Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Google is basically running and funding the democratic party in the United States. This combined with their NSA compliance is a scary thing.

I now find it suspect whenever they want to make changes to the search results, especially when it always seems to favor their political party.

Bernie Sanders will never win simply because his goal is to put a stop to this bullshit.




I dunno. Right now, we seem to be headed for Trump vs. Sanders. Bush and Clinton both imploded.

It's hard to tell, though. Polls don't work any more. Gallup recently admitted this. Not only do half of Americans not have a landline (they can only call landlines), on 9 out of 10 calls Gallup makes, the other party won't talk to them.


> Right now, we seem to be headed for Trump vs. Sanders. Bush and Clinton both imploded.

Trump's been leading the Republican polls for some time, though he still has a pretty small overall share and Carson has been surging recently. Its pretty hard to justify a claim that its clearly heading toward any particular winner on that side (particularly since its not decided in a national election, but state-by-state elections to assign delegates in a manner which isn't proportionate to share of vote, and there's not frequent enough state-by-state polling to have a clear picture of even the current state of those, much less where they are likely to be by the times they are held.)

On the other hand, while Sanders is doing well in some places, Clinton's still got a about a 20 percentage point lead in most national polling; she's hardly "imploded" the way Bush, widely perceived as an early Republican frontrunner, has. Many of the same concerns exist as discussed above with the Republican ticket as far as drawing conclusions go, but what you can read from polls doesn't show anything like a clear course to a Sanders win.


We have also had ZERO democratic debates. Many people, especially the older generation that still gets most of their news from tv, haven't had a chance to hear anything about Sanders. Tuesday will be very telling.

If you go back and look at the political news articles from 2007/early 2008, Obama was viewed as a long-shot. HRC tends to do worse the more exposure voters have to her, while Sanders is doing the opposite. It's going to be a tough fight, but I think Sanders has a great chance of winning the primary.


Clinton's 20% lead could evaporate overnight if Biden announces that he's running.


"Could potentially implode as one potential outcome of an event which may or may not happen in the future" is not the same thing as "has imploded".


> I dunno. Right now, we seem to be headed for Trump vs. Sanders. Bush and Clinton both imploded.

1) It's way too early for polls to be terribly meaningful.

2) It's way too early to write off the candidate who's currently leading in the polls[0] in every state but two[1], as well as racked up the largest number of endorsements faster than virtually any primary candidate in history.

[0] And who's also already won the "invisible primary" (note how few candidates are running on the Democratic ticket - there's a reason most serious candidates opted out of this primary, and her name is Clinton.)

[1] and only leading in those two states when polls include a candidate who's not even running (Biden)!


> Right now, we seem to be headed for Trump vs. Sanders. Bush and Clinton both imploded.

Pretty much zero chance of that happening. I'll concede that Bush has had a mini-implosion but Clinton is still well on track to be nominee.


Luckily there's still time to derail that. She's a terrible candidate.


Oh, c'mon. Bernie Sanders is an exciting candidate for you? Give me a break. Do Democrats have anyone, anyone, under 60?


> Bernie Sanders is an exciting candidate for you?

Yes.

> Do Democrats have anyone, anyone, under 60?

Age is pretty much orthogonal to what makes a candidate exciting, to me at least.

But, yes, the Democrats have lots of people under 60, including at least two of those running for the Presidential nomination in 2016: Martin O'Malley (52), and Lawrence Lessig (54).


As far as I can tell (I opted out of election cycles), Bernie Sanders is the second leading candidate for the Democrats. Let's not feign surprise that there are people who find him exciting and be respectful.


Be 'respectful'? I just saw an article about Trump linked here on HN and the people commenting ripped him apart and did not show any 'respect'.

More and more I'm seeing comment guidelines used more as a way to limit and silence opposing view points rather than to get rid of trolls.

If we can't have an honest discussion, the discussions is pretty much worthless.


I wasn't responsible for that. I believe honesty and respect are both possible in the same response so I'm advocating for more of that.


I like hearing him speak, I like the 'grumpy grandpa-ness' he espouses and his track record of consistency. I get excited by the actual alternative views he presents, typically it feels like Repubs and Dems are almost the same with only slight deviations on social issues (abortion, immigration, and gay marriage). I like that he doesn't toe party lines and will respectfully criticize Republicans as well as Obama. And again he has authenticity, his views seem to come from an actual place of concern and thought instead of a focus group or from trying to align himself within a particular political ideology.


Lawrence Lessig is running[1]. He's only 54. But he's exciting to me for the same reasons that Trump is: He's out of left field.

[1]http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/lessig-lawren...


no, I would never vote for him. I'm just giving a reason why I don't think he has a chance.


I thought Obama was suppose to deliver.

Didn't we hear the same aspirations and justifications 8 and 4 years ago?


Sorry, I was wrong. Obama delivered. To GOOG/TWTR/YAHO/FB/etc and to Eric Schmidt-backed startup more than to the middle class. My bad.


In the US both political parties are very much pro-business and pro-big business. There is no true labour party that caters to the needs of ordinary workers.


I guess you're suggesting labor party is better at helping ordinary workers than corporations are when it is a fact that free market capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty in countries like Peru where I used to live and all around the world. Before countries like Peru embraced free market like they did in the late 90's, they were extremely poor, they now have a great and growing economy unlike say Venezuela or Cuba who refused to embrace the free market and kept their "labour party that caters to the needs of ordinary workers". How did that work out?


Labor parties in Western countries are free market capitalists. They aren't purists but neither are the parties of business, who use government to aid their constituents and distort marketplaces.

For a counter-example, the period of greatest (I think) growth in the 'West' was the 1950's and 60s, when their economies was much more highly regulated, government much more directly involved, and unions much stronger. Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated.


> Since deregulation and anti-union forces ascended in 1980's, at least in the U.S. most of the population's income has stagnated.

Correlation != causation. Besides, people today live longer and healthier than in the 50's and the 60's. Even in the late 80's, middle class people could barely afford a tv and even less so a microwave, now many people even in the lower classes have a smartphone, microwaves, laptops, flat tvs, travel more and cheaper thanks to flights deregulation etc. Free market has been so efficient that people now have better lives than they used to for cheaper, which explains why incomes haven't gone up that much as it hasn't been needed. It's a proven fact that the world has never been as peaceful, wealthy, well off and advanced as ever despite supposedly evil deregulation and free market.


> Even in the late 80's, middle class people could barely afford a tv

This is not true. Color TV ownership, I'm pretty sure, was nearly universal in the late 1980s and I expect most households had more than one.

> Free market has been so efficient that people now have better lives than they used to for cheaper, which explains why incomes haven't gone up that much as it hasn't been needed.

I'd be interested in some basis for this. Not everything is cheaper, for example health care and gasoline. I don't think I've seen anything suggesting purchasing power overall has increased, but I suppose it's possible.

> It's a proven fact that the world has never been as peaceful, wealthy, well off and advanced ...

That seems like something that would be very hard to prove or to establish factually. Also, while economies have grown in aggregate, that hasn't made individuals better off. My income could grow from $100 million to $1 billion while 99 people could stay stuck at $10; our aggregate gain would be $900 million or a wonderful $9 million per capita, but that's no help to the other 99 who can't make ends meet.

EDIT: I should add that the world overall certainly is wealthier and many fewer are in extreme poverty. To attribute that to the 'free market' (as in purist free-market capitalism, not its usual forms which include elements of many approaches) is erroneous, I think; most was achieved by developing countries following not the market but government-directed industrial policies.


> This is not true. Color TV ownership, I'm pretty sure, was nearly universal in the late 1980s and I expect most households had more than one.

Not in the rest of the world (I didn't grow up in the US)

> Not everything is cheaper, for example health care and gasoline.

Healthcare medicines from the 80's did get cheaper, people always want the latest (or are made to buy the latest) which includes the latest tech and is therefor equally expensive or more so. Besides, healthcare is very heavily regulated in the US so if anything this is an example of regulations making things more expensive. Same goes for gasoline.

> That seems like something that would be very hard to prove or to establish factually.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-29/world-actually-becomin...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-...


Wealth is not the only consideration. Political power is also an important consideration. While wealth is not a zero-sum game, political power is. Given that wealth is transferrable to political power, we find that increasing inequality impoverishes labor of his political power even if he is economically better off. THAT is the problem.

Would you rather be a rich slave or a poor free man?


> Would you rather be a rich slave or a poor free man?

False dichotomy?


Cuba actually has a higher human development index than Peru despite a lower GDP per capita - despite the economic sanctions against Cuba.


Clinton might still win the labor vote due to the other side being even less palatable.

Which is, frankly, pretty sad, considering that she was on the board of Wal-Mart for so many years. A company which has long been about as hostile to workers as one can possibly be.

To pick one of the more egregious items from Wal-Mart history - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4146540/ns/business-us_business/t/...


And we should not forget that Obama also delivered to the NSA. He is the president. Can't blame Republicans for that.


The Democrats have many people under 60, they just aren't running because of the perceived Clinton juggernaut.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2021

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: