> 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'?
Wasn't Trump rallying against such crony corruption aka 'pay for play'?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can you elaborate on what accounts these are? The only estimate I've seen of his intelligence was based the school he graduated from.
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.
I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just asking you to cite one or more of these accounts describing his lack of intellectual stamina.
And we all saw through the 3 debates that Trump started off well and then really struggled towards the end e.g.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/clint...
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.
[1] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-g...
http://jpupdates.com/2016/07/19/art-of-the-deal-ghostwriter-...
Nobody said it was a requirement to be a President. Just to be a decent one.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/25/george_...
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.
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.
For example they describe in detail the tax mix e.g. income versus capital gains, as well as the nature of liquid assets, deduction types etc.
Lol, what does it mean: under control until the guy opens an account under a fake id
But we would probably learn something like:
a) he's not nearly as rich as he claims
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.
Maybe some other skeletons in there.
But I don't think anything illegal.
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.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/21/romneys-paid-194-mi...
He also gave $4 million to charities.
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!".
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)
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.
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.
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.
Really? The German bank that has lent Trump millions of dollars has a $14 billion fine to the justice department. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/trump-presidency-could-b...
That's not a conflict of interest, it's just regular business.
If you are 'in business' - you 'do business' with banks. There are not that many big ones.
A loan is just a financial product like any other.
"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..
Thiel kind of fits that profile, ignoring his recent antics.
No, the people he owes just aren't other politicians.
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.
I don't see how he takes power away from the tea party, and the tea party is very much a bought party.
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.
Both options sucked in that regard.
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?
[1] See all 82 of your comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12733024
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.
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 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?
There's certainly value for passion about the mission, but it shouldn't be confused with desperation.
I find someone who's smart and also share my vision then.
That being said, please tell us which recent administration did not engage in the practice?
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.
Would you expand on this? There's so much going back and forth that I sometimes have a hard time knowing what people are referring to.
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.
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".
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?
The context does't lead me to believe anything about Trumps actual actions.
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.
1 - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Addre...
Would you detest wiki-leaks because Assange is a rapist?
When one of the more alarming lawsuits (not just media chatter) has so many problems: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/tr... I'm more than a little skeptical...
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.
As long as you're not infringing on my rights, why should I care about the contents of your head?
No?
Then he's free to vote for whoever he wants.
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.
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.
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.
Total misquote.
The actual was "They let you grab their pussy." Emphasis on the "THEY LET".
In other words, there was consent already.
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.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-trans...
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.
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?
>> 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.
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.
Also, he said the women LET him do it. In other word, they CONSENT!
Typical guys bragging to each other.
http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&p=156...
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?
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.
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
CNN then proceeded to call her fat anyway. http://archive.is/jHaEh
Afterward, she backs-tabbed him, even though they wanted to fire her and he saved her ass. https://i.sli.mg/8gzCQX.jpg
She is not a good person. She threaten to kill a judge, and involved in the gateway driving of a murder. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/09/28/miss-univers...
>...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.
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.
The original fact being checked was:
> never in the history of history have people fought against discrimination, corruption, and oppression by saying "but they might have a point too"
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.
To sum up my point, read your history.
> Let me spell it out
> read your history
Seems pretty aggressive to me. If you are refuting these points, why not include all relevant information?
But in any case, the second point (that Hales work didn't end the witch trials) you only just make here, and the first you clarify.
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?
Not a very solid attempt at trolling, plus too long text, 2/10.
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.
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".
That sounds a lot like the half-baked shoving you're trying to describe.
I wouldn't be so convinced the 50+ million people who voted Trump fit neatly in to those two categories.
> just twenty-three days after your witch hunt,
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.)
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.
> 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.
The respectable Republicans distanced themselves from Trump
Twenty-three days ago [..]
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.
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?
Not in detail but in character, yes. I did what I could to calm and reason with the mob. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12734428 for example.
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
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.
This is hope speaking, not rational prediction.
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".
Thanks for pointing that out.
That whole thread highlights to an extreme degree how broken politics is in the U.S.
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"?
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...
(Sorry, I don't mean to sound this terse).
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.
That's it.
Also - Gingrich and Bolton are not 'discredited' - you just don't agree with them.
I too, would prefer Gates, but Gingrich is probably who Trump's base would rather have and frankly, maybe it's more authentic that way.
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]"
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/newt-gingrich-house-u...
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.
Has he actually announced this yet or you just assuming?
I agree with you that there's a logic that says this. It's insane logic, but it's coherent. We are all going round the bend.
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.
What's wrong with being attracted to young women (his daughter is no longer a "girl" in any sense of the word)?
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.
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.
E.g. Trump can halve DB's fine in return for future loans. Win-win for both of them, a loss for the US.
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 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.
He literally cannot restart his shpiel until the markets stabilize. To me, his suppression looks contrived.
I'm not seeing anyone arguing that Peter Theil isn't qualified.
Bush nominating Harriet Miers is an example of cronyism. This really isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_no...
[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]
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]
Uh, no shit?
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr2USTE3L98
Meeting after all that must have been at least a little bit embarrassing. Even for the Donald.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_camp...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/26603855650449408...
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.
[0] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-advisors-conside...
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:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/08/15/th...
Fortunately, the Republican's also lack a super majority in the Senate this time around.
Sorry, that is simply not true. Obamacare was passed without a single amendment (or even a full debate), and without a single Republican vote.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda...
Unfortunately, the Democrats have already gone nuclear repeatedly.
What makes you think the Republicans won't do the same?
Edit: typo.
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.
There's a reason it was called the "nuclear option".
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.
http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucinda/2012-06-01/no-obama-di...
The only "myth" there is pretending that it requires a filibuster-proof majority to pass any legislation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
They could have done that on day one.
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.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-f...
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)
Most people might think that except maybe the people with pre-existing conditions who were able to get healthcare.
Apologies for my mis-interpretation.
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).
[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/kmscodi/status/796554667748716545...
https://twitter.com/amyharvard_/status/796450126546030592 looked here, looks pretty serious, but refused to report it to the police? 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".
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.
> 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 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.
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.
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?
As a matter of fact, it is entirely possible. Just yesterday news broke that cops were in bed with a biker gang (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/ermittlungen-polizei-durch...). But it's very rare that such things happen.
> But them being members of a fascist party and compiling lists, as hard as I try, I don't see happening.
It's not the cops, it's the fascists who compile and spread such lists.
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...
And many on the right.
He straight bragged about participating in such schemes from the other side.
[0]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-t...