Hacker News Reader

Comment by blub | Hacker News Reader

And whose priority are those people exactly?

It seems both parties are against social support, encouraging smaller, local companies or regulating corporate behemoths to protect citizens.

USA is remarkably weak in supporting its less fortunate citizens.

And just because someone is ignored, called racist and dumb it doesn't mean they aren't. From what I read as an outsider, many US citizens are in fact both. Any country has its share of such people and the US is huge, so of course there will be more.

But now everyone should listen to them and stop calling them names and it's all gonna be alright somehow. The problem is education, and it will take decades to fix, if it can be fixed.

View on HN

> And just because someone is ignored, called racist and dumb it doesn't mean they aren't. From what I read as an outsider, many US citizens are in fact both. Any country has its share of such people and the US is huge, so of course there will be more.

There are numerous racists on both sides. Among them, those on the left who believe social justice means hiring a rich black person before a poor white person.

There are numerous dumb people on both sides. Among them, those on the left whose arrogance led to being utterly, devastatingly wrong about the election.

We can only wait and see whether Trump was serious about helping middle America. He wouldn't be the first politician who failed to keep campaign promises, nor would his supporters be the first group to be disappointed by their candidate. But to dismiss him before he's even taken office is pure ignorance.

Trump squeaked a win after some very bad PR for Clinton. Clinton was hardly a great choice by the DNC, and it's quite likely the choice wasn't even made fairly.

The best pollsters were very hesitant about Clinton's lead.

There is no arrogance on the left, because the real left were out of the election as soon as Clinton was nominated.

Clinton was a centre-right corporate insider candidate. Trump was a far-right corporate outsider candidate. Neither has any genuine interest in working Americans.

The election was a farce because the only two candidates were crooks - Trump certainly, with his appalling record of failing to pay contractors and his likely mafia ties, and Clinton because of all the emails in WikiLeaks, at least some of which may be genuine.

The only people who will benefit from Trump in the short term are the 1% who will receive some generous tax cuts. In the long term, it's quite likely - or at least a serious possibility - that no one at all will benefit.

So - stop the crowing please. This isn't a sports game, and Trump's election isn't a touch down. The reality is the stadium is on fire, the crowd are about to start panicking, and there's an earthquake and a hurricane on the way.

> Clinton was a centre-right corporate insider candidate. Trump was a far-right corporate outsider candidate.

I'll posit that Mrs. Clinton is centre-left, not centre-right, more authoritarian/right on economics and more authoritarian/left on social issues. But I really don't consider Mr. Trump to be far-right: he was a liberal Democrat for much of his adult life, more authoritarian/left on economics (opposing free trade), and more libertarian/left on social issues.

I really wish that there had been a good libertarian/right Republican this national election, but there wasn't.

I'm not just talking about the final results.

Nate Silver, for example, once said that Trump was certain to lose the primary and it wasn't even clear that Trump was trying to win.

He seems to have allowed success to go to his head, but to his credit, he's humble enough to rethink when he's proven wrong.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundi...

That kind of hubris was widespread. Numerous unrepresentative polls were published, the media promoted the message they wanted to be true, not the message that was true, and the DNC thought they could push a terrible candidate like Clinton on to the nation.

>means hiring a rich black person before a poor white person.

What is this referring to? I've seen you say the same thing several times in this thread, is it referring to something?

It's a quote from the top level comment we're all discussing.

Oh i wasnt sure if it was something from somewhere else.

Are you and the top level comment saying that rural/midwestern poor white americans are competing for jobs against wealthy black americans? I'm just trying to understand what this sentiment means, not trying to be combative or anything

I was just repeating the comment, you'd have to ask the author.

Speaking for myself, I'd discuss things like affirmative action in college admissions, whose advocates would admit a wealthy black person from a prep school before a poor white person from a failing rural school who has better test scores, and call that "social justice".

>I was just repeating the comment, you'd have to ask the author.

But you are repeating and justifying this comment up and down the thread.

As part of the broader discussion of identity politics.

I can't speak to exactly what the original author of the remark meant by those words specifically.

It may have been that at first, but you are also implying that there is a left to which that opinion applies. Where is that coming from?

edit: you answered below

Reply on news.ycombinator.com