Hacker News Reader

>is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar

Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama.

>Hillary voting to invade Iraq

Her own floor speech before her vote said she was voting yes precisely to give Bush leverage to reinstitute inspections, not as a blank check to war.

The point is that geopolitics is complicated, and judging it in the same way as judging someone's private behavior is plainly absurd.

> There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama.

"In late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been 'a top priority' for Clinton personally."

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons...

> The point is that geopolitics is complicated, and judging it in the same way as judging someone's private behavior is plainly absurd.

Absolutely, but as a society I'm not comfortable with just writing off a million deaths under the guise of "it's complicated." In my personal opinion, making the comparison and deciding that Hillary is less bad is completely reasonable, but not making the comparison at all is what's absurd.

Lets just say Clinton did not push for the sales of the weapons. You thing Saudi Arabia would say oh well and make peace with the people they are bombing? They would find some other way to kill them. This may have been a "choose your pit of snakes" situation. Either sell them some weapons or let them by develop or acquire gas/nuclear/bio weapons,

Your beef seems to be with the media and how it is framing the issues in the election.

Yet your arguments sound more directed at the average Joe. You seem to have assumed, based only on headline news, no one else is making the comparison.

This is a pretty self-aggrandizing position to take.

Your quote doesn't really address the point I'm making. Sure, as head of the state dept she would be involved with very large deals between our "allies" and U.S. corporations. The question is who is responsible for the supposed growth in sales that occurred, and can this growth be traced to her doing or her urging?

It's also worth noting that the article says Saudi Arabia donated tens of millions in the years before she became Sec of State. So claiming the money was for a quid-pro-quo is a stretch. The fact is, any nation friendly to the U.S. probably has had a substantial donation to the Clinton Foundation in recent memory.

> "Your premise is bogus. There's no reason to think Hillary Clinton is personally responsible for an increase in weapons sales, especially considering that such sales increased across the board under Obama."

Was that during the period when Hilary Clinton was Secretary of State or in the period when John Kerry had that role?

In any case, the sad part is people having to defend one of two subpar candidates in this election to justify their position. Aside from a minor miracle where a third party candidate steals the race, we're going to be stuck with a shitty US president for the next 4 years. Can we at least try to come to terms with that before it happens?

I disagree that Clinton is shitty. She certainly represents "politics as usual", and that is the current bogeyman of the hour. But ultimately she's an effective politician with reasonable positions.

Sure, there were likely better choices (not really counting Bernie here), but the two major parties cast big tents and so the candidates they bring represent that which is palatable to the largest amount of people. A large number of people will necessarily have a bad taste in their mouth.

Two questions:

1. You stated that Hilary Clinton is "an effective politician with reasonable positions". Which of Hilary Clinton's positions do you like?

2. Which part(s) of Bernie's platform do you think held back his chances of winning the nomination/election?

It would be easier to list her positions I don't like. Off the top of my head only the Patriot act and Snowden come to mind. Keep in mind that I'm fiercely pragmatic, and so things that I would like to happen in a perfect world I don't hold as a political position because of how unlikely it is to happen.

As far as Bernie goes, some of his stated positions seemed to be a little too disconnected from reality. Like his medicare for all plan and his free college plan weren't concrete enough to be taken seriously by the public at large.

> "It would be easier to list her positions I don't like. Off the top of my head only the Patriot act and Snowden come to mind. Keep in mind that I'm fiercely pragmatic, and so things that I would like to happen in a perfect world I don't hold as a political position because of how unlikely it is to happen."

So do you like Hilary Clinton's support for fracking? Do you see that as a pragmatic choice? How about Wall Street regulation, where she's basically admitted she thinks it's best if Wall Street regulates itself, do you see that as pragmatic? How about her support for TPP, which will end up encouraging more jobs to be taken outside the US, do you see that as pragmatic?

> "As far as Bernie goes, some of his stated positions seemed to be a little too disconnected from reality. Like his medicare for all plan and his free college plan weren't concrete enough to be taken seriously by the public at large."

Other countries manage to have tax-funded healthcare and tax-funded higher education systems, and still pay less overall than the current systems in the US. Bernie laid out how he was going to pay for it. If some American people ignored the offer and the details, that's their fault, not Bernie's.

>So do you like Hilary Clinton's support for fracking?

Yes, actually. Fracking is a reasonable part of a platform for fighting climate change. It absolutely is the pragmatic choice as it allows local production of natural gas with a lesser environmental impact than the coal or oil it replaces.

>she thinks it's best if Wall Street regulates itself

She didn't say that. If you're referring to her speeches, she said that Wall street should be a part of developing regulation since they know the business the best. That's a straight-up no brainer.

>How about her support for TPP

Anti-free trade is the left's climate change denial. There are things to dislike about the TPP, most of which has nothing to do with trade itself, and for these reasons she's come out against it.

>Bernie laid out how he was going to pay for it.

And his plans were widely panned as requiring completely impossible GDP growth and otherwise severely lacking in details.

>tax-funded higher education systems

Yes, but they're not proposing to simply put the government on the hook for already outrageously overpriced institutions like ours. Also, other countries can do public funding because the available spots are restricted. Such restrictions on who are allowed a college education are a non-starter in the U.S.

">> Bernie laid out how he was going to pay for it.

> And his plans were widely panned as requiring completely impossible GDP growth and otherwise severely lacking in details."

What details are you aware of regarding the funding plans Bernie had for free college tuition and free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare?

You're conflating "business here" with "business abroad". It happens a lot. These are two separate topics.

Trump is openly advocating for subjugation of women and minorities in the U.S.. He's explicitly called for firing a judge due to their race. I mean seriously?

And I think there is pretty clear evidence that Trump is not "just saying" racist and misogynist things. Especially on the misogyny point, he actively behaves like a d-bag. It's hard to think the race thing isn't just a bit better buried.

He has a history for trampling all over his business partners. Of lashing out when things don't go his way (see: basically every Trump media event of the last few weeks). How far you think that will go with the international community? Didn't get the deal he wanted from S. Korea? He goes on a race hating rant, and hey guess what, now the trade deal doesn't exist at all.

Ask the Philipines how having an emotionally unstable clown in charge has gone for them on the international stage. Then imagine that emotionally unstable clown has control of the largest military humanity has ever seen.

On the other hand, Hilary, by all accounts, has been praised as great to work with. I may not approve of the outcome of many of her decisions, but I'd rather have someone that can appear poised and level-headed dealing with people like Putin, or other suspect world leaders.

I think you're right. It is more nuanced. But many of those nuances we may never see. I have only my gut to guide me on them.

It says in matters international and domestic, Trump is a volatile clown. While Hilary will at least keep the dysfunctional status quo.

> is this worse than Hillary dramatically increasing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two countries where rape is currently legal?

Yes, although it's taking me awhile to figure out succinct and acceptable reasons "why". I keep coming back to this work: http://engl210-deykute.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/omelas.p...

I think there's two things, here.

The first is: If you're comparing the means, compare the ends. I don't even know how to take this anywhere without feeling dirty, and the internet doesn't forget, so let's leave it at: I don't see any positive end in Trump. It's not even, "Here's something to see if the ends DO justify the means" - I straight up don't see any end worth trying to justify.

The second thing is: Black lives matter isn't about some new situation. It's about some new awareness.

> it seems like those bad things should be happening to people within the U.S. rather than abroad.

This is already the case. Right now, there's a "national debate" (whatever that means) as to whether or not this is OK. (It's not). This isn't about NEW bad things happening - it's about whether we're going to continue giving a pass to the bad things ALREADY happening. Starting here at home actually seems super reasonable to me. I have more ability to fix things here than I do a world away.

I'm going to try to leave it at this.

I personally tend to feel the same way as this. But I also don't think taking the other position is so unreasonable as to inherently warrant banishment.

In one case you're talking about a person and their personal actions in a personal situation.

In another, you're talking about a person who is tasked with carrying out orders and directives to do what they think is in the best interest of the country regardless of their personal feelings about the decision.

I'm not saying I condone what our government has done, but I do understand that people in government are carrying out the will of an elected governance, even if they make stupid decisions in doing so.

To generalise your point, as a non-USian looking in I'm baffled by the horror that many express towards Mr Trump as a potential President as if he is so much very different from anyone else operating in that stratum.

I don't think that anyone able to rise to the top-tier of politics, in any large country, is going to be a 'nice' person. Perhaps not even a 'decent' person. They've had to fight and claw and backstab their way up there, throwing plenty of people under the bus. All driven by personal ambition and a lust for power and control. And once they're there, they'll do everything they can to stay there.

Perhaps anyone who wants to be President should be immediately disqualified.

[ Edit: removed the gladiatorial section as it was a tangent ]

But they respect the process, and the process is all we have.

He is inciting his followers to voter intimidation at best, and violence at worst, and they are taking the bait. That is a threat to our stability, and that, as many others point out, is what makes him so dangerous.

You tend to ignore the fact that foreign policy is not dictated by one person alone. Yes the secretary has a lot of say, but not ALL the say in these matters. The decision to have those countries as strategic allies is a country-level decision. The sale of weapons etc. is a result of that decision.

I don't think that's what anyone is arguing. People are arguing that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the american republic, not that he would be "bad for minorities". The racist thing is bad, but really only a small part of the overall badness of Donald Trump.

Its not so much about Trump, its about what he represents. If the U.S. Pres can say things like ban muslims, fc married women and grab them by the then it must be ok for us all to do it. I think people fear being in a society where racism/sexism is tolerated or even encouraged by the U.S. government. Does not matter what he has done. We are worried about what other people who feel empowered by him being president will think they can do

No one else's badness makes him good. Don't vote if you don't like the options. There's no need for us all to lower ourselves to the worst standard. But if apologizing for him is good enough for you, then consider that others have the freedom to forgive, disregard, or otherwise absorb the failings of their candidate.

Also, a "humble opinion" does not call something "complete bullshit" in the same sentence.

Yes, it is worse. It's far worse.

Clinton has been in politics for almost her entire career as a prominent, high profile figure. She also has an affiliated, massively successful charity organization. If you imagine peoples' social and political connections as a graph, hers is very, very large, with her organizations interacting with pretty much every state and VIP entity out there.

Now, imagine you're running the Trump campaign/Breitbart and you have to come up with some Clinton-bashing narratives. Gold mine! Just start picking random connections from the graph and inventing narratives about her being corrupt. Easy peasy.

Here's the problem: Clinton has been investigated for these allegations and a jillion other things many, many, many, many times. By many, many, many people. Publicly. And the results of the investigations have found... basically nothing. They've found a person who is good at their job, a person who is wildly competent despite making a few shitty judgement calls from time to time. But her graph is so large, her connections so huge, that it's easy to keep spinning up these new, mostly false/unproven narratives.

Trump, on the other hand, has a history of abuse, a history of stoking racial resentment, and a history of calling into question the entire foundation of our democracy (freedom of press, elections, etc). These are real opinions that he has right now. Not some conspiracy-stoking narrative concocted about a career politician.

Saying that the list of well-investigated, thoroughly debunked Clinton conspiracy theories is equivalent to actual, real hate speech is, pardon the language, bullshit. Hate speech is hate speech, racial and sexist statements the same. YC needs to take the right stand on this, given the precedence.

I agree. The key here is: Trump says mean things, Hillary does mean things (and has been doing so for nearly 30 years)

Also, the external links in that sentence you quoted are not hard facts. They are up for interpretation. Especially the one about his speech being anti-semitic is nothing but pure nonsense.

/edit: downvote me all you want. I'm not even voting for Trump, but the media bias towards Trump is real.

The "mean things" Trump has said are largely confessions of doing "mean things", and things for which there is considerable additional evidence of him doing them. Whether it's sexual assault, or quid pro quo bribery.

> Trump says mean things, Hillary does mean things

ah! he just says eh?