This was obvious from the RNC speech and further reinforced when Thiel donated $1M to Trump. A contrarian bet, sure, but $1M is a pretty small price to pay to have a 50/50 shot at CTO of the USA. I'm sure he'll see a very significant ROI on his $1M once the government starts awarding contracts very conveniently to companies of which he owns a portion.
I had very negative feelings about Thiel, and those were magnified 10x after his endorsement of Trump, but I'll at least concede he's a very shrewd individual.
> I think Thiel is hedging for both himself and as a proxy for Facebook. If Trump wins, Facebook gets the most favored corporation status currently awarded to Google. If Trump loses, Thiel perhaps assumes everyone will forget soon enough and Zuckerberg can diss-avow any Facebook connection.
In retrospect, the one thing I think I was wrong about were the odds. I thought it was a long shot.
Facebook has sentiment analysis and definitely had a better guess on how the election would turn out than perhaps anyone else in the world. While pollsters were trying to extrapolate on what the entire population would be doing based on small samples and proprietary methods, Facebook just had the data. Not only can Facebook say you are a Trump supporter, but they can know by how much and as time series!
Make no mistake, "Most favored tech company" status just swapped Google with Facebook.
I don't support Trump, I believe very, very little of what he has said he supports or will do. However, I am fairly upset about the public support Hillary received. From foreign policy to domestic issues, her track record is appalling and with the exception of pro-war moderates, everyone who supported her should at least be embarrassed about it.
I am no fan of the Clintons. Personally, during my lifetime, Obama is the only president I halfway respected, with his stance on state surveillance being a notable exception. I think there is a small amount of corruption with Hillary, as I believe is true of most politicians. However, given a choice between Hillary and Trump, for me it's no contest.
Don't get me wrong, I think Trump has the potential to do some good. I am still unsure how much of his campaign he actually believes or intends to do. Term limits, I think, are probably a good thing, though also probably a long shot. If he keeps his word on not being able to be bought, that will be good. More non-professional politicians in government is probably a good thing in general.
That said, because of Trump you can almost certainly kiss goodbye: climate/renewable energy science, net neutrality, Roe v. Wade, higher minimum wage, etc. You can bet that soon the official language/religion of the US will be English and Christianity respectively. Nuclear weapons will almost certainly go back into production and military spending in general will skyrocket, while education funding continues to shrink.
It would take a hell of a lot of corruption from Hillary to get me to vote for any of that.
Trump is about as far from a Christian as you can get in a person. I very highly doubt that he cares about religion except as a useful electioneering tool. He is unlikely to stick with that label during his presidency since it would be inconvenient, so I don't think you have to worry about Christianity being the official religion.
I agree that he probably isn't much of a believer in the cause himself. But more Republicans than not support it, and plenty of Democrats are at least publicly beholden to Christians as well.
While not unthinkable, getting Christianity into the Constitution as the official religion is likely not going to happen. But that doesn't mean that plenty of things won't end up on Trump's desk which make Christianity effectively the official religion (if you already think that's the case, you ain't seen nothing yet). We have to trust Trump to be able to stand up to those who put him in power and veto this stuff? While he may surprise me, as they say, I trust him about as far as I could throw him.
> You can bet that soon the official language/religion of the US will be English and Christianity respectively.
Not a goddamn chance. There's absolutely no way this could possibly change. This is one of those sacred American things, written into the framework of the entire country. Even if a small minority of people are for it, it would NEVER pass.
Yeah, you could say "Well, people were saying the same thing about a Trump presidency a few weeks ago, and here we are." I get that strange things are happening, but Trump was elected via the American process, so it's not like all the rules are falling apart.
> Not only can Facebook say you are a Trump supporter, but they can know by how much and as time series!
That's a fascinating insight. They also have the geographic data and could slice/dice to get a sense of electoral college. After the systematic polling error that caught everyone off-guard, we will probably see some innovations in the next 4 years that will get incorporated into the ensemble models (e.g. 538). Perhaps Facebook will release some sort of sentiment data. Although that may get a little creepy.
Yep. That's the best explanation of what happened. I totally believe Thiel knew exactly that Trump had a great shot at the presidency before supporting him publicly.
> I'm sure he'll see a very significant ROI on his $1M once the government starts awarding contracts very conveniently to companies of which he owns a portion.
Wasn't Trump rallying against such crony corruption aka 'pay for play'?
If we believe all the recently headlines about who he's bringing in it appears pure "pay to play". Lots of individuals who Trump "owes" through either money or support they provided to him; pure cronyism.
I'm not sure Trump realizes what worked best in business, or what he felt worked best for him in what business he has done, is not necessarily best for operating policy. I'm not sure he cares. I suspect he might though. Dude looked humble-struck in the video today with Obama; almost worried about what he got himself into.
"Lots of individuals who Trump "owes" through either money or support they provided to him; pure cronyism."
Trump is the most 'free' President in modern history.
He 'owes' the least, to the fewest people.
This is one thing even the center-left press were talking about.
As for Thiel - $1M might seem like a lot - but Trump doesn't really 'owe' Thiel anything, because Thiel doesn't have direct future influence etc., and Trump doesn't need him in the future.
For example: Bill Maher gave $1M to Obama. For that you get some friendly things, but Obama didn't need Maher after that.
Hillary is not directly uber wealthy - and she accepted $57M from private individuals and businesses while she was Sec of State - for which she provided mostly small favours (introductions).
Trump had the smallest team in Presidential history, the banks were mostly betting on Hillary etc..
I don't really like Trump, but he's largely unburdened by having to hand out appointments.
He'll give them to those that 'stuck by him' i.e. Guliani etc. and scorn on the old Bush guard.
Why exactly am I meant to be comforted by the fact that the craven opportunists --- the lowest of the low of the Republican party, discredited outsiders like Newt Gingrich and John Bolton --- are getting the most important positions in the United States government for kowtowing to Trump?
There are important thinkers in the Republican Party. People with ideas and a moral core, people who have given years of service to the country (and, for that matter, the party). They're nowhere in the discussion --- most of them opposed Trump, who campaigned in large part in repudiation of conservative foreign policy and conservative fiscal policy. There's Robert Gates. And then there's Newt Gingrich, who has demonstrated nothing but an ability to personally profit off the chaos he's sown in the party for decades. Gingrich is a Trump winner; Gates, a loser.
You just described the literal definition of cronyism as if it was a good thing.
> Why exactly am I meant to be comforted by the fact that the craven opportunists --- the lowest of the low of the Republican party [...] are getting the most important positions in the United States government for kowtowing to Trump?
Twenty-three days ago you and Marco sought to get Peter Thiel removed from YC for his support of Trump[1]. This is to say you were explicitly working to ensure that respectable people would distance themselves from Trump for fear of being ostracized.
Although Peter is still with YC, the broader campaign of social pressure you participated in worked. The respectable Republicans distanced themselves from Trump. As might be expected, Trump is now giving governmental positions to those who didn't distance themselves from him during the election. I don't find that surprising, nor do I find it surprising that those who stuck with Trump were the discredited outsiders (they were already ostracized).
Quite frankly the surprising part of this story is finding you, just twenty-three days after your witch hunt, lamenting that no one respectable is in Trump's inner circle. Isn't this the sort of outcome you were explicitly fighting for less than a month ago?
The respectable Republicans distanced themselves from Trump
But that shouldn't really matter, as both sides know it was all about posturing and publicity. Just like Trump is (hopefully?) going to be a much more reasonable president than his campaign antics would lead you to believe, so he can work with the respectable Republicans in a much better way than their campaign behaviour would you lead to believe.
Twenty-three days ago [..]
And one year ago Trump suggested the plurality vote should determine the presidency, in which case he would have lost.
Neither he nor his supporters will agree to that now, nor will he acknowledge he was wrong. And there will be no consequences.
Most people only have eye for short term problems, don't have a good memory or good associative capabilities and don't think beyond the outcome they hope for.
Even if you are aware of longer term problems, consequences and have a good memory, you may still choose to pursue short term goals in your opinion-making, because those listening to you want you to address their immediate concerns. You don't need to worry about contradicting yourself or causing new problems: they won't notice.
So congratulations on remembering that an action/proposal/opinion of 23 days ago opposes one now. Did you also realize back then what the consequences in face of an adverse outcome would be? That would be an extreme ability of foresight. And unfortunately it doesn't make a lick of difference.
> Just like Trump is (hopefully?) going to be a much more reasonable president than his campaign antics would lead you to believe
Hmm. I'm not sure what you mean by reasonable here. I have to admit I'm rather worried that Trump is actually an outsider / non-politician, and that this will result in some rather awful power struggles for the foreseeable future as the government undergoes the bureaucratic equivalent of (hopefully) chemotherapy, or (more pessimistically) leprosy. "Reasonable" to me basically means an exceedingly boring and predictable government.
> Did you also realize back then what the consequences in face of an adverse outcome would be?
My basic position was and is that shunning, as a tactic, is net negative. Or at least is net negative when done to sophisticated opponents. If the person's wrong, kicking them out will just cause them to continue being wrong only this time with different people and without you around to correct them. If the person's right, kicking them out will just keep you wrong only this time without anyone to help you find the truth.
> And unfortunately it doesn't make a lick of difference.
hah, agree. If commenting on HN isn't its own reward, it's a waste of time :p
When he is in fact not a more reasonable President than his campaign antics led us to believe, when he staffs the most important roles in the government with clowns and charlatans --- the most craven and discredited insiders of the Bush administration and the 90s GOP --- how are you going to feel about this conversation?
I was not disagreeing that it was a rational strategy to pull as much respectable support as possible away from Trump. It's defensible, but it has to be acknowledged that its downside was worsening the worst case: a president with no respectable support and without the opportunity to choose respectable advisers.
It would be best if Trump would choose respectable Republicans as advisers. I hope they are offering their services and he considers them without malice.
All we can do at this moment is try to make the best of it. That means giving him a chance to do things right. If he doesn't, we'll see soon enough.
> As might be expected, Trump is now giving governmental positions to those who didn't distance themselves from him during the election. I don't find that surprising.
Cronyism "might be expected" from politicians. (In fact it's very expected from self-serving, hubristic politicians like Donald Trump.) That doesn't make cronyism OK.
Cronyism in my understanding is essentially hiring friends who are unqualified for a given job. In this case, it looks to me like what's going on could better be described as not hiring otherwise qualified candidates who publicly denounced you. Or maybe more tactfully 'limiting the applicant pool to people who share the same vision.'
To make this more concrete, in GGP Robert Gates is brought up as a respectable republican who Trump presumably would have appointed were he not engaged in cronyism. Google "Robert Gates Trump" then let me know if you really think cronyism is the best explanation for why Robert Gates didn't get the job.
We should expect the most powerful office in the world to hire the best people for the job. Saying that Donald Trump is "beyond repair" (which is a statement I happen to agree with) is not disqualifying. The idea that it is disqualifying has a word: cronyism.
For political appointees who are implementing your promises that determine whether you get re-elected, loyalty is a very important qualification.
We all know how easy it is for political promises to be broken - there are any number of ways to sabotage an effort you're in charge of, while appearing to act in good faith.
You don't even have to do it deliberately - you just need to give 100% in a job that needs you to give 110%.
Who do you think has more incentive to deliver your vision? A guy who hates you, and who thinks he'll get a better boss (maybe even be boss himself) if you're out of the way? Or a guy whose ship is tied to yours and if you go down, he'll never achieve such heights in his career again?
If you were working at a startup, your argument would be the equivalent of advocating hiring individuals who need you for their job and therefore won't be a threat to you. I would much rather hire and work with people smarter than me who can help me grow. You're only as good as your weakest link.
There's certainly value for passion about the mission, but it shouldn't be confused with desperation.
Is it really cronyism? It seems like most of the "qualified people" don't share his vision, so why would you hire someone that is so opposed to what you're doing?
If Trump were a Silicon Valley CEO, we would be saying he's not hiring them due to a "cultural fit."
Hiring the best qualified people who wants to Make America Great Again is different from giving favors to unqualified foreigners who wants to screw over the American people.
You used the phrase "threat to society" several times.
The phrase implies a moral basis. What is your moral basis for determining what is a threat to society?
Who is entitled to define what is a "threat to society"?
Throughout history there have been many immoral governmental oppressions justified by some ruler's own definition of "threat to society", which many of the ruled people at the time were convinced to believe.
I just used the word "immoral". As I said, this requires a basis. What is morality? Clearly it is not "what the majority of society believe in". The beliefs of society can and do change over time and circumstances. Does this mean that what is moral changes over time? If you say it does, I will say "then that is not morality".
The basis for morality cannot be your own beliefs. Nor can it be the beliefs of a majority of "society". The only true and reliable basis for morality must be the character of the one true, just, righteous and unchanging eternal God, he whose name is "I AM WHO I AM".
The thought processes of all these allegedly enlightened people are strange. For all the claims of "rationality", I can barely find difference with the psychology of the most primitive tribesmen. Just a better grade of pretexts.
(The murderous rage of the "rationalists" in the French, Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, etc. revolutions, all conducted by very educated people, is well documented and quite sad.)
Personally I'd argue that people building a campaign around the idea that one's neighbours are sending out vicious "rapists" and the solution is to build a wall and force the neighbours to pay for it is rather closer to primitive tribal psychology than arguments for boycotting individuals actively endorsing and funding the dissemination of said hate. YMMV.
Regardless of whether one thinks boycotts are a reasonable way for people to express their view or unhelpful political pressure on other people's views, comparing them with mass murders conducted by revolutionaries is just unhinged.
>Twenty-three days ago you and Marco sought to get Peter Thiel removed from YC for his support of Trump
WOW. This is insane! Things like this and Mozilla's CEO situation are exactly why Trump won the destitute and the rich alike.
Liberals shoving down their half-baked morals into everybody's throats. How condescending. So much for Egalitarianism. We are equal, just not with Trump voters. What a hypocrisy.
> Liberals shoving down their half-baked morals into everybody's throats. How condescending. So much for Egalitarianism. We are equal, just not with Trump voters. What a hypocrisy.
Mind you, never in the history of history have people fought against discrimination, corruption, and oppression by saying "but they might have a point too".
Uncle Tom's Cabin, the most effective anti-slavery propaganda of the 19th century, opened up with a scene of slaves living in favorable conditions and getting along well with their masters.
A Modest Enquiry Into the Nature of Witchcraft by John Hale is a book credited with ending the Salem Witch trials. In it he acknowledges testimony in the trials that could certainly lead one to believe witchcraft actually happened.
Stowe and Hale acknowledged truth in the opposing side in situations much more oppressive and discriminatory than Trump's border wall or immigration restrictions. People who want to effect change today should take note.
There are no "favorable conditions" to slavery. Slavery sought to find moral ground on the hypothesis that the master knew what was best for their slaves. Stowe repeatedly makes the point that even kind masters were prevented from freeing their slaves.
Hale supported the work of the courts until his second wife was accused of practicing witchcraft. Hah.
This is, in fact, why it's so difficult to fight these things. Interpretation has trumped over documentation, context "fades", lies are so much easier to propagate, refuting bullshit could be an actual 24/7 job. How could anybody keep up. Maybe we're doomed to having morons destroy a few tens of millions of people every 100 years.
No, I replied right on point. Let me spell it out:
1. No "favorable conditions" to slavery means Stowe never recognised advantages to slavery. Not only he does not, but he laments it despite those "favorable conditions".
2. Hale didn't excuse the courts; he actively supported their work. That is, until he decided he didn't want to. Later commentators on the trials mark this as the defining moment that helped turn public opinion against the prosecutions.
Uhh, Stowe is Harriet Beecher Stowe, so "he" ought to be "she". Because this is HN, I'll assume good intent and presume this is just a slip and doesn't indicate your lack of familiarity with the material you're discussing.
Precisely. There are literal stacks of books on these matter, and I can't condense a single one of them in a HN post more than providing the facts. If you're interested, you're going to have to read them. It's dreadful, I know.
Using accusation of discrimination, corruption, and oppression to justify the oppression of Trump supporters is morally wrong. The witch-hunt must stop.
Do you see what you're doing?
"Witches are bad, and since Trump supporters are witches, it's okay to kill them."
It's all accusations. There is no videos proof of Trump supporters going around lynching Black people like what the KKK did back in the old days.
You're doing a witch hunt where you accuse Trump supporters of being a witch, and then justifying that it's okay to kill them them because they're witches. Do you see how wrong that is? You don't even know them personally, so how would you even know that they're witches?
What Liberals are doing to Trump supporters is the same thing that the Nazi did to the Jews.
The Nazi accused the Jews of many many things. The Nazi tricked everyone to hate the Jews (with all sorts of accusations). Once people hated the Jews, the Nazi were able to kill off the Jews without any backlash, because in those people's mind, the Jews "deserved" it.
Liberals are doing the same thing to Trump supporters. Accuse Trump supporters of being racist (I don't see any Trump supporter going around lynching Black people), and making it okay to beat up Trump supporter because they "deserve" it.
This witch hunt has to stop. It's 2016 already, and I can't believe witch hunt (under the new name "Trump Supporters Are Racist And They Deserve To Get Beat Up") is still happening.
I'm gonna keep shoving my half-baked morals of "not assaulting women" and "lynching is somewhat out of date" into every throat I can find.
Trump's victory only shows I overestimated people. My morals may not have a majority, so it's great they aren't subject to a popularity contest. Democracy isn't about two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Regarding "egalitarianism": People are created equal, they deserve equal chances, equal treatment before the law when the situations are equal. it doesn't mean all opinions deserve equal consideration. If I get cancer, I'll listen to an expert. If I read something on foreign policy, I'll give more weight to a Condi Rice interview in the NYT than something by "blahi". It's the result of a general policy called "Don't be an idiot".
Your smugness and arrogance are what brought us Trump. You know how people ought to feel, how they should form their opinion. By all means, keep doing what you're doing. Nothing wrong with your approach.
So we should all be tolerant of racism, sexism, outright sexual assualt ("grab 'em by the pussy") and boasting of same, mocking the disabled, stiffing contractors and suppliers?
We should try to convince them why we believe they are wrong, rather than just condemning them and pointing out how they are lesser people for not agreeing with us.
It's really hard to get anywhere if it requires explaining everything from first principle. I'm also really sorry for overestimating people by assuming that "do not grab women by their genitals without their consent" or "do not shoot people for fun – even when they're African-American" don't need further justification.
And yes, I am, just now, calling these people idiots. Because their argument seems to be "I don't like how you're making fun of me, so I'm gonna find some bystanders and beat them up, because I know how much it hurts you to watch people suffer".
I'd also say this "condescension" has always been a two-way street. All the talk of "real America" has, since at least the Sarah Palin disaster, been a way to insult "the elites".
The only way to change the playing field in that way is to have a majority of people feel the same way, which requires either convincing them or waiting until the old group dies out.
Whereas, "Got 'em by the balls" has passed fully into colloquial usage for some time now, it may be difficult for many to feel earnest moral outrage over this statement when the plaintiff's core platform includes social equality of the sexes. Rather, all your audience hears is the political Left reiterating a double standard that is stacked against whites, males, and particularly the intersection of the two categories.
The vast majority of both parties lives their entire life without bearing any hatred for any race or gender as a category of person.
Leftists are subject to the same basic human nature as Rightists, and this includes the tendencies to censor, bully, label, and dismiss those who disagree with us.
Sorry, by plaintiff you mean who, exactly? If you mean Trump, we'll have to see if he follows through on his promises, but his own public remarks suggest a severe want of genuine respect for women.
And speaking as a White Male, the idea that the deck is stacked against us, compared to the experiences of women and minorities, suggests either a deliberate blindness or an attempt to troll. It is simply one of the most jaw-dropping suggestions I've ever seen in a HN comment.
>And speaking as a White Male, the idea that the deck is stacked against us
So you speak for the experience of all white males now? You know what it's like to grow up in Appalachia? Did you lose a factory job in Michigan? Did you have any experience coal mining in Pennsylvania until you couldn't? Have you farmed in the middle of Kansas? If not then don't try to speak for the people who have. This kind of rhetoric from the left is a very good reason why Trump is the President-Elect right now. If your side figures that out sometime in the next four years, you might have a chance next time.
But that doesn't mean the preceding comment was right to compare "grab them by the balls" to "grab them by the pussy". "Grab them by the balls" is an expression. "Grab them by the pussy" was a claim that Trump could do exactly that, to anyone he chose, by virtue of his celebrity. That claim was backed by a Cosby-esque assortment of women with sexual assault stories involving Trump.
I agree that one could interpret the quote in context that way. I also appreciate the effort to correct misinformation and cherry-picked quotes.
In this case, the gp quote is accurate, though arguably cherry-picked or purposely misinterpreted.
Trump: And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
I've trimmed the quote in the interest of space, while leaving enough to attempt to show the context. If you'd like to add more context, I have no problem with that. I chose the sources I did as they were the first that came up in the search results when looking for the full transcript.
I certainly don't claim to speak for all white male. However, pleading that white males are more discriminated against than women or majorities is making exactly the same kind of mistake of which you are erroneously accusing me. You are trying to cover up the flaw in your logic with an ad hominem attack.
I should clarify: the deck is massively stacked against a great number of people. White males are massively represented in that number. However, for many situations women and minorities face additional discrimination which you are, for some reason, unwilling or unable to acknowledge.
>I should clarify: the deck is massively stacked against a great number of people. White males are massively represented in that number. However, for many situations women and minorities face additional discrimination which you are, for some reason, unwilling or unable to acknowledge.
Again you are reducing the experience of millions of people into your little clear-cut categories and trying to speak for them. Not only are you trying to speak for white males but you apparently also speak for women and minorities. Your side's identity politicking is fallacious to its core and cost you the election. But don't stop now, we have another election in 2 years.
I spoke as a White Male, not as a representative of all White Males. It would help if you focused on the discussion at hand instead of just perpetuating ad hominem attacks.
Your position appears to be that nobody should speak for, or even attempt to understand, anyone who does not share their own particular experience. That is obviously fallacious and suggests trolling.
I'm not sure what clear-cut categories you are reading. Perhaps you could in your infinite wisdom educate us poor unenlightened seekers of wisdom as to the true state of world affairs?
> I spoke as a White Male, not as a representative of all White Males
>> And speaking as a White Male, the idea that the deck is stacked against us
You literally wrote the word "us" so, yes, you did speak for all white males or at least a significant enough fraction of them to make the distinguishment irrelevant.
> Your position appears to be that nobody should speak for, or even attempt to understand, anyone who does not share their own particular experience. That is obviously fallacious and suggests trolling.
You have no rational basis to define my life experience through your little lens using as specious a basis as group identity. Your argument is the fallacious one. You do not know the tiniest insignificant fraction of the people you are presuming to judge yet you pompously shoot your mouth off which is the height of hubris. If you think that is wrong or trolling then, again, you have learned nothing.
> Perhaps you could in your infinite wisdom educate us poor unenlightened seekers of wisdom as to the true state of world affairs?
You aren't seeking wisdom. You think you know everybody's experience already from the comfort of your computer. You don't. There's your enlightenment.
Simply put, I took issue with the statement "a double standard that is stacked against whites, males, and particularly the intersection of the two categories." I don't extend my personal experiences to all White Males, but the author of the comment clearly did. I said that my own experience did not back up his assertion that it affected all White Males. I fail to see why that commentator is allowed to make sweeping generalisations but I'm not allowed to exclude myself from that sweep through dint of personal experiences.
No, but you should be tolerant of others who don't share your beliefs. Calling for Peter Thiel to be thrown out of YC or telling your employees to resign if they support Trump is being intolerant.
Up to and including anything that anyone might consider to go under those labels?
> outright sexual assualt ("grab 'em by the pussy")
We should at least be careful of describing something that is not an instance of "outright sexual assault" as "outright sexual assault". "boasting of same" is not the same.
> stiffing contractors and suppliers
I assume Hillary is also out then, as that would be tolerating corruption?
What did the testimony from the women who came forward and described the things he had done to them lead you to believe?
Personally I thought it was just a stupid rather vulgar boast when I first heard the line. Then we heard from victims... who's testimonials changed my opinion quite easily. It's one thing to be the sort of idiot that says such things... it's another thing entirely to do them.
Also since I'm not even an American I have no inherent bias towards either end of the stupidly partisan political spectrum that is D vs R in the US of A
Personally I think George Washington was completely correct in his characterisation of political parties in his farewell address. [1] (20 to 25 ) and why he hoped they would never be formed in America.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Then we heard from victims... who's testimonials changed my opinion quite easily.
This is why we need courts, rule of law and what have you. And even then I'm not always convinced, what with the US's terrible habit of plea bargaining.
>So we should all be tolerant of racism, sexism, outright sexual assualt ("grab 'em by the pussy") and boasting of same, mocking the disabled, stiffing contractors and suppliers?
The problem is, most Trump supporters are not racist or sexist.
You're doing a witch hunt where you accuse someone of being a witch, and then justifying that it's okay to kill them them because they're witches. Do you see how wrong that is? You don't even know them personally, so how would you even know that they're witches?
I've advocated killing nobody and no one. Nor have I accused anyone of being racist or sexist except Trump.
Trump has said he will ban all Muslims entering the USA. That is discrimination on the grounds of religion.
He has repeatedly characterised Mexicans as rapists. That is racism.
He has repeatedly made disrespectful comments about women based on their appearance and questioned their ability to do their job based on whether they're on their Period. That is sexism.
He has boasted about being able to get away with uninhibited sexual contact because of his position of power and money. Women have corroborated his own claims and have stated that it was unwelcome. When both he and they are making consistent statements the balance of probability is that they're both telling the truth.
The idea that non-protest counts as consent is massively dangerous especially if one party has all the power and if the contact in question has already happened and finished.
>Trump has said he will ban all Muslims entering the USA. That is discrimination on the grounds of religion.
Not really. It's only discrimination if Trump applies it to every Muslims. But Trump doesn't apply it to every Muslims.
Trump said he will temporary ban immigrants (they don't even have to be Muslim) from countries with direct ties to terrorism, until they can be properly vet. This is not discrimination against Muslims because Trump has no problem with Muslims who are U.S. citizens and Trump has no problem with Muslims who are from countries that are fighting against ISIS.
>He has repeatedly made disrespectful comments about women based on their appearance. That is sexism.
If you're talking about Miss Universe... It was not sexism.
Trump was preemptively defending Miss Universe from the incoming media. The media was going to have a field day with her when she shows up at the Miss Universe 60 pounds overweight. She didn't understand that the media was about to hang her out to dry. Trump knew what was going to happen, so he invited the media over, and called the reporters fat, and Trump even called himself fat, and tells everyone that being fat is normal, so that the reporters can not call her fat (because they will look like hypocrites).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpXsAoXZIMg
>...questioned their ability to do their job based on whether they're on their Period.
This have no factual evidence. Not only that, he had done many things to help empowered women. For example, he was the first to let a woman be in charge of building a skyscraper building. That was unheard of during the 80's.
He also admit that a female worker with skills and abilities is worth more than 10 male workers.
>Women have corroborated his own claims and have stated that it was unwelcome.
No evidence. Trump either had never even met those people before, or they just want their 15 minute of fame, or were being paid by his opponents. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f8d_1478953280
>The idea that non-protest counts as consent is massively dangerous especially if one party has all the power and if the contact in question has already happened and finished.
Trump said they let him grab their pussy. Emphasis on the THEY LET part. That's consent.
All these are just election smears. The typical election smears that you see every election years, as rivals tries to make their opponents look as bad as possible.
None of these are even important, as the election result have shown. Voters are not stupid. They care more about jobs, security, and health issues than these smears.
Hillary was so focus on the smearing Trump that she forgot about what the voters actually cares about. And that's why she lost.
No, you should be tolerant of people. You should also endeavor to note the distinction between saying something and doing something, because it's not even subtle and insisting it doesn't exist, for example by labeling a joke "sexual assault," does not convince reasonable people that you are on the level.
So I'm not "on the level"? Classy. I'm pretty clear in the distinction between saying and doing, and it's pretty well-established that speech itself can be harmful. I think the Left and Right both point to things that the other says which they find objectionable, so there is broad agreement on that principle at least.
Regarding tolerance of people, that depends on how they're behaving. Society doesn't tolerate certain behaviours, and will imprison people for some of them, so arguing that you should always tolerate people is to separate people and their actions in a way that isn't always possible or appropriate.
There's a difference between bragging and actually doing something. Trump brag that he's so rich, women would let him grab their pussy. Women would LET him grab their pussy.
Also, he said the women LET him do it. In other word, they CONSENT!
That is not a true statement. tptacek never called for Thiel to be removed from YC, and I challenge you to point to any statement of his to the contrary.
> This is the problem with the needle Altman is trying to thread...If Altman means what he says, he should do what he can to shut this question down.
> Thiel doesn't even get equity in YC. Thiel's participation in YC is almost literally just a marketing tactic --- it's a co-endorsement. We're telling Altman: rethink the endorsement. (this is actually copy-pasted again in another comment)
tptacek all but says those exact words. I don't know what other interpretation but YC removal/exclusion is implied.
America didn't elect a technocrat. We elected a bigmouth reality TV star. Should probably think of the Trump cabinet as something more like a Breitbart sitcom than a functional administration.
You're talking as if Hillary "like with a cloth or something" Clinton was a step-up in technological knowledge over "my son's very good with the cyber".
Are you have a whole separate discussion in your own head and inviting me to take over the role in mid-production? Because I have no idea where that even came from, and I'm not interested in finding out.
Wondering, who do you think he should have brought on board that you'd think -- "Oh that's a good choice, good for him"?
I would guess nobody? If he brought Gingrich it would have been "He's bringing the old crusty white guy from the establishment, he's been lying all this time he is just like them". If he brought in a woman, people would have just said "he is using her as a token"?
Oh sorry, you're right. I was an idiot and mixed up Gates and Gingrich.
The gist of what I was trying to say and messed up badly was that no matter who he would pick, they'd be criticism. If he picked Gates, people would have said he was an insider. If he picked an outsider, then it looks risky and it will just be more incompetence. If a minority, then he is just pandering...
In your thought process is the right thing to promote the people who doubted, and in some cases outright campaigned against him?
The country voted and chose Trump. That means that they also chose him to pick the people that he'll be surrounding himself with to make decisions.
GP isn't saying there isn't a rewarding of those that stood by him. He's saying that compared to the unbridled corruption of a candidate that the left was runninng, this is peanuts.
Don't forget the rumors of cabinet positions for Ben Carson and Sarah Palin. I'm not sure I would call it cronyism as much as the promotion of craven sycophants.
I'm speculating, but I think you need to factor in that Trump will not tolerate advisors who outshine him. He probably wants a cabinet of loyalists before he starts caring about qualifications. Also, his appeal is significantly premised on the idea that experts are suspect and part of the problem.
>discredited outsiders like Newt Gingrich and John Bolton --- are getting the most important positions in the United States government for kowtowing to Trump?
Has he actually announced this yet or you just assuming?
Gingrich was instrumental in poisening political discourse in this country.
From Wikipedia:
"In 1990, after consulting focus groups[38] with the help of pollster Frank Luntz,[39] GOPAC distributed a memo with a cover letter signed by Gingrich titled "Language, a Key Mechanism of Control", that encouraged Republicans to "speak like Newt" and contained lists of "contrasting words"—words with negative connotations such as "radical", "sick," and "traitors"—and "optimistic positive governing words" such as "opportunity", "courage", and "principled", that Gingrich recommended for use in describing Democrats and Republicans, respectively.[38]"
All of these things are true, but my deeper problem with Gingrich is his incompetence and simultaneously casual and spectacular overestimation of his own abilities. Read stories about how he managed his '12 bid for the Presidency, or how he managed the GOP after the shutdown in the '90s.
A Republican administration involves the adoption and execution of many ideas I fiercely disagree with. But I'm prepared to operate within a context of governance I disagree with --- so long as there's a backbone of competence behind it. Newt Gingrich represents a flailing, slapdash, amygdalic chaos, a marshaling of a militia of bad ideas aimed roughly in the direction of the aggrandizement of Newt Gingrich, and who cares how many American lives get in the way.
There are plenty of Republicans I disagree with --- can't stand --- feel moral contempt towards --- but can accept as the competent execution of an ideology that must, at some interval in American politics, take the helm. Even Donald Rumsfeld --- himself proven incompetent --- at least didn't lash his incompetence to a lizard-brained need to see himself in the newspaper. Gingrich is something worse than that.
This is some kind of creepy Randian thinking. The idea that playing developer-type leverage games make you "free" is a laughable fiction. Trump always called himself the King of Debt, and he owes many people, bigly. The banks were betting on Hillary because familiarity breeds contempt--they had already lost billions lending to him since the 80s. Just like the Trump Foundation, he hasn't put anything except his gold-painted name into s business for many years. Who does he owe: Putin, Russian oligarchs, Thiel, Mnuchin, 2nd and 3rd rate hucksters that bankroll his schemes (and pay him through his Foundation), and...who knows? He won't release his taxes. We just elected President the world's poorest billionaire, so you can bet everything will be for sale.
> We just elected President the world's poorest billionaire, so you can bet everything will be for sale.
I have the feeling that Trump will be a worse copy of Berlusconi. Both have a fetish for young girls (Trump even said he 'd date his daughter, if she weren't related to him), both are extremely focused on PR, both do not really like politics based on facts, Berlusconi abused and manipulated the Italian court system in his years as president to avoid punishments - and I bet my ... that Trump will do the same.
Saying someone is good looking enough for sex isn't "sexual objectification". He just chose a bit awkward way of pointing out she's beautiful. Not creepy, although probably crude and/or primitive. Personally, I applaude him for that, I favor freedom of expression to political correctness. But I do understand how others would be appalled.
Since he never released his taxes we have no idea about his financial situation. We have no clear idea who he owns what to. After a string of business debacles his US financing sources all but dried up. He definitely owes money to Deutsche Bank. (It's going to be fun when he will have to negotiate their 14 billion fine.) It is likely that he owes money to Russian banks. He also owns real estate across the world.
I would not call him a free president, on the contrary. He is more beholden to foreign interests than any other president in recent history.
He also doesn't seem to have a real plan to disentangle himself from his business interests as a president. He said he will let his kids run the Trump foundation, but that's still a huge conflict of interest.
The traditional way to avoid conflicts of interests is to put your assets into a blind trust (i.e. liquidate your assets and let an independent person administer them without you knowing about how your money is allocated). I don't see Trump ever doing that.
The balance of financial and socio-political arrangements are an interesting topic. At what point is a debt large enough for the lender to exert influence over the borrower and what point it is so great that the lender is totally invested in the borrowers success?
The borrower's (Trump's) success is not necessarily aligned with the nation's success. This is exactly why it represents a potential conflict of interests.
E.g. Trump can halve DB's fine in return for future loans. Win-win for both of them, a loss for the US.
Trump is the most 'free' President in modern history.
He has to buy the support of Congress.
He'll give appointments to people who can stand to keep agreeing with him. At least Thiel is loyal to a persistent Republican theme, which is attacking higher education.
At some point he has to. He can't just impose term limits, and as I mentioned in another thread, term limits don't restore power to the voters unless gerrymandering and voter suppression are eliminated.
I don't see how he takes power away from the tea party, and the tea party is very much a bought party.
> He'll give them to those that 'stuck by him' i.e. Guliani etc. and scorn on the old Bush guard.
"owes" man. In quotes because he doesn't have any fiscal or otherwise legal obligation to pay them back. If he largely surrounds himself with those few who supported him(opportunistically dare I say?) then it's a huge red flag in my book he isn't really going for the best advisors. I'd like to see at least a couple old detractors on the list..
This is the case with just about every politician, the campaign staff essential becomes part of the administration. Remember that he only has 8 weeks to fill hundreds of jobs in his cabinet.
My guess is that most of them will be "wildcards", people that have no political experience / ties whatsoever and were chosen because they were experts or at least moderately successful in their chosen field.
Thiel kind of fits that profile, ignoring his recent antics.
Trump never provided his tax returns for scrutiny so unlike Hillary we don't know who exactly he is beholden to. What we know from his son, sources and leaks is that Russian ogligarchs with ties to Putin do hold significant amounts of his company's debt. It is this type of "pay to play" that is far, far beyond anything that has ever been seen before.
He is audited every single year, and there is very deep scrutiny of his personal finances. There are many in the IRS who would love to find something wrong.
It's the political favours and support that mattes.
I will say this: the laws concerning 'conflict of interest' are very weak in the US for the office of the Pres. It's possible that a Malaysian leader could buy favour by offering him a future sweet deal on land for a Casino in Manila type thing. Again - I don't like Trump, and don't think he's evil and probably won't be looking for that kind of deal ... but I also bet he just might not be able to resist!
Anyhow - as of today, he owes almost nothing politically. That's what's weird about it: he's the least civic minded pres in modern history - who also is the most unencumbered! Crazy.
Taking a loan from a foreign bank is just part of doing business. Being president when a foreign bank owes a giant fine is just part of the job. Doing both of those at the same time is practically the definition of a conflict of interest.
The IRS is obligated to not reveal ANY personal information regarding a person or company's tax situation. So for all we know he has done something wrong, every year. You seem to think that being audited somehow ensures transparency. It doesn't.
And you keep making these statements about being unencumbered when it is well known that Russian ogligarchs own significant amounts of his company's debt. That is the very definition of being encumbered.
I guess if Russians were giving him very sweet terms on financing, he might be inclined to 'repay' them by loosening some foreign investment policy. Also - the US currently has a gang of Russians under severe financial control, i.e. they are not able to move a dollar out of Russia. If those guys are connected with 'Russian investors' they might try to lobby to get out of 'money jail'.
But why would his tax return shed new light on this, that his previous financial disclosure did not? Are you saying that the tax return would include detail on things like financing rates that were not mentioned in the financial disclosure? I thought it would just tell us what deductions he was taking / loopholes he was exploiting with respect to his taxes.
b) he's made maybe $50M this year and paid $0 in taxes due to write-offs in earlier years.
That would not go down well publicly.
Romney paid an effective rate of 14% on his $500K income (I think all capital gains) and that was destructive for his campaign. It just looks pretty out of touch - 99% of Americans earn less than $500K and pay far more than 14% in taxes.
So it would have been a publicity disaster, enough to hurt him badly.
Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, paid $1.94 million in federal taxes on last year's income of $13.7 million, for an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, his campaign said Friday.
Somehow everybody always forgets this part - when you donate to charity, this is deduced from the taxable income, usually, but is not accounted for in tax rate calculation. Which means, if I earned tons of money and donated it all to charity - I'd pay 0% taxes, so people would say "why this fatcat doesn't pay any taxes even though we are paying a lot, he must be doing some shady things!".
You couldn't pay 0% in taxes, at least not solely from charitable deductions. Your charitable deductions allowed in a single tax year can't exceed 50% of adjusted gross income.
Help me figure this out. Romney earned $13.7 million and paid $1.94 million in taxes. That's 14% (1.94/13.7), but you're saying doesn't account for the charitable donations. So then the formula would be 1.94/(13.7-4), right? A 20% rate?
I agree with your point, but as a small note, the IRS limits the tax deduction for charitable donations to half of your adjusted gross income (AGI), or even lower. This is particularly relevant to people like Warren Buffett, who last year gave away 250 times more than his AGI (according to numbers he released earlier this year). He still paid taxes.
Well, OK, it was an imaginary example of course so yes, there are limits, but the point is when comparing tax rates as to how "fair" they are it is completely pointless if one forgets the charity donations. The outcome becomes completely wrong.
"fair" without some specific discussion of a viewpoint is always pointless.
Is it somehow objectively fair that Romney can give an extra ~$1.3 million dollars to some cause other than the US government? Of course not.
(I don't think it is the largest problem with the tax code, but I'm not real certain it is a good thing, the rules for determining whether a charity qualifies to receive deductible contributions effectively add a lot of complexity to the tax code)
It is a bit more complicated to that. If you gift appreciated assets rather than cash, you can avoid the capital gains tax, but still can deduct the full current market value (up to the limit).
>So it would have been a publicity disaster, enough to hurt him badly.
I think he'd just come off as an every-day man-of-the-people who understands the economic fears of rural whites but also a savvy businessman who's too smart to pay taxes like a sucker.
> "Lots of individuals who Trump "owes" through either money or support they provided to him; pure cronyism."
Trump is the most 'free' President in modern history.
He 'owes' the least, to the fewest people.
No, the people he owes just aren't other politicians.
You can't behave like this to other community members on Hacker News. It's difficult to maintain civil discourse on controversial topics, but nevertheless it's what this site is for so we have to ban accounts that won't follow the guidelines.
Except no one knows who he's beholden to in his personal dealings, and he has effectively said that he will not place Trump Enterprises into a blind trust.
What you guys are describing isn't cronyism. The definition of cronyism is, "the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, _without proper regard to their qualifications._"
I'm not seeing anyone arguing that Peter Theil isn't qualified.
Here, this guy. Thiel isn't qualified. He knows nothing about running a real business, just investing in them. He knows nothing about economic policy. And clearly he knows nothing about governance.
What evidence do you have that that is true? Looking at his career experience on Wikipedia suggests the exact opposite. Not to mention it's a win for LGBT causes which he is known to be a supporter of.
It's a win for LGBT causes to ally himself with somebody who believes in Conversion Therapy?
[Edit: I meant Trump, and I was wrong - see below. Technically Thiel is also allied with Pence, who does believe in Conversion Therapy, but that wasn't who I meant. I apologise]
Trump has never said he believes in conversion therapy. That is Pence, who is the vice president a position of little to no power. If you are advocating that you shouldn't ever associate with anyone who has a wrong idea about something then I think you are really wrong. Engaging people is how you change minds not shunning them because they have a factually incorrect belief or disagree with you.
However, from the same article it appears that Trump has vowed to sign the FADA, has said he supports North Carolina's anti-LGBT law, and has said he would strongly consider appointing Justices who would overrule marriage equality, which seem like legitimate causes of concern for the LGBQT community.
[Edit: Arguably Thiel is allied with Pence as well, who HAS advocated Conversion Therapy, so what I wrote was technically correct, but I did indeed mean Trump when I wrote it and I was wrong]
Ok, it is a skill keeping a train of thought going with those camera shutters going off 50 times a second. [1]
I didn't see what you saw, but Trump sure looks tired. Anyone would be, I have no idea how they keep the pace they do. Oldest President-elect in history.
My first executive order as President of the United States would be to ban camera shutters at my press conferences.
I see fidgeting, I see him not looking at the President while he's speaking (watch how the President listens). Later with Speaker Ryan, President-elect Trump kept his hands beneath the table in his lap during the press conference. This is a businessman, and it's not his first time sitting at a boardroom table. He knows to keep his hands in view, and he's tired, stressed, and showing weakness.
I assure you the President is also tired and stressed, and probably feeling pretty defeated right now. He's putting on a public face despite that, and he's doing a much better job of it than his successor.
Give it time, though. In a few weeks the President-elect will be back to his confident self.
> Dude looked humble-struck in the video today with Obama; almost worried about what he got himself into.
I bet part of that was an emotion completely absent from Trump's public persona: shame.
Trump started his political career circa 2010 as a "birther" -- going on national TV, asking for Obama's birth certificate, saying he was born in Kenya and therefore ineligible to hold office. Really racist, bottom-of-the-barrel tabloid stuff.
--
Obama was incredibly gracious the day after the election. Here he is, talking about how he's "rooting" for Trump to do well, how Trump's success as President will be the nation's success:
This also isn't the first time he's run. He ran as a reform party candidate in 2000 when he campaigned on the issues of "fair trade, eliminating the national debt, and achieving universal healthcare" he also said he wanted Oprah to be his running mate.
If he treated it like a game that you win, he won, but he can't just go home now, he's signed up to be on call 24/7. I'm not wealthy but I've treated job interviews like this and been unhappy after "winning". Now I'm highly selective about what I do. Losing such personal freedom needs someone with a real conviction about the job and stamina, he may have it, otherwise he'll be miserable. The White House probably came across as a dump compared to what he's used to.
Trump I suspect will be very similar to George W Bush.
From all accounts he simply doesn't have the intellectual stamina to handle the rigours of the job. And I don't mean that in a negative way he is just more of a hands on, energetic, get shit done sort of guy. So in order to survive he is going to delegate to people like Guilani, Christie, Gingrich, Carson etc. Some of the most shameless, self serving and unethical people around in politics.
Apparently because they supported his campaign too.. Man, it's hard to watch. I see evidence and hope very much that the pivot people thought would happen when he got the GOP nomination has happened now that he has won the White House and everything is sinking in.
I didn't support Trump for prez, but I really hope he is successful and was a little excited shortly after the shock wore off. Excited for the unknown and the prospect that he might shake up the establishment. But reading all the news about him just surrounding himself with people who took a long shot on him pre-pivot; really eating away at my silver lining.
It was clear during the debates he had little substance in the way of issue and policy awareness. He deflected, quipped and barbed to appeal to people's emotions. He needs to be surrounding himself with the best advisors and tapping the best from either side on the shoulder.
> Excited for the unknown and the prospect that he might shake up the establishment.
A lot of people say he isn't part of the establishment. The idea that someone who is rich and embedded in the media for the entire professional life is not part of the establishment is really confusing to me. Why do you have this perception? I am honestly curious.
> The idea that someone who is rich and embedded in the media for the entire professional life is not part of the establishment is really confusing to me.
People usually mean "political establishment" as "people who entered their party's youth org at 14 and since then never left working for their party". Which is bad because a politician who never had to do a real-world job in his life can neither understand nor empathize with the problems of the average population.
The realities of a politician job are wildly disconnected from a "real world" job, though. No "fire/hire at will", for example - once a politician is elected, he/she can serve the term without having to fear unemployment on the next day. No matter how he/she performs, the only way to get rid of an elected politician is criminal behaviour (and as seen with Arpaio, sometimes even openly defying judges is not a reason to be forced to quit).
In Germany, all members of parliament also get a pretty pension package - minimum of 1.682€ per month, which is FAR more than many old people ever get.
Politicians NEVER have to experience the worries of "normal people" like "how am I going to survive as a pensioner?", "how do I feed my kids when I don't have any money left?" or "how am I going to pay rent this month?" - and with a greater and greater rate of "working poor" or unemployed people, the disconnect will rise accordingly.
If being part of the 'establishment' means that you never had to worry about being fired, never had to worry about money, never had to worry about feeding your kids or paying rent -- then Trump is part of the establishment.
Being rich doesn't automatically make you part of the establishment. Leaders of the establishment are often rich as a result of their connections, but the two things are not synonymous.
Coming as someone who lived through Reagan and both Bushes, I can state with a reasonable degree of certainty that you don't know how the world works, and you're about to get a lesson. I'm not even certain you understand how the government works, since it is going to be the Republican House and Senate who are going to be drafting and sending bills for him to sign.
Simple example Obama thinks single payer health care would be the best thing. But to that they would have to almost destroy a trillion dollar industry and millions will loose jobs. So has to move with smaller steps.
Trump thinks Illegal immigrants from Mexico are taking American jobs. So he just ships them all back and closes the border(builds the wall) in one go. I don't think he will consider the fact that would destroy a lot of farms in the Midwest who are surviving because of cheap Mexican labour. And if he really wants to do something about he should go gradually about it and not put a blanket stop on it.
Some of his trade ideas are actually good will cause inflation but would probably also bring more jobs to the US.
Take a look sometime at the executive compensation that Obama's "smaller steps" provided for the insurance industry. They're definitely not lobbying against Obamacare.
I am referring to the fact that the Presidency has been described as far more an exercise in patience, absorbing information and careful deliberation than say running a typical business especially a dynamic one like Trump used to. He is by all accounts a very smart guy. But by all accounts he isn't a particularly patient one.
"1986 memo I wrote re: Art of the Deal. Trump couldn't focus for interviews. Can't focus now for debate prep" - Tony Schwartz (who wrote Art of the Deal)
And we all saw through the 3 debates that Trump started off well and then really struggled towards the end e.g.
I wonder whether you are getting voted down because you're suggesting Trump is smart, or because you're saying he's impatient.
This account [1] by the ghostwriter who wrote 'Art of the deal', who spent months with him, suggests that he is neither smart nor patient. Over his long life, starting with a very silver spoon that he wasn't able to destroy, he effectively focussed most of his energy to coming up with a couple of heuristics for making deals and communication. I get the impression he spent most of his life's effort on something that might be called 'social hacking' here.
Last time I read the constitution there was no "intellectual stamina" requirement to become the President. Also if Hillary was elected would she have surrounded herself by Gandhi-like selfless advisors?
If we're talking about believing headlines it's important to note that headlines would have had you believe that 90% of the country was going to vote for Hillary. They've been very wrong and will likely continue to be wrong until proven otherwise.
He tried to change the rules, to make it fair. They won't change it. So he played it by their stupid rules and won. Now, they're complaining that he's playing by their rules.
Wasn't Trump rallying against such crony corruption aka 'pay for play'?
He may have, but like most everything he says it needs to be understood as "post-truth", and meant for the emotional impact only -- not the actual substance.
Post-truth is pretty much Donald's lifestyle. He testified under oath that his net worth "depends on how he feels at that moment" (paraphrasing). His state of mind defines reality/truth
Yes. He lied, as many on the left said he was. Here[0], there is talk Jamie Dimon was considered by his advisors for Treasury. To be fair, Dimon declined, but it shows that Trump at least surrounds himself with people who don't give two shits about his "helping the little man."
Please drop the partisan angle on this. This isn't a left/right difference. Obama campaigned with a similar promise and he still selected lobbyists for his administration:
I never said people on the left don't do it. Yes, Obama did it too. The point is Trump isn't what he appears to be, in fact he appears very similar to Obama in the sense that he convinced many people there would be change for the better but all evidence points to that he will just perpetuate the system which he rallied against (which Obama did too).
Legitimate question: what could Obama have done better? Being Canadian I didn't take as close an interest as I would have in my own government, but it seemed from my perspective like he was doing everything he could to bring about change. The problem appeared to be that he had a very different idea of what that change should be than the Republican Congress, and short of utterly capitulating, I'm not sure how you unilaterally engender cooperation in that situation. I'm sure that I'm both biased and largely uninformed though, so I'm interested in the counter-argument.
>> Legitimate question: what could Obama have done better?
I don't know, i'm no politician; i'm just waiting on the 2008 Obama campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay (to clarify: I mean cease black operations at that site indefinitely -- I don't have any illusions that the U.S. will stop illegal black operations internationally.).
I don't know whether or not if it's an impossibility at this point to do so; but I also believe if it is impossible it probably shouldn't have been a campaign promise used to influence voters.
He lacked sufficient Congressional support for a lot of that. And when he did release detainees? He was demonized by many (particularly from the right).
I agree with the overall message that Obama was way more establishment than he made himself seem in the campaign, but Guantanamo is a horrible example. He's consistently brought it up and fight for it, if it was an empty campaign promise he would have quietly never mentioned it again.
Impossibility can mean a couple of things - the logistical challenges of where Guantanamo prisoners should go, and the impossibility of getting it done in a Republican-controlled senate and house.
The first is in line with your point, although I think it's a reasonable assumption that Obama honestly underestimated the challenge. For the second, it's not reasonable to call it a broken promise if he made a good faith effort and was blocked by something out of his control (that he couldn't have necessarily predicted)
That doesn't at all mean no compromises were made. It would be oversimplifying and naive to assume that the only compromises made in political dealings manifested as amendments.
I'll have to re-read stuff on the ACA's passing through Congress.
But my statement about the supermajority is true. The Democrats (with Independents) had at most 60 members of the Senate (2009-2010), Republicans had from 39-42 (vacancies and other things going on).
Democrats did not have sufficient control of the Senate to guarantee they could get whatever they wanted.
Their motivation doesn't enter into it. The argument is about whether they had the power. They clearly did, and they clearly did exercise that power at a later time.
I recall one of the Republicans predicting that at some future time the Democrats were going to regret having used the nuclear option. That time is probably about right now.
I'm afraid there's no way to put that big cloud back into that shiny metal ball.
A super-majority is 3/5th or 60 senators in the US Senate, not 2/3rds. From July 2009 to January 2010, Democrats (+ Independents Sanders and Lieberman) had such a super-majority in the Senate.
Democrats in the Senate used this super-majority to pass the ACA (Obamacare) in December 2009. Technically, they used the super-majority to end the filibuster and then voted on the bill.
Can you clarify what you mean by "gone nuclear"? I'll admit, that's not ringing a bell in my mind when it comes to Congress, but it's also late here and I'm tired.
EDIT: Ah, rules changes on filibuster and such. There's no guarantee. The Republicans do only have 51 members, though, with 48 for the Democrats and (per CNN's results) 1 seat still being tallied (?).
They could change the filibuster rules and make it easier on themselves, but it's a much narrower margin than in 2009.
EDIT 2: Regarding the empty seat, that's LA. If people vote in the runoff (not still being tallied) by the same party lines, it'll likely go to the remaining Republican candidate. So it'll be 52/48. Rule changes will need Democrats on board with them, this is unlikely.
If they change it to only require simple majority then I guarantee it will never change back. Partisanship is dead. The thugs won't appoint a supreme court justice, the thugs won't appoint any other judicial appointments. This will never be forgotten and there will never be compromise again. It's obstructionism on both sides from here on out.
Why the downvote? The Dems clearly had the power to use the nuclear option (and in fact they did use it later in Obama's term, so this isn't just theoretical).
IMO the ACA was an overreach that cost him the congress in 2010 and possibly Clinton's presidency. That political capital would have been better spent on getting higher taxes at the top and fixing social security.
I think discussions about such things (e.g., the revolving door for lobbyists, where most people seem to agree that it's bad for governance) would benefit from people omitting specific party/ideology references. It just creates the potential for mis-interpretation and can result in unnecessary strife and the illusion of division for an issue that most people probably agree on. And, as @praisewhitey noted[0], people on the right probably said the same thing about Trump too. So this isn't a "the left was right this time and the right was wrong and when Obama ran the right was right and the left was wrong" division. (Though it's likely true that people are more forgiving of candidates who hold their own ideologies).
You're criticizing a presidency that hasn't even seen it's first day! All of the "evidence" also pointed to Clinton winning in a landslide, and then a stock market crash after he won... what happened? Ya. Relax.
Interesting isn't it. Just like the media, who just until 2 days ago were sure Trump will never win this one, and now are confidently telling us what the next 4 years would be.
Well I am having a blast watching CNN and NBC and I don't usually watch TV, but now I put it on for entertainment...
> I am guessing because filing a fake police report is a crime...
No. In Germany, many left-wing activists do not file police claims if they've been beaten up or assaulted by fascists. The problem is that the police gives the opposite party or at least their lawyer the full address of the victim - and these addresses tend to be aggregated and leaked on fascist blogs.
In America, where even private information such as divorce papers apparently falls under "this is a public document" rules, I wouldn't even dare calling 911, much less filing a police report.
Wow, sounds like it is bad there, it is not as bad here yet.
> The problem is that the police gives the opposite party or at least their lawyer the full address of the victim - and these addresses tend to be aggregated and leaked on fascist blogs.
Except her name is on Twitter, the full name. It is not that hard to find the address.
Let's be frank do you honestly think campus police at this university are compiling lists of leftist people to give to their "fascist" friends? And that is the reason she did not want to file a police report? Somehow you jumped over the simplest explanation - that she lied, straight to "campus police are a fascists who compile lists of people".
I think you misunderstand the fear of reprisal minorities feel. It is a truly awful feeling to not be able to either a) trust law enforcement to not dismiss you because of your minority status, or even actively repress you (black people in America experience this all the time, and now Muslims too); or b) not be able to approach law enforcement because you're worried that there will be more of a backlash from allies of your attackers. Consider all the women who accused Trump of assaulting them and then received death threats for themselves and their families from all over the country.
And just in general: the lady's a minority, and from a minority that is very much under pressure these days, thanks to a President-elect whose platform was built on a platform that attacked her, her family, and her friends for their religion. Considering all of that, give her the benefit of the doubt.
Good points, I agree about fear of not being take seriously. Active repression and reprisals are real too and you're right the Black community has been suffering that for many years. Due to Youtube and everyone carrying smartphones it has become more known later.
> Consider all the women who accused Trump of assaulting them and then received death threats for themselves and their families from all over the country.
Good point again. I agree in general it is a very justified fear.
However in this particular case it is the campus police of a university. That is not the same as Chicago PD (who have been known to torture people) or NYPD. This is a police force that is employed by the University. Having gone to a US university and dealt with campus police (they helped me return a stolen phone) I have a bit of a first hand experience with them. I think no mater who the victim is, and no matter their political views, it would be bad for them, their employer, the whole community to have kids stabbed on campus. Or have anyone take revenge and assault them.
So it looks extremely suspicious based on the specifics. And if it is fake, that was an incredibly stupid idea. It disqualifies and puts under suspicion real cases of assault and abuse.
I agree that it if it is a fake incident, it would be awful and would disqualify real issues. I'm not sure what the background of this girl is (maybe she's an immigrant who's only heard bad things about the police, campus or otherwise? maybe she's terrified and just wants to put it behind her, instead of necessarily pursuing justice?) but I do think it would be better to give her the benefit of the doubt unless it's proven conclusively that she faked it.
I know that typically in courts the accuser has to prevent positive evidence, but this is a traumatizing time for minorities - let the court of public opinion at least not rush to brand her as a faker, at least in part because if it is real, doing so will only exacerbate her trauma.
> Let's be frank do you honestly think campus police at this university are compiling lists of leftist people to give to their "fascist" friends?
No, you misunderstood me. The police simply pass on the details of the accuser to the accused's legal defense and in most cases the accused himself. Of course, fascists share data obtained by this route (and the lefties obviously do the same). It's a doxx-war.
I am sorry, I imagine it would be possible in Germany. Even if I try, I don't see University of Illinois campus police doing it. I see them not taking her seriously (but why wouldn't they? it would be terrible for their jobs to have customers there getting stabbed).
But them being members of a fascist party and compiling lists, as hard as I try, I don't see happening.
Her name is in plain sight on Twitter. If she was afraid of reprisals why would she post it on Twitter with her full name?
Isn't something as simple as it being fake a more plausible explanation?
I just scrolled around randomly and one of the moments is a group of young black men kicking an old white man [0]. I'm not sure what the message is here but it seems likely that the collators are playing fast and loose to pile the evidence on
Tom Wheeler has done his job just fine, and not shown any preference to his old industry. For all we know Obama made a great choice based on his character.
I should have revised it to "many" fullstop. I just wanted to use a word that meant many people without making it sound something like, "informed sources say...". The point is many public figures and thinkers distrusted Trump's rhetoric.
I'm not sure what he promised or where the contradiction is, but Jamie Dimon would be a very strong advisor. I think he's considered one of the smartest of the leaders of the wall street banks, and JP Morgan was one of the few banks that was strong going into 2008. I wasn't a Trump supporter, but that at least shows good judgment to me.
Thiel is an experienced, proven, intelligent, capable technologist and gay man. If there's someone better who didn't donate $1m fine, but it seems like Thiel would be qualified for his cabinet and we might want to give him a shot be condemning him.
You have to realize Trump complained about the "rigged" Republican primary and then after he won he literally said it doesn't matter anymore because he won. Means to an end kind of guy.
"pay per play" is the game he has always played, that's why people like him can be fined for the many of his scandals[0] but still end up profitable in the long shot.
You are aware that Trump contradicted himself every time he opened his mouth, right? Is there any reason to believe this will be the one time when he's self-consistent?
He is certainly shrewd. Regardless of some of his views I disagree with, I guess I do now hope that he becomes an advisor to Trump because at least some of his friends are people I respect. And there's a good chance someone else that Trump/the GOP might choose instead would be even worse than Thiel.
Also, having an openly gay advisor gives some hope that Trump might stand up to the anti-LGBT majority of the Republican party, perhaps even nominate a supreme court justice that doesn't want to overturn marriage equality.
Thiel having called climate change pseudoscience as recently as 2 years ago on the other hand, and having actually acted on the authoritarian impulses he shares with Trump to shut down media organizations out of revenge, is not encouraging.
To be fair, for Thiel $1M is practically nothing, basically just a token gesture. His press conference speech probably commanded 10x that in airtime value.
> I'm sure he'll see a very significant ROI on his $1M once the government starts awarding contracts very conveniently to companies of which he owns a portion.
That's just pure speculation because you do not like Trump or his policies.
Thiel is a very good person to advise on the tech sector and which direction technology might lead society to since he obviously called many major developments and made huge profits on these bets.
Thiel also happens to align with the Republicans on certain issues so why should Trump not ask for his advise or Thiel offer advise?
It's great that a true Libertarian like Thiel even gets the chance to influence the direction of the government.
Prove it. Let's see some tax returns. In the absence of evidence, it is reasonable to assume that he is heavily in debt with no liquid assets and effectively poor.
He paid a 7 dollar boy scout fee for his son from his "charity."
His personal plane is a 757, and his office is in his own skyscraper...
He obviously has a lot of wealth. How much is liquid isn't really relevant, his 'income' isn't relevant, with the ultra-rich all that really ever matters is 'net worth'.
You think someone in debt would be smart enough to prod half the country as sheep into voting for him? Ha. America got trolled and was given the middle finger. We get it, you're upset. But listen to what the Democrat thought leaders are saying: stop dividing the country with your continued rhetoric in your comment.
- Software engineer at Google in Mountain View, California
Trump has been bankrupt four times and relies heavily on debt to finance his real estate ventures. It's well documented that he took on hundreds of millions of debt in the form of "junk bonds" (so called because of the high risk of default and the resulting high interest rate - 14%) in order to pay for his casinos in Atlantic city, for example. He defaulted on many of those obligations, in some cases ultimately paying only pennies on the dollar. This is what Trump is talking about when he says things like "I love debt." Because of some tax loopholes for real estate investors that existed at the time (they were closed in the 90's under Clinton, actually), he was also allowed to claim the losses as his own, rather than those of his creditors - that's how he managed to claim nearly a $1 billion net operating loss in a single year.
Piecing together information from his financial disclosures (total revenue) and leaked documents (revenue net expenses), it appears at least one of his properties in NY has been modestly successful in recent years - but that property had well below $5 million in profit in 2014 and was losing money before that. We know nothing at all about his personal obligations to creditors. That lack of information, along with his refusal to release his tax returns, is what has lead to so much speculation about what may be in those returns.
> Several of Trump's corporations have been bankrupt 4 times...
FTFY.
> relies heavily on debt to finance his real estate ventures
Real estate has high start-up costs but holds lots of value. Debt is the perfect vehicle to finance real estate, ever wonder why most people take out mortgages to buy homes, but give up equity to fund tech start-ups? You use the investment vehicle that makes sense for the type of business.
> It's well documented that he took on hundreds of millions of debt in the form of "junk bonds" (so called because of the high risk of default and the resulting high interest rate - 14%) in order to pay for his casinos in Atlantic city, for example.
Of course, casinos are high risk. Bond rates depend on risk. Also, most business debt requires a higher rate than say, sovereign debt.
> it appears at least one of his properties in NY has been modestly successful in recent years - but that property had well below $5 million in profit in 2014 and was losing money before that.
And? With real estate you don't need profit, you just need to build equity.
Tl;dr: Real estate isn't like other businesses, it has its own set of rules, accounting and financial practices, etc... Just like tech companies are different from factories which are different from restaurants, real estate is (gasp) different...
I was responding to the parent comment which claimed Trump was unlikely to be in debt. I don't think I criticized the use of debt as an investment vehicle for real estate, per se - my goal was to lay out a few facts about Trump's past business practices and the reasons why people are interested in his tax returns and concerned about possible conflicts of interest. You're right that debt is an excellent vehicle for real estate investment. I have a mortgage - it would be pretty hypocritical of me to disagree.
The vehicle for the conflict of interest isn't what's interesting. I would still be concerned if a tech founder with a bunch of unknown private investors were to be elected to public office. More concerned if that founder refused to release any information about those investors, the amounts invested, or cap table. Even more concerned if that founder refused to put their stake in the company in a blind trust.
Many of our laws and the powers we grant our public officials rely on the assumption that someone who is in high public office got there for reasons other than to enrich themselves. In Trump's case, he may have other motives, but he's flaunted historical precedent in not releasing his tax returns or even attempting to remove the appearance of conflict of interest. Whatever you think of Clinton's relationship to the Clinton Foundation, we have the data because it was all publicly disclosed. We know nothing about Trump.
I think if you give an unconscionable liar a megaphone and don't challenge him on his lies, he can get the poorly educated to buy into those lies. I also think that if you get told repeatedly that there's a terrorist threat just waiting to kill you and there are poor migrants waiting to take your money and your culture, that you might be inclined to just take that at face value after a while.
The onus is on him to stop inciting (and personally inflicting) violence against women, Muslims, Latinos, and more. That's what's dividing the country. I'm not going to rely on Democrats to lead any kind of thought until they grow a backbone.
Care to be specific? What do you consider to be "inciting violence"? Actual, explicit endorsement of violence; or just something interpreted as sexist/racism, that might then embolden people to commit these acts?
I had very negative feelings about Thiel, and those were magnified 10x after his endorsement of Trump, but I'll at least concede he's a very shrewd individual.