Hacker News Reader

Comment by koolba | Hacker News Reader

> It seems patently obvious to me that all of the actions he's taken over the entire time he's been in the public eye have shown him to be an incredibly vindictive egomaniac and serial liar interested only in his own aggrandizement.

I still think the world, and the USA in particular, would be better with him at the helm than the current biased leadership.

Would be more fun too!

View on HN

He's a vindictive egomaniac and serial liar with a sense of fun, a good dose of perspective, and a ton of panache. I might not trust him, but he's great entertainment.

I think people exaggerate about him way too much in each direction. He's not the smartest man alive, and he isn't a fraud on par with Elizabeth Holmes. He's a businessperson who's clever at times and childish at times, like most people. I have yet to see a politician or company head that is infallible. All that being said I don't think he'd make a great politician-- just because you're a brilliant engineer doesn't mean you're gonna know how to run a country

I think he appeals to the people who want him as a politician for the same reason Trump appealed to his supporters: they're dissatisfied with politics as usual, they want change at almost any cost, and he's a middle finger at the people they dislike. That's not good justification for a gamble with the whole country, but these people see it as time for a Hail Mary. Sometimes I feel that way too; then I put down my phone and take a walk.

This is very well said. People who can create a cult of personality and offer simple, but uselessly vague, solutions to complex problems are in vogue these days.

>Sometimes I feel that way too; then I put down my phone and take a walk.

Thats because you can. What about the people trapped in terrible dying towns with no prospects for the future? People whose friends and families are drowning with opioid addictions. People who twice voted for newcomers like Obama and are now considered racists/traitors for trying something...anything to stop the bleeding.

The US is currently run by vindictive egomaniacs and serial liars. At least Musk has a sense of fun!

>current biased leadership.

Instead the leadership would just be biased towards Elon's whims. It would definitely be entertaining, but I'm not sure why people assume it would suddenly be more free and open. He already blocks many who disagree with him. I doubt he would have let the kid stay on who was Tweeting his public jet movements.

How have you experienced bias from the current administration?

There's countless examples. A big one from the 2020 election was banning any organization that tweeted about (at the time candidate) Biden's son Hunter's infamous laptop: https://nypost.com/2022/03/18/how-big-tech-media-and-dems-ki...

Clearly that was bias to suppress negative information about potential corrupt dealings of Joe Biden's extended family and likely him as well.

A more recent cultural example would be banning the satirical website Bablyon Bee for a joke article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersuciu/2022/03/21/the-babyl...

Because that contrasts with the leaderships own personal beliefs, jokes like that are a bannable offense. But, an equally crass joke about Lindsey Graham being a homosexual because of his accent by Jon Stewart would be perfectly fine: https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/243250-why-...

So this affected you personally? You were banned from twitter?

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.

>So this affected you personally?

I hate this line of reasoning, and I also hate that it's so prevelantly used in our legal system (we have a legal system, not a justice system FWIW). This same flawed line of thought has prevented lawsuits against the government for their illegal spying. Since "no one can prove they were harmed", and "proving you were harmed is against the law" we're stuck.

Consider the following: A pending meteor impact harms absolutely no one until right before it impacts and harms everyone.

I mean, yeah I can see that. That's an analogy you can make.

How did the administration force a private company to make a choice here? I'm not following that part.

How did our corrupt, evil government force XYZ to happen?

I’m sorry but your entire logical structure comes off as absurd to me.

We have a fundamentally evil and absurd government, and you’re asking me how anyone was “forced” to do anything? Really?

I'm appalled that more people aren't pissed the fuck off about the laptop story. It's literal election tampering, but no one gives a shit because it's their side.

We really are cheerfully walking ourselves straight into 1984.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com