Hacker News Reader

Comment by QuantumRoar | Hacker News Reader

Insulting millions of people serves no other purpose than to point out your own superiority in some way. I can't fathom how much hubris is necessary to do that without feeling ashamed of yourself.

How can it be so hard to be nice to others? Everybody disagrees with everybody else on something. Everybody has false ideas about the truth. Do we toss a kid in a meatgrinder when it has a weird idea about society? No, we include it in our discussions because opinions change when they are challenged. But when they cross the age of 16, or is it 18?, then they suddenly become demons that we need to get rid of. The cancer of our society. Where do you draw the line?

If you honestly think that you have a moral superiority that gives you the right to tell people what to do just because they are stupid (or pick any other negative attribute), then know that there are a lot of people to whom you are literally stupid (they are more intelligent and know more than you). Would it be okay if they told you what to do? If they tried to silence you? Ignored your desperate calls for help, which they think are stupid and wrong?

View on HN

I suggest you read the vox piece from april about this phenomenon in american liberalism. They go in to exhaustive detail. http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...

I think that it is far to easy in the modern world to only see, meet and talk to people who think and act like you. It certainly seems that many of my friends think that America looks and acts like their friends from coast to coast. That everyone is the same, and thus that their views are universal. The press really ought to be a place where one can get information from outside the bubble not an extesnion of it.

"The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood." Thomas Jefferson

I read that last week, and it's great. I love the part about GWB. I still know people today who call him an idiot, but it is that attitude, and underestimation that helped him win the Presidency twice.

The liberal has become synonymous with elite. If you disagree with a liberal you're uneducated, angry, racist, or pick any other disparaging word. It has caused a divide that crosses right/left, and is instead top/bottom. According to a poll NPR quoted, ~40% of registered democrats voted for Trump. That is why Hilary lost. The Republicans AND Democrats have become parties of the elite. The rise of Trump and Bernie came from those people who are rejecting elite regardless of party.

40% of democrats didn't vote at all, that is why Hilary lost. Each candidate getting <25% of the vote coupled with 50% not voting, does not mean people voted for Trump so much as most just stayed home (apathy was the biggest winner in the election). The democrats don't have to win over Trump voters, they just have to convince people to vote at all.

Where does your certainty that people who stayed home would vote for Clinton come from?

Turn out numbers. The people who stayed home were mostly the same demographic that voted for Obama in the last election: Minorities, millennials. Trump didn't magically win over Obama voters, conversions were rare.

Yet apparently the vote ratio was not that great for Clinton in those demographics either - apparently even 30% of non-white voters went Trump, and what I've seen it was only slightly in favor of Clinton in that demographic too

Again, what makes you think that the people didn't stay because they sure didn't want to vote for Clinton?

(Disclaimer :I am not an US citizen, I identify with Bernie)

I would have never voted for Clinton, even if you paid me.

For as vocal as the never Trump people were, there was also a quieter never Clinton feeling across many groups.

Not voting tells you something too though. Here is the link to NPR article: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/10/501...

It totally does tell you something. Polling didn't get support for Trump wrong, it got support for Hilary wrong instead. The likely voters didn't vote.

You could say the same thing about Trump voters....

You realize that staying home was no less an intentional act than voting. Those Democrats who stayed home, stayed home to not vote for Hillary.

The most effective way to get those people to vote is to not have Hillary Clinton as your candidate.

I think something that might not always be mentioned is that voter turnout likely remains low because of the electoral college.

I only bother voting if there is a referendum or local politician I care about. Neither was true in this election. Living in Maryland I already knew Clinton would carry the state. So why go vote?

I bet there are people like that in deeply red states who feel the same. I bet voter turnout would be higher all around under a Popular vote scenario.

Voter turnout was still low in swing states are well, so I could be wrong. But I think at times people realize their vote is sort of pointless.

Yep, literally every race on the ballot here ended exactly as it was expected to, usually with double digit margins. I voted, but I can see why this wasn't motivating for some people.

> Living in Maryland I already knew Clinton would carry the state. So why go vote?

I think it is helpful in these situations to extend your thinking to everyone else and see if you like the result:

1) My candidate has a big lead in my state so I won't bother to vote. 2) My thinking in 1) is rational and therefore lots of other people will think and behave the same way.

vs.

1) My candidate will only win if their supporters vote for them, so I will vote. 2) My thinking in 1) is rational and therefore lots of other people will think and behave the same way.

So which behavior will most likely lead to your desired outcome?

Merely being aware of the tragedy of the commons won't make it go away.

Who said 'merely'?

> I think it is helpful in these situations to extend your thinking to everyone else and see if you like the result:

I don't see how this is helpful. The calculus is obviously different between your state being carried 60/35 vs a 50/50 battleground.

Well, according to people who installed an app, http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/10/501...

To be fair, if you disagree with a conservative, you are naive, power-hungry, and maybe godless.

The usual online slurs I see: "libtard", "regressive left".

You don't hear the candidates and party officials saying that publicly though. Sure in private they probably say worse but Clinton called the middle of the country a basket of deplorables.

Absolutely, but 2 things. The GOP has typically been known as the old white guy elite/establishment so, at least in stigma, people already consider them the elite. The second is that the same problem the Democrats had in the general election, the GOP had in the primaries. The GOP didn't want Trump, yet he destroyed every establishment candidate they had. Bernie may have had a similar move on the Democrat side if the DNC had not interfered with the process.

Trump won as the GOP candidate, but based on his history I do not think he is conservative. Many of his ideas are closer to Sanders than people want to admit, and he's likely going to have both sides in a constant uproar.

True. The change is that the liberals have the megaphone to a greater degree than they did before. Despite talk radio, the liberals have by far the majority of the media now.

This post-election narrative that liberals hate Trump out of elitist bigotry is killing me. People hate Donald Trump because they're afraid they'll be deported, or their friends and family will be deported. This is very real and very personal for a lot of people, I think it's lame to tell them "calm down, why can't you be nice?" and other platitudes about uniting the country.

Ya, and let's not forget his "grab them in the kittens" remark. There is no way to explain that away, none! GWB, even though he stole the election, was much easier to accept than this guy.

We are merely afraid that Trump is as bad as he sounds, whatever the press said about him is irrelevant to that, and much more concrete than Hilary's abstract emails.

My friends use this kind of language between each other all the time, as I imagine other groups of friends as well - and they are all normal people with loving wives. You're trying to be dramatic but you're actually being funny.

You have strange friends then. I can't imagine any of my friends saying that kind of thing, or quite simply they wouldn't be my friends anymore. I'm not being elitist or dramatic here, I just can't stand and wouldn't stand for that kind of talk.

But I guess many voters out there thought like you. I just can't comprehend it personally. I'm sure there are many of us who don't consider such talk moral and acceptable even in casual settings.

>I can't imagine any of my friends saying that kind of thing

These comments always make me chuckle. You live in a squeaky clean world that I've personally never experienced and I'm not really sure where you go do find it. I mean, hell, browse around on any popular image sharing site for 5 minutes and you'll see worse comments in any thread with a vaguely attractive female.

If you've ever been in a men's bathroom, you've overheard these types of obnoxious conversations. But collectively, America loves to gasp and shout about how utterly shocking it is that people would talk in such a manner! Outrageous! "Well, I never!"

I have never heard these kind of things spoken in a men's bathroom. We obviously are using different ones.

Your comment literally made me cringe inside.

Your's made me cringe even more. I really don't get America, open racist and sexist signaling and an electorate that would react positively to that. Whatever.

Should those friends be commander and chief of the largest military force in the world?

No - he should be absolutely perfect in every way and never have used a swear word, even privately among friends.

So those friends -should- have that much power?

If elected to do so, yes. I'd like to reverse the question on you though: Should what he said in private make him legally ineligible to hold office or even any job?

Of course not - the election should be cancelled, the votes should be thrown into a garbage can and it should just be you who picks the best candidate.

You're misstating the concern, which I assume you recognize. Nobody gives a fuck (see what I did there? :-) if Trump used a swear word. What people are concerned about was that he bragged that he was able to capitalize on his fame to assault somebody. I'm going to presume you're male - how would you feel if, say, Newt Gingrich walked up to you and grabbed your penis?

Many people swear -- heck, I just did so in a public post under my own identity just to make a point! Many people use many terms to describe male and female anatomy. Nobody I know brags about being able to willfully assault people.

What a magnificent deflection. No one is angry that he said "grab them by the pussy". It's that he does this without consent. He does this because he has power and can. That's what is deplorable. Your defense of this is also deplorable.

What power? Surely if he did that the woman could call the cops on him and make a massive media shitstorm. You actually believe he goes around assaulting women?

The power stemming from his fame and money. Are you being deliberately daft? Do you not understand the concept of power differential and powerlessness? Your second question suggests you have a profound misunderstanding of the sense of powerlessness victims often feel and thus don't call the cops. The cops aren't always called after every crime.

You need to study more about crime and the psychology of victims/perpetrators.

I'm sure after I study crime more I will learn that Trump regularly rapes women because he made a vulgar joke. It's just that the evidence is missing, but the crimes surely have happened. Sorry about me being so daft.

He didn't make a joke. He made a claim. He said he just grabs them by the pussy. I don't believe doing this is rape. I think it may be sexual assault but I'm not versed on the legal definition of these terms. I was molested as a kid. I did not call the cops or tell anyone. I was not raped. I was molested (i.e. touched sexually without consent).

You are being daft and you are not sincerely apologizing for it. You are defending a person with a lot of power who claims to grope women without their consent. If you want to argue that the claim is not correct and that he was lying the do so. But he clearly was not joking. It was not funny.

You are being daft because I clearly said that you need to read up on the psychology of victims/perpetrators because you made the stupid claim that if the women really were groped then they would have called the cops. I did not say you need to do this reading so that you can conclude Donald Trump is a criminal.

Quite a few people have said so:

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/10/all-the-women-accusing-trump...

First, let's settle on definitions: In this context, let's agree to define "assault" as including willfully touching someone's breasts or groin region without consent, and also to include kissing them on the lips without their consent. Please note I did not say "rape." I said assault:

https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault

"Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape."

With that definition, then yes, I do believe that Trump has done so, and I believe the evidence supports that conclusion.

One thing that I found illuminating as a result of the discussion around this was the number of my female friends and colleagues who talked about their own experiences being assaulted in these and similar ways. It's a very, very real problem.

If the evidence supports that conclusion then how come he wasn't convicted? Is it all a big conspiracy and the judges are in on it?

I think you truly don't understand how the American justice system works. There are lots of crimes that go unpunished. Sometimes even when the evidence is overwhelming. Prosectors have a budget, have political considerations to make, have to make decisions on what crimes to prosecute and which ones not to prosecute.

There was overwhelming evidence that OJ killed Nicole. He wasn't convicted. Lack of conviction does not indicate lack of evidence or lack of occurrence. In the case of Trump and his sexual assault of women they didn't report it to the police. Try hard and you might be able to wrap your head around the fact that many victims don't report the crime.

But the crime was committed for sure. I trust you. But the thing is apparently the voters would need evidence. Tough luck.

The people who have a problem with that tape aren't upset about a dirty word. If you friends are kissing and groping people they just met "without even waiting," you should probably call the cops. If they think "she let me do it" is the thing as consent, they should be corrected before someone gets hurt.

Did he get any assault convictions? If I said I'd like to kill my boss would you call the SWAT team on me?

Well, if you said instead, you killed several of your prior bosses and the widowed partners of some these were making public appearances in TV and you settled claims with some of them for undisclosed sums of money, yes, then I would maybe call the authorities or consider not voting you in the highest office.

Yes but you see - he was voted in. He won.

Well, it's not such a big deal, apparently. Everybody looking the other way, when the boss touches the secretary. Good times!

Ah, well now you're changing the subject. If you're granting that the issue is sexual assault and not bad language we can talk about that. Saying he would like to commit sexual assault would be disqualifying on its own, but in any case what he actually said was that it was something he does "whenever I meet a beautiful woman." So, I guess the better comparison would be if you said "when my kids talk back I beat the shit out of them."

In part, it's this kind of casual dismissal that many people are concerned about.

Look at this one, then try to be serious:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/2/donald-trump-...

For a broader view: https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_LGBT...

Trump himself has gone both directions on some of these issues, so it's hard to understand what his personal position really is, but he's made more statements -- particularly recently -- that indicate opposition to federal protections for LGBT. (I'm choosing my words carefully - he's indicated that he wants to defer many of these issues to the states, when pressed on it.)

It's likely that Trump is - from a personal perspective - one of the more LGBT-friendly republicans, outside of the Log Cabin Republicans crew.

Viewed through the lens of whom he selected as his running mate, the Trump Team (as opposed to Trump himself) is rightly viewed as threatening for both marriage equality and transgender rights. Pence has a very consistent history of voting both against protection for LGBT, as well as actively supporting discriminatory policies such as "don't ask, don't tell" and proactive definitions of marriage as between one man and one woman.

I fully agree the major problem for this particular issue is that too much of the GOP identifies with being anti-LGBT. That is serious. But Trump personally seems to be the only one among them that was able to do this flag stuff all and still remain supported.

I consider as the major GOP problem, over all other issues, global warming denial. It's easy to see that even here it's not recognized.

Seriously, there is no way to explain that remark?

Have you never talked shit off the record? Did you never ever laugh at a racist/classist/* - ist joke?

I agree that Trump will probably be bad, but thats because he clearly has no plan whatsoever.

Yet entire Clinton campaign was just shit slinging, manufactured outrage, meaningless pandering, name calling, avoiding burning issues, more shit slinging, more pandering

She could have gone out and ripped him to shreds should she have focussed on actual plans

Instead she just goes out and calls people deplorable everything-phobes because they dare to oppose PC nonsense. Wanting to deport illegal immigrants is not racist. Pretending that there are no problems with islam, where you've got Europe as a control environment (where they harbor and abet proper terrorists and obstruct law enforcement as hard as they can) is fucking crazy)

It's not manufactured outrage. Trump said he uses his power status to grope women without consent simply because he can. He bragged about walking in on teen constestants whilst they were nude. It wasn't him talking shit it was him bragging about doing said shit.

Was there any proof? Apart of him talking shit with some other brodudebros while being stupid enoug to keep the mic on...

Depends on what you consider proof. I mean, the man himself said that he gropes women because he can. He said this in a private conversation without any knowledge of being recorded. I have not reason not believe his claim. Maybe he was blustering but I don't believe it. He's claimed to walk in on beauty contestants while they are naked. He didn't mind when Howard Stern referred to his daughter as a "piece of ass". The totality of what we know about Donald Trump is such that it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to believe that he has never groped women.

Chappelle continued that what Trump said didn't sound like "sexual assault" to him and that the media "twisted" Trump's words. "He said, ‘And when you’re a star, they let you do it.’ That phrase implies consent. I just don’t like the way the media twisted that whole thing. Nobody questioned it.”

I said a thing or two like that... twenty or thirty years ago. I've grown up a bit since then, though. And I'm younger now than Trump was when he said that.

Have you considered that when it comes to electing politicians people don't put anywhere as much weight into personal remarks a candidate makes but rather the policies he's planning or how well he represents them?

That was a comment made in private and lightly. He didn't get on a podium and said that was going to be the Government's policy. I feel that you're equating Donald Trump the private person with Donald Trump the (future) head of state.

Actual policies matter much less than you would think. Both candidates either didn't talk about their proposals at all or were very vague about them. And many if not most of Trumps positions remain unclear to this day.

Daughter to mom: "Hey mom, this Hitler guy was just elected chancellor who is saying hateful things about Jews! We are Jewish, I'm scared!"

mom: "Don't worry, he was just saying this stuff to get elected, I'm sure he isn't that bad."

The world is upside down right now.

Well if they are illegal aliens (not immigrants), they should be deported.

What about Muslims waiting for a green card[1]? Are they "Illegal"? What if you are a non-muslim but just from a "terror prone" country? I'm not smug. I'm scared. Forgive me for not being "nice" to the supporters of a candidate who would strike existential fear in my heart.

[1]: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...

[2]: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/22/us/politics/tr...

Were they granted asylum, then waiting for a green card? If so, they are not illegal. Deportation requires a hearing.

They need not be refugees either. But Trump's new laws ban the "immigration" of Muslims. This means, a freeze on green-card approvals based on religion. If you don't have a green-card, you have to leave this country. Not all deportations are carried out by ICE.

P.S: Green-card applications could be active for over 8 years with no-fault. The system is just that screwed up.

What he actually said was: temporarily banning muslims from certain countries known to harbor terrorists.

Not sure why you saw "law". Only congress can make laws; not the president. Besides, the 1 st amendment is in his way. There is some precident for banning immigrants from certain countries. Chinese immigration was banned for a time, over 100 years ago.

And hopefully we agree that the Chinese immigration ban hass been a black stain on America history, since forever?

You completely validated the comment you responded to. I suspect you did not mean to this so convincingly.

Deportation is the natural result of illegal immigration. You're acting like they didn't know they were committing a crime.

There are proper channels for immigration. If you want to move to a certain country and your first choice is to break their laws; how can you expect to be entitled to anything over there?

I'm not acting like anything. I've not stated a position on deportation of illegal immigrants. My comment had nothing to do with the issue. Please reread the exchanges without making assumptions on my positions.

BTW, under Obama more people have been deported than under any other President. I'm in favor of trying to do as much as possible to prevent illegal immigration. And yet the comment I made that you responded to is absolutely correct. Think about it.

But the problem at least in the US is that the "proper channels" are purposely set so low as to encourage illegal immigration. Many industries, including Trump's field of construction rely on illegal immigrants for a large part of their labor source. Demonizing the illegal immigrants is kind of like Claude Rains in 'Casablanca' claiming to be shocked by the illegal gambling at Rick's while participating in it.

> But the problem at least in the US is that the "proper channels" are purposely set so low as to encourage illegal immigration.

No, they're set to discourage inmigration that doesn't prove to be a net benefit to the country or doesn't serve a particular cause.

> Many industries, including Trump's field of construction rely on illegal immigrants for a large part of their labor source.

They rely on it for bigger profit margins; they don't need illegal immigration to exist. The market can perfectly adjust to the situation: If workers are pricing themselves too high to the point many building projects are no longer worth the investment, either the project doesn't happen and workers have to adjust their prices accordingly, the project is actually valuable enough for the client to cough up the extra cost or the intermediary (construction company) lowers their profits to stay competitive.

So they are afraid the actual law will be enforced, because they're criminals.

They're afraid because their lives are in America.

Do you think the law should be changed? Should we try to perfectly enforce every law, no matter how cruel or costly it is? Should the DEA start raiding cancer patients again?

Laws are always selectively enforced, by necessity. Politicians, prosecutors, police chiefs, LEO's and others dictate how resources are allocated to enforcement.

And an election should decide who should be the one to allocate those resources with the people's best interest in mind. That's literally what happened.

So.....legal immigrants are afraid of being deported?

That's called irrational fear. It has no basis in reality.

I'm worried he might withdraw the US from NATO, also a very real worry.

While I understand where you are coming from please consider it through the lens of a re-negotiation opportunity. Personally I don't think NATO will be dismantled by Trump as it is a keystone to US foreign influence and power and I believe it will ultimately be strengthened because NATO members have historically got a 'free ride' by not meeting their defence obligations under the treaty. This means that the benefits of defence, such as economic stability and growth of the 'free rider' nations were subsidised by the US tax payer. How is that fair? I know that many here may find it unpalatable, but if people were to read 'Art of the Deal' I believe it will give them insight into how Trump will deal with NATO, any other re-negotiations as well as how he won the election.

Do you know that the art of the deal wasn't written at all by trump, and the guy who wrote it doesn't support him?

Hi wikibob, yes I am aware of that and the article where the ghost writer laments his association with Trump post the book being published.

However that does not invalidate my point... which is that by reading the book one can better understand Trump's approach to the media and what I believe will be his approach to the presidency.

So, in spite of the ghost writer, consider that Trump did put his name to the book and endorse it, therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that he was happy with the contents. Certainly if the roles were reversed I believe anyone would read a book about themselves and insist on changes if there were major errors prior to publishing.

I think it's funny that Europe wanted the US off their soil since the end of the Cold War. Now that Russia is moving westward, they are all worried about the US leaving.

Trump wants Europe to foot more of the bill for NATO.

People who are afraid of being deported are illegal aliens, so they weren't able to vote.

I fully support their plight and their right (I am myself an immigrant, a legal alien for 11 years with little chance of acquiring citizenship), however, this is exactly the limit of modern democracy. Non-citizens do not vote, despite living in the country and sharing similar rights and responsibilities.

Birthright citizenship is the largest remaining privilege and discrimination out there — legally enforced, and nearly as oppressive as racial discrimination before. It was really convenient to sweep the issue under the rug — until now.

"I am myself an immigrant, a legal alien for 11 years with little chance of acquiring citizenship"

I'm curious, why do you think you have little chance of acquiring citizenship?

I live in Switzerland, which has strict policies on naturalization. My wife is a scientist (postdoc mathematician), so we have to travel a lot between countries — in Europe, mobility is a significant part of academic culture. Each time (4 times, in fact). Each time, our "uninterrupted time spent in Switzerland" counter was reset.

I think you miss the point - liberals hate Trump voters.

And if your feeling is that anyone who voted for Trump is worthy only of contempt, then you truly missed the point.

Many are willing to see a failure of empathy in others but not in themselves.

I'm very liberal and have a lot of admiration for Obama and Clinton, despite their flaws. I don't hate Donald Trump or Donald Trump voters. I feel sad for them and for the fact that our country has disemployed so many people, and left so many people out in the cold, that they felt like their only living option was... this. I'd pity them, but they want my pity even less than my hate.

I hate the racism and sexism that his movement represents. I hate that people are treating his election as a vindication of the worst elements of our nation's history, rather than an expression of sheer desperation from the burping turtle at the bottom of the stack.

I've worked in tech for 10 years. It's full of people who did not vocally support Trump (and may well have voted for Clinton) but who perpetuate sexism and racism and think that they're doing so for valid business reasons ("culture fit"). I know who the enemy is and I know who to hate. It's not the guy in Milwaukee who lost his job and his dignity and can't afford to insure his family and gets socked with an "individual mandate" penalty for it.

>a lot of admiration for Obama and Clinton, despite their flaws

That is a problem. Because despite you overlooking their flaws, the "portions of the country that have been most ravaged by free trade orgies and globalism — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa — were filled with rage" saw "a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption" and overlooked intolerance and targeted crony capitalist corruption.

Solely focusing on “racism/sexism/xenophobia” while ignoring “economic suffering” is what led to this outcome.

Cenk Uygur put it succinctly during the primaries: “Instead of looking at it as, ‘Hey, one guy hasn’t taken corrupting money and the other one has,’ you frame it as male vs. female,” Uygur said. “And hence, put me in a position where I’m forced to say, no, I don’t think it would be historic because I think it’s the same old establishment.”

In the 1990s, Hillary Clinton got the shit kicked out of her by that same corrupt establishment for (a) trying to fix healthcare, and (b) being a woman and having an IQ over 140. (Sexism and racism both have a U-shaped distribution on the economic spectrum, but the top of our society is even more sexist than the bottom.) I'd rather plant a bomb in the Establishment, by electing a closet liberal who's been playing centrist in order to get in, than throw a brick at it and only do superficial damage by electing a political naif who'll surround himself by right-wing psychopaths.

Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and Peter Thiel are categorically not what this country needs. I wish we had given Hillary a chance. If she had turned out to be an Establishment hack, we could fire her in 2020.

What further evidence that she's an establishment hack could have convinced you?

A record as a carpet-bagging New York senator, notable only for her vote to go to war in Iraq. A stint as Secretary of State unblemished by any positive accomplishment. Both of those jobs were from the Democratic establishment, which then went on to literally fix the nomination process for her.

Forget the money from Goldman Sachs, she took money from Donald Trump for goodness sake. She is the epitome of an establishment hack. The Democratic establishment sold out their base.

What further evidence that she's an establishment hack could have convinced you?

I'm in my 30s, which means that I'm 97 in tech years. So I remember the 1990s. People were horrible to that woman. Her complaint about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" is spot-on. The Establishment beat the hell out of her.

So she realized that she had to work with the Establishment to get things done. Like I said, I'd rather take a chance of planting a bomb in it than throw a brick at it. And if I'm wrong and Clinton proved a sellout, we could fire her in 2020.

Yes, she accepted her market rate for speeches at Goldman Sachs... after leaving public service. Wouldn't you? I despise Goldman Sachs and I applied to work for them at one point, because if I'd gotten the Core Strats gig, it would have been good for my career. Almost all of us are whores, or were at one time. That's how capitalism works.

The Democratic establishment sold out their base.

I dislike the Democratic establishment (although it is less onerous than the Republican one). I dislike the fact that left-leaning and rational people face a complacent one-party system. Not enough to vote for Trump.

Just saying that people are "dirty" because they have friends in the Establishment is bigoted and Trumpist. We have to accept that people have different strategies for dealing with corruption, corporatism, and national failure and that one only knows the right one in hindsight.

People were horrible to that woman.

Do you suppose that might just have happened because she's a horrible person?

If you remember the 1990s, do you remember Billy Dale? Waco? Gary Aldrich (and if you do, was enforcing a no no-pan rule good or bad ^_^)? The magically moving Rose law Firm billing records and her law partner going to the Federal pen? Her public responses to those who accused her husband of rape, sexual assault, or inappropriate (power and age) sexual relations? The looting of the White House? Filegate, with it's blackmail treasures?

And that's just stuff that happened in the 8 year administration that her fingerprints are clearly on.

Were you really paying that much attention, seeing as how if you are in your late 30s, you'd have been exiting college about the time the administration was over?

In the 1990s, Hillary Clinton got the shit kicked out of her by that same corrupt establishment for (a) trying to fix healthcare, and (b) being a woman and having an IQ over 140.

Incompetently trying to fix healthcare.

Let's not forget it was her very own party who refused to buy off on her unbelievably complicated scheme, remember those charts?

Look, maybe I buy Hillary once having an IQ of 140, but can you give me any evidence it ever translated into success in her life, except for attracting Bill?

Compare to, for example, the #1 woman of this election, the one you've probably never heard of, Kellyanne Conway, who became Trump's campaign manager as of August 17th. She's the first successful female US presidential campaign manager, BTW.

Anyway, just a thought or three from one of HN's right-wing psychopaths....

Why should anyone have empathy for those that have no empathy for anyone?

Because empathy is explicitly not transactional.

Says who?

The amnesia in this article and many of the comments here is stupefying. Have we all forgotten the things DJT said and did throughout his campaign:

- Called Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers;

- Mocked the physically disabled;

- Used his ownership of a beauty pageant to look at naked women dressing;

- Made threats of political violence;

- Demonstrated a contempt for science;

- Put forth conspiracy theories regarding the President, HRC and climate change;

- The racist (yes, racist) comments he made regarding Judge Curiel;

And this isn't even the half of it. Let's also not forget the behavior of those who showed up at his rallies spewing hatred, racism and xenophobia. That actually happened.

Does the press have issues? Undoubtedly. But to write off the last 18 months and Tuesday's election as "smugness" is to have lost the plot.

Might I humbly recommend going to www.untruthaboutdonaldtrump.com put together by philosopher Stefan Molyneux? Just please keep an open mind and do fact check as all sources are listed in an intellectually honest and transparent way.

It's not either/or. It's both/and.

Yes, Trump has done a lot that should disqualify him. (You didn't even mention what to me is about the biggest ones: Threatened revenge on those who spoke against him.)

And yes, the article has a very valid point about the media - it really does live in its own bubble, not understanding most of the country.

Funny how the anti-trump people are now resulting to physical violence and rioting.

Do you think Trump and his supporters were at any point nice and respectful?

How was Obama treated by the right wing after his election and during his presidency?

If something is racist, it's racist. That doesn't change when it's coming from a president-elect. Pointing it out is and should be okay for the media and anyone else to do.

I've now seen it justified amount my Facebook peers as, "I can't accept a Trump supporter or their views because people are going to die! Don't you realize you are supporting the collapse of civilization?!"

And they (your Facebook peers) don't seem to understand that they are helping to cause the collapse of civilization, by exactly their refusal to listen to or engage with the other side.

How can it be so hard to be nice to others?

As a Canadian, I can say this: I have no idea. It's really hard to develop a culture of niceness and it can be so very fleeting.

Just as the US has a huge cultural divide between the coastal big cities and the great middle of the country, so too does Canada between east and west as well as between Anglophone and Francophone. Yet somehow this divide in Canada is not quite as acute, not quite as mean.

Perhaps the biggest issue is that the moral fault lines constructively interfere with the cultural ones. I think of big-city vegans vs those who love BBQ and it becomes a microcosm for the rejection of all the respective cultural elements: yoga and country music, environmentalism and hunting/fishing, political correctness and religion.

In defense of hunting and fishing, sportsmen and their outfitters tend to be the strongest proponents of environmental protection. This distinction does somewhat favor fishing over hunting, but hunting does serve as an important backstop against explosive population growth in the absence of apex predators.

- http://fishpondusa.com/about/corporate-responsibility

- http://wamu.org/news/11/05/23/deer_overpopulation_yields_dis...

Oh yeah, I'm not saying that sportsmen are against the environment. I'm referring to the cultural divide between city-dwelling vegans who rarely, if ever, venture into the wilderness and sportsmen who eat meat and fight tirelessly to preserve nature.

It's a matter of people talking past eachother.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. You have to stand up for the right thing even if that means telling other people that they are wrong, or even stupid.

You don't have to be smug about it, but that can be a tricky line to walk. Personally, I think it's better to advocate for certain values as respectfully as you know how and not worry about offending people who disagree. Placing too much emphasis on phrasing and tone is what people refer to derisively as "political correctness". It's best to focus more on saying the right thing, and less on how you say it

I would humbly challenge your opening sentences. Right and wrong are constructs of judgement created in the human mind. So while I agree that people should stand for their beliefs I completely disagree that you have any moral authority to tell people they are wrong or stupid. I believe in a free market of ideas protected by the freedom of speech and mutual respect. I also believe that if you want to change someone's point of view you should do so with facts and reason. If your goal is to change someone's thinking outright rejection of their beliefs on the basis of biased judgement and name calling will not achieve your goal and will most likely close that person's mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Reply on news.ycombinator.com