Hacker News Reader

These sorts of "centrist" comments bother me. You're acting as if Trump is a normal president, that any disagreements can be distilled down to "partisanship", and that he can actually be reasoned with if only he hears the right people.

The disagreements with the travel ban are not partisan or political — this ban will have very serious consequences for millions of people, and maybe more in the future, given what the president has said during the campaign. So far, he has delivered on his campaign promises, and has demonstrated that he cannot be reasoned with.

Some of us gave us him a chance, but now it's clear he's not going to change. If we don't take action now and prevent him from being normalized soon, it will be too late.

Nobody likes comparisons with Hitler, but I think in 30 years we may very well view Trump in a similar light — if I were there, I would've said something, why didn't anybody stop him?

I'm not saying he can be reasoned with. Just that it's better to keep talking, regardless of the result. With talk, there is hope. When we turn our backs on our fellow Americans, there is only alienation and hatred, and all the dysfunction that brings with it.

There are two things here: talking with other people, which we should absolutely do without insulting them for having voted the 'wrong' way or some such:

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21715732-scoldin...

Another thing is talking with Trump and Bannon and the like. It may not be possible.

> Just that it's better to keep talking, regardless of the result.

Opposition and talking are mutually exclusive at times and then you have to choose. Trump is marching forward while people try to talk to him, using their credibility to bolster his attack. If he's ready to talk, he can always call a cease-fire and do so. These responses are very reminiscent to me of Chamberlain before WWII, who said the same about another madman, and ceded much ground and many lives of others, and then it was too late.

Talking with other Americans is an entirely different matter.

Right on. For those who are encouraging dialogue, please show me one instance in the past 10 days where Trump has shown the least bit of ability to listen to the other side. Sometimes, brute force action is the only way to make your voice heard.

Genuine question: Is anyone is the us ready for brute force?

When was the last time there was a brute force against an US administration that worked?

I'm French, so historically brute force for me means using force. Brutally. Right now I only see people marching and yelling. When's the last time that worked in the us?

I'm a little lost to understand what would work in the US to be honest. Culturally, here, what is the best way to overthrow?

I'm almost certain the GP meant brute force metaphorically, meaning aggressive political opposition with no attempt at finesse. Think of 'brute force' attacks on crypto - no actual brutality or force is used.

If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear?

Based on his actions since Jan 20, he should be isolated, shunned, denounced and blocked by all available means until he either resigns or is impeached. It doesn't seem like "reason" is something that he will ever listen to, by this point.

That said, in principle it can be useful to have people capable of exerting the kinds of influence he seems to understand better (force, and threats of force). But not a hidebound accommodationist of dubious ethical principles like Kalanack.

(EDIT: apologies, didn't see the upvotes before revising the above substantially).

If that were completely true then he wouldn't have a council of tech advisors that all hold views counter to his own.

If the man is willing to talk to you about the things you care about, then why on earth wouldn't you?

I've independently come to the same conclusion as you and OP, but some of my liberal friends on Facebook don't agree. I don't really understand the argument to "isolate and shun" by not joining his advisory boards. If there is pressure to keep Trump's ideological enemies out of the process, then that only leaves his supporters... Which leads to all of his sources of information supporting his decisions.

> Which leads to all of his sources of information supporting his decisions.

What, in the last 18 months, gives you the impression he listens to anyone outside of his coterie of right-wing schmoozers anyway?

The fact that he spends time physically present and apparently listening to the left wing technocrats.

Nobody is expecting a radical shift in his policies, but even minor shifts on key issues are arguably worth the small time investment.

The man is self-interested, and self-interested people can generally be bargained with if you can find the places where their interests align with yours. In this case money and public opinion are good targets.

Because the Advisory Council serves in name only and is a prop to grant legitimacy.

Very succinctly put.

It feeds his ego to have the titans of tech kiss his ring.

If that were completely true then he wouldn't have a council of tech advisors that all hold views counter to his own.

That's more of a sign of him doing the best he can to scrape from the bottom of the barrel than of any real respect for diversity of viewpoints, let alone "reason."

Is he actually talking to them and listening to their advice?

If he's physically present and doesn't have his hands over his ears, he's at least hearing what they have to say. And these people are masters at finding ways to influence others based on others interests.

why on earth wouldn't you?

It all comes down to why he wants to talk to me. Is it because he's interested in listening to what to have to say and take my advice under consideration or does he just want to use my 'fame' and my name to add legitimacy to the the actions he would have taken anyway.

I think that people like Musk likely have a strong belief in their ability to persuade and influence.

I think that the idea that Trump is completely uninfluencable is a bit hyperbolic. He's not an irrationality machine. He cares about things, just maybe not the things you or I care about, and so those things become avenues for influence and negotiation.

He's not an irrationality machine.

Well, I disagree with you there. Based on his actions, especially since assuming office, "irrationality machine" seems to be the perfect description of him.

> a council of tech advisors that all hold views counter to his own.

That's an odd characterization. Regarding views, I'm sure each of them disagrees with him on something (because they're all different human beings) but several of them endorsed him. Regarding "tech", that's not how I would label Pepsi, JP Morgan, the Cleveland Clinic, Walmart, BlackRock... Tech is less represented on the forum than financial services.

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

Trump still has 24 hours in every day, and every hour that he's not talking to someone like Kalanick or anyone else, he is talking to Steve Bannon, possibly the most malevolent force to ever inhabit US politics. This is why Jared Kushner is particularly important at this time: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/opinion/where-is-jared...

I don't know about ability to influence but an insider/whistleblower (someone with a conscience) could be or would've been useful.

If all he has a true believers then it makes it much more opaque for those of us on the outside.

> Based on his actions since Jan 20, he should be isolated, shunned, denounced and blocked by all available means

I'd change "Jan 20" for "the 1980s" because he's always been a monstrous excuse of a human being willing to say anything and do anything to advance his personal interests.

Sure, definitely. I just like to simplify it to "since Jan 20" to sidestep any of the "let's give the guy a chance" arguments we were hearing in the first few days. In other words, we don't have to dial back to any of the insanities of his campaign, or in his public life previously. Enough has happened in the last 14 days to make it sufficiently clear as to what we're in store for, moving forward: a non-stop, white-knuckle disaster of presidency, until he is removed.

> The underlying problem in the US is we've stopped talking to each other.

Yes, but this is not just in the US, unfortunately. I have relatives in many places of the world, and things are escalating everywhere.

I blame social media for that.

People can't look at each other in the eye anymore, so they forget what it is like to feel empathy. They congregate around small online bubbles, and a lot of people is almost PTSD-anxious about talking to people of other bubbles. So they resort to humiliation and other tactics. When they try to talk the same way IRL, they get shunned, which makes them feel victimized and justified in their hate. Now we're seeing real politicians espousing the crazy ideas we'd only see in comment sections ten years ago.

It's a downward spiral, unfortunately.

People can't look at each other in the eye anymore, so they forget what it is like to feel empathy.

I hear a line of reasoning like this quite often and I have yet to understand it.

I simply don't accept that empathy is a necessary precondition to productive conversation.

I can have a productive disagreement with someone that I don't empathize with. I can have a productive disagreement with someone I loathe and can barely force myself to maintain eye contact. It's called being an adult.

I'm happy to talk with someone like Evan McMullin, or our local Republican state representative who has some good ideas on housing (and other ideas I don't like). Indeed, I recently sat down and chatted with him and found him to be a very well-informed, bright guy. It was a pleasant experience and makes me all the more remorseful that the national election turned out the way it did.

It is, however, pretty difficult to talk with people who are ever more convinced that the truth comes directly from Dear Leader via Twitter. Look at the whole inauguration photo thing - he's telling people to ignore what they see and believe him. That is very worrying. It's easy to have different ideas about the facts and what to do about them, but if you can't even agree on the facts, there's really not much to talk about.

I look forward to Republicans acknowledging what they said before, and working cooperatively with democrats to end the Trump presidency, impeaching him for violating the Emoluments Clause cause of the constitution.

“We’re on the verge of having someone take over the conservative movement who is a con artist,” Rubio said, accusing Trump of spending his career “sticking it to working Americans.”

"This man is a pathological liar.", Ted Cruz "Utterly amoral."

"You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to hell." Lindsey Graham.

Sarcasm? (Legitimate question)

>don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear?

I highly doubt he actually cares.

Uber's business practices have at times exhibited a disregard for the rule of law and in Austin a disregard for the will of of the people expressed through local democratic process. The Uber CEO's tech celebrity status does not impart status as a voice of reason (nor does it disqualify them) assuming that we have a solid definition of what constitutes a voice of reason. My take is that the Uber CEO's action was political speech for political and business ends and that like all political speech it came with political benefits and political costs.

I also doubt it will mitigate the effect of the Uber hashtag. I don't think there's much general goodwill among most people because most people have had crappy jobs and see the sharing economy for what it is...surge pricing and no health care and no paid vacation and a job that might go away because some drunk complained of insufficient kowtow.

Uber didn't get out front of the hashtag and is playing PR catchup against a well constructed propaganda campaign and some group of investors is making money and money is always associated with White House politics and smart money plays both parties (and only having two parties keeps costs down).

Finally, in my opinion it is usually a political mistake to dismiss one's opponents actions as naive or lacking reason or absent of critical thought. Expressing political will is a naked form of reasoned thought and the hashtag is such an expression for many people.

> This is really unfortunate. If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear?

I see the point, but this business council isn't going to meaningfully influence policy. The policymaking apparatus is huge and this is a tiny, tiny piece of it. However, it does send a signal to Republicans in Congress that the tech $ they want will not play along with Trump. That's a quite important signal.

I doubt Kalanack and the way he manages Uber to be the voice of reason.

If I'm in the Trump is a mad man camp, and I am in the Trump is a mad man camp, why do you think that a voice of reason will get through to a mad man? I think Kalanack just lends respectability to a mad man.

> I think Kalanack just lends respectability to a mad man.

What confuses me most is the notion that suddenly Kalanick has all this tremendous personal influence and respectability, from people who are plenty happy to jump on him in other contexts. Is there a single person who was saying, "Well, I wasn't sure about Trump, but that Uber guy supports him..."? It seems like many of the other names on the committee have much more favorable mind-share, and so in that dimension must be doing more harm, and yet are getting less criticism.

The significant figure here is Trump. So anyone associating with him will be tainted by that association.

Except that we are seeing far less of a reaction to Bob Iger or Jack Welch being involved with the exact same thing. What portion of people #DeletingUber are switching away from Pepsi products? Has the media failed to cover substantial new protest of JP Morgan?

Jack Welch is retired. So there's no consumer pressure that can be brought to bear on him.

Bob Iger is the chairman of the Walt Disney Company. He hasn't resigned from the panel but after consumer pressure he's refusing to attend:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bob-iger-wont-attend-t...

Iger has a schedule conflict. That's not remotely the same thing as "refusing to attend". Even if he "has a schedule conflict", that's still not the same thing.

Fine. You get half a point for pointing out that this has been corrected as a schedule conflict. And I get half a point for pointing out that Welch is retired.

Returning to your main point, consumer pressure is being brought to bear. Even Musk has acknowledged this while saying he wants (for now) to engage.

BTW, Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom dumped Ivanka.

My main point was that Kalanick seems to be targeted substantially because many people dislike him anyway. But if many people dislike him anyway, he's less of a problem than the others on the committee. A part of it may well just be a low-hanging fruit thing.

Other than a protest wasn't Uber fine until they didn't honor the Taxi strike at the airport? Seemed the #DeleteUber campaign really kicked into gear after that.

I'm not saying your statement of having smart people in Trump's ear being a good thing is wrong I just thought that the outrage mostly stemmed from the strike and not with his being on the team.

Granted maybe that doesn't matter; this is likely the only way to possibly reverse the #DeleteUber campaign. Though I'd be really curious as to how effective it has been (if at all though I'm assuming it has).

Trump craves praise and approval. He needs people to think he's great. At the same time he reflexively rejects/attacks/hates anyone at all, even a potential ally, who criticizes him.

Furthermore, when the people protest his decisions or angrily criticize him, it actually fuels his ego and makes him more convinced that his decisions are correct.

We've seen this again and again and again.

Should my goal be to remain untainted by association or contact with Trump?

Or should it be to coax the confused monster away from his destructive path?

The only thing that will get Trump of his path is a giant whack with a clue bat. The contrast between various previous US presidents and Trump could not be greater (Bush the elder, Obama just to name two from opposing sides), he defiles the position.

> don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear?

Generally, yes. However, I believe there is a line that can be crossed where this is no longer a good idea. The association will always lend some credibility to the administration, and when the administration commits an action like the immigration ban, you should stop assisting them in any way, period.

> I am saddened by his choice

It wasn't necessarily Kalanick's choice. I think he there's a good chance he was made to leave.

> We only hurl partsisan-charged invectives at each other. Kalanack's choice here is a visible example demonstrating that "not talking" is the solution.

It's Kalanick.

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

Honestly, what good do you think Kalanack could do in his position on the advisory council?

> If you're in the "Trump is a mad man" camp, don't you want voices of reason like Kalanack's to be in his ear?

No, were I in that camp I would not.

First, because I don't see any evidence that I particularly want voices like Kalanick's in anybody's ear, particularly a mad man, and second because retaining the ear of a madman in a position of strength typically requires maintaining a degree of visible support for the madness to demonstrate loyalty, the harm from which often more than compensates for any benefit from whispering in his ear.

Reason and discussion is how you influence the rational, not the "mad man".