybe he doesn't really mean it", but that's a bit of a stretch. Just read their actual thoughts on the subject. tptacek is not misrepresenting what they are saying.
From Altman:
"His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer. But the man himself is even more dangerous than his policies. He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage.
He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants, and I believe this reason alone more than disqualifies him to be president.
[...]
Trump shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if he becomes our president."
I am not saying he doesn't mean it, simply that he doesn't mean it enough (it would also be an absurd claim to compare Trump with Musolini) to do anything about it.
This is a very good point. I do not think supporting Trump is outside the bounds of decency, and I would not disassociate from Thiel on these grounds. But Sam Altman stated that "If Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator." The recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision re-affirmed the intimate connection between monetary support and political speech. So this is a serious logical disjunction on sama's part. Every fascist is someone's friend.
> And i am pretty sure a large portion of people outide the US see those three as bigger threats to their lives than Trump given US foreign policy.
I don't think this is correct. It is 100% not correct in the EU and I doubt people in the countries where US foreign policy is more heavy-handed – you know, murdering people from the air without trial and all that – actually believe in substantial policy changes after the election. I am pretty sure many fear more of the bad stuff.
No one will provide them here because (a) they're not hard to find, and (b) they're not really the topic of discussion, which is the disconnect between PG and SA's claims about Trump, and their lived actions. This article isn't about Trump's dangers, it's about YC's hypocrisy.
Hasn't done anything because he isn't ELECTED and has never held office. We can only judge based on the words he has said. We have to take him at his word and react to what he plans to do. That's why people are so afraid of how dangerous he is.
So until someone show how the us system can be destroyed by Trump I stand by my position that Trump is no more dangerous than Hillary.
But you are basically saying that what you believe doesent apply in the case of Trump and so you are ok with ignoring your own principles while claiming he is the one who is guilty?