I do not believe Trump is significantly more intolerant than HRC or any other likely presidential candidate, he simply focuses his rhetoric on populist ire across all of his positions. It's the only trick he knows so he does it again and again.
Additionally, HRC has in the past advocated a nearly identical "wall" policy but used softer rhetoric:
GOP candidates for several elections have said much the same stuff Trump is saying only with a rhetorical style more like HRC's. Trump borrows economic populism (and its racist undertones) from the rust belt rhetoric of democrats.
> If you don't believe Trump's intolerance poses a real threat
This is not my belief. I believe both Trump's and HRC's intolerance both pose a major threat. I also believe that the trend toward unabashed executive power is the biggest threat to stability. HRC and Trump both show a similar chance of abusing this, and fortunately congress would be more vigilant about preventing Trump from abusing it, since he has not spent years aligning interest groups in preparation for his day in power.
I could not vote for either of the two major party candidates, my position is not to defend Trump but to apply some of the same criticisms to HRC which seemingly exist in the blind spot of Altman, Graham, and other HRC supporters.
That's fine. I mean, again: I would urge you to reconsider. But we otherwise don't have a live debate, I don't think.
I am not here to argue that people who oppose Hillary Clinton should change their minds (they should, though!). I'm here to urge Sam Altman, who does not agree with you, that his continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020.
Do you realize how despotic that is? Whether or not you and Sam Altman share the same goals I'd consider it deplorable if he used his power to punish Peter Thiel for his political views. Just because you agree with the underlying root issue doesn't make it any more just -- consider the reverse, if you would. Should Thiel remove acquaintances who support Hillary?
I find it ironic that Thiel, who claims that democracy and capitalism are no longer compatible (and it appears if he were forced to choose he'd ditch democracy) is being defended by calling someone else "despotic".
Actual Thiel quote is "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,"[1]. It is nice to see that capitalism is equated with freedom, that's the right mindset but not what Thiel actually said.
If one is forced to choose between freedom and democracy, I don't see any moral choice but to choose freedom. After all, when slavery was democratically supported in the US, was it still wrong? I think it was. Do you think it is a "despotic" opinion?
>If one is forced to choose between freedom and democracy, I don't see any moral choice but to choose freedom.
An odd choice to equate freedom with capitalism but not with democracy. You are holding the right to control private trade more free than the right of some to representative government; in other words, the freedom of few over many.
Why is it odd? Democracy, strictly meant as rule by the majority, voting, etc. by itself is not freedom. Majority can oppress minority in a very democratic manner. Of course, modern democracy implies many freedoms built in, so when we say "democracy" we should be aware which meaning we consider.
> You are holding the right to control private trade
Capitalism is the opposite of "right to control private trade" - it's the right to own and exchange property voluntarily, without forceful intervention. So it is part of the freedoms. Of course, it can exist in theory without representative government, though in practice such government very soon takes control over economics and thus capitalism can exist only within limits it prescribes.
Unless you're a utopian anarchist some form of government is essential to the operation of society. The alternative to democracy is non-representational government. In other words, democracy may not define freedom by itself, but it's absence is certainly non-free. Feel free to point to a government that is non-democratic or imposes significant restrictions on democracy that has a free society.
On the other hand there are a number of countries that restrict capitalism in some way but have free societies.
Of course it depends on what you mean by "freedom"; if you mean it is "free to move capital around" but not "everyone is free to elect their leaders" then sure, but that is not how I understand the term.
[OT but pretty pathetic that I got downvoted for my previous comment by someone. Tempting to speculate it was (hilariously and ironically) by a Thiel supporter sore at the idea that he might have his views being suppressed.]
There is a large gap between "democracy" and "representation".
I feel this is instinctively understood by every Sanders supporter who claims "we're not in a real democracy!" or "we don't have enough democracy", but they are using the wrong word. They are living in a republic with a democracy but they aren't seriously represented.
Representation is the telos of democracy but it does not always achieve it.
And that is why everybody should become a reactionary. Only by returning to first principals will everybody get what they really want. There's too much cruft!
> Feel free to point to a government that is non-democratic or imposes significant restrictions on democracy that has a free society.
China. Singapore. Japan. Korea.
All these states have some kind of democracy. Yes, even Communist China does have some democracy. All these states have significant restrictions on it. In the most democratic ones power has been in the same hands about 90% of the time.
> Of course it depends on what you mean by "freedom"; if you mean it is "free to move capital around" but not "everyone is free to elect their leaders" then sure, but that is not how I understand the term.
Let me help you out. It is certainly the case that the word freedom has become seriously overloaded, much like the word democracy. Most of us see freedom to mean autonomy in this context.
In a practical example if the BBC requires you to pay for a TV license because you own a visual display then your freedom is reduced because your number of choices is being narrowed. You have less autonomy because even if you don't watch TV or the BBC channels you are forced to pay for their services anyway.
Another practical example is I hear the people in Flint are paying for poisoned water and have no choice in the matter otherwise their houses and belongings may be possessed by the state sending debt collectors.
Well, Peter Thiel does think freedom and democracy are compatible, just only when the democracy is restricted to people who think and vote like Peter Thiel.
And, well, "Democracy is great as long as the franchise is restricted to people like me" is not exactly democracy, and not exactly something with great historical precedents on its side, y'know?
> Peter Thiel does think freedom and democracy are compatible, just only when the democracy is restricted to people who think and vote like Peter Thiel.
This claim is based on what exactly?
> Democracy is great as long as the franchise is restricted to people like me" is not exactly democracy,
True but why you mention it here? Surely neither Thiel nor anybody here advocated such point of view. So who you are arguing with?
Thiel has openly commented, for example, that he thinks "democratic capitalism" has been harmed, if not outright destroyed, by extending the franchise to women. And of course Trump's own supporters had their "repeal the 19th" trending moment on Twitter over the discovery that women voting could make the difference in their candidate winning or losing.
So... I'm arguing with the public, verifiable actions and statements of Trump and his supporters, among whom one finds Peter Thiel.
> Thiel has openly commented, for example, that he thinks "democratic capitalism" has been harmed, if not outright destroyed, by extending the franchise to women
Actual quote:
The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.[1]
As we can see, especially if we read the whole article and grasp the context, Thiel is not arguing that women voting per se is bad. He is arguing that the consequences of woman suffrage and other changes since 1920s were summarily bad, because it led to increase of government intervention.
Imagine somebody saying "last redistricting led to Trump supporters now having majority in my state's Senate, this is awful" - do you think he argues against Trump voters having voting rights or against concept of electoral districts? He is unhappy with the outcome, not the process that led to it.
Thus, it is clear that what Thiel objects is removal of freedoms and not giving it to somebody who is "not like him".
Part of the reason I've mostly checked out of political discussion is because it's so partisan. I flat out don't believe half the things people claim Trump said. In most cases either the quote is cherry picked or the context is flat out misconstrued.
I've lost count of how many times I've seen outrage at something Hilary or Trump said or wrote, only to conclude what was said was reasonable and the outrage was manufactured for and by stupid people.
That's some interesting goal-post moving you're doing there, from "women are problematic voters" to "this district's voting is problematic". Here, let me help you with something Trump hasn't said directly, but has implied repeatedly over the last week: "black people have the right to vote, this is awful".
(a) Pretty sure that's not what "despotism" means.
(b) Pretty sure Thiel isn't going to shut up no matter what Sam Altman does.
(c) Pretty sure political criticism doesn't mean "the kinds of criticism I am comfortable hearing" --- in fact, pretty sure John Stuart Mill specifically warns against using discomfort as a litmus test for criticism.
(d) Pretty sure Thiel did more than simply donate to Donald Trump.
(e) Pretty sure the declaration that YC is a "non-political organization" is one you made, not one that YC did, and further pretty sure that nobody at YC agrees that their actions are cabined by your (so-far-unstated) definition of what a "non-political organization" is.
(f) Pretty sure YC has already threatened to blacklist organizations that disagree with them politically.
Oh, I could go on, and on, and on. But do we really need to?
I really suggest you take each of these points in turn and consider how you would feel if the candidate in question was HRC instead of Trump.
You're also missing the issue. It's not so much about Thiel but the message it sends: your professional career is at stake if you support the wrong candidate. I do not support Trump but I find that completely unacceptable.
I don't give a damn who you vote for in the privacy of the voting booth, and I'm not going to go digging in your background to figure out who you might have voted for. But when you make an announcement to the world that "This is what I am for", I'm damn well going to judge you for it.
Go right ahead and judge all you want. The question is, are you then going to try to get that person fired for the crime of stating their beliefs in public?
@jowiar: when you adopt that stance, you really have to be sure you are on the "right" side of every important position. I hope you are and will be so that you never have to face tangible oppression for your beliefs.
I was bullied out of my Catholic youth group in high school for my beliefs (read: A bunch of people I had considered friends started calling me a baby killer). It happens. It pushed me to hanging out with better people (read: The new youth minister was a total tool. He replaced a great guy).
Consequences of being on the "wrong" side of things will cause people to think first and speak later, rather than loudly stake out territory without thinking things through. I'm all for that.
Sure, but is it okay with you if these "consequences" are being unable to work and provide for one's family? Because that's the sort of "consequences" the media -- and useful idiots like the author of the original article -- are ordering us to believe are appropriate for disagreeing with their politics.
Woe is me, poor little billionaire, unable to work because I managed to find more money than most people will see in their lives burning a hole in my pocket and, in my billionaire wisdom, thought it was worth trying to elect the closest thing the US has seen to Benito Mussolini.
Look, I didn't like GW Bush, I didn't like Mitt Romney, but I would not shun folks who voted for them, or donated to their campaigns. Donald Trump is running on a platform centered around the belief that certain people deserve fewer rights than others. Donating to the Prop 8 campaign was taking an explicit position that certain people deserve fewer rights than others.
"Political beliefs" is another word for "opinions", and the crazy thing about opinions is you can change them. And the ones that you hold reflect on you.
Who, specifically, is Thiel harassing? Let's have some names, since you seem so confident in your accusation.
>"Political beliefs" is another word for "opinions", and the crazy thing about opinions is you can change them. And the ones that you hold reflect on you.
Exactly. All those screenwriters have to do is change their opinions about Communism, and they're good to go.
Depending on what their beliefs are, I may well choose not to engage in business with them, or hang out where they hang out, or whatnot. Others may choose to do the same. This may result in firing. So it goes.
Exactly. Because those writers and directors held Communist views, Hollywood executives chose not to engage in business with them. That may have resulted in firing. So it goes.
Sorry, I am really not too concerned about the career implications of suggesting that someone who owns multiple McLarens stop endorsing someone who could plausibly purchase McLaren Automotive.
Again, that's not what we're talking about. Suggest away, until you're blue in the face. I encourage it. The problem is when you advocate actionable, tangible retribution against people not listening to those suggestions.
Well, we're not exactly talking about HRC either. Focus, don't dilute the topic. There are actual words by PG, SA that can be compared to Thiel's. The dissonance between them is the problem here, especially as relates to YC policies.
tl;dr: does YC doing nothing about Thiel mean "culture fit" is dead as a concept?
Who's talking about feeling uncomfortable? We're talking about actively punishing people for their political opinions. I can't tell if you're deliberately misreading the discussion.
Are you categorically opposed to punishing people for political opinions, or is it a matter of crossing a certain threshold? For instance, what if Trump had openly advocated putting Muslims in "internment camps" and Thiel had donated a billion dollars to his campaign? Would you still believe that severing a business relationship with him would be immoral?
But Trump HADN'T suggested that; and THAT is why it is immoral. He's a major party candidate supported by 40% of the American population, not Adolph Hitler.
So in your opinion is there any logically-possible situation in which it is morally acceptable to choose to cease associating with someone over incommensurable views? Have you ever done it yourself? Do you feel morally obligated to be a business partner of people who support Hillary Clinton, since to choose not to would "punish" and "silence" their speech?
> it is morally acceptable to choose to cease associating with someone over incommensurable views
For you? A lot of situations are morally acceptable. For you to demand others to do it, even though they clearly not inclined to? Very narrow set of situations, mostly involving heinous crimes.
Citizen! You have attempted to influence the thoughts or actions of another! Hold position and await the arrival of constables who will arrest you for violating the Anti-Groupthink Act 2016!
Your thoughts jump to police and coercion all the time. Why is that? Nobody is trying to coerce you to anything, unless you see other individuals voluntarily associating as some kind of coercion on you.
People discussing with whom they will or will not associate is, in this very HN thread, referred to as "tyranny", "despotism", "blackmail", "extortion", and of course you yourself went for the oppression/"thoughtcrime" angle.
Yet one satirical comment lampooning it is "jump to police and coercion all the time" and "why is that".
I suggest you get checked out, you've got more projection going on than an overbooked IMAX theater.
So it's OK to speak as long as you don't try to persuade someone of something?
If somebody's up on a soapbox giving speeches about their views, and I disagree with their views, should I not get up on my own soapbox and explain why I disagree and think people shouldn't buy that other guy's arguments?
If I think someone has a poor business history, should I keep silent when somebody else considers a partnership? Or should I speak up and say "I think that's a bad partnership" and try to persuade them?
You seem to have a view of speech being allowed so long as the first speaker is privileged never to be disagreed with by a later speaker, and never to have anyone try to persuade others not to accept the first speaker's argument. That's not how free speech works.
You are over-generalizing. Trying to persuade others in "something" is completely fine. Unless "something" happens to be "let's institute groupthink and shun anybody who dares to disagree with our views" and then it's terrible. Not the fact of persuading is terrible, but the content of this particular persuasion.
So... people with similar views can't congregate together, and people with irreconcilable views can't just decide to stay away from each other, in your world.
Or is it a percentage thing? When 50.0000001% of a group of people share an opinion, would you like the police to swoop in and start forcibly preventing speech just in case more people might be persuaded of the idea and join the "groupthink"?
(also, funny thing, there's a lot of diversity in the anti-Thiel/anti-Trump opinions, but a whole lot of "wow, these people all seem to be reading the same script" in the pro-Thiel/pro-Trump, so maybe consider carefully who you'd like to accuse of groupthink. Oh wait, crap, I just tried to persuade someone to take an action; never mind, I'll see myself off to the labor camp)
> people with similar views can't congregate together, and people with irreconcilable views can't just decide to stay away from each other, in your world.
Oh, surely they can. I just won't be a part of a groupthink community and would oppose the effort of turning whole technology community into such. If you want to organize "Trump haters of Silicon Valley" meetup, feel free to. As long as you are not going to demand that "Trump lovers of Silicon Valley" meetup is shut down and meetup.com deletes their account. See the difference?
> Or is it a percentage thing?
It's not a percentage thing, it's a mindset thing. The fact that you turn to police and coercion all the time is another sign. The point is that we need to be open to coexisting with people that disagree with us, and that's a good thing. The urge to run for a safe space and surround oneself with a warm fuzzy cloak of groupthink is a natural one, but it's not a good thing if you want a healthy and intellectually honest and vibrant community around you.
> but a whole lot of "wow, these people all seem to be reading the same script" in the pro-Thiel/pro-Trump,
Of course, people that agree with you are all independent intellectual powerhouses, and people that disagree with you are all mindless drones zombified by Evil Powers. Funny how it happens like that all the time, eh?
Funny. People suggest exercising their right to associate or not, freely as they choose, and exercising their right to use persuasive speech, and you equate it to the use of force, to censorship, to silencing.
And double funny: it started with trying to persuade someone to disassociate from the campaign/supporters of a man who literally talks about wielding the law to silence journalism he doesn't like.
I don't see anything funny with it. It's not the fact they speak or associate that is a problem. It's the goal of that speech and association - ensure that voicing dissent and disagreeing with orthodoxy would endanger one's economic and social well-being, to the point that nobody dares to do so.
> who literally talks about wielding the law to silence journalism
This is, of course, despicable and should be condemned. I certainly think it's one of the worst qualities in Trump and understand how that could be a deal-breaker for people not to vote for him.
On the other hand, he is running against the candidate who has promised to use not just private libel law, but the full force of federal government regulatory machine to suppress the speech of her political opponents (and when I say "her opponents" I am not being rhetorical - it's the speech against her personally that she found so objectionable that needed the First Amendment to be overridden). And who was the member of the administration that was documented to use federal government to oppress political opponents.
So I can also understand how for other people it can look prudent to choose the lesser evil (private lawsuits) over the bigger evil (systematic governmental oppression).
In any case, both positions are legitimate and should be debated and put forward on the market of ideas. The idea, however, that association with one of these must make you a pariah - I don't think that will market very well. Or that I want to visit a market where it markets well.
It's way beyond mere feeling uncomfortable, it's building a community based on groupthink and intolerance to dissent. At this point, plain uncomfortable is a distant dream we yearn for.
Okay, now we're talking. So what's the maximum amount of money someone is allowed to have before they are no longer allowed to express political opinions you, personally, don't like? $10 million? $1 million? $100,000?
Well, what if Thiel supports David Duke or comes out as a holocaust denier -- would you still claim that Thiel's professional career can't be at stake?
First, Trump is supported by roughly 40% of likely voters, not all Americans. Second, just because a belief is widely held doesn't automatically make it more acceptable than it would be if it were less common.
> [Sam's] continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020
> (b) Pretty sure Thiel isn't going to shut up no matter what Sam Altman does.
The seeming dissonance here is interesting to me. Can you explain in more detail what outcome you're expecting will occur if Thiel is removed from YC, and how that will impact the election?
(b) Then what's the point? Just hurt Thiel? Demand virtue signal from Altman? Ritual purity?
(c) Surely so, but I am inclined to draw the distinction between "policies X advocating are wrong" and "Y must shun X for advocating the policies or be shunned himself". The first promotes the conversation, the second shuts it down.
pg: Several of those companies send people to Demo Day, and when I saw the list I thought: we should stop inviting them. So yes, we'll remove anyone from those companies from the Demo Day invite list.
I don't know the context of that decision but I'm fairly sure even if pg is being inconsistent that two wrongs would not make a right so I hate seeing that kind of rebuttal being handed out as if it's a QED. It is not. It's whataboutism.
It's a donation so large that it would be impossible for the vast majority of Americans to participate in the same conversation. I question the decision to categorize it as pure free speech. It's qualitatively different from a $100 donation.
No it is not. It's like saying since New York Times has more circulation than my blog they don't get to enjoy the First Amendment like I do. The underlying premise of it is "I'm ok with dissent but only when it does not really matter". No, quite the opposite - it is important to be OK with dissent exactly when it does matter. That's why the First Amendment exists - to protect speech that matters.
And it's quite possible for vast majority of Americans to participate - they are doing it right now, before your very eyes, it's an undeniable fact that this is exactly what is happening right now.
The first amendment protects you from government interference. It doesn't protect people from deciding not to do business with the New York Times because they don't like what the paper says. NYT is definitely big enough to not need that extreme level of protection.
Nobody gets that kind of protection, so the size is irrelevant in each case. That's the point - the size of it only matters if tolerance depends on ineffectiveness.
There are plenty of people on this page insisting that politics should be countered only with politics, not with shunning. That can be a good policy at a small scale, don't fire people because of how they vote, etc. But it's not a good policy at a large scale, of deciding whether you work with a big corporate institution (or someone with as much money and public face as one).
One qualifier would be giving a full speech at either the democrat or republican convention. That's intentionally putting yourself into the political system, and it's okay if people make business decisions based on it.
I think it's stupid to make business decisions based on just that (of course, the content of the speech matters - e.g. if you are a coal miner and the speaker says she will bankrupt coal miners, it's prudent for you to exercise extreme caution in dealing with such person). But that's not where we are at. We are at people trying to shame YC into making business decisions they obviously don't want to make based on shaming mob's political preferences.
Sorry, you probably wanted to make a point but it makes no sense. Nobody said free speech requires to force anybody to read anything, and certainly Thiel's donation did not force anybody to do anything. Well, except for the obvjous thing of all citizens being forced to accept whoever is elected president, but that's the question of legitimacy of government which Thiel has nothing to do with.
Well, you're arguing that someone doesn't get to "enjoy the First Amendment" if we don't nod along and provide a compliant audience. Disagreeing or, worse, choosing not to associate with someone based on what they say is, to gauge from this thread, considered a terrible sin.
So: why aren't you out there providing an audience to speech you don't like?
> Well, you're arguing that someone doesn't get to "enjoy the First Amendment" if we don't nod along and provide a compliant audience.
No, that's not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is demanding that people will be purged from the community and everybody cuts ties with them because they views do not agree with yours is not a good thing. You can disagree with Thiel, you can argue with Thiel, you can ignore Thiel, you can do whatever you want. But if you demand that YC severs ties with Thiel because he committed thoughtcrimes - that's where lose my goodwill completely.
> Disagreeing or, worse, choosing not to associate with someone based on what they say is, to gauge from this thread, considered a terrible sin.
No, it's not. Nobody, including me, ever said disagreeing with Thiel is a "sin", let alone "terrible" one. Demanding that YC shuns him - even though they themselves obviously don't want to do it - because you are disagreeing with him - yes, that would be terrible.
> So: why aren't you out there providing an audience to speech you don't like?
> No, that's not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is demanding that people will be purged from the community and everybody cuts ties with them because they views do not agree with yours is not a good thing. You can disagree with Thiel, you can argue with Thiel, you can ignore Thiel, you can do whatever you want. But if you demand that YC severs ties with Thiel because he committed thoughtcrimes - that's where lose my goodwill completely.
Thiel voluntarily choose to strongly support Trump without thinking he owed anyone an explanation. That's his prerogative, but it doesn't afford him much favors in the form of being a part of the community. People have the right not to support Thiel or organizations he is a part of. What do you suggest they do? Is it more fair to boycott YC and the companies they have invested in rather than to ask for the resignation of Thiel?
> Theil voluntarily choose to strongly support Trump without thinking he owed anyone an explanation.
He is right that he doesn't owe anybody anything, but he provided ample explanations for his actions anyway. They are easily accessible too.
> but it doesn't afford him much favors in the form of being a part of the community.
Is it me or you feel like you can decide who is part of the community and who is not? Why is that?
> People have the right not to support Thiel or organizations he is a part of.
Sure, they do. It's not what we are talking about. We are talking about people wanting the situation to be that "not to support Thiel" - including mandatory declaration of such non-support and cutting all ties with him - be the only right possible in this community. I don't want such a community. Such community sucks big time.
There's a big diff between "you are allowed to be vegetarian or to eat pork, as you wish" and "if you eat pork, you are outta here and everybody must never speak to you again". First is normal, second sounds like a totalitarian sect.
> Is it more fair to boycott YC and the companies they have invested in rather than to ask for the resignation of Thiel?
> [...] but he provided ample explanations for his actions anyway.
As far as I know he hasn't provided any explanation for what people are actually concerned about.
> Is it me or you feel like you can decide who is part of the community and who is not? Why is that?
If you can decide that he is, why can't I decide that he isn't? In a society that respect the individual we can all decide who we want to associate with.
> Neither is fair or sane.
If people have the right not to support him then it's also their right to not support YC or any other organization they think is benefiting Thiel. You seem to expect a scenario where people should dismiss their own opinions so Thiel can enjoy more freedom.
> he hasn't provided any explanation for what people are actually concerned about.
That is kinda vague. His views and ideals are known, he wrote several essays on that AFAIK.
> If you can decide that he is, why can't I decide that he isn't?
I don't decide that he is, he is by the fact of the involvement. If he weren't, the calls to purge him would be not necessary.
> In a society that respect the individual we can all decide who we want to associate with.
Surely, but I see no respect to that right of the YC members - in fact, they are being shamed for exercising this right.
> f people have the right not to support him then it's also their right to not support YC or any other organization they think is benefiting Thiel.
Of course they have the right. It's the cause that they are promoting in their exercise of this right - the cause of groupthink, intellectual conformity and intolerance to dissent - that is terrible.
So, how legally punishable should a boycott be, in your view of the world?
And how do you justify, on free-speech grounds, trying to take away the right of people to engage in persuasive speech (hint: that's what it is when someone urges a boycott, or otherwise tries to urge someone to do something)?
Finally, are you consistent in this position? Or is it only when the victim is someone you like that you break out the insipid "thoughtcrime" lines?
Ellen Pao is free to boycott Thiel if she wishes. It becomes a gray area when she boycotts third parties. The only reason why it's a gray area though is because she has little to no power over them.
A boycott is fair if it is below. Consumers choosing not to buy products, investors deciding not to buy stock, halting a newspaper subscription or not associating with former friends.
But a boycott from above is a tyranny. Firing employees for their political views, trying to get your mutual friends to disassociate with your former friend.
So if it's me calling for a boycott of a bunch of people richer than me, is that OK? All the YC partners, part- or full-time, are richer than me.
Because I can say right now: if I ever need another job or want to start a company, I'm not going to work for a YC-funded company or accept money from YC, and I encourage others to do the same. If that means, in your eyes, that I am the most brutal extortionate blackmailing tyrannical despot in the history of brutal extortionate blackmailing tyrannical despots, and will single-handedly destroy the American republic forever by being Literally Worse Than Hitler™, I can live with that.
However, I can predict with some certainty that someday somebody's going to do something you don't like, you're going to make an argument that crosses the line you yourself drew, and that I'm going to be really amused when someone gives you the lecture you're giving other people right now, because ultimately the harshest thing I can do to someone like you is hope you someday get to live in a world that holds the values you've espoused.
> So if it's me calling for a boycott of a bunch of people richer than me, is that OK? All the YC partners, part- or full-time, are richer than me.
Not advocating it of course, but you are within your rights to do so. It is not illegal or immoral. A boycott is very different to an employer punishing employees with firings for their political views.
That said; I also believe (not talking legal, this is my opinion) employers are within their rights to hire whoever they wish. Particularly they are not obligated to hire people who they believe will disrupt their company. It is best practice to separate politics from business, and still be aware that humans are political animals at the same time, I hope that makes sense.
Ellen Pao is unlikely to hire a libertarian, technocommerialist or neoreactionary but that is okay. However she cannot advocate against them by blackmailing other people, that would be stepping over the line. It would be wrong were Peter Thiel to lean on companies to fire Democrats and hippies, though he is highly suspicious about hippies.
> However, I can predict with some certainty that someday somebody's going to do something you don't like, you're going to make an argument that crosses the line you yourself drew, and that I'm going to be really amused when someone gives you the lecture you're giving other people right now, because ultimately the harshest thing I can do to someone like you is hope you someday get to live in a world that holds the values you've espoused.
Maybe. I cannot know future-me. However I do know I'm content for Communists to exist and they represent the furthest political position from mine.
My position is that exit (voting with feet) is preferable to voice (voting/media), so that if we have lots of variety intellectually and people are free to move from one position to another it shall produce more productive outcomes. That means that even groups of people I heavily dislike would have room to spread their wings.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with our political ideas but since they will be located in an independent Seastead or SEZ (similar to the factions in the Diamond Age) the fallout from awful policies won't affect me personally. At most interventions would only occur if people were being prevented from leaving. I think this would produce interesting results and a faster political evolution than the world witnesses today. After all I'm sure you'll agree, it is highly likely we both have strongly held priors that are false, but cannot know it until it is demonstrated. With competition and natural selection we can be more scientific about politics.
You are spectacularly missing the point. You are not required to listen to anything Thiel says. But you are required to tolerate the fact that he says things.
Except according to all these eerily-similar HN commenters, if I speak up and say I don't like what he says, or that I'll refuse to associate with him or his supporters, or encourage other people to do the same, well, clutch my pearls and fetch the smelling salts! That's tyranny! Despotism! Bullying! Shaming! Witch hunting! Extortion! Blackmail! Coercion! Censorship! Oppression! Groupthink! Punishing thoughtcrime!
So what it seems these folks really want is "Trump and Thiel can say what they want and nobody's allowed to speak up or out against them, and must associate with and financially aid them or else". Which is not how I envision freedom of speech working.
Given that they were largely government-imposed (in the sense that the government actively threatened businesses who didn't blacklist suspected "Communists"), I don't see an analogy to private individuals advocating for/against particular views or associations.
If Trump called for a boycott of a company, would you condemn him for it?
Those "threats" were prominent politicians saying negative things about the businesses. So the blacklists were exactly as "government-imposed" as boycotts of Trump, given the many prominent politicians saying negative things about Trump and his voters today.
That is to say, not at all.
>If Trump called for a boycott of a company, would you condemn him for it?
Depends on the reason for the boycott, of course. If he was calling for the boycott of a company because its founder donated to Hillary Clinton, or Jill Stein, or American Socialist Party nominee Mimi Soltysik, or even the Devil himself, then of course I would condemn him for it. I'm sorry to hear you wouldn't have the same resolve.
(I'll save you a few minutes of Googling, by the way, and pre-emptively condemn him just in case he has done something like that and I haven't heard about it. Trump is a jackass.)
Ah yes, "politicians saying negative things". That's a nice euphemism for "Congressional hearings".
Let me just ask, then: were you this vocal and this active on the internet when the whole "people don't want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples" stuff was making news, and lots of people were showing support for the cake-bakers and encouraging association/disassociation based on "beliefs"?
Just asking because despite claims, an awful lot of y'all who make these arguments seem to be inconsistent on that stuff (I think pg describes it as a "blind spot").
So where do you draw the dollar line of protected free speech versus it's ok to punish that person for their political views?
$100 dollars is apparently protected free speech by your logic, but $1.25 million dollars is a punishable offense.
Is $1000 dollars ok? $10,000?, $100,000? Where are you going to draw the line.
Also, by this line of thinking then the converse must also apply; if someone donates to Clinton and someone in a position holding power over them supports Trump then they can equally dole out punishments...
When liberal pundits get a platform from the NYT, his speech is qualitatively different than the opinion I write in my blog, yet I don't think we should legalize political retribution or censure against pundits who use too large a platform. Hopefully you agree?
And a celebrity's Tweet to 10 million followers is speech so large it would be impossible for the vast majority of Americans to rival. Doesn't mean it's not speech, and doesn't mean it shouldn't be protected—legally and socially.
Donations are free speech with respect to the government. No one is questioning Thiel's free speech rights. People are responding with more free speech as is their right. No one is silencing Trump supporters.
I'm sorry, I do not understand how Thiel or any other Trump supporter would be harmed if Sam or Paul exercised their rights to terminate their relationship with him. It would be an act of expression, would it not, to abrogate their partnership? Are you suggesting a chilling effect similar to that caused by surveillance?
Honestly, there's so much vitriol being hosed on everything this election touches, if one stops and looks objectively at the YC/Thiel equation, is it any more than this:
Thiel's views are not compatible with the culture that YC espouses (citations already offered in other comments). Thiel has exercised his right to express his beliefs by supporting a particular political candidate, and direct harm to others as a result cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. YC has the right to express their beliefs by ending their agreement with Thiel, and direct harm to others as a result cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It's therefore a purely ethical choice, which by definition, is subjective, and either results in YC exercising their right to express themselves freely, or YC opting to withhold that expression without giving up their right to any future expression.
I don't support YC's position in this matter, but I do support their right to have one. I don't support Thiel or Trump either, but I do support the rights that enable their expression. It is my right to expression that enables me to speak out, and hope, yes, to change the minds of others; not to convince anyone to agree with me, mind you, but to be honest with themselves, and to be principled in their actions.
True. FWIW I think Thiel's goal is to take the opportunity to be on the national stage a bit, expecting to have a bit more involvement in future elections.
Also, FWIW, I think people who live in CA should seriously consider voting for a third party candidate, since HRC is certain to win the state.
I think a lot of people are chill about Trump and Trumpism because they're sure Hillary Clinton is going to win. They're not taking the time to really internalize what a Trump presidency would mean, because nothing is forcing them to.
They, too, should reconsider.
First: Trump could very well win. The polls before Brexit leaned slightly towards its success, but that depended on how you read them: almost as many polls showed it headed for defeat as success. Brexit took Europe by surprise. It's part of a wave of populist nationalism that we can recognize in many countries. Trump, too, is a part of the popular nationalism movement. Not only that, but there's still 3 weeks of election to go. If you believe Sam Wang, this has been an extremely stable election, and it's unlikely to tip. But if you believe Nate Silver, this has been one of the most volatile elections since we've begun tracking it, and the two previous big swings in opinion took less than a week each.
Second: there will be no getting around the tens of millions of people who will cast a vote, in effect, for American Fascism. If Trump loses, he'll create his own cable news network, which will have a built-in audience of millions. That network will drag Fox News further to the right. Trump will spend four years running a campaign against the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and will probably have little trouble capturing the nomination in 2020.
Remember: the GOP may not have believe Trump to be an existential threat to democracy in 2015, but they were sure as shit aware that Trump was a grave threat to their chances at re-taking the White House. His was a joke campaign. And yet he took the nomination from the party establishment, almost effortlessly. He will do it again. The forces aligned against him in the GOP proved themselves impotent.
> It's part of a wave of populist nationalism that we can recognize in many countries
Who's "we"? Learned economists/sociologists, or internet randomers?
Trump wants to "make america great again", Brexiters want to regain their sovereignty from an unaccountable other; they aren't the same thing.
> in effect, for American Fascism
Which way do you think the country was going before Trump came along? Greater freedom, accountability and transparency of government? Does prism, Snowden etc not mean anything?
No, they're not the same thing. #MAGA is the American populist nationalist movement. Brexit is the British populist nationalist movement. As you have adroitly detected, they are in fact two different countries.
But I'm glad you brought Snowden up. Because that gives me the opportunity to remind you that one of Donald Trump's campaign promises is to put Edward Snowden to death.
> one of Donald Trump's campaign promises is to put Edward Snowden to death.
That is heartbreaking. Thank you for informing me. Whoever we elect, this absolutely cannot happen.
He has also suggested, "going after their families" as a strategy to combat terrorism. Can we elect someone, to stand over the world, who has made such statements? We really need a third option. A quote from some wise-guy somewhere [0]: "315 to 320 million people; this is the best two that we can come up with?"
And he's never actually meant anything he's ever said, and then he usually goes on to contradict himself if he ever mentions anything more than once, so it really doesn't matter that he hasn't said anything about it either way.
This is not even about Trump, he is just the most blatantly visible artifact of a movement that enjoys calling people names and delegitimizing. Trump did this in 2008 and again in 2012, he did it with the whole racist birther routine which few Republican leaders denounced - they were perfectly happy to ride the coat tails of delegitimizing a sitting president. Perfectly happy to continue to do it this year by not even holding hearings on his Supreme Court nominee. And then just yesterday McCain proposes delegitimizing Hillary in advance by blocking any of her nominees.
I agree with you, I think this is playing with fire. But I have no idea if getting a little bit burned is what's needed, or if it quickly turns into Donald actually trying to get the Speaker of the House removed.
"They'll be there...I would think that Ryan wouldn't be there--maybe he would be in a different position," Trump said on The O'Reilly Factor.[1]
Does he really think he can do this? i.e. autocrat. Or does he not know how our government works? i.e imbecile. Or is he trolling? i.e. troll as head of state is great! I mean really? People are so deranged with anti-Hillary sentiment they don't really get how unstable a presidency this would be, just like this whole 18 month shit show has been.
> They're not taking the time to really internalize what a Trump presidency would mean,
They don't agree with you. Why should they take the time to internalize what you think a Trump presidency would mean, if you're wrong?
Have you followed all the problems related to people losing their jobs because of tweets, and Nobel laureates losing their jobs because of jokes that got blown out of proportion?
This is not quite the same as that; Trump's statements are not one-off tweets or jokes.
But you assume Trump's statements are literally what he wants to enact. Only #nevertrump actually believes that; everyone else thinks Trump is making statements that are just the right-wing version of Open Borders and Universal Income, and Trump and his supporters actually expect those radical right-wing positions (consider them an initial negotiation position) to be negotiated down to something centrist. They don't want all Muslims banned (well, some Trump supporters do, but not many), nor an economy-damaging trade war with China, nor a literal wall running the entire Mexican border, nor refusal to defend NATO allies. What they do want is some respect for enforcing existing immigration laws (congress made it illegal to immigrate by walking across the border, but the Democrat propaganda seeks to frame Trump as a bad person for suggesting enforcing the law Congress wrote). They want some attention paid to long-term economic consequences of outsourcing so much production, and restructuring the costs of the U.S. playing World Policeperson. They want some indication that the government is aware of the difficulty of "vetting" immigrants from a war-torn region without stable government, and that there are social and political externalities from accepting not-well-vettable immigrants when those war-torn regions are known for terrorism (that we may or may not be funding to try to topple Assad), and when even those who are not "terrorists" have what most Americans would consider an undesirable propensity for supporting things like Sharia law.
You and other Thiel-haters reject the principle of charity as it applies both to Trump and to Thiel; you paint a caricature of someone's positions, and go on a witch hunt against anyone who supports those people. When that isn't enough, you go on a witch-hunt against anyone who associates with those people. I consider that dangerous and politically damaging. Obviously everyone has a right to express their opinions, and to choose their associations, but that presumes some level of respect, caution and restraint that is not generally being shown by modern liberals.
"But you assume Trump's statements are literally what he wants to enact."
I am exhausted by all of the requests by Trump supporters to somehow magically read the tea leaves and interpret what Trump really means to do, while ignoring everything he consistently says he will do.
Like how Trump claimed he sexually assaulted women, then many women came forward and said, yes, he sexually assaulted them, and now we are expected to not believe Trump then, and not believe any of these dozen or so women, but instead only believe Trump today, who of course would never possibly be trying to deny something that's true but politically (and maybe criminally) damaging to himself.
How about we just go back to people running for office actually saying what they intend to do, and voters taking them at face value?
(Which, by the way, is surprisingly close to how most politicians actually behave. George W. promised to cut taxes, and cut taxes. Obama actually passed something embodying a lot of his health care ideas and negotiated with our enemies like Iran. There are many other examples of politicians actually trying to do what they promised, so I think it's a little dangerous to assume a politician won't actually try to do what he says he will do.)
Well get un-exhausted and stop pretending not to understand negotiation techniques (this community is primarily about start-ups, is it not?).
Trump is a negotiator. He has been a negotiator his whole life. An aggressive opening bid is openly part of his style.
Trump is also an entertainer, he knows how to push people's buttons and get people engaged using visual imagery and drama. He does this to combat the hostile and equally (usually more) dishonest mudslinging that all modern politicians engage in.
He also knows how to use his skill at PR as leverage. Someone negotiating with him knows that he can rally the public to push for, say, Term Limits or something. Or, if you're cooperative, maybe he'll use that same rhetorical entertainer skill to help you out. Have you noticed how often Trump, usually in a seeming offhand manner, praises the people and groups who do business with him?
It's really not that hard to understand. You should not be getting exhausted over this.
> How about we just go back to people running for office actually saying what they intend to do, and voters taking them at face value?
This is due to the methods that modern politicians use to win votes. Their published platforms are always vague and lack REAL details. And even if and when they have real details, any thinking person knows that there are two huge problems to implementing any proposed change: (1) opposition from system (eg congress) (2) circumstances change and the policy no longer makes sense. So instead of going into all the details about how they're going to implement their free ice cream policy, they spend massive amounts of money on PR (friendly press hits, TV ads, attack ads) to influence voters using rhetoric and exposure.
Of course Clinton's campaign has been legendarily dishonest and unethical [1]. But they all do it to some extent.
You cite Obama's campaign? Other than healthcare, what do you actually remember about his platform? What I remember is a lot of vague rhetoric about "Hope and Change." He was heavily critical of Bush's wars, and yet Obama's foreign policy has been full of violence and war.
> Which, by the way, is surprisingly close to how most politicians actually behave. George W. promised to cut taxes, and cut taxes.
GW Bush invaded Iraq. I don't remember that being on his platform, do you?
> Like how Trump claimed he sexually assaulted women,
Except he didn't. This is a blatantly ignorant interpretation of the conversation that ignores the implied levity and non-seriousness of the exchange and the explicit claim that consent is granted.
In one breath, you say that the problem with how I view Trump is that I take him at his word. In the next, you accuse me of caricaturing his positions. The problem I have engaging with your argument is that I cannot crawl inside your head to discover what your perceptions of Donald Trump are, and those appear to be the only terms on which you're comfortable discussing Donald Trump.
But of course, the bigger problem here is that I'm not here to convince you not to support Donald Trump. I hope you won't. But if you do: fine. Sam Altman does not agree with you. He likens Trump to a dictator. If you're a Trump supporter, you are not the audience to whom my argument is addressed.
> The problem I have engaging with your argument is that I cannot crawl inside your head to discover what your perceptions of Donald Trump are, and those appear to be the only terms on which you're comfortable discussing Donald Trump.
Oh come now. The reason you shouldn't have to crawl inside his head is that you can engage in discussion to learn what he thinks.
If the issue is a dispute between what I believe Trump is saying and what you believe Trump is saying, we could have a discussion where we break it down and identify what parts we share and what parts we don't share, and why.
For example, we could start by agreeing that Trump is opposed to immigration. You could claim that this is racist. I would suspect this is a deeply held prejudice so I would just dispute it and move on. I would claim that "Building a Wall" is just a rhetorical device to focus people's attention on the more abstract and tedious problem of an insecure border. You could point out how Trump or his surrogates have used various examples of actual border walls in other parts of the world, which would lend credibility it being a real promise, not mere rhetoric. We'd both have learned something. And so on.
Alternately, you could just go opposite direction and just start throwing around vague, obsolete terms like Fascism and the discussion would go nowhere.
I always find it laughable (in a very sad way) when people support a political candidate based on the active belief that they won't actually do what they say.
If your best chance is that the president has been lying and exaggerating things for the last year and a half, you're totally screwed.
I also don't believe his positions exaggerate his beliefs. He is a racist sexist xenophobic con man, and his policies reflect that.
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time", said Maya Angelou. Trump has been showing us who he is for decades, yet people like you still think maybe he's someone else. Fancy.
> I always find it laughable (in a very sad way) when people support a political candidate based on the active belief that they won't actually do what they say.
I always find it laughable (in a very sad way) when people forget that solving the problems of tomorrow with the solutions of today usually doesn't work very well.
You realize that a US President merely hinting that we won't defend our NATO allies is a direct path to World War III?
This "he doesn't really mean what he says" defense is not only naive: even saying what he says with such blatant disregard for civil society invites violence against non-whites, against politicians, against voters!
Enough of his supporters legitimately believe the election is rigged that we're looking at the delegitimization not only of our likely next president but the entire political system. "Burn it down" sounds fun until you realize Venezuela or Zimbabwe are potential outcomes.
> You realize that a US President merely hinting that we won't defend our NATO allies is a direct path to World War III?
You realize that any attempt to implement Hillary's proposed no-fly zone in Syria would require the US to shoot down Russian aircraft? You realize that is an act of war?
We are way closer to World War III than you realize, and it's most definitely not Trump's rhetoric that has brought us here.
> Enough of his supporters legitimately believe the election is rigged that we're looking at the delegitimization not only of our likely next president but the entire political system.
Hillary's team[1] is the one training protesters in methods of provocation and escalation to violence and then sending them to Trump rallies to cause chaos and anarchy. Hillary's team is the one celebrating that their covert operations succeeded in having a rally in Chicago shut down. Hillary's team is the one subverting democratic institutions and promoting escalations of violence and anarchy.
These shenanigans wouldn't even have been attempted if the Clinton Machine operatives thought that the press would cover the stories fairly and objectively. (Or, if they really buy into their own propaganda that bird-dogging provocation is somehow blameless, they would claim hostile press). Either way, it took an independent journalist (who is maligned and whose credibility is still attacked by corporate media) to expose the operation and offer the people the chance to really understand what happened in Chicago, San Jose, and elsewhere.
Without a functioning 4th estate, you cannot have real democracy.
[1] Yes, she had "plausible deniability" but that's irrelevant at this point. Whether Hillary is actually the calling shots makes very little difference. Her so-called "political machine" is all she has going for her.
Do you know why he made the comment? I don't think you do.
He did it because Europa isn't spending the promised bnp on military spending and he is saying they need to step up their game and can't just expect for the US to come saving them every time.
Some of Trumps comments are obviously absurd, but many of them are taken out of context just like you did here.
I understand his motivation. I'm pointing out there are severe consequences to his stream of consciousness approach.
Russia will reclaim the Baltic states if we give Putin reason to believe we won't honor our commitments. Hell, Trump's been so eager to embrace Russian propaganda he'll probably just gift them.
There is no point to wild speculation about Russia invading the Baltic states at some future date when the possibility of war with Russia exists RIGHT NOW over Syria and the allegations of cyberwarfare from Hillary Clinton and the current administration.
Trump's rhetoric is entirely focused on doing what's best for the American People, without regard to idealistic, imperialistic, abstract Neocon ideology of expanding US hegemony and influence.
> But you assume Trump's statements are literally what he wants to enact.
The usual complaint about politicians is that they rarely make good on their pre-election promises. It is interesting that even Trump's supporters are fervently hoping that he won't be true to his campaign proposals.
And each Trump supporter, no matter what their ideology is, believes that they are the special snowflake who knows what Trump really believes in his heart of hearts. They believe Trump actually agrees with them just because they're smart and they believe he's smart too. They project their own hopes and needs and prejudices and bigotry onto him, ignore what he actually says while claiming to agree with what he is not actually saying, and cut him slack for lying about it in public, because of their special insight into Trump's true beliefs which just happen to align with their own that they're also afraid to say in public. That's exactly how dog whistles work: "You know what I'm talking about, right." [1] They've fallen hook line and sinker for a con-man whose only interest is the naked pursuit of power and self aggrandization.
> And each Trump supporter, no matter what their ideology is, believes that they are the special snowflake who knows what Trump really believes in his heart of hearts.
Well I think he is less likely to start a war with Russia. I base that on the evidence I have observed about the behaviors of each candidate.
> fervently hoping that he won't be true to his campaign proposals.
Which ones?
The only serious one I oppose is aggressive rounding up of illegals. Others I oppose are relatively minor, compared to my opposition to the massively corrupt and sick Hillary Clinton
>Trump will spend four years running a campaign against the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and will probably have little trouble capturing the nomination in 2020.
I was hoping his nomination will serve as a wake-up call for the GOP. More specifically, I'm hoping they drop the strict requirement to pretend to be a fundamentalist Christian lunatic in order to have a real shot at running as a republican. We need more moderates from both major parties. Partisan politics are destroying us.
> More specifically, I'm hoping they drop the strict requirement to pretend to be a fundamentalist Christian lunatic in order to have a real shot at running as a republican.
This is how we got to Trump in the first place.
> Partisan politics are destroying us.
I absolutely agree, though I don't see how all this demonizing of conservatives is going to help.
> His was a joke campaign. And yet he took the nomination from the party establishment, almost effortlessly. He will do it again. The forces aligned against him in the GOP proved themselves impotent.
IMHO The forces against Trump acted too late. In a field with 17 candidates, one of whom appeals to a significant percentage of the base, the outlier will usually win. I wouldn't be surprised if the RNC forces out weaker candidates earlier in the process next cycle.
There are a lot of insightful comments here, I'll respond to a few:
> It's part of a wave of populist nationalism that we can recognize in many countries.
True, HRC too makes many, many appeals to populist sentiments. Hers is less of a "National Greatness" populism, mainly because Trump has cornered the market for that in this election.
Trump has appealed to all the people who buy American cars because they are American or who think that eating a burrito will give them diarrhea (and assume that all people who routinely eat burritos must be plagued by it constantly), etc. etc.
I see this as less of a threat because frankly most of those people are simply old, and they are dying off rapidly. HRC and Obama support gay marriage today because enough of them died off to make homophobia a losing political position.
In the next four years, many more will die off, and that element of society that idealizes 1950s America will be much smaller. Though there is a younger generation that is sympathetic to the 1950s narrative... The television show Mad Men has been hugely popular, and its protagonist is essentially a more handsome Donald Trump. He grabs women and kisses them, he's erratic, he's loud, he's a womanizer, a self-saboteur. This television show captured the imagination of millennials because Don Draper is unlike most young men today. It's that same virility and unapologetic machismo that has led Trump voters to rally behind him. How can we go from being a society that loves Don Draper to a society that hates Don Trump? I don't think it's possible, and I think Trump's ideas will be around for a while even in the younger generation, albeit with a different spokesperson. This is why focusing on the surface layer of Trump is a mistake and why we should be addressing the deeper themes that are going to be alive and well no matter what happens in November.
We'd previously had a lot of presidents who tried to embody the cowboy aesthetic. GWB, born in Connecticut, talked about how much he loves "cold beer and barbecue", owns a ranch, etc. Chris Matthews claims that the winner is always the one the American people can picture squinting into a sunset.
> tens of millions of people who will cast a vote, in effect, for American Fascism
Totally agree, I believe a vote for Trump or HRC counts as this.
> Trump will spend four years running a campaign against the legitimacy of the 2016 election, and will probably have little trouble capturing the nomination in 2020.
TV news is now predominantly entertainment. This is a problem that goes deeper than Trump. It seems natural that an entertainment industry guy like Trump would want to get in on it now that there's zero need for any journalistic merit.
"I see this as less of a threat because frankly most of those people are simply old, and they are dying off rapidly."
You are also out of touch with reality like Altman admitted about liberals not understanding almost half of America. He was right that they've totally ignored their motivations. The Trump supporters are mostly Republicans and people in rural areas. These people have kids, raise them to mostly have similar beliefs, watch similar media that's pro-Right, and often vote for same people. Trump supporters in Mid-South are across all ages with more older ones but plenty in 20's-30's. Almost all the rural people I've asked are pro-Trump because they'd never vote for Democrats but especially not Hillary. They think Trump is more likely to deal with things they care about than a "snobby city-dweller" who doesn't care about them at all.
This will take a long time to die off thanks to the effects of isolation and close-knit communities on new generations. It's not going away in 4 years. Best thing to do is get some Republican candidates in that tap into that who aren't as dangerous as Trump for next election.
I don't think I'm out of touch. Anyone young enough to have the internet, Reddit, and modern social media is very unlikely to be socially conservative over the medium term.
Why? Because young people everywhere (red states and blue states) all like sex (gay and straight), drugs (legal and illegal), and music (country, hiphop, pop). The top 100 list on Apple Music is 50/50 country and poppy hip hop, for example.
The main reason young people affiliate with socially conservative groups (churches, etc.) is to signal membership in a system engineered to get them into a relationship (aka attraction, flirting, sex, etc.). A young male joins the group and immediately gains credibility as being a good person, etc. A young female joins the group and immediately can relax because the males she's meeting are vetted via their membership in the group. A young gay person joins because his/her young gay friends are also members, and they can use the org as cover to spend time together without needing to come out.
Institutions have a label, but their purposes can change very rapidly. Humans are superb at leveraging institutions to achieve their goals.
There are going to be some groups of young people who claim to have highly prejudiced beliefs, etc., but those are fairly common and rarely hold up to scrutiny as the belief holder gets older.
In other words, there is not any sort of youth-oriented grassroots social conservatism in the US. There will always be economic populism, but increasingly there is not a "golden era" in memory for young people to harken back to. Chances are among the stereotypical Trump demographic things were never very cushy economically, and chances are very high that all have had good friends who are African American, latino, hispanic, asian, or any variety of multi-racial backgrounds. Chances are they've had a crush on a multi-racial person and consider the person's humanity far more heavily than their isolated grandparents did (who likely never had many peers or friends from other groups).
> I don't think I'm out of touch. Anyone young enough to have the internet, Reddit, and modern social media is very unlikely to be socially conservative over the medium term.
I think the Internet will take us to a new age that looks strangely like a much older one.
New social conservatism on the Internet does not look like old social conservatism because it is out of living memory. It is a return to what I could only describe as aspirational Victorian Era with updates from the Diamond Age. It pines for a new Golden Age. Exploration and feats of strength. Great Men and Women. Charity for the weak. Gifts for the strong. Perhaps people can earn points to elevate themselves in the class system, which you can think of as an immersive MMORPG with AR but with real life consequences and rewards. There would be tea, iron railings, umbrellas, crumpets and art galleries with beautiful art once more. All UPVC would be replaced with timber.
The neoreactionaries would produce a government and society focused on artificial intelligence, advanced genetic engineering, nuclear power. The history books would be written to explain to schoolchildren that an evil cabal of religious marxists attempted to wrest control of the West. You may have formerly known these people as 'Social Democrats' (shudder). The entire history of the 20th century would be reframed in Spenglerian terms. A typical school exercise might read "Compare and contrast the 3 Demotic Terrors: Democracy, Fascism and Communism" and it should be understood that democracy and religion would be considered socially inappropriate since they were the reason the Third World War began. You can believe in them, but proper people don't. We shall also have an excellent array of hats to choose from, far from the dismal hatless tyranny we reside in today.
Since this world knows a vast amount about people's preferences, voting is not required. Your interests are duly noted and factored into a personalization of your local government's offerings. You are of course free to leave to the next Seastead or Landstead (formed by Climate Change and Demotic Warfare!), since each group has different interpretations we take the ability to opt out seriously.
Would this be a dystopia? Or a radical improvement on our age?
Interesting. I agree that we've seen a great decline both in the practice of democracy and in the public appreciation for it and participation in it.
This is largely because our powerful class has found ways to circumvent it democracy... no matter which party wins, things will stay pretty much the same. Voter turnout reflects this.
I find your point interesting. I think the deep question at the heart of it has to do with the idea of "how important are rules if we can just change them as we go and be better off?"
Economic examples abound, but we've also seen our system of laws evolve into a vastly weakened rule of law such that law enforcement can simply choose from any number of laws that a person might have wittingly or unwittingly violated. This is not an outrage because we are trained to trust those in power.
Notably, Justice Sotomayor on the SCOTUS is "liberal" in some ways but very compliant when it comes to issues of law enforcement privilege, etc.
I disagree that Trump would be such a shoe-in for 2020. The Democrats just need a better candidate.
I think with the currently developing scandals (especially sexual assault allegations), and likely many more scandals between 2016 and 2020, they'd need someone even less liked than Hillary for him to have a shot.
The bigger threat is indeed whatever media empire he might try to launch after the election. (Scarily, I could picture him doing so whether he wins or loses.)
> I disagree that Trump would be such a shoe-in for 2020. The Democrats just need a better candidate.
Note that it's almost unheard-of for the sitting president not to run for a second term. (I certainly can't remember a case in my short life.) So either Trump or Clinton will almost certainly be on the ballot in 4 years.
Your comment is a lot of projection of why people might support Trump. I'm not a fan of Trump, and my vote would go to Gary Johnson, but I hope Trump wins. Here's why:
1. I'm gay. Hillary Clinton has campaigned against gay marriage here entire career. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (not coincidentally on the day I stopped being a democrat.) Trump doesn't care about homosexuality (literally when asked what he would do if he found out an employee was gay he said "it makes no difference"). While HRC supporters like to portray him as anti-gay and wanting to overturn the decision legalizing gay marriage, that's not honest. He correctly disagrees with the basis on which the decision was made, which is different from disagreeing on the outcome. (There really is no power for government to regulate marriage, especially at the federal level.)
So, I hope Trump wins because Hillary is the anti-gay bigot between the two.
I'm not even going to get into the allegations of racism because that boy-who-cried wolf has been going on since Obama got elected and merely disagreeing with him makes you a "racist" now.
2. The claim that Trump represents "american facsism" is a misrepresentation of Fascism. Fascism is an economic system whereby the economy is privately owned but controlled dictatorially by a central government. That means Obamacare ("private" insurance companies, total control over the government) and the GM takeover are examples of American Fascism. The total surveillance society we have under Obama and W and would continue under Hillary is fascist.
To portray this as "liberalism" vs "fascsim" is wrong, and more right if you reverse the roles. (at least Trump is a bit economically liberal.)
3. You guys seem to grab "code phrases" and repeat them as mantras. The one you used is "existential threat to democracy". Remember in 2000 when Gore lost the election and we had 8 years of W as a result? Remember the massive scandal about voting fraud and how widespread it was? That's a literal threat to democracy. Like the Snowden revelations it was news for awhile, and there was talk of reform, but nothing was ever done.
How can there be a democracy when the votes are not even honestly counted? How about the fact that we cannot audit the software of the counting machines?
Isn't that a literal threat to democracy? Much more serious than some obnoxious reality TV star who's slightly more economically liberal than a woman whose entire career has been beset with scandal and allegations of misconduct-- almost all of which were just proven true with email leaks? Who had an investigation by the FBI where the agents say the outcome was predetermined? Isn't that level of corruption a serious existential threat to democracy?
You don't have to agree with me, that's fine- MY objection is to this delusion that there is a only one way to look at this and anyone who disagrees is somehow evil.
I'ma gay guy who wants to legally marry and I'm not going to vote for someone who has denied me my rights.
This is such absurd mental gymnastics, I think this amounts to trolling.
1. Hillary never voted against marriage equality as a senator. You blame her for what her husband did in 1996, which he has since said was a mistake. Do you hold any of the over 300 Republicans who voted in favor of DOMA accountable? Do you hold any of the Republicans to this day who disagree with the Obergefell ruling, including Donald Trump, and want to unwind it at a local level?
Saying Hillary is a bigot is demonstrably wrong, at least she is completely committed to the Obergefell ruling at the national and local level. Unlike Trump who has clearly said he does not favor gay marriage.
And yes, Trump is a blatant racist. You have to be exceptionally oblivious to ignore even the recent examples of birtherism, and the Central Park 5 - who by the way are innocent and Trump still said last week nope, nope, they were guilty. He's a loon or he's a con, take your pick.
3. Wrong, something was done. Counties across the country got conned into buying fancy electronic voting machines, which are now sufficiently obsolete the companies that sold them do not exist, do not support that hardware anymore, and we're at a net higher risk than we were before. We had a bunch of high tech nut cases who sold governments across the country a bill of goods. Next time, try pen and paper.
Do you realize that video is her arguing against a constitutional amendment to define marriage as ONLY between a man and a women?
And which is the better moral position: flip flopping, if in fact she did, on gay marriage where today she very clearly supports it and has precisely articulated why including fully supporting the Obergefell vs Hodges ruling; or someone who explicitly stands against it, in favor of states making their own decisions, and is in favor of a judge who was no friend of the LGBT community?
Trump says he would defend the LGBTQ community. How? By nominating another Scalia, he has said.
Scalia in Lawrence vs Texas, is lamenting that mere disagreement with people's choices (i.e. sexual behavior) can no longer be a reason for putting them in jail. That's who Donald consistently claims he wants as a judge on the Supreme Court.
Whether it's bigotry or bad judgement, it is bad policy. And only one party right now stands on the side of LGBT rights, and it is not the Republican party at all by a very wide margin.
She gets no credit for pretending to be pro-gay rights after the fact. IT's not flip flopping its pandering.
Trump doesn't pander. He doesn't care about gays much he's not courting the gay vote, but that's appropriate- government should be out of our lives not denying our rights.
Obama could have taken action in 2008. He didn't. He continued to oppose gay marriage.
Did hillary stand up to him? Of course not.
You guys think we have to vote for you otherwise we're self hating or some other bullshit.... but we don't. You are going to be in big trouble when the republicans implode and are replaced by libertarians, or they loosen up on social issues and obsolete the libertarian that way.
The religious right is dying out. So when a serious party offers both economic freedom and social freedom, the democrats-- who pretend to offer social freedom and don't even pretend to offer economic freedom -- are going to be DOA.
Unless you fool all the people all the time that all the people are racist and sexist.
I applaud you for standing up to those who would defend your rights as a gay man, asserting your strength of character and courage of conviction. I have nothing I'll to say about your choosing to support a candidate who gives you that freedom to fight your own battles as you see fit.
Consider this, in addition to your position: Your assertion that Hillary is pandering to the LGBTQ community may be based on a faulty premise. You're convinced of Donald's position on gay rights as laissez-faire, and that informs your view of Hillary's "pandering". But what if, as is the hope of anyone who speaks out about their beliefs to a political leader whose support would help their cause, Hillary was truly convinced that she was wrong, and has legitimately changed her mind? Isn't that the outcome the LGBTQ community would want? To have effectively changed the mind of such a political leader?
Further, is it possible that it's closed-minded to refuse to acknowledge that Hillary may have learned something? That she accepted new facts, and adjusted her position as a result of them?
Finally, can you appreciate the perspective that others may have, when they witness a gay man deny that Hillary may have actually, sincerely, really and truly changed her mind, and that she now stands with the gay community? The perspective: "This guy is just as closed minded as he claims Hillary is."
You cannot prove she's pretended or pandering. But let's play a game where we have proof she's merely accommodating gay marriage advocacy, but personally doesn't actually agree with it.
Which is the better political bet? To vote for the person who gives you what you seek? Or vote for the person who states, without reservation that they are opposed to gay marriage, support states right to unwind the Obergefell ruling, and nominate socially conservative judges like Antonin Scalia who happened to vote against Obergefell, the very ruling that grants you that which you claim to seek.
You're simply not credible on this. You're willfully delusional or ignorant on the topic. You have grossly and very obviously mistaken the forest for the trees.
TRUMP: I just don't feel good about it. I don't feel right about it. I'm against it and I take a lot of heat because I come from New York. You know, for New York it's like, how can you be against gay marriage? But I'm opposed to gay marriage.
O'REILLY: They say, the gays, that this violates their rights, that they are American citizens and they should have a right to live the same way heterosexuals live, and you say?
TRUMP: Well, I think it's a tough situation, and I'll tell you what I say. I say that we have other problems. We have other problems in this country. And I don't think a president should be elected on gay marriage or not gay marriage because we have some very big problems. Based on everything I see, Obama, who said basically the same thing as I do, I think he is going to come out in favor of gay marriage.
Thanks for that, I hadn't reached back to 2011 for my research. First off, reading this the way you intend, that makes him still less homophobic than hillary. When Oreilley says "they say this violates their rights" he says "this is a tough situation and we have other problems" which in Trump Speak means "yeah it violates their rights but this isn't the first thing to fix so I'm not going to make it a major part of a campaign".
That's hugely softer than Hillaries absolute denouncement of it.
He was spot on about Obama pretending to be in favor of gay marriage (though wrong in his timing- Obama didn't "learn his lesson" until after the Supreme Court ruling. Talk about leading from the rear.)
Like his comments about the court ruling, I read this as him being opposed to the issue as an issue, not the right.
This is the guy who invited Theil to speak at the republican convention-- the first openly gay speaker who in fact stated he was gay at the podium and was applauded for it.
That sure undermines the spin democrats want to spin, but it's the reality.
And basically, this is a turning point for republicans. Trump is the first non-openly homophobic candidate from either party to run for president. It sucks that he's such a doofus and doesn't give good soundbites, but there it is.
> Trump is the first non-openly homophobic candidate from either party to run for president
You believe it's a good thing that he's homophobic but not open about it? So he denies his homophobia in public, but hates gays in private anyway. And chooses Mike Pence as his running mate. You call that progress?
Next you're going to tell me that gay people can't be homophobic or act against their own self interest [1], like you appear to be doing. Good luck overcoming your own self-hatred, and achieving your own Sister Souljah moment.
"Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism. Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies."
What does that sound like to you? Far-right, encourage violence, strong leadership, protectionism. Obama? HARDLY! Trump in a nutshell!
You really should try to at least figure out what the position of your favorite candidate is before you make up your mind to vote. Trumps position is the exact opposite of what you claim it is.
"Remember the massive scandal about voting fraud and how widespread it was?"
Will need a citation for that one. Just saw a headline about a study saying about 13 counts of fraudulent votes were found over a period when 1 billion votes were cast.
Which shouldn't convince you (I don't even have a link right now), but I hope you understand why I'm not just going to take your word for it, either.
"I'ma gay guy who wants to legally marry and I'm not going to vote for someone who has denied me my rights."
Which is your prerogative, but aren't you also concerned about rights for other groups of people? (And if you're denying there haven't been any statements by Trump indicating he wants to deny rights to certain groups of people, you need to pay closer attention.)
>(There really is no power for government to regulate marriage, especially at the federal level.)
That might be true in theory, but the federal government has pretty unrestricted power to e.g. say gay marriage spouses "don't count" for purposes of SS benefits, for income taxation, for adoption benefits, etc.
I admit I'm very confused about the dismissal of claims of racism. I'm Chinese in America and trumps focus on China and it's evils is very uncomfortable for me and many other Chinese people who want to be seen as American citizens and part of America. This is him spouting hatred to a country whose people have come to this country to make opportunity as they have always had even during such times as the Chinese exclusion act. I'm sure many other immigrants from Latin America or Mexico may feel the same when he goes on many-minute long tirades about Mexico...
> Trump doesn't care about homosexuality (literally when asked what he would do if he found out an employee was gay he said "it makes no difference").
Yeah, right. You do know that Trump wants to appoint clones of Scalia to the Supreme Court, right[1]? The same Scalia who was opposed to gay marriage and gay rights? [2]
> I'm a gay guy who wants to legally marry and I'm not going to vote for someone who has denied me my rights.
... but you don't mind supporting someone who will continue to deny you your rights?
>Yeah, right. You do know that Trump wants to appoint clones of Scalia to the Supreme Court, right[1]? The same Scalia who was opposed to gay marriage and gay rights? [2]
Scalia's arguments weren't completely unreasonable. His dissent essentially said that the matter should have been solved by a constitutional amendment.
I think the best possible solution would have been to introduce an amendment that clearly states the federal government has no authority to regulate marriage while also clearly stating that the right to pursue a marriage to the consenting adult of our choice falls under the protection of "inalienable rights", thus stripping from the states the ability to individually pass laws oppressing homosexuals.
However, I think that the passing of such an amendment was and is unlikely. So, while I see Scalia's point on that particular issue, I don't necessarily think the rest of the supreme court had much of a choice.
There are many other decisions where I disagreed with Scalia, but I think there's something to be said for maintaining a somewhat balanced supreme court (not that I'm willing to vote for Trump to make that happen).
The supreme court was designed in a way that was intended to keep the justices free from the influence of politics. However, it has pretty much always been a political competition.
> His dissent essentially said that the matter should have been solved by a constitutional amendment.
Why should a fundamental right require a constitutional amendment? IMHO, this is a cop-out for Scalia: he knows how hard it is to put together a constitutional amendment, so instead of just saying "no" and appearing like a bigot, he punted the question as a constitutional amendment. I'm sorry, but I don't buy his argument.
>Why should a fundamental right require a constitutional amendment? IMHO, this is a cop-out for Scalia: he knows how hard it is to put together a constitutional amendment, so instead of just saying "no" and appearing like a bigot, he punted the question as a constitutional amendment. I'm sorry, but I don't buy his argument.
Because the constitution says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. It is a fundamental right, but the drafters of the constitution failed to mention it in explicit enough terms to adequately protect people. In fact, the people that voted in favor of gay marriage must have agreed that the constitution didn't adequately protect these rights, because they heavily referenced amendments (AKA modifications) to the constitution in their decision.
The constitution isn't perfect. If it was, we wouldn't have needed amendments to give women the right to vote, or to make minorities count as whole people. We need amendments to make it better.
For all I know, Scalia may have had bigoted alterior motives for his vote. However, I'm simply evaluating his argument (which if you'll reread my statement I wasn't actually agreeing with).
The Constitution does not mention marriage at all (AFAICT). So why do you need an amendment to allow gay marriage? What are you amending, if it does not exist?
I didn't suggest an amendment to allow gay marriage, I suggested an amendment that would explicitly prohibit the state and federal governments from attempting to regulate any marriage between two consenting adults.
In an academic manner, you are right. Its silly that we have to do anything to keep any government from interfering with things that we consider to be fundamental rights.
I didn't suggest that the constitution mentions marriage. However, its failure to explicitly state it as a fundamental right is a large part of the reason gay people were oppressed for so long in our country. Historically, rights not outlined in the constitution fall under the authority of state governments.
Also note that the constitution and the bill of rights are more of a statement of rights we already have. The document isn't intended to actually grant the rights. No one can grant fundamental rights. However, having a constitution as a statement of rights can help protect them when others want to take them away.
> Why should a fundamental right require a constitutional amendment?
Why do the Bill of Rights, the 13th, and the 19th amendments exist? They're all designed to protect fundamental rights. An amendment would afford non-traditional marriage the same protection.
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
When the Supreme Court "creates" new rights, they are acting under the aegis of the Ninth Amendment, and simply recognizing a right that is retained by the people. For all fundamental rights to be explicitly enumerated in the Constitution is something that the Founders explicitly knew they could not do.
And yet, the end of slavery and enactment of women's suffrage were both strengthened by amendments, rather than supreme court decisions (which is why I included those in my list). So I think that my question still stands. Why would an amendment be necessary to force a right that should've been held by the people already in one case, but not another?
SATSQ: A Constitutional amendment is necessary to establish a right when the Courts do not recognize that right.
An Amendment is also useful to avoid a right being lost in future rulings, or to raise the bar on what is considered a compelling reason to abridge that right. Remember, DOMA was overturned not just because the Courts recognized freedom to marry as a right, but because the Federal government was unable to offer a compelling reason why it was in the public interest to remove that right from same-sex couples.
Consequently, a Constitutional amendment may well have been necessary to end slavery, because even if the Courts were willing to recognize both slaves as citizens deserving of rights and "not being a slave" as an unenumerated right in 1865 (hint: they weren't), the Courts almost certainly would have been willing to hear arguments that slavery was in the public interest, even if it was an abridgement of the rights of slaves. They are certainly willing to allow de facto slavery of non-citizens and of prison inmates to continue.
In any case, demanding that we refuse to recognize a right until it is enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments, when the Constitution itself both declares the existence of unenumerated rights and demands they be recognized is just fucking asinine.
Where do you get off calling my question stupid? Condescending asshole.
To be clear: I don't have a problem with your answer itself, but the tone in both of your replies to my honest questions hasn't been helpful. You need to work on your presentation, or you're going to turn more potentially interesting information into something of shit value.
Right, which is why given there is no enumerated power clause giving them one the federal government has no power to regulate marriage.
The problem is, the states legalized gay marriage at the state level, and DOMA which is invalid under the 9th amendment and powers clause caused a problem.
They should have struck down DOMA and let the states have their choice, as they do under the 9th amendment.
When Section 3 of DOMA (the portion prohibiting the Federal government from recognizing same sex marriages) was overturned, it was partially on a Tenth Amendment argument.
It was in overturning Section 2 of DOMA (the portion allowing States not to recognize same sex marriages performed in other States) that the Supreme Court recognized marriage rights as something which could not be restricted on the basis of the sex of the participants.
I am not certain you could construct an argument that would allow the Supreme Court to overturn Section 2 of DOMA without also declaring all State laws unconstitutional; once the Supreme Court recognized that right, the 14th Amendment applies.
Uh, aren't all our fundamental rights part of why the constitution was written? It's not like the founders where n00bs when they realized a Bill of Rights was needed. They still didn't even get it right by still allowing slavery. Seems like the lesson should be, get more rights into the constitution.
No, they are not. Read the pre-amble to the bill of rights. It makes it clear the rights are broad and pre-existing for the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights merely clarifies.
This is why the right to self defense cannot be restricted by any interpretation of the second amendment. Same with speech and the first amendment.
Those amendments are restrictions on government, not creators of rights.
Telling people who will vote for a candidate that is 'certain to win' to vote for another candidate that has very little chance of winning benefits the candidate that is 'certain to come second', in fact if enough people do this the candidate that was 'certain to win' could easily lose.
* his continued support for Peter Thiel is harming the goal he shares with me of preventing a Trump Presidency now, or in 2020.*
You're worried that someone might read his endorsement of Hillary , then realise a business partner of his suppprts Trump and decide to vote for Trump instead?
I fail to see how anyone who knows who Sam Altman or Y Combinator is would follow that line of thought.
I don't have to worry about it. I can just read threads on Hacker News and see people rationalize Thiel's involvement and suggest that it implies a Trump Presidency is less dangerous than we think it is. I can look at this exact thread and see numerous people arguing that Trump isn't dangerous at all.
People can believe what they want. But Altman and Graham have a stated objective to convince people not to support Donald Trump. I'm doing them no favors by hiding the fact of how their actions work against that goal.
So, your argument is that people who, because of Thiel's donation, aren't as afraid of a Trump presidency as they should be, those people need to know that Graham and Altman have cut their ties with Thiel, rather than that they simply disagree with him, and that, by insufficiently ostracizing their friend and business partner, Graham and Altman are somehow sabotaging their stated goal of reducing Trump's support?
You also have to consider that Thiel himself very likely is not a racist (and obviously not a homophobe etc.). He likely does not see Trump as racist or sexist. He may be misguided and may hold some crazy and infeasible ideas, but Thiel doesn't seem evil to me. He's probably attracted to Trump's other features and rationalizes the rest of his behavior.
This is the problem with the needle Altman is trying to thread: he is leaving open the question of whether Trump is as bad as Altman himself says he is. I agree strongly with Altman --- as you can probably tell --- that Trump is exactly this bad. If Altman means what he says, he should do what he can to shut this question down.
Maybe his goals include more than just preventing Trump Presidency? I mean, it may be that somebody thinks literally nothing is more important than preventing Trump from becoming President - after all, there was already a guy who tried to assassinate Trump - but I think claiming that's only possible way to think is going too far. There might be other priorities in life too.
> I could not vote for either of the two major party candidates
That's the worst part of this election. I really dislike HRC. Her alleged crimes to me are much more significant than even the rape allegations against Trump. They affect more people, and they move our country in the direction of a corporate oligarchy.
But my alternative is Trump? Sexist, racist, and has unresolved sexual assault allegations against him? That's who you want me to vote for to keep HRC out of office?
Highly disingenuous. First of all, even Bernie Sanders agrees that having open borders will causes wages to plummet. It's the dream of the Koch brothers.
Second, Hillary didn't vote for 10 ft wall and never proposed a 10ft wall. She voted for the Secure Fence act of 2006:
Additionally, HRC has in the past advocated a nearly identical "wall" policy but used softer rhetoric:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gUAdAYFbIc
GOP candidates for several elections have said much the same stuff Trump is saying only with a rhetorical style more like HRC's. Trump borrows economic populism (and its racist undertones) from the rust belt rhetoric of democrats.
> If you don't believe Trump's intolerance poses a real threat
This is not my belief. I believe both Trump's and HRC's intolerance both pose a major threat. I also believe that the trend toward unabashed executive power is the biggest threat to stability. HRC and Trump both show a similar chance of abusing this, and fortunately congress would be more vigilant about preventing Trump from abusing it, since he has not spent years aligning interest groups in preparation for his day in power.
I could not vote for either of the two major party candidates, my position is not to defend Trump but to apply some of the same criticisms to HRC which seemingly exist in the blind spot of Altman, Graham, and other HRC supporters.