EDIT: If there's no answers from the current batch (either due to sample size or general shyness), I'll pose the same question regarding past YC alumni. I find it hard to believe out of a thousand people there isn't a single Trump supporter.
On the immigration issue: I'm in favor of immigration reform. I disagree with the current EO because it doesn't include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and because it doesn't exempt Special Immigrant Visas (which should have been super fast tracked), and because it seems punitive vs. corrective. If the reasoning behind it is an actual improvement in the screening process, and re-examination of all past visas under that basis, then there's probably a way to do it which is less disruptive to the >99% of visa holders who are not terrorists.
(The immigration reforms I'd like to see are both improving the experience for "good" people, and more effective screening of "bad" people, though superior technology and procedures. I'm hugely in favor of deporting/banning actual criminals who are in the US and not citizens; tracking visa expiration better; physically securing borders to prevent access without valid authorization. I'd like the borders to be far more deterministic for valid visa holders, friendlier, and for the immigrant or visitor experience, starting from the websites and how we treat people in foreign embassies, to be better. That might require more funding for State/USCIS, and definitely requires better tech. In general I think the test at the border should be "will this person make the US a better place." We have a human rights need to provide emergency refuge to refugees, but that doesn't necessarily mean immigration, and could in Syria be most efficiently accomplished by funding camps in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq.)
(The trade war is dumb; if the wall is going to cost $15b, we should just pay for it.)
Reporting "will give priority to Christians" is a mischaracterization of: "> (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality."
The probability of the guy being extremely vetted is a terrorist is a ridiculous 0.000001%. That doesn't take into account that a good number of terrorists are already known, are in war, locked in jail cells or have no passports/documents.
This probability is also probably lower than the guy being from a visa-waiver country where the guy happen to be mentally unstable and go on a killing spree. In both cases, your extreme vetting is very unlikely to detect the bad guy.
However, here is the thing. By alienating the population to the "dangers of islam", you are further separating these people from the American communities and not helping them getting integrated. This will, in the long run, backfires badly as it creates huge "muslim neighbour-hoods" that are not compatible with the fabrics of American society. France is a good example.
In the case of immigration, that's clearly a YC position as well -- if you look at the percentage of YC founders who are immigrants, immigrants in early employee roles, and international markets, it would be negligent for YC to not be pushing for sane immigration rules. While the status quo isn't great, either, it's quite reasonable to criticize changes which also don't make things better. SOPA/PIPA, spying, etc. are all critical issues for YC and other groups of tech companies. Stuff like 2A, abortion, etc. isn't, even though a lot of people care about those.
To suggest that Trump supporters are incapable of critical thinking or being successful start-up founders is pretty insulting. This type of circle jerk in a bubble thinking is a big part of what got him elected in the first place.
It's also comments like yours (and Sam's original post) that further prevent anyone from coming forward to express their dissenting views. Most people shy away from situations that start off with a group of thugs referring to them as idiots.
See, the 'little helpers' (or useful idiots by another term) are exactly the people who empower these assholes, historically, over and over again.
And afterwards, when the carnage has finally run its course they are all suddenly short of memory and did not know a thing.
If you are able to think for yourself and you dissociate from all things internet related, study history and economics for a bit and then look at what is being done today and you will not come to the conclusion that this is damaging America and the world in general then your critical thinking skills are indeed in short supply.
Whatever button a demagogue is able to push they'll push no amount of counterweight is going to convince scared people looking for a 'strong man' that they themselves are part of the problem.
But feel free to go soft and easy on anybody that is helping to push the cart over the edge, me, I'll happily give them both barrels and that includes my closest friends and family if I feel that they are going to help destroy my country and our world.
In pre-war Germany exactly those same sentiments that you are appealing to were used widely and we all know how that ended. Let's be a bit more forceful this time around, it might not yet be too late.
Or would you rather wait with that until the momentum is so large that this disaster is unstoppable?
If we fail to learn from the past we will repeat it endlessly and I really could do without a repeat of the path that we are currently on. But who knows, maybe the world just needs it's population reset every half century or so, we're overdue.
With the kind of bull-in-a-China-shop behavior on display at the moment it's a toss-up how this will end but war is definitely on the menu.
Politics is not an optimization problem, it's not about finding the "optimal" state of affairs or whatever.
It's about hopes and dreams. It forms the horizon of the destiny people imagine for themselves, both individually and collectively.
It's also about virtue, morality, sacrifice, etc.
You may sneer but the masses do not.
This is why Democrats lose. They have no vision. What they offer right now is the same boring, stagnant, soul-less status quo, guided along by accurate reasoning about facts and figures.
This is not about winning or losing elections. This is about winning or losing (big time) as a country in the future.
Rapid change is invariably bad, steady, slow changes and growth are good. The long view is the one to take, even if it can't be compressed down into juicy soundbites and isn't sexy.
See, if you 'win' but end up wrecking your country then you lost anyway, 'boring' in politics is good.
There is a reason that 'may you live in interesting times' is generally considered to be a curse, not a blessing.
Divide and conquer is a fantastic strategy against a stronger opponent and Putin is playing this like a master.
Maybe America's time has run out, but I for one would like to see the USA remain strong and united, I fear this may already past the point of no return and with ever day that goes by and this madness continuous you'll be looking wistfully back at those 'terrible' years under Obama, Bush, Clinton and so on.
And in a way that is the most vexing of all this: Trump is lying through his teeth to get those votes, he will not be able to give his voters what he wants but in the meantime the clock is going backwards at a rate of about 4 years per week that this guy is in power.
America's signature under a treaty (always a dicey thing) is now worth absolutely nothing, international relations are damaged for years to come, re-armament will be on the agenda in lots of places that were better off without the ability to slaughter their neighbors and so on. Think of it as the roll-back of 50 years of diplomatic policy that kept a large chunk of the world - the USA included - stable and prosperous.
I can't really take you serious if you invoke Putin as the supposed mastermind...
International relations: because the countries he temporarily blocked for immigration have previously been such big friends to the USA? I don't think that accurately reflects reality.
Between Putin and Assange there are very good reasons to damage America as much as they can get away with and it didn't take much to tip the balance. America has never been as divided in recent memory as what is happening today.
To think that Putin would not be involved is naive, what with the situation in the Ukraine being what it is he desperately needs some way to get out of the stalemate and with America run by the likes of McCain and Clinton and NATO and the EU being strong and united there would be very little chance of that.
Putin stands the most to gain from all this by far.
> International relations: because the countries he temporarily blocked for immigration have previously been such big friends to the USA? I don't think that accurately reflects reality.
You must have missed his comments on Taiwan, Mexico and a whole bunch of other countries.
The 'One China' policy essentially is about saving face. China is extremely sensitive to not being seen as losing face because of bullying from the West about what they consider to be their sphere of influence.
That in practice Taiwan acts and to all intents and purposes is an independent country doesn't matter as much as being able to claim that Taiwan is a republic of China does.
So, if everybody would just pretend that the 'One China' view is the correct one while Taiwan gets away with being a relatively progressive democratic society everybody wins.
If Trump starts throwing his weight around he might just trigger an invasion of Taiwan and just like Europe and the USA stood by while the Eastern part of Ukraine was annexed I do not expect anybody to lift a finger to stop it.
That's why you don't put unstable bullies in charge of foreign diplomacy with your single largest trading partner and a formidable military power to boot.
Vastly oversimplified but that's about the gist of it as far as I can see, corrections welcome.
And it might not be the only possible scenario - in fact, with all the Hitler comparisons floating around, this stance towards China reminds me a lot of the appeasement politics towards Hitler.
Ultimately, saving face with regard to Taiwan is probably just one part of the general trade deal with China? So as the other parts, it should probably be up for negotiation? Or even be a factor ("we pretend Taiwan belong to you, and you give us moar iPhones").
Not saying that protectionism is a good idea, but also not saying that all trade deals are always optimal for both parties.
I think Ukraine was about more than saving face for Russia, too - Russia has always wanted the Krim for strategical reasons?
That's pretty much the way it was. Except for it being a lot more than just iPhones.
> I think Ukraine was about more than saving face for Russia, too - Russia has always wanted the Krim for strategical reasons?
The Krim is extremely important from a military perspective to Russia, their response was - again - extremely predictable (in fact, I'm surprised they didn't simply call the EU's bluff and invaded outright but then again, appearances matter even to the Kremlin).
See also: Kaliningrad.
Taiwan, Mexico and so on - fair enough. But overall it is not as if all the countries in the world were friends and only Trump is shaking things up now. There were always conflicts of interest, new trends that shift power (like oil and phracking), military interventions and what not.
Destruction and construction are asymmetric. It takes far less effort to destroy something than it does to create something and things that are delicately balanced can be toppled with only a small application of force.
> What makes him so good that the world's most advanced country is powerless against him?
Internal divisions, magnified to make them seem larger than they really are.
> Is it because Russians are such good hackers?
No, it is because when it comes to propaganda Russia has a leg (or rather several legs) up compared to the USA. The USA would do something like 'voice of America', the Russians would carpet bomb the nation with their version of the story, a history to corroborate their version and a continuous barrage of flak to get in the way of intelligent discussion.
And anybody that managed to get some kind of opposition going would as a rule never be heard from again.
Fortunately in America that stage has not yet been reached, let's hope it will never happen.
> Taiwan, Mexico and so on - fair enough.
Ok
> But overall it is not as if all the countries in the world were friends and only Trump is shaking things up now.
No, but they weren't all-out enemies either and Trump is pushing in that direction (not Taiwan). Even in Europe, one of the USA's staunchest allies when it comes to operations abroad there is strong talk of distancing because of the new perceived instability of America.
> There were always conflicts of interest, new trends that shift power (like oil and phracking), military interventions and what not.
Yes, but just like Hitler found out: you can't fight wars on all fronts at once.
But how can they carpet bomb the US with fake news from Russia?
"Even in Europe"
Maybe Europe will have to shake off its arrogance and realize how much they have always depended on the US. I say that as an European - and here, also, people are divided over Trump, just as in the US. There are elections in Germany this year (if you meant Germany), although to be fair, no major shakeup is to be expected. But that is only for lack of an alternative, there is no Trump here to vote for. But maybe some adjustment of policies will occur before the election date, anyway.
"Yes, but just like Hitler found out: you can't fight wars on all fronts at once."
Still, making a tactical error is not in itself evil. And chaos is a tactic that sometimes works. It won him the election already.
Thousands of websites are targeted at the US with fake news skewing the picture and messing with people's heads.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38168281
On top of that most news fora are overrun by trolls shouting down any kind of dissent and picking up a fair share of support from 'useful idiots' who will endlessly repeat the talking points.
Make no mistake: a war is in progress, it is a war without bullets but with bits, the consequences are every bit as real and sooner or later the one may lead to the other.
> Maybe Europe will have to shake off its arrogance and realize how much they have always depended on the US.
There is no other choice. But that also carries significant risk.
> Still, making a tactical error is not in itself evil. And chaos is a tactic that sometimes works. It won him the election already.
Yes but that's like congratulating the dog on catching the car.
War - everybody has some interest to pursue, sure. That is nothing new, though.
Europe on its own: what risk do you mean?
"congratulating the dog on catching the car"
Becoming president seems more useful than a car is for a dog, though.
Edit: only now read the BBC link. That's even more ridiculous than "The Russians did it". Now it is Macedonian teenagers who rigged the US election? Come on...
No, but it's but a small wheel in the much larger machine. There has been plenty of reporting on the Russian propaganda machine, if you're going to reject each and every component out of hand then you'll end up rejecting the conclusion as well but that would be a step too far.
See, for this to succeed a number of things have to happen:
- reliable sources of news need to be discredited
- a large amount of flak needs to be generated so people are discussing that rather than the real news
- a consistent barrage of the 'right' talking points needs to be presented so people start repeating those things as though they are real
All of those components are well represented, I would be highly surprised if all this would amount to coincidence.
As for the barrage - again, how do you do that? Like creating bots on Twitter and Facebook and zillions of web sites doesn't mean people will read them.