Peter Thiel: Fake Culture Wars Only Distract Us from Our Economic Decline

Quoting Trump in context is perceived as an attack on him. Showing video of him talking is perceived as an attack on him (that's what the most recent HRC anti-trump attack ads are. Just video of him talking with a little context and emotional window dressing). Literally describing his policy positions or advisers honestly is perceived as an attack on him.

Supply and demand.

> Shouldn't they depreciate like cars?

If you had to cannibalize key elements of existing vehicles to make most new cars, cars might not depreciate either. Real property and tangible personal property are different.

> What's the difference between the English and Japanese housing market? It is culture or central bank policy?

Perhaps neither. I mean, 0.6% annual population growth vs. -0.2% annual population growth is going to produce a pretty big difference in the housing market, all other things being equal (other things between the UK and Japan obviously are not equal, of course, but that difference alone is going to have an effect on trajectories in the market.)

> Democracy will exist in the future. Why? They never lasted more than 2 centuries before

Iceland (lonest span 930-1430), the Iroquois (since perhaps ~A.D. 1142), and Switzerland (since A.D. 1648) suggest that your "never lasted more than 2 centuries before" is mistaken. And, obviously, these previous long-running examples spent all or much of their existence in their adherence to democratic norms was a notable exception to the surrounding context, one would expect democracies to last longer when it was a more-universal norm.

Here is a back of the envelope accounting of his plan: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/07/...

All politicians are somewhat hand wavy about getting costs and revenues to line up. Most don't just completely make shit up.

if you truly believe that today's democrat party, the one with the black president, is pro-slavery and pro-racism, well, good riddance then.

The reason I say this is that political discussion has a moral urgency that technical and philosophical discussion typically lack. Civility in a political context implicitly says "I disagree with your view but it's one that should be taken seriously". I won't stir the pot by mentioning any extreme examples, but there are some political ideologies that do not deserve that level of respect. Of course, one may agree or disagree that this principle applies in the case of Trump -- I don't expect HN to take a position. But asking for maximal civility in this context is making a demand that's far less reasonable than it is outside a political context. Someone who sincerely believes that Trump is a dangerous bigot can't be expected to talk about him as if he's a serious candidate. And yet to refrain from commenting would leave his bigotry unchallenged.

So I'd say relax the interpretation of the rule slightly (it's not as if I was going completely off the rails), or make a firm decision about whether or not politics is off topic on HN. As it is, you're tending to give too much space to polite racist nonsense.

Because you're apologising for his bigotry. The fact that the ban is (allegedly) temporary makes it no less bigoted and no more defensible. This is probably going to be quite a close election. Everyone should be speaking out against Trump, not trying to help him weasel out of taking responsibility for the awful things he's said.

>How is properly vetting immigrants, in particular from high-risk countries, bigotry?

What a disingenuous comment. I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about his proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the US. You and the OP would love to pretend that he never made that proposal, but he did.