Hacker News Reader

Comment by metalliqaz | Hacker News Reader

Funny, isn't it, that a free and neutral Internet is one of the key technologies that allowed the acerbic alt-right movement to bubble up from the fringes, to become grassroots, and then mainstream, finally to put Trump in office. Then, his team gleefully work to destroy it. I suppose they think that greedy, unfair measures that currently benefit themselves will never be handed to their opponents. That's a lesson the left never learned. sigh

View on HN

The alt-right is a small fringe movement with outsized presence in election post-mortems due to their visibility on digital platforms used by journalists and bloggers.

Trump voters were (mostly) Romney voters.[1] Clinton lost by failing to galvanize voters who turned out for Obama in prior elections[2] and neglecting to campaign in Rustbelt states.[3]

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trump...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-no...

[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/trumps-...

Clinton lost because the DNC cheated to get her where she was in the first place... She was supposed to be the candidate that could never lose, and Bernie Or Bust isn't a real thing... Sure as heck was, I know Bernie supporters who voted Trump out of spite (mostly the independents) -- I wrote Bernie in personally, because I'd rather see the shit storm that is Trump -- piss people off so badly and ruin the entire reputation of the Republican party that progressive politics will come back in full force in 4 years. Than see clinton in office starting more wars we don't need and doing more regime change and taking money from special interests.

There's a real hatred for the elite class right now in America, some idiots thought Trump was that answer but he IS an elite. Bernie was the answer but the DNC thought they could quash him, now he's the most popular member of congress - and more progressives are running and winning than ever before.

2020 will be interesting to see if he runs again, if he does he'll probably be the next president. Even Nate Silver has said that Bernie is currently the front-runner for 2020 much as Clinton was in 2013.

Bernie will be nearing 80 years of age by then, making it iffy that he will even survive his first term. We're more likely to see Elizabeth Warren run, IMHO.

"Clinton lost because the DNC cheated to get her where she was in the first place"

They absolutely did not. There was absolutely no evidence of such things happening. There was no mass conspiracy.

Seriously, more Democrats wanted Clinton than Bernie. That's why she won. Get over it.

> Clinton lost because the DNC cheater to get her where she was in the first place

There is no grand conspiracy. Stop kidding yourself. More Democrats preferred Hillary over Bernie. End of story. The reason is obvious: Bernie Sanders is not a democrat. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. He joined the Democratic party solely for a larger support base and because the Democrats align more with his ideals than Republicans do.

It is absolutely no surprise that the DNC establishment preferred an establishment candidate who had long been a prominent member of the party. Not some coat-tail hanger-on using the predominantly liberal base of a party that he only nominally belongs to. He does not represent the interests (arguably) of the majority of the Democratic party voters. That's why he lost.

So you're sayin no Bernie or Bust movement existed? Because there was a petition w/ at least 100k signatures of people who were #BernieOrBust.. do you think 100K votes mattered at all in the last election cycle? Do you think many people who were pro-bernie and never vote for clinton might be closet Bernie or Bust, or vote Trump, or Jill Stein?

I'm guessing for every outspoken Bernie/Bust person there were 2-3 more people who voted 3rd party or abstained...as a result...

It was an ugly primary, and if you don't think the DNC cheated then you haven't watched any of the news... DNC chair was fired because of it, CNN anchor got in hot water for GIVING CLinton the questions to the debate before hand... that's not conspiracy because it's fact...

That's just another example of pulling the ladder up behind you, once you reach safety. Happens in many domains (immigrations, most famously).

But they haven't reached safety. They will be censored into oblivion by large corps who don't want to be seen endorsing/promoting that content, and any rival services they set up to fill those gaps will wither on the vine.

There will be strange bedfellows to be had in this particular fight.

They in this case are the Trump people that got to the top. Yes, once they are out of power they are screwed. That's just myopic short-term thinking, though.

Trump doesn't care about listening to anyone, least of all those who put him in office. Republicans in general don't either, or they wouldn't be cutting everyone's healthcare.

They listen to their base. They can't afford to lose the base. It's the outreach to moderates that only happens during campaigns.

For what it's worth, they aren't actually cutting health care. There's a reason they can't get a repeal through even though they control both houses of congress and have a rubber stamp waiting in the white house.

To be fair, it's their own healthcare plan. The Republican party held Congress during Obama's administration.

Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote. The Republicans took over congress largely as a result of the unpopularity of the policy and the process.

Oh, I hadn't followed it that closely then.

The problem for them is they have a slim margin. And there's disagreement between cutting healthcare a little bit for the moderates, or completely slashing it for the hardcore.

Their base lost the popular vote, the MO of the modern GOP is rule by minority through any means necessary. Plus all they need to do to get their base to vote is induce moral panic about abortions or transgender people, which they're already pretty good at.

> Funny, isn't it, that a free and neutral Internet is one of the key technologies that allowed the acerbic alt-right movement to bubble up from the fringes, to become grassroots, and then mainstream, finally to put Trump in office.

The thing about human mind is that there is no way to truly stop the way it reasons other than to counter it with reason. You can't really change someone's mind by smacking them in the face until their mind is changed take for instance.

Alt-right movement would have come around with or without Internet and with or without widespread censorship. In fact there is already widespread social and technological censorship against alt-right views, and this is one of the biggest reasons why they have an appeal.

A bunch of my Libertarian friends have to do the same, our opinions aren't really understood or accepted by a lot of liberals, so artful trolling at heavily moderated internet groups and communities is something they all learn to do sooner or later.

Yes, IF there is a moderation of opinions on the internet at the network level (which I don't believe would happen), then controversial opinions like that of alt-right are the ones which would suffer disproportionately more. However, that is much easily handled rather than having govt level laws regarding the control of the Internet.

I find that libertarians are hopelessly out of touch when it comes to the Net Neutrality debate. Sticking to their ideologies is fully expected, and I respect that they actually have a well thought-out ideology, but unfortunately it just doesn't jive with reality.

The the efficiency of the market only works when there is an actual market. We have none. Not even Google could break the Telco strangle-hold on the market. (Google Fiber has basically folded) In an environment like that, removing regulation only serves the incumbent monopoly.

Healthy competition would be great, but it's not realistic anymore. At this point we need our government to stand up for us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com