
Trump - firloop
http://blog.samaltman.com/trump
======
mikeash
This certainly doesn't match what I've seen. All the people who think Trump is
unfit seem perfectly willing to say so. All of the people who support him seem
to be completely sincere in their belief that Trump would make a good
president. I don't see anyone giving any indication that they think Trump
shouldn't be president, but that they're afraid to say so. There is no
"charade," as the author puts it.

It's possible that certain Republican leaders fit the description. But plenty
of high-ranking Republicans have been willing to speak out against Trump, and
those who endorse him mostly seem to be sincere about it. And of course
everybody on the opposing side takes pretty much every opportunity to trash
him (IMO rightfully so).

What's scary about Trump isn't that people are unwilling to speak out against
him. What's scary is that so many people _actually want him to win_. Trump
isn't the problem, Trump is the most visible and frightening symptom of a
massive wave of ignorance and insecurity among the American electorate. He's
the blood in the stool. Speaking out about how bad the blood is won't really
help, you need to go in and kill the cancer that's causing it.

~~~
trcollinson
_What 's scary is that so many people actually want him to win._

I am not sure, exactly, how that is scary. Let's take a look at the reality of
our current political situation, fear mongering and demagogic arguments aside.
We in the US live in a country with two parties that have, for all intents and
purposes, chosen their two favorites for leaders. When we go to the polls in
November we will either vote for Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump. You have
essentially three choices at this very moment:

1) Pick Mrs. Clinton because you believe in her principles and values more
than Mr. Trumps. 2) Pick Mr. Trump because you believe in his principles and
values more than Mrs. Clintons. 3) Don't vote for either Mrs. Clinton nor Mr.
Trump and get whatever the rest of the population picks.

So when people say it is " _scary that so many people actually want him to
win_ ", remember it is not all that scary. They just believe in his principles
and values more than they believe in Mrs. Clintons. They have reason. You
might think their reasons are ridiculous, stupid, or absurd. But there are
only two candidates and you can only side with one. Let's not make this any
bigger than it actually is.

~~~
splawn
Imo, its scary because an overt racist is a viable candidate.

~~~
clevernickname
_" When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor."_ \-- Bernie
Sanders

~~~
outlace
Taken in context that quote is not very shocking and certainly wasn't racist.
Moreover he clarified his remarks the very next day. Trump's remarks about the
judge are racist in any context and he repeated them for several days. It's
rather disingenuous to compare this to Trump and suggest that it's even in the
same league as what Trump said.

~~~
throwanem
I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge
had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race.
There might (or might not) be public debate over whether the assertion was
true, but no one would be appalled merely at the claim's having been made.
(Indeed, such claims are made daily and have been for many years, yet rarely
seem to be regarded as less newsworthy for that.)

Why, then, should it be shocking or appalling to hear the claim made with the
parties' races reversed? Are we to assume that people who aren't white are
incapable of bias? Are we to assume that a judge has no power over the people
whose cases are heard in his courtroom? Is the total equality of all races a
principle worth upholding, or one merely worth claiming when it's convenient,
and trivial to ignore when it's not? Are we, in short, to assume that only
white people can be bigots?

(And, I mean, you can argue that the question is ill-founded and wrongheaded
all you like, and I realize that's the temptingly easy option. You might,
though, if you're really as worried about a Trump win in November as blog
posts like Mr. Altman's make out, think instead about how you might actually
_convince_ somebody who asks a question like that, instead of just trying to
shout him down.)

~~~
giaour
Trump decided to use his position as the presumptive presidential nominee of a
major political party to interfere in in a civil suit related to his personal
business interests. That alone makes me wonder if he would abuse the power of
his office should we win the election. That he did so by invoking the judge's
race made him look desperate and unable to control his own temper.

I'm sure you're right that defendants in trials say stupid shit about judges,
and I'm sure some of those comments are overtly racist. If the races in this
situation were reversed, I still wouldn't vote for the hot-headed loudmouth.

~~~
jameslee56
That is still peanuts compare to the other and only female presidential
candidate. Just google how bad she abused her power all the way back in
decades. Using that as benchmark, Trump looks damn honest and worthy of POTUS
and MAGA. He has my vote (together with almost few hundreds of my family and
friends votes in Nov). It is always the choice of lesser of 2 evils and
economy. Trump proved with his billions that he can do it when it comes to
money. Though I don't know how evil he is, I do know the other candidate is on
par with Dick if not greater. Don't get misdirected by the media and
headlines. Do your own research and see the facts unedited for yourself to
form your own opinion.

~~~
justjico
Do you consider [http://www.politifact.com](http://www.politifact.com) a
credible source?

------
athinggoingon
> Trump's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without
> precedent among major presidential nominees. He has said that a judge of
> Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly because of his heritage

Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over the Trump university case, is a
member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. La Raza is a group that
advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.

> we should ban Muslims from entering the country.

Trump wants to ban Muslims from majority Muslim countries that are currently
involved in prolonged wars which makes a comprehensive background
investigation impossible to do.

> When his supporters beat up a homeless Hispanic man and cited Trump, he
> called them “very passionate”.

You forgot to mention all of the Trump supporters that get chased and beat up
by Mexican flag waving protesters.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/06/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/06/03/ugly-bloody-scenes-in-san-jose-as-protesters-attack-trump-
supporters-outside-rally/)

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/06/02/trump-
san-jose-rally-
protesters/32639803/?AID=10709313&PID=6164151&SID=ipog6mhenz015ndv00dth)

This by no means justifies violence on the Trump supporters side, but please
do some research to find out the majority of the violence is perpetrated by
the protesters that show up to Trump rallies and not the other way around.

I can go on and dismantle every other premise in this article using data and
logic, but I will stop here.

~~~
kbenson
> > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly
> because of his heritage

> La Raza is a group that advocates for a path to citizenship for all illegal
> immigrants.

What does that have to do with his heritage. There are people that believe
that without Mexican descent. I believe it, and I'm not Mexican, and am not an
immigrant, and neither are my parents. There are people of Mexican descent
that don't believe in a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (I know
one). Reducing people's behavior to something fueled by ethnicity _is_ racism.
It is not appropriate to, even with the link pointed out, to assume that
Curiel's view regarding immigration does not have basis in beliefs that are
distinct from his heritage. It is not appropriate to then further use this as
evidence for why he's ruling some way in his job without much more than a
single case (and this assertion has nothing to do with racism or heritage).

> Trump wants to ban Muslims from majority Muslim countries that are currently
> involved in prolonged wars which makes a comprehensive background
> investigation impossible to do.

Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. I don't see how
this right can be protected if you filter possible future citizens based on
religion.

~~~
tomp
> Reducing people's behavior to something fueled by ethnicity is racism.

So when people say "white people are often racist", that's racism? (I actually
agree, minorities are often very racist like that!)

> Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right.

Most rights are suspended at the border anyways.

~~~
kbenson
> So when people say "white people are often racist", that's racism?

Depending on how you interpret "often", it can be. It's functionally no
different than "X people are often lazy" in how it paints a population based
on some demographic which actually has nothing to do with that attribute.

If you treat "often" in it's literal sense, as in "this happens a lot", then
as long as it's happened at least a few times, it's subjectively true, since
often is relative to what you think a good baseline is. If you think one time
is more than should be seen, then experiencing it five times could be called
"often" (technically. It quickly breaks down when applied to colloquial use in
this situation).

The real problem here is assuming a set of personal experiences, whether they
number 10 or 1000, necessarily indicate a trait that scales across the entire
population of those people. Even leaving out things like confirmation bias,
where your original data may be woefully inaccurate, there is little to no
evidence that any trend you think you are seeing applies to that ethnicity
equally in other locations and situations. You can look at the sentiments of
other people and stories in the media for corroboration, but since those
aren't accurate representations either, it's still left open to _rampant_
confirmation bias.

This aspect of human psychology was less problematic when we all lived in
somewhat small groups. In those cases, the other was the other tribe. Even
though they probably looked like you, they were the outsiders, and some
distrust and stereotyping of them served the dual purposes of security and
social cohesion. The same psychological aspects are at play, and they still
cause us to group together, but unfortunately now it promotes the opposite of
social cohesion. (and now you have my pop psy take on it).

> (I actually agree, minorities are often very racist like that!)

I see what you did there. :)

------
ethanhunt_
Disappointed to see Sam repeat things that are plainly false. Everyone says
that Trump says such horrible things, but why is it that so often those same
people have to misquote him to make it seem horrible?

> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn’t treat him fairly
> because of his heritage and that we should ban Muslims from entering the
> country.

He said that a judge of Mexican descent _isn 't_ treating him fairly, and that
it is probably _because_ of his heritage. That's very different from saying
that the judge _can 't_ treat him fairly because of his heritage. How could
someone with Sam's command of language and attention to detail not see the
difference? And where was the condemnation of the Obama admin when they tried
to prohibit an Iranian-American judge from presiding over Iranian immigration
cases?

> He has accused Obama of somehow being responsible for the recent shooting in
> Orlando.

The WP originally ran this headline and changed it because it was such a wild
inference from what he actually said.

~~~
potatoman2
Given that many believe Trump to be literally Hitler, bending the facts is a
small price to pay to stop him.

~~~
ebbv
Probably nobody who is against Trump is bending any facts to try to stop him.
The only one who has no respect for reality is Trump himself.

~~~
throwanem
> Probably nobody who is against [a presidential candidate] is bending any
> facts to try to stop [him/her]

Given the reality of 21st century electoral politics in the United States, I
find it unsurprising, yet deeply disappointing all the same, that anyone
actually believes this.

~~~
ebbv
If Trump were any less of a lunatic I would say that people are definitely
bending the truth around him. But he supplies so much fuel for his opponents
there's really no need.

------
kmiroslav
The only things Trump is right about are the exact same things that every
politician says:

> He's right that many Americans are getting screwed by the system. He’s right
> that the economy is not growing nearly fast enough. He's right that we're
> drowning in political correctness, and that broken campaign finance laws
> have bred a class of ineffective career politicians.

It's demagoguery 101.

~~~
smsm42
I would question the assumption that every politician says PC is something
negative that we have too much of. Certainly I'd have hard time finding many
left-wing politicians saying that.

~~~
justjico
For that you get people like Bill Maher...

------
sremani
For the love of 100 million people dead in Europe in a short span of 32 years.
Please stop comparing every other 'Native Populist' to Hitler, Mussolini etc.
The politics may look similar, yes, there is a racial undertone to it, but
seriously, argue the facts not fiction. Comparing Trump to Hitler is
intersection of intellectual overreach and laziness.

~~~
aerovistae
Disagree.

The comparison is between Trump and what Hitler seemed to be before he
revealed himself in full as what he truly was.

The analogy is completely sound. We are comparing to late 1920s Hitler, not
1940s hitler. It's an important distinction.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Keep in mind, though, that not everybody who sounded like late 1920s Hitler
turned into 1940s Hitler. (Can't think of any counterexamples off the top of
my head, but I suspect there are more who didn't than more who did.)

But it's kind of like safety engineering: You plan for the worst possible
accident, not for the happiest possible outcome. If Hitler is the worst
possible outcome of electing Trump, that's bad enough that even Hillary looks
good. Not that I could vote for Hillary, but I _sure_ ain't voting for Trump.

~~~
aerovistae
The safety engineering analogy is exactly it.

------
BadassFractal
It's been very interesting to follow this election cycle along with Sam
Harris' podcasts. Would strongly recommend it, he's spoken in depth and very
eloquently about the Trump situation:
[https://www.samharris.org/podcast](https://www.samharris.org/podcast) .

Also the Rubin Report has been right in the thick of it, also another great
source of non-mainstream coverage:
[https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport](https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport)

------
blatant
Terry Tao recently did a post on the trump situation:

[https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/it-ought-to-be-
com...](https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/it-ought-to-be-common-
knowledge-that-donald-trump-is-not-fit-for-the-presidency-of-the-united-
states-of-america/)

It is time to get serious.

~~~
weinzierl
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11843318](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11843318)

------
putaside
Terrible Godwin flamebait. Not disappointed, merely amused and surprised. If
you can not make a statement about a politician without invoking Hitler and
dictatorship, you should really reconsider speaking up.

Indirectly you are calling Trump voters Nazi's. That is pretty damaging to
debate and to democracy.

First calling Trump right, then portraying him as a mastermind capable of
murdering millions of people, is juggling the very same demagogic tricks you
so despise. There is no need to demonize someone, when you can factually, and
calmly, attack their xenophobic economy-damaging proposals.

This is fighting fire with fire.

~~~
pj_mukh
I don't understand this "You called me nazi-like so your arguments are
invalid" argument. Clearly, in some situations the comparison is apt.
Situations in which a potential leader is using the fear of the "other" to
gain power is textbook Nazi and/or fascist behavior.

~~~
internaut
> Situations in which a potential leader is using the fear of the "other" to
> gain power is textbook Nazi and/or fascist behavior.

That would make everybody Nazis forever. Different groups have different
outgroups.

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-
anything...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-
except-the-outgroup/)

~~~
pj_mukh
The 'otherness' in this regard is specifically with respect to
religion/race/nationality, making the Nazi comparison even more apt.

Just saying "the other political side will be terrible for our country" is not
fascism, because yes, everybody does that.

------
tzs
> But Trump is wrong about the more important part: how to fix these problems.
> Many of his proposals, such as they are, are so wrong they’re difficult to
> even respond to.

P. J. O'Rourke had an interesting take on those wrong proposals: "I have a
little announcement to make ... I'm voting for Hillary. I am endorsing
Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst
thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place.
She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal
parameters."

~~~
pj_mukh
P.J O'Rourke is the best. Its sad more conservatives don't listen to proud
conservative voices like him. As an avowed progressive, I would gladly talk
about a compromise with him. Also, he's hilarious.

------
kirinan
While I think Trump is a bad choice, I think comparing him to Hitler is
overzealous and irresponsible. There are no doubt similarities between the two
but Hitler wrote an entire book about the "Jewish Peril" and how it was
destroying society and needed to be dealt with. It was clear that Hitler had
an agenda that was anti-semetic, and the charisma/ability to execute on it.
Trump is a racist and a bigot, but he is far from someone that would be able
to implement a "Final Solution". By drawing the comparisons to Hitler, we
oversell Trump and what he is and at the same time bring Hitler and his
actions to a lower level which they never be at. We should sell Trump for what
he is: someone who uses the racism and ignorance of the American people to
cover up the fact that he has no idea what he is doing.

~~~
smacktoward
Among the _very_ few specific policy proposals Trump has put forward, these
are the most prominent:

* Building a giant wall along the U.S.'s southern border to keep Mexicans out

* Rounding up and deporting Hispanics currently in the U.S. on a mass scale never before seen in history

I mean, yes, he's not proposing herding Hispanics into gas chambers, but he
absolutely is talking about making American policy tilt harder against one
particular race than it ever has in the past. Maybe that doesn't make him
Hitler, but it definitely makes him _something._

~~~
Impossible
Although I don't want to turn this into oppression olympics, and at the risk
of getting downvoted heavily, I want to point out that mass deportation of
Hispanics wouldn't compare against hundreds of years of slavery of African
Americans, forced mass migration and slaughter of Native Americans and the
placing Japanese Americans in internment camps.

This is in no way saying "its not that bad of a policy" its still a horrible
thing to propose, but saying "American policy tilt harder against one
particular race than it ever has in the past" is ignoring a lot of history,
unless you're talking about very recent events.

------
menacingly
Something that's becoming common (and predates trump) is to say "I don't want
to get political, but issue <x> is a matter of morals and there is no room for
debate"

As things continue to polarize, the list of items that are "beyond politics"
and considered too critical to avoid continues to grow. If you want to discuss
politics, just discuss politics, but don't disguise it as a situation so
outrageous that it somehow eclipses politics.

Any time someone acts like they truly cannot comprehend why roughly half this
country wants to vote in one way or another it just comes across as histrionic
and inexperienced.

------
spoiledtechie
Oh how I am disparaged by Sam Altmans words. Not because they are wrong, but
because they seem naive.

Trump is right about the problem. His solutions are a more verbose than most.
I am reminded of a quote "We must not paint with pale pastels, but with bold
colors" Trump is using bold colors to address change.

Mexican Judge - When has it not been heard that many white judges have shown
prejudice against a black person or poorer individual. Its not a long shot to
say another race can practice prejudice against a white man, when white men
and white judges have been doing it for so long.

I have seen many Bernie and Hillary supports cast hatred, throw eggs, beat up
their fellow citizen in the name of democracy. Yet our leaders choose to say
nothing. To down play it. But those same leaders look for support of those
exact same people throwing the punches and the eggs.

Why when choosing to bring up bold colors, do people float to Hitler and
Germany? Its extremely hard to understand the reference when all it forces the
reader to do is visualize the reference and then creating a connection between
Trump and Hitler. Its horribly sad to see such a connection being made, when
it seems the Writer, that being Sam, is naive on the issues of Hitler and
Germany.

Sam makes references to Immigrants. When in fact TRUMP supports immigrants.
Make no mistake between the two. Trump is PRO IMMIGRANT. But he is also PRO-
LEGAL IMMIGRANT. Sam makes another naive comment when he believes Trump is
anti immigrant. I doubt he is aware, but there are millions of immigrants
WAITING in LINE for a LEGAL way to enter the United States. When what is
happening is the illegals choose to do it ILLEGALLY, and we say fuck it. Just
give them status. No says Trump and No says America. Obey the laws FIRST. Then
you can come in. Make no mistake, Trump is PRO immigrant. Just anti Illegal.

No serious growth of economics? Cut Taxes, choose a tax plan, that CBO says
will drastically cut out DEBT per taxpayer. That is $1,000,000 per family owed
in debt. That is $1,000,000 owned per tax payer in debt. He has chosen his
plan and its Sam's naive writing that describes it differently.

With Trump, you MUST start reading between the lines. For every single time he
has said he wants LEGAL immigration, he has said 100 times he wants to build a
wall.

Sam Altman is too naive within this article to read past main stream media.
Its saddening that someone I respect soo much is not as intelligent
politically as I would have hoped.

~~~
heurist
Illegal immigration from Mexico is around net zero. Why should we focus on
illegal immigrants when there are so many major issues to solve?

~~~
spoiledtechie
Simply not true.

There are over 20 million illegal immigrants here now. That is NOT a net zero
event.

If the entire USA has a population of 320 million, then that is a net event of
16% population increase.

~~~
tomp
Your math is wrong.

------
aerovistae
Tangential sidenote, Burke never said that.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#False_quotations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#False_quotations)

------
curiousgal
Finally someone speaking up.

Based on the plethora of bad news I keep reading about the US (CIA, FBI, ISPs,
Hillary Clinton etc) which portray a very dark picture about Americans, one of
them being taken advantage of by their own system. And yet no one doesn't seem
to be doing anything and it makes them look egoistic so I really admire Sam
for writing this. He has a lot to lose by voicing his concern and yet he's
doing it.

~~~
mikeash
I don't think he really has anything to lose. The government isn't going to do
anything to him, even if Trump wins. And among his peers, I'm sure that
criticizing Trump as being unfit for office is about as controversial as
insulting the taste of Bud Light.

~~~
curiousgal
I didn't mean it that sense. People in the US tend to always bring a person's
employer into the picture whenever they disagree with said person's opinion.
So his public opinion can affect ycombinator.

~~~
mikeash
The tech community as a whole is heavily anti-Trump, so this will only help
his image there.

~~~
curiousgal
Understandable.

------
H0n3sty
> _we are a nation of immigrants, and we know that immigrants built this
> country_

More precisely, our nation was built by pioneers. When they arrived in the US
they had nearly no welfare programs to draw from. You can have a country with
open immigration, and you can have a country with generous welfare, but you
can't have both.

[http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-
Households](http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households)

------
ericlamb89
I am no Trump fan, but I noticed a couple of points that might be misguided or
incomplete:

1\. "Trump's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without
precedent among major presidential nominees."

\-- I think this is probably a stretch. I would guess that many previous
candidates were just as bad if not worse. It just so happens now that
everything candidates say or tweet is recorded, played back, and ultimately
scrutinized far more than in the past.

2\. "We are a nation of immigrants, and we know that immigrants built this
country (and Trump, of course, is the grandson of immigrants and married to an
immigrant)."

\-- immigrants __and slaves __built this country

~~~
justjico
1\. I think there's ample evidence Trump is a pretty unusual major party
candidate.

------
throwanem
> I take some risk by writing this

Really? You're worried that the notoriously pro-Trump Silicon Valley is going
to turn against YC over this?

------
smoyer
This year's race for president can be summed up easily by two well-known
quotes (one in Sam's essay):

Edmund Burke - "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good
men to do nothing."

Albert Einstein - "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results."

~~~
lucio
funny thing, the Burke one seems to be a misquote

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#False_quotations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#False_quotations)

~~~
mikeash
I'm pretty sure the Einstein one is as well.

And really, I find that to be fairly stupid. If you consider it to be insane
to do the same thing repeatedly expecting different results, then you'll never
accomplish anything that requires long-term action. Try chopping down a tree
or graduating from college with that attitude.

------
jasonlaramburu
I think the real danger is that Trump pivots to the middle for the general
election, and dupes moderate republicans into supporting him. Hitler also did
this (i.e. started out very radical in the 30s, shifted to the middle to gain
mass appeal, and then consolidated his power once in office).

------
eknight15
It's funny how candidates can just state problems to get people excited (e.g.
Bring jobs back to America, We're getting screwed by the system, Break up the
banks, etc.), and yet most people care so little about the solutions.

~~~
wvenable
Because problems are easy; even Altman and Trump can agree on the problems.
It's also easy to look backwards -- we can see what the problems are and how
they were caused but to look forward is to look into the unknown and
unknowable.

Also, people just like to complain. The most fervent supporters on both sides
of the political spectrum are passionately complaining about something.

------
yanilkr
Lets start with a very bad assumption that people mostly make rational choices
and want good things to happen to themselves and their country fellows.

In this assumption, people who support Trump do not see him the way his non-
supporters see him. His non supporters see hateful things around Trump. They
see xenophobia, they see his plain speaking as intellectually insufficient,
they see his aggressive attitude as a risky behavior based on similarities
with dictators.

People who like him see him as someone who can speak politically incorrect
like them and who has some wealth, success and power and hope that he might be
the one that can represent them and do good.

This is battle of people who want good to win at the end. This is where things
turned bad and this would be a costly mistake. The people who hate him, took
moral responsibility to stop him because they truly believe they are stopping
next hitler. It was disturbing to see google getting in the mix and fix the
auto suggestions and google news against trump. I believe that they believe
that they are doing for the good of everyone.

This in-general a very very bad and dangerous path to fix the election with
media and tech firms leading the way to stop trump. Like someone said this is
an American Spring. Many Americans feel left behind. Their anger and desire to
thrive will turn to extreme conditions if they are suppressed longer. This is
not particle physics where the projectile will stop abruptly because of the
election, this is a wave and its physics is much different.

Tech companies already lost their good will by mixing with NSA and now if they
continue this path and use their privilege to stop suppressed people, it might
take decades to regain that trust. We are the good guys, tech has to liberate
people, we might be the next wall street if we directly involve in picking and
choosing the rulers.

------
darod
Before Hitler was around I wonder, who was used as the model of living evil.

~~~
hackaflocka
The British used Napoleon, I think (source newspaper cartoons from the 1700's
and 1800's). Supposedly, to get them to eat quickly or to go to bed, they
would frighten children by telling them that Napoleon would get them if they
didn't.

------
lefstathiou
Both sides pointing fingers that the other is living in a reality distortion
field.

## We are already in the midst of a global trade war that will have billions
of dollars of impact on the US and impact the livlihoods of tens of thousands
(or hundreds) of thousands of people:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_China)
[http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-
la...](http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-lawsuit-
europe/) [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/technology/eu-fines-
micros...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/technology/eu-fines-microsoft-
over-browser.html?_r=0)

^^above or easy low hanging examples, there are dozens of cases across many
industries

## Most people of Muslim nations are already not freely allowed to enter the
US (ever try sponsoring an H1B?)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program)

^^making an expedient point here rather than typing up all the ways it is
challenging for anyone outside of western Europe to travel to the US

3\. governments have consistently posed the biggest threats to a free society.
this one has broken major dangerous precedents

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-
admits-t...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-admits-
targeting-conservatives-for-tax-scrutiny-
in-2012-election/2013/05/10/3b6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html)

[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/26/more-
than-40-secr...](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/26/more-
than-40-secret-service-staff-disciplined-in-data-flap.html)

[http://mashable.com/2014/06/05/edward-snowden-
revelations/#d...](http://mashable.com/2014/06/05/edward-snowden-
revelations/#d3ecZ30tkiqn)

~~~
ch4s3
To be fair you first link on point 3 is about the IRS having a new class of
legal tax entity to regulate and not enough time or money to check all
applications. So, they admittedly focused on anti-tax groups assuming they
would be most likely to be in violation of tax code. Those groups just
happened to be mostly conservative groups, and the IRS happened to be right,
they caught a ton of them breaking the rules.

For my tax dollars, I'm fine with the IRS targeting anti-tax groups, it makes
sense and the evidence supported their judicious use of time and
resources.Let's not forget these were/are shady 501(c)(4) meant to hide
political donations.

------
maxsavin
While I agree with the sentiment of the post, I was surprised by some of the
examples provided, because they are what the press said and not what Trump
said. With that said, it's surprising what choices for President the most
powerful country in the world has.

------
liberte82
I'm a little shocked at how many Trump supporters are in this thread. Is Trump
popular in the startup scene?

~~~
selectron
The startup scene is primarily young, white and male. It isn't all that
surprising that Trump has support among the startup scene. American tech
workers are also particularly vulnerable to outsourcing and have suffered from
the H1B program.

------
smsm42
I am no fan of Trump (in fact, I think selecting Trump is a huge problem for
Republican party and he's one of the worst candidates the GOP had lately), but
the post seems to be repeatedly confusing actual Trump with media myth of
Trump (not uncommon among both supporters and detractors, and somewhat
excusable given how much media manipulation Trump engages in).

No, Trump did not blame Obama in Orlando shooting. No, Trump is not future
Hitler. No, Trump is most probably not a racist either (despite his extremely
despicable and idiotic comments about Judge Curiel - but those probably are
not driven by racism but rather by a primitive strategy of pre-spinning the
future embarrassing loss of a class-action lawsuit). And probably not a
misogynist either, despite his despicable and idiotic comments about Megyn
Kelly and others, at least his record suggests otherwise.

Yes, he's rude, he's boorish, he's a pompous and shameless liar, and he is as
close to a conman as one can be without being actually convicted in any
criminal case. He has a lot of real flaws. Too many for my taste (see above).
Inventing imaginary ones is both unnecessary and does not makes anything
better. One does not beat Trump by going down to his level. He is a champion
at his level, it's not where you have a chance to beat him.

P.S. And no, there's no risk in criticizing Trump, at least not higher than
expressing any common political opinion. In fact, right now there's a
measurable risk of supporting Trump - I've seen people beaten up for visiting
Trump rally in the very city I live in - but if you do it over the internet,
the risk is small. Though there has been personal destruction campaigns waged
over the internet, I have yet to see one waged against someone for criticizing
Trump. In fact, most of the press will be doing it with extreme vigor for next
5 months at least, and if Trump wins - for next 4 years with vigor not seen
since the Bush times.

Which for me may be one of the few positive things in Trump winning - at least
we will not have anymore journalists drooling over the president and
describing how they get something warm running down their leg each time they
see him (or her, as it may happen in the alternative case). That's not what
the press is supposed to be doing in a working democracy. The press should
bite, not lick the hands of power.

~~~
justjico
I agree with your "factual" statements about Trump, but keep in mind, the
media is trying to hold him accountable not just for what he said, but for
what he meant to say. Rubio didnt say Trump had a small penis, he just implied
it. Saying Rubio never actually said that, in my view, is more dishonest than
missquoting him with actually saying it. Trump, being a presumptive nominee
has a really big megaphone. He should be able to convey a very clear message.
When he says, Obama has something else going on, the media is right to press,
so what exactly are you saying? And Trumps response is: people should fill in
the blanks, I don't know. In other words, I agree politicians lie and
exaggerate, and sometimes say things they don't mean to say, but they correct
the message, move on. Trump doesn't, he doubles down. He cites completely
crazy and outrageous conspiracy theories, again, correctly saying, "I heard"
or "some people think"... that is complete bs. I hate Ted Cruz, yet I was
outraged when he was, again, factually just saying a tabloid run a story
claiming Ted's dad was involved in the JFK assassination. "I'm not saying he
was involved, but some people think so, and nobody talks about it". Factually
correct, yet completely insane coming from a presidential candidate.

~~~
smsm42
> Rubio didnt say Trump had a small penis, he just implied it

I don't believe Rubio ever talked about any such details of Trump's anatomy,
and it would be really bizarre circumstance for him to have or claim any
knowledge of the subject. It is Trump alone who brought attention to this
subject, and the only reason I can see for it is because Trump thinks it
contributes to his macho image.

> When he says, Obama has something else going on,

He means Obama is too soft on Islamic terrorism. It may be true or false but
this is way separated from saying Obama is involved in actually organizing
specific terror attack, which is batshit insane. The difference is like
between saying intelligence mishaps and incompetence during Bush's
administration that allowed 9/11 to happen are Bush's fault and saying Bush
personally orchestrated events of 9/11.

> Trump doesn't, he doubles down.

That's his media strategy. There's no bad press. And the press falls for it
hook, line and sinker, and on the way exaggerates and inflates everything
Trump said by order of magnitude. This leads to two thinks: a) Trump's media
coverage is overwhelming, and it costs literally nothing to him and b) it's no
longer possible to distinguish which outrageous story about Trump is true and
which is not, which numbs people to anything outrageous Trump may actually
say. Plus, every time somebody calls Trump out on a real outrage, he can cite
a fake outrage as a proof the press is out to get him, and thus blunt the
effect of a real thing.

Trump has responsibility for it, but the press falling for it and helping him
to perform this strategy - while thinking they are heroically fighting Trump -
has equal, if not greater, responsibility - Trump is expected to behave
selfishly, they are expected to be the counterbalance for such behavior, not
the amplifier of it.

------
mindslight
If there were a worthwhile contender, then perhaps I'd consider voting. As it
is, I don't see how casting a vote for Johnson does anything more than
legitimize the election and thereby our totalitarian democracy. And that's
exactly what Trump and his rhetoric are - inevitable products of late-game
democracy.

If he does beat Shillary in the finals, it will at least be nice having most
of my peers back to an anti-government slant like during the Bush years.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Voting for Johnson (or any third-party candidate) is a way of telling both
major parties that they messed up in choosing their candidates. It's a message
worth sending.

~~~
mindslight
Except the stats trumpeted are "Percent for Demlican", "Percent for
Repubocrat", and "Voter turnout". Increasing that third number just shows
support for the state religion of totalitarian democracy.

The parties didn't "mess up" choosing their candidates - the problem is the
basis of their entire platform. To the extent that the Repubocrats feel
entitled to the Libertarian votes and Demlican the Green, it only affects how
much lip service they'll pay to get those votes. Either branch of The Party is
not going to run a candidate who will eg dismantle the NSA or the federal
reserve. Why would their owners suddenly want to buy pro-freedom positions and
diminish their own power?

I also think it's more self honest to be in the group of non-voters, and helps
rebuke this extremely condescending attitude that non-voters are "apathetic".
In actuality, they're all individuals who've made a rational decision that
playing a rigged game is a waste of their time, regardless of how strongly
they'll justify it. Silent fucking majority.

~~~
powera
Do you have any arguments or just name calling?

Just because the parties agree on some issues doesn't mean the system is
rigged.

~~~
mindslight
There were several arguments in my above comment, but I understand that
questioning one's own assumptions is tough.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Apparently so...

------
vox_mollis
_Trump 's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without
precedent among major presidential nominees._

It seems that sama needs to listen to the Nixon tapes.

~~~
abglassman
"Casual" being the operative term here. Nixon et al had plenty to say behind
closed doors that at least for the last generation or two, would not be
tolerated by the decent voting public from a mainstream candidate with any
hope of being elected. Trump is not only saying these things in public, on the
record, but he's campaigning on them. He's a _leader_ in misogyny and bigotry.

------
acconrad
So we flag posts that are political opinion pieces but as soon as Sam Altman
does it we're free to hit the front page and keep it up in perpetuity?

~~~
bryanlarsen
This fell off the front page in less than half an hour despite getting > 200
votes.

------
tomjen3
Oh for fuck sake. Not another smart person who links Trump to Hitler. PG
spends a third of his twitter feed making that comparison, it is getting
tiresome. Back when Bush was president we (meaning the leftist groups I read)
used to assume Bush would turn the US into a concentration camp, would
institute military law, etc. We were certain that he wouldn't give up power to
a black guy and just leave the White House peacefully. Death certain. Guess
what? We were wrong.

Now all I hear is "people who vote for Trump don't know what is good for
them", "I can't believe people are stupid enough to believe what Trump says",
"Trump is Hitler", etc - not to mention an air that if you don't agree with
me, then you are part of the problem, because it is so obvious.

These people aren't stupid, nor is Trump. There is a huge problem in America,
you have islamists who are openly attacking western values and western people,
but the left side of the political spectrum won't even acknowledge the
problem, so like republicans on climate issues, they don't put solutions out
for discussions, so, by default, you are left with whatever the other party
suggests, in this case Trumps ban on immigration. There is a huge amount of
people who feel cheated of the good jobs their parents and grandparents had
and believe these have been sent overseas by the big corporations. Yes
stopping immigration is a stupid idea, yes a 35% import tax is a bad thing for
the economy, but what is Clintons alternative? Se won't even talk about these
problems, so I guess more of the same? Sorry, not acceptable. Trumps solutions
are bad, but they sound good and there are no alternatives, so of course he is
going to win on that one.

If you don't want Trump elected, you have to engage in the debate, you have to
acknowledge the problems as his base sees them, at least long enough to
convince them that his solutions aren't good.

~~~
bryanlarsen
"but what is Clintons alternative?"

lmgtfy:
[https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/](https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/)

Except for being racist and anti-islamist, she talks a lot about all those
problems and outlines proposals for all of them.

You may disagree with many of her proposals (and I do), but to say she's not
talking about them just goes to show how the debate has been hijacked by
demagoguery.

------
hnal943
What's the point of writing this article now, after all of the legitimate
candidates have fallen? What do you want us to do?

~~~
rwallace
If 'you' includes us non-Americans who are liable to be affected by US
government policies: my suggestion would be to vote Libertarian. Sure, the
Libertarian candidate won't win this election, but that's not the point. It's
about what message you are sending, what incentives you are conveying, to both
current and future politicians.

------
lucio
> At least Trump is willing to talk about the fact that the US is not on an
> acceptable growth trajectory. The Big Truth in Trump’s slogan is “Again”—we
> do need a fundamental change to get back to where we were. Clinton’s
> dangerously bad Big Lie is that there’s no problem here at all.

Is a pro-Trump or anti-Trump post? </socratic>

------
throwanem
Silicon Valley couldn't do a better job endorsing Trump if he paid them for
it. (Not that they'd need him to. But he wouldn't need to, either! Unless
there's some money changing hands that Mr. Altman didn't disclose, this blog
post got written for free.)

------
ch4s3
>we're drowning in political correctness I'm always curious when people say
this, what do they actually mean? Is there a specific thing happening that I'm
not aware of here? In all seriousness, what is Sam referring to here?

~~~
nolepointer
Silencing other points of view. Safe spaces. Refusing to call radical Islam
what it is.

Just a few examples.

~~~
ch4s3
Oh please, demagogue of every stripe try to silence dissenting views. And
you're really upset about safe spaces? Who cares if kids at liberal arts
colleges want to shelter themselves from whatever bothers them about the
world, they're hardly hurting anyone. And "radical Islam" vs. whatever else
you want to call someone else's world view is really just a name. With respect
to "radical Islam", it hardly tells you anything if you use the term. Are you
talking about Salafism, Jihadist-Salafism, Wahhabism, various religiously
tinged forms of Arab Nationalism, etc. They're all very different things and
when you call them all "radicalism" you risk wiping away important nuances
that inform better decision making.

Mostly, I think the term "political correctness" is asinine. I've literally
never met a single person who claimed to be trying to be "politically
correct," I've only ever heard it used as a pejorative used to brush aside
other people's opinions and concerns. Historically it mean holding the party
line above reason and compassion, and was repurposed in the 1970's to mean to
have "correct" political thinking. See a quote from the time "a man cannot be
politically correct and a chauvinist, too." Hardly objectionable, really.

The phrase was turned around in the 90's to mean loosely "liberal bias" or
"liberal concerns" Not to be confused with Neoliberalism, but rather center-
left American politics.

The term has really become more of a dog whistle than anything useful or
meaningful. It's mostly used in political commentary to mean that the user of
the term disagrees with another party's assertion that a particularly phrase,
policy, etc is the product of bigotry. For example: John makes a statement
about Asian-Americans, and Mary calls the statement racist. Mark replies
saying that John isn't a racist, Mary is just being politically correct.
However, this is a logical fallacy, as Mark has not address the merit or
content of Mary's critique.

I guess my point is that "political correctness" isn't a problem, in my view
the use of the term is a lazy rhetorical device. It is used when one has no
interest in engaging criticism, or doesn't like being called out on being a
demagogue.

------
billhendricksjr
Thanks for a thought provoking post, Sam. It's good to challenge one's beliefs
regularly.

> He’s right that the economy is not growing nearly fast enough

Can you share the data and rationale you used to come to this conclusion? I
get there's a hugely growing and unjust divide between classes, but the macro
economy seems pretty healthy. GDP growth has slowed [1], but it's positive and
we're a much bigger economy (so harder to grow as fast).

[1] [http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-
year](http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year)

------
cinquemb
The conditions that has enabled a Trump like persona's, won't go away… show up
to a ballot booth as many times as you want… see how well that worked for
greeks, and soon the british. Maybe a sprinkle of metadata drone strikes
within the continental US might fix things… only to be expected eventually
after what delightful gifts we giveth others abroad and at home these past
hundreds of years, but lets not suggest that no matter who wins this election,
we will only see more of what we have seen so far, and as we all know, arms
manufactures in dire times will sell to all parties :P

------
rinon
Thank you for writing this. So many want to tiptoe around and ignore this
election, like they've always done before, and that may be the worst mistake
of all in this situation.

------
weinzierl
> To anyone familiar with the history of Germany in the 1930s, it's chilling
> to watch Trump in action. [...] Demagogic hate-mongers lead down terrible
> paths. It would be particularly embarrassing for us to fall for this—we are
> a nation of immigrants, and we know that immigrants built this country (and
> Trump, of course, is the grandson of immigrants and married to an
> immigrant).

As Hitler was Austrian, technically speaking, he was an immigrant too.

~~~
creshal
Only technically. Austria was historically always seen as part of the German
nation, just not part of Germany-the-country for purely political reasons –
first the Habsburgs didn't want to subjugate themselves to the Prussian
upstarts, and when Austria-Hungary fell apart, the Entente forbade Austria to
join Germany, but couldn't prevent the two from closely cooperating, nor the
German population from accepting Austrians. So nobody saw him as a migrant.

Only after WW2 did the countries and societies start to drift apart (to no
small part due to Hitler's semi-forced Anschluss of Austria).

------
piotrjurkiewicz
Why isn't this submission [flagged], whereas every /non-anti-Trump/ political
submission gets flagged here within few minutes?

------
jroseattle
Good post, Sam. It's much better that we break down the issues at hand and
move beyond the name=good/bad binary discussion.

------
ivankirigin
Sam, what do you think about YC companies whose founders support trump? Or on
the other side Apple not supporting GOP convention?

------
jasonlaramburu
It will be interesting to look back on the comments of some Trump supporters
here in 30 years (assuming HN is still around). I suspect history will paint
them in a similar light to folks like George Wallace, who presented calm and
calculated arguments in support of segregation.

------
krambs
How could anyone know what Trump stands for? It seems to change with every
speech. He's a crude opportunist embarrassing our country every day.

For someone so influential to lend him any sort of legitimacy is entirely
reckless.

------
powera
I still wonder if any large tech companies (Google, Apple, etc) will endorse
against Trump before November. They did on Prop 8, and Trump will similarly
have an immediate negative impact on many of their employees.

~~~
kmiroslav
Apple has already abandoned the RNC [1]. I'm disappointed that no other large
companies have so far.

[1] [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/18/trump-
remark...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/18/trump-remarks-
prompt-apple-abandon-rnc-report/)

~~~
Analemma_
Several large companies have sharply withdrawn support from the RNC without
abandoning it completely. Microsoft used to make monetary donations to them
every election cycle, this year they are donating technical support to the
convention but no money. YMMV on whether that's good/bad/enough.

------
justjico
I just wanted to mention "climate change" as my personal biggest issue of this
election, and I'm a bit surprised to not see it mentioned more often. Trump
takes a radical position thinking that "climate change" is a Chinese
conspiracy. How does smart Trump supporters even "argue" for that position? I
understand we can debate the extend of actions immediately required, or many
other things, but this anti-intellectual position, makes it impossible to have
any sane conversation on the topic. This is why I also think anti-
intellectualism is the worst thing that can happen to a democracy.

------
seky
"Being right about something" is a basic prerequisite to being a successful
demagogue

------
Everhusk
> And without it, we’ll lose our position as the most powerful country in the
> world.

Why is this a bad thing? Isn't the goal of globalization to start thinking of
our planet as a whole?

~~~
selectron
As an American, I care much more about the fate of America than I do about the
fate of Europe. People are tribal animals.

~~~
Everhusk
Perhaps, or maybe people were* tribal animals, just as they were once cavemen.

Globalization progresses mankind forward, it will ultimately make us better
versions of ourselves. The root of Trump's evil is trying to reverse this
progress by locking down borders and rejecting religions that are not the norm
in America.

------
graycat
At

[http://qz.com/712518/im-going-to-say-something-very-
unpopula...](http://qz.com/712518/im-going-to-say-something-very-unpopular-in-
silicon-valley-trump-is-right-about-some-big-things/)

Sam Altman posted

 _TRIUMPH OF EVIL_

about D. Trump.

Here in the interest of better government for the US, I respond to Altman's
post.

Who am I? I've posted long and often at HN, especially on relatively technical
topics in applied mathematics.

I am doing an Internet information technology startup where the core of the
work is some of my original applied math for higher quality information for
the users.

I am a US citizen with no connection with any political campaign.

I live in the state of NY and there am registered as a Democrat.

I've used the Internet to try to keep up on the race for President of the US
(POTUS). Currently I intend to vote for Trump.

> But Trump is wrong about the more important part: how to fix these problems.

Well, from all I've seen, so far Trump's statements about the economy are
generalities.

Are those generalities bad? Apparently not: As of now, at

[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/repub...](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html)

apparently on the first ballot in the Republican Convention in Cleveland in
July, Trump will receive at least 1542 votes and, thus, comfortably over the
1237 he needs for the nomination. So, so far his economic plans, although just
generalities, were part of a successful campaign.

Maybe in the rest of the campaign Trump will provide more details. I hope he
will.

For Alman's claim that Trump is "wrong", Altman didn't mention anything, not
specifics, not even generalities. So, there is no way for me to tell just why
Altman believes that Trump is "wrong".

> He is irresponsible in the way dictators are.

Altman didn't give any specific case where Trump was "irresponsible". Being
"in the way dictators are" doesn't mean much since I am sure that Altman,
Trump, and all dictators are the same in that they eat, sleep, breathe, talk,
and more. To have something critical about Trump, we need something more
specific.

> Trump’s casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without
> precedent among major presidential nominees.

I've read a lot about Trump and frequently read that Trump is racist and
misogynist. Since I would be very concerned if Trump were those things, I've
looked for solid evidence but so far have found none. The sources I read gave
no solid evidence, and neither did Altman. The evidence I have found indicates
that Trump is just the opposite from racist and misogynist.

> He has said that a judge of Mexican descent isn’t treating him fairly
> because of his heritage and that we should ban Muslims from entering the
> country.

I dispute the claim about Trump and the judge: From all I have seen, Trump
believes the judge has treated him unfairly in the case. One Trump claim is
that the case should have been dismissed on summary judgment. Another claim is
that the case should have been dismissed when the lead plaintiff withdrew from
the case.

Then, with that unfair treatment, Trump asked why, why did the judge treat
Trump unfairly? So, as at

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKmpB7SeNE)

Trump said:

> All I'm trying to do is figure out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a
> judge. And a lot of people agree with it. All I want to do, all I want to do
> is find out why I'm being treated so unfairly by a judge.

In looking for an answer to this question, Trump noticed the judge's Mexican
ancestry and political activities that conflict with some of Trump's positions
on illegal immigration from Mexico. Trump concluded that those facts about
that judge explain why the judge treated Trump unfairly.

Trump never claimed that the a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to treat
him unfairly. Instead Trump noticed that the judge DID treat Trump unfairly,
asked why, and noticed the judge's ancestry and political activities.

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-
on...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-
gonzalo-curiel-1464911442)

“I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said.

At

[http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/4-reasons-why-judge-
curiel...](http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/4-reasons-why-judge-curiel-in-
trump-university-case-should-recuse-himself)

there is much more detail on the case and why the judge should recuse himself
from the case.

If there is any racism here, it is from the judge. Indeed, if investigate a
little, the judge is too close to some groups who want CA to be returned to
Mexico and all persons in the US of Western European descent to return to
Europe -- wildly racist.

> To anyone familiar with the history of Germany in the 1930s, it’s chilling
> to watch Trump in action. Though I know intellectually it’s easy in hard
> economic times to rile people up with a hatred of outsiders, it’s still
> surprising to watch this happen right in front of us.

Clearly from his many statements, Trump wants the US to enforce the long
existing US laws on immigration, e.g., the laws that his wife Melania DID
follow correctly. I've listened to nearly all of Trump's debate performances,
speeches, and rallies, and what I have heard is that always or nearly so each
time Trump says that we should stop illegal immigration he also says right
away that he is for LEGAL immigration.

"A hatred of outsiders" has nothing to do with the desire and need to enforce
our immigration laws.

That's enough, Sam. Sam, you blew it.

------
zorpner
_He 's right that we're drowning in political correctness..._

 _Trump 's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without
precedent..._

That's some impressive cognitive dissonance, sama. Those are two aspects of
the same thought happening in Trump's mind.

EDIT: Stewart Lee's smart (and amusing!) bit on the idea of "political
correctness":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmsV1TuESrc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmsV1TuESrc)

~~~
JeremyBanks
We understand that those are intwined in Trump's head. That's an expected
consequence of his general lake of nuance.

------
clevernickname
I thought "pure politics" posts weren't allowed/were discouraged on HN?

>dang 47 days ago

>It isn't that it's pro-Trump, it's that it's pure politics. Such posts always
get heavily flagged, and it's hard to disagree with that, since they're
typically not posted to gratify intellectual curiosity.

>Basic Income stories are political, but they aren't purely political. There's
an intellectual interest in thinking about and debating such a major social
change. Political horse race stories are the opposite.

~~~
magicalist
> _Such posts always get heavily flagged_

That says they get flagged, not that they aren't allowed. I have no doubt this
post is getting many flags as we type.

~~~
davidw
It's now off the front page.

I didn't flag it as it's their site, but I'm happier that it's gone.

------
internaut
It's hard in this area not to say anything controversial.

I agree there is no plan.

Personally I believe we need to go back to first principals on the subject of
governance. What does a government of the future look like? I appreciate
that's a bit of an ask but my view is that the specter of civil conflict looms
large over Europe, less so the United States. Since we're going to get change,
we might as well have some productive alternatives in mind.

Let us not forget that we're members of the same tribe.

------
ebbv
Admire that you felt the need to say something Sam, but unfortunately I don't
think anything productive is going to come from it.

If you really want to stop Trump, unfortunately at this point the only thing
you can do is hold your nose support Clinton. The time where we had any other
options unfortunately has passed.

------
igorgue
Let's start with you guys Sam, stop taking money from Peter Thiel who's a
Trump delegate.

------
nolepointer
I feel like Sam really misrepresented Trump's views, but that's expected from
someone who's opposed to him.

At this point, nothing will convince me to not vote for Trump. I'm too
concerned about national security and my fellow (legal) Americans losing their
jobs.

~~~
justjico
Isolationism and a trade war with Mexico and China will not create more jobs.
A bravado leader will also likely not lead to a more stable (read: secure)
world.

------
hackaflocka
If Colin Powell were to run on an independent ticket, who would the best
running mate for him?

~~~
bruceb
He led us in to a war on BS. He has no chance and no base.

~~~
mikeash
Yes, pretty much the worst of both worlds there. The people who loved Bush
will hate him for speaking out afterwards, and the people who hated Bush will
hate him for being spineless and not speaking out when it actually might have
mattered.

------
hubert123
Another liberal who hasnt understand Trump's appeal in the slightest. How you
can put "political correctness is bad" and then say literally 2 sentences
after that "he is a racist and a misogynist" I mean the level of brainwashing
is amazing.

~~~
aerovistae
Hmm, okay. Continuing down this line of discussion, can you share with us some
details on Trump's proposed solutions for the various economic and social
problems we face?

------
superswordfish
With Trump already an also-ran in November, who may even have to run as an
independent, it doesn't take much courage to write this now. It just became
politically correct to slam Trump in public. If you wait too long, he'll have
dropped out already! "Daddy, what did _you_ do in the Great War?"

------
anysz
#feelingit

~~~
anysz
Being positive lol, why the downvotes?

------
potatoman2
Demagogic hate-monger seems a little strong.

~~~
v64
demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular
desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument

hatemonger: a person who kindles hatred, enmity, or prejudice in others

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not
sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of
problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs.
They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

"In the Middle East, we have people chopping the heads off Christians, we have
people chopping the heads off many other people. We have things that we have
never seen before -- as a group, we have never seen before, what's happening
right now. The medieval times -- I mean, we studied medieval times -- not
since medieval times have people seen what's going on. I would bring back
waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."

"I think Islam hates us. There's a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the
bottom of it. There is an unbelievable hatred of us."

I would say demagogic hatemonger is a perfectly accurate description of Donald
Trump.

~~~
siegecraft
Are there any non-demagogue politicians, then? Successful ones, I mean.

------
irrational
I can't vote for Trump or Clinton. I'm planning on writing in Bernie Sanders,
but I wonder if I should write in Bernard Sanders instead. Not that my vote
will count, but does anyone know if it matters which form of his name I use?

