Hacker News Reader

Comment by nnq | Hacker News Reader

Don't follow american politics that much, but hats off to Peter Thiel for having the courage to support Trump!

Even if a person seems horrible as a human being, if some of his/her ideas make sense and align with your ideas, than it's OK to support them. I happen to like Trump because he happens to think that America's problems are internal and should be solved internally - no need to make any issue into a "global issue" and solve it through an international trade agreement or through a war that affects everyone in the world even if it's not their f problem!

View on HN

> Even if a person seems horrible as a human being, if some of his/her ideas make sense and align with your ideas, than it's OK to support them.

No, it's not. Not when that person has other horrific ideas that should not be supported by any sensible human being. Not if that person is a pathological liar that jumps from one idea to the contrary on a whims notice. Not if that person uses racism and violence as a platform. Not if that person openly calls for committing war crimes and invading other countries. It's - and I'm deliberately choosing the godwin route here - akin to saying "It was ok to support Hitler because I support the construction of the Autobahn."

Citations can be found en masse here: https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/

> Not if that person openly calls for committing war crimes and invading other countries.

Do you have any quote for that? Trump is acceptable for many people outside US, because he wants to limit US involvement in wars. His main opponent on other side has long history if initiating wars. There is a serious risk she/he would even start war with Russia.

Look at the reddit post I referenced for citations. It lists 6 citations for the first part or my statement and 2 citations for the second part (look for "invading").

War crimes: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/24/donald-trump...

Invasion: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/11/trump-wants...

Not supporting war crimes or anything, but a more "heavy-handed or not-at-all" american involvement in foreign conflicts would be much better.

Like:

1. if you decide to invade Iraq, do a f proper large scale invasion, sweep the whole country, purge anyone opposing, pay some some of the reconstruction bill by training and equipping local forces, and after like 5 years or so of this occupation and purging, after you cleaned up the mess (or at least after you've reunited the country against one common enemy - YOU, which is still better than leaving a civil war behind), then f leave with parade and give them a "national freedom day" to celebrate or whatever. or

2. if you want a foreign president down, either do it diplomatically, or give up, or do a proper job of f assassinating him and his entire family, don't start a bloody civil war that destroys an entire country and turns its population into refugees.

...the so called "partial involvement", where you go in, kick the bad guys' ass, and then leave without cleaning the mess or paying for it to be cleaned is the problem.

> Do you have any quote for that?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/3/donald-trump-...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/...

Out of curiosity, which candidate do you support, and in your opinion do they pass the litmus test you've set out here?

me? I don't get to vote in the US, so that's a bit of a moot question. I deliberately phrased my posting focused on one particular statement that I regard as particularly dangerous because by that line of reason you can justify support for anyone.

Anyways, since the choice currently boils down to Trump vs. Clinton: I regard trump as a deeply dangerous candidate. He seems oblivious to a lot of issues and seems to be focused primarily on furthering his ascend to power, by whatever means necessary. While Clintons politics certainly have their own set of issues I'd prefer her as president since the person in the oval office should show a little interest in complicated matters. In that regard, she passes.

From your post above, it didn't seem like you were taking a lesser of two evils approach - was just curious if you were supporting a third party candidate and if so who.

Well, it's more a "Trump is absolutely not within the boundaries that make him electable" approach. It doesn't say much about preferences regarding all other candidates.

I 'm pretty convinced that most people people do not support trump for what he claims he will do. He seems so unpredictable that nobody can believe what he says. What seems to resonate more is his confidence, and his risk-taking ability vs the very predictable, but very unlikeable Hillary. No amount of quote-listing or fact-checking is going to change their minds.

There are at least two third-party candidates in the race. Last I heard, the Libertarian candidate (for those on the Right) has been polling almost well enough to get into the official debate cycle.

Agreed that no amount of quote-listing or fact-checking will change some Trump supporters' minds.

However, let's be clear: there are people who very much DO believe he will do what he says. I know plenty of people who want - and believe he will - follow through on his ban on Muslims immigrating into the USA (they always remind me it's temporary, until we "figure out what's going on," assuming our immigration services have no idea what they are doing), and build a wall because they feel that's as good as anything to deter people.

People truly believe he will do as he claims. Those of us who think "no way someone can believe that" should be incredibly careful and put down a vote for someone other than him this fall, rather than thinking "oh there's no way he would do all that, right?"

Many people voting him in actively WANT him to do many of his more controversial things.

There is everywhere a large (and dumb) part of the electorate. They rarely revolt after elections though, unless they have guidance.

I agree that there is a large chunk of Trump supporters that will not be swayed by fact-checking. However that's still a vastly important thing to do because they goal is not to sway those that are unreachable already but rather to sway the chunk that still can be reached.

On a larger picture: I regard the fact that a large chunk of people by now seem oblivious to facts and unreachable for civilized dialogue as the threatening streak in the last major votes, see brexit, see the rise of the AFD in germany. The crucial question for the next coming years will in my opinion be how we can enter a reasonable discourse with people that see every statement as a bipartisan issue that must be decided on principle, regard all measured statements as lies and political correctness and are unwilling to compromise on anything. We live in interesting times indeed.

Cult of personality.

If Trump thinks the problems are internal why are his solutions focused externally. Closing down immigration, withdrawing from international treaties etc?

Because it's what his base want to hear.

Then you also support torture, deliberate bombing of civilians, bailing on NATO, banning muslims, calling up Bill Gates to shut off the internet, and you endorse the idea that Obama is a muslim and illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists.

Good on ya for having the courage to do that.

>hats off to Peter Thiel for having the courage to support Trump!

Trump is one of two candidates. What, exactly, requires courage? Tons of people support Trump.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com