Hacker News Reader

Comment by spurgu | Hacker News Reader

Probably going to (and should) be downvoted as well, but... while I respect republican/conservative views, how can you not see that this moron is the epitome of a shitty wannabe dictator? He's used all his power to try to falsely prove that the election was a fraud (while building up for it all summer), and failing miserably at it. He would definitely try any other viable means if could.

I don't even know what his actual "policies" are (who actually knows, he just leans wherever the wind blows) but I'm hard-pressed to find a more ungenuine person (maybe because the ones beating him are actually not outright idiots).

My view has nothing to do with policy/politics. The guy is just a fucking disaster - whatever text-to-speech puppet making public announcements would sound smarter and more knowledgeable.

View on HN

Because he's the first president since Jimmy Carter not to start a new armed conflict? He negotiated middle east peace agreements between Israel and 4 or 5 other nations. He created Opportunity Zones for tax-incentivized investments in poor (often minority) neighborhoods. He increased funding to historically black colleges. He instituted prison reform to shorten sentences for non-violent offenders. If anything, people have been angry at him for not being enough of a medical dictator with the covid situation, meanwhile a lot of Democrat governors seem to have a predilection for banning churches, arresting small business owners, and instituting lockdowns. Left-wing social media has instituted strict anti-conservative censorship and deplatforming, in an attempt to influence the election. There's been no censorship from Trump. He's a blowhard, and sometimes an asshole, but he doesn't try to silence anyone. He's not locking people up in their houses. He's not un-personing anyone.

He is ruining the internet though with his removal of net neutrality, which has a lot to do with the article's critiques of internet access companies.

I am in favor of net neutrality, but I think it needs to be augmented with more regulation at the application layer. At this moment I'm more worried about the monopolies in social networking, digital content distribution, app stores, and online advertising.

Read the Trump administrations policy views at whitehouse.gov

It's right there in the open.

Do you honestly believe he's written a single line of it himself? Those are the policies written by the party. He doesn't really care as long as people love, support and praise him.

Almost all politicians policy statements are written by other people. This fact isn’t a bad thing.

Whatever your criticisms of Trump are, this isn’t a distinguishing one.

You are resorting to cussing, you criticise that Trump is exercising his constitutionally granted right to sue when in his opinion he has been wronged and you openly admit ignorance and unwillingness to educate yourself about issues you pretend to be interested in.

Why do you believe your thus uttered opinions would change someone's mind (at least in the direction you would agree with), or, at least lead to an interesting discussion? Honest question.

> you criticise that Trump is exercising his constitutionally granted right to sue when in his opinion he has been wronged

Having actually read some of those suits, I would say you could make a case that Giuliani should be disbarred. These suits are cases where the Trump campaign usually has no standing, the claims are often not even proper allegations, the remedies sought are literally unprecedented, and often even the timing is improper (basically, challenging election procedures after the election can only be done in exceptional circumstances). You may have a right to sue people, but you do not have a right to harass people through lawsuits, and the suits in question are closer to the latter.

(Side note: you don't have a constitutionally-granted right to sue people. You do have one to sue the government, though.)

You know this, I'm sure, but you don't even really have that; the Case or Controversy clause says you only get to sue if you can state a harm to yourself that has actually happened and a remedy the court can realistically and legally apply. The rules of standing are what prevents the Supreme Court from being a panel of philosopher-kings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com