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

Yes. He lied, as many on the left said he was. Here[0], there is talk Jamie Dimon was considered by his advisors for Treasury. To be fair, Dimon declined, but it shows that Trump at least surrounds himself with people who don't give two shits about his "helping the little man."

[0] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-advisors-conside...




> He lied, as many on the left said he was.

Please drop the partisan angle on this. This isn't a left/right difference. Obama campaigned with a similar promise and he still selected lobbyists for his administration:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/08/15/th...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler


I never said people on the left don't do it. Yes, Obama did it too. The point is Trump isn't what he appears to be, in fact he appears very similar to Obama in the sense that he convinced many people there would be change for the better but all evidence points to that he will just perpetuate the system which he rallied against (which Obama did too).


Legitimate question: what could Obama have done better? Being Canadian I didn't take as close an interest as I would have in my own government, but it seemed from my perspective like he was doing everything he could to bring about change. The problem appeared to be that he had a very different idea of what that change should be than the Republican Congress, and short of utterly capitulating, I'm not sure how you unilaterally engender cooperation in that situation. I'm sure that I'm both biased and largely uninformed though, so I'm interested in the counter-argument.


>> Legitimate question: what could Obama have done better?

I don't know, i'm no politician; i'm just waiting on the 2008 Obama campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay (to clarify: I mean cease black operations at that site indefinitely -- I don't have any illusions that the U.S. will stop illegal black operations internationally.).

I don't know whether or not if it's an impossibility at this point to do so; but I also believe if it is impossible it probably shouldn't have been a campaign promise used to influence voters.


Let's hope you're so particular when it comes to Trump and his campaign promises. So far his "draining the swamp" means he's filled it with establishment sewage. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/donald-trump-transiti...


He lacked sufficient Congressional support for a lot of that. And when he did release detainees? He was demonized by many (particularly from the right).


Closing Guantànamo Bay turned out to be much more difficult than Obama assumed. The full sordid story can be found here:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-f...


I agree with the overall message that Obama was way more establishment than he made himself seem in the campaign, but Guantanamo is a horrible example. He's consistently brought it up and fight for it, if it was an empty campaign promise he would have quietly never mentioned it again.

Impossibility can mean a couple of things - the logistical challenges of where Guantanamo prisoners should go, and the impossibility of getting it done in a Republican-controlled senate and house.

The first is in line with your point, although I think it's a reasonable assumption that Obama honestly underestimated the challenge. For the second, it's not reasonable to call it a broken promise if he made a good faith effort and was blocked by something out of his control (that he couldn't have necessarily predicted)


Very little, Obama didn't have the advantage of a friendly congress.


Obama had both houses of Congress for his first two years. He could have passed any law he wanted (indeed, that's how Obamacare got passed).


Which wasn't even the bill he wanted (Obamacare). They lacked a super majority (two thirds) in the Senate, so lots of compromises still had to happen.

Fortunately, the Republican's also lack a super majority in the Senate this time around.


"They lacked a super majority (two thirds) in the Senate, so lots of compromises still had to happen."

Sorry, that is simply not true. Obamacare was passed without a single amendment (or even a full debate), and without a single Republican vote.


That doesn't at all mean no compromises were made. It would be oversimplifying and naive to assume that the only compromises made in political dealings manifested as amendments.


Does getting Lieberman's vote by leaving out a public option count as a compromise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda...


No one seriously believes that Lieberman was ever anything but a Democrat, so no.


I'll have to re-read stuff on the ACA's passing through Congress.

But my statement about the supermajority is true. The Democrats (with Independents) had at most 60 members of the Senate (2009-2010), Republicans had from 39-42 (vacancies and other things going on).

Democrats did not have sufficient control of the Senate to guarantee they could get whatever they wanted.


See above. They could have used the nuclear option on day one (as they eventually did do).


Perhaps they were trying to stick to Obama's primary campaign promise of seeking bipartisan cooperation.


Their motivation doesn't enter into it. The argument is about whether they had the power. They clearly did, and they clearly did exercise that power at a later time.

I recall one of the Republicans predicting that at some future time the Democrats were going to regret having used the nuclear option. That time is probably about right now.

I'm afraid there's no way to put that big cloud back into that shiny metal ball.


A super-majority is 3/5th or 60 senators in the US Senate, not 2/3rds. From July 2009 to January 2010, Democrats (+ Independents Sanders and Lieberman) had such a super-majority in the Senate.

Democrats in the Senate used this super-majority to pass the ACA (Obamacare) in December 2009. Technically, they used the super-majority to end the filibuster and then voted on the bill.


"Fortunately, the Republican's also lack a super majority in the Senate this time around."

Unfortunately, the Democrats have already gone nuclear repeatedly.

What makes you think the Republicans won't do the same?

Edit: typo.


Can you clarify what you mean by "gone nuclear"? I'll admit, that's not ringing a bell in my mind when it comes to Congress, but it's also late here and I'm tired.

EDIT: Ah, rules changes on filibuster and such. There's no guarantee. The Republicans do only have 51 members, though, with 48 for the Democrats and (per CNN's results) 1 seat still being tallied (?).

They could change the filibuster rules and make it easier on themselves, but it's a much narrower margin than in 2009.

EDIT 2: Regarding the empty seat, that's LA. If people vote in the runoff (not still being tallied) by the same party lines, it'll likely go to the remaining Republican candidate. So it'll be 52/48. Rule changes will need Democrats on board with them, this is unlikely.


Changing the rules requires only a simple majority.

There's a reason it was called the "nuclear option".


Misread the necessary numbers on the rules change. Still a narrower margin, but doesn't require Democrats to help out.


If they change it to only require simple majority then I guarantee it will never change back. Partisanship is dead. The thugs won't appoint a supreme court justice, the thugs won't appoint any other judicial appointments. This will never be forgotten and there will never be compromise again. It's obstructionism on both sides from here on out.


You mean "Bipartisanship is dead," right?


It is a myth that Democrats had full control of the House/Senate for 2 years to pass any bill he wanted:

http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucinda/2012-06-01/no-obama-di...


I'm trying to figure out if the person who wrote that doesn't understand how Congress works, or is simply being deceptive.

The only "myth" there is pretending that it requires a filibuster-proof majority to pass any legislation.


The truth of that "myth" was well established during Obama's tenure.


Nope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

They could have done that on day one.


Why the downvote? The Dems clearly had the power to use the nuclear option (and in fact they did use it later in Obama's term, so this isn't just theoretical).


IMO the ACA was an overreach that cost him the congress in 2010 and possibly Clinton's presidency. That political capital would have been better spent on getting higher taxes at the top and fixing social security.


> better spent

Most people might think that except maybe the people with pre-existing conditions who were able to get healthcare.


> I never said people on the left don't do it.

Apologies for my mis-interpretation.

I think discussions about such things (e.g., the revolving door for lobbyists, where most people seem to agree that it's bad for governance) would benefit from people omitting specific party/ideology references. It just creates the potential for mis-interpretation and can result in unnecessary strife and the illusion of division for an issue that most people probably agree on. And, as @praisewhitey noted[0], people on the right probably said the same thing about Trump too. So this isn't a "the left was right this time and the right was wrong and when Obama ran the right was right and the left was wrong" division. (Though it's likely true that people are more forgiving of candidates who hold their own ideologies).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927416


You're criticizing a presidency that hasn't even seen it's first day! All of the "evidence" also pointed to Clinton winning in a landslide, and then a stock market crash after he won... what happened? Ya. Relax.


Interesting isn't it. Just like the media, who just until 2 days ago were sure Trump will never win this one, and now are confidently telling us what the next 4 years would be.

Well I am having a blast watching CNN and NBC and I don't usually watch TV, but now I put it on for entertainment...


Seems like they've got you figured out, at least. I wonder if the eyeballs across all media are up, post-election.



--- Not even 24 hours yet. My friend's sister, who is Muslim, had a knife pulled on her by a Trump supporter while on the bus by UIUC campus. ---

https://twitter.com/amyharvard_/status/796450126546030592 looked here, looks pretty serious, but refused to report it to the police? I am guessing because filing a fake police report is a crime...


> I am guessing because filing a fake police report is a crime...

No. In Germany, many left-wing activists do not file police claims if they've been beaten up or assaulted by fascists. The problem is that the police gives the opposite party or at least their lawyer the full address of the victim - and these addresses tend to be aggregated and leaked on fascist blogs.

In America, where even private information such as divorce papers apparently falls under "this is a public document" rules, I wouldn't even dare calling 911, much less filing a police report.


> No. In Germany,

Wow, sounds like it is bad there, it is not as bad here yet.

> The problem is that the police gives the opposite party or at least their lawyer the full address of the victim - and these addresses tend to be aggregated and leaked on fascist blogs.

Except her name is on Twitter, the full name. It is not that hard to find the address.

Let's be frank do you honestly think campus police at this university are compiling lists of leftist people to give to their "fascist" friends? And that is the reason she did not want to file a police report? Somehow you jumped over the simplest explanation - that she lied, straight to "campus police are a fascists who compile lists of people".


I think you misunderstand the fear of reprisal minorities feel. It is a truly awful feeling to not be able to either a) trust law enforcement to not dismiss you because of your minority status, or even actively repress you (black people in America experience this all the time, and now Muslims too); or b) not be able to approach law enforcement because you're worried that there will be more of a backlash from allies of your attackers. Consider all the women who accused Trump of assaulting them and then received death threats for themselves and their families from all over the country.

And just in general: the lady's a minority, and from a minority that is very much under pressure these days, thanks to a President-elect whose platform was built on a platform that attacked her, her family, and her friends for their religion. Considering all of that, give her the benefit of the doubt.


Good points, I agree about fear of not being take seriously. Active repression and reprisals are real too and you're right the Black community has been suffering that for many years. Due to Youtube and everyone carrying smartphones it has become more known later.

> Consider all the women who accused Trump of assaulting them and then received death threats for themselves and their families from all over the country.

Good point again. I agree in general it is a very justified fear.

However in this particular case it is the campus police of a university. That is not the same as Chicago PD (who have been known to torture people) or NYPD. This is a police force that is employed by the University. Having gone to a US university and dealt with campus police (they helped me return a stolen phone) I have a bit of a first hand experience with them. I think no mater who the victim is, and no matter their political views, it would be bad for them, their employer, the whole community to have kids stabbed on campus. Or have anyone take revenge and assault them.

So it looks extremely suspicious based on the specifics. And if it is fake, that was an incredibly stupid idea. It disqualifies and puts under suspicion real cases of assault and abuse.


I agree that it if it is a fake incident, it would be awful and would disqualify real issues. I'm not sure what the background of this girl is (maybe she's an immigrant who's only heard bad things about the police, campus or otherwise? maybe she's terrified and just wants to put it behind her, instead of necessarily pursuing justice?) but I do think it would be better to give her the benefit of the doubt unless it's proven conclusively that she faked it.

I know that typically in courts the accuser has to prevent positive evidence, but this is a traumatizing time for minorities - let the court of public opinion at least not rush to brand her as a faker, at least in part because if it is real, doing so will only exacerbate her trauma.


> Let's be frank do you honestly think campus police at this university are compiling lists of leftist people to give to their "fascist" friends?

No, you misunderstood me. The police simply pass on the details of the accuser to the accused's legal defense and in most cases the accused himself. Of course, fascists share data obtained by this route (and the lefties obviously do the same). It's a doxx-war.


I am sorry, I imagine it would be possible in Germany. Even if I try, I don't see University of Illinois campus police doing it. I see them not taking her seriously (but why wouldn't they? it would be terrible for their jobs to have customers there getting stabbed).

But them being members of a fascist party and compiling lists, as hard as I try, I don't see happening.

Her name is in plain sight on Twitter. If she was afraid of reprisals why would she post it on Twitter with her full name?

Isn't something as simple as it being fake a more plausible explanation?


> I am sorry, I imagine it would be possible in Germany.

As a matter of fact, it is entirely possible. Just yesterday news broke that cops were in bed with a biker gang (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/ermittlungen-polizei-durch...). But it's very rare that such things happen.

> But them being members of a fascist party and compiling lists, as hard as I try, I don't see happening.

It's not the cops, it's the fascists who compile and spread such lists.


I just scrolled around randomly and one of the moments is a group of young black men kicking an old white man [0]. I'm not sure what the message is here but it seems likely that the collators are playing fast and loose to pile the evidence on

[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/kmscodi/status/796554667748716545...


Yep, that was one of the worst ones in the list. I think the message was just showing the rampant racism, regardless of the race of the perpetrator.


Tom Wheeler has done his job just fine, and not shown any preference to his old industry. For all we know Obama made a great choice based on his character.


>He lied, as many on the left said he was

And many on the right.


I should have revised it to "many" fullstop. I just wanted to use a word that meant many people without making it sound something like, "informed sources say...". The point is many public figures and thinkers distrusted Trump's rhetoric.


I'm not sure what he promised or where the contradiction is, but Jamie Dimon would be a very strong advisor. I think he's considered one of the smartest of the leaders of the wall street banks, and JP Morgan was one of the few banks that was strong going into 2008. I wasn't a Trump supporter, but that at least shows good judgment to me.


Alright, who do you think he should have picked for you to say "not bad, that's a good choice?"




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

Search: