HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

You are right about this story. But honestly this is the first story I've seen there that presents him in a positive light in the past 6 months or so.

In fact, I assumed they wouldn't report on it at all since it broke yesterday morning or early afternoon and they mentioned firings in the disarray story.

Sure, I know about opinion pages, but sometimes the opinions can cloud people's judgement.

Regarding Fox news - they've been going back and forth. Fox news already ruined their reputation in the past with biased pro establishment republican reporting. I view them as an alternative news source at this point. They don't outright lie, but they bend the truth in such a way that the message becomes whatever their narrative is at the time.

Edit: Regarding professional protesters: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-15/whos-behind-portlan...

This is not a great source, but you can check that indeed they are from out of state. Some of the protesters who are organizing with megaphones were previously on Dem payrolls. There were also pictures of some of the same protesters in multiple cities all over the country.

Moveon organizes some of the protests: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/13/moveonorg-ra...

craigslist ads advertising pay for protesters (this one is not very good source, but I can't find a better one right now and can't find any archive links): http://truthfeed.com/breaking-bitter-soros-hiring-team-of-fu...

Snopes article on the protesters claims that it's unproven: http://www.snopes.com/craigslist-ad-trump-rally/

Wikileaks previously showed that DNC campaign posted craigslist ads (not for protests but for fake story): https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803

Regarding arguments pro-trump, Peter Thiel gave a fairly convincing speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4

I am still suspicious but at the same time hopeful of Trump. I think he is the only one who can change certain things. Otherwise, economic condition for many people would get worse partly because of outsourcing and partly because of tech advances. UBI is not ready yet. When the economy is poor, this has historically led to radicalization of various groups. We already see traces of it in US. I think it makes sense to appeal to these groups and fix some of their problems.

There are plenty of discussions on HN about this, including references to talks and writings by Peter Thiel, if you're interested. You could probably get a pretty good idea into why he did. Two references off the top of my head that would be particularly on topic would be his keynote at the RNC and the National Press Club interview.

RNC keynote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTJB8AkT1dk

National Press Club interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4

Here's Peter's speech at the National Press Club:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4

Could you point out anywhere that Peter supports bigotry? Or even, a single crazy statement in Peter's speech? (I wouldn't defend Trump. I'm defending Peter, who I respect a lot).

The speech runs from 2:40 to 15:50, and can be watched in 7 minutes if you change speed to 2x.

(Thomas, I respect you a lot too. I've never seen or known Peter to do anything like you describe. I posted this video because it helped me understand his position on the election).

⬐ betolink

"They(Mexicans) are rapists and murderers" Take a look[1] you may have been stranded on an Island the last 2 years and perhaps you did not hear what Trump have said.

Now, not all Trump supporters are racists (maybe Thiel isn't? who knows!), but all of them are telling us implicitly that racism and bigotry are not deal breakers.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37zvOZ17eSE

⬐ BurningFrog

Note that this Trump (mis)quote is in response to asking where Thiel says anything that supports bigotry.

⬐ betolink

Corrected now, unless I didn't hear right when he refers to Mexico sending people over and then "they are rapists" perhaps his subject changed and he was referring to Aliens?

⬐ BurningFrog

He is, at least technically, making a more sophisticated argument. I'll rephrase it to make that reading clear:

"Like all countries, Mexico has both great people and rapists/murderers. Unfortunately, the latter group is overrepresented among those illegally in this country."

That's (technically) the point he's making, and it's (technically) not racist.

⬐ late2part

Can you refute the statistical assertion Trump is making in that statement?

⬐ Chris2048

> "They(Mexicans) are rapists and murderers"

Actually "they’re not sending their best" explicitly doesn't mean "Mexicans" (i.e all/any Mexicans). As such, that should be:

> "They(some Mexicans) are rapists and murderers"

http://www.breitbart.com/live/vice-presidential-debate-fact-...

⬐ None

None

⬐ None

None

⬐ skoopie

Can you tell me which specific Mexicans he was talking about?

⬐ Chris2048

Specifically the rapists.

⬐ gohrt

Trump said that illegal immigrants are "rapists and murderers and some good people", "not their best people". You can disagree strongly with Trump's claims about what motivates illegal immigration, but Trump's stated view is not racist: he discriminated between two groups within a single race, and did not distinguish between races.

⬐ colemickens

This is some amazing mental gymnastics here, wew.

""White people are racist, ignorant assholes, except for some of them.""

^^ I'm sure this comment will do well!

⬐ Chris2048

Fair enough, still more lenient than the average leftist view that omits the "except for some of them".

⬐ colemickens

Sure buddy, sure.

⬐ Chris2048

Yeah right, pal.

⬐ adventured

Variations of that statement are commonly being written or voiced in the mainstream media post election. So apparently it does do well. Van Jones, on national TV, called it "whitelash" and openly described Trump's election as a racist response to Obama's Presidency. The post election has been one mainstream media tirade after another about the racist white voters.

⬐ andrewchambers

That is so wrong, a better quote would be:

"The illegal French immigrants are ignorant assholes, except for some of them".

The key differences are - Not all, the illegal immigrants. And Mexican, like French is a Nationality and not a race.

⬐ atomi

The alt-right gained most of it's momentum during Trump's campaign. You think that's a coincidence? And this, "it's a nationality not a race' is hardly a good reason to denigrate an entire people.

⬐ andrewchambers

People keep saying he denigrated all mexicans... He didn't, he denigrated illegal immigrants. Unless you are implying all Mexicans are illegal immigrants?

I don't even like trump but this kind of nonsense makes me defend him.

⬐ carapace

And when he said that judge couldn't be impartial due to his ethnic background, who was he denigrating?

⬐ andrewchambers

That's not because the judge is Mexican, that's because the judge is human and a huge propaganda machine was working against Trump telling everyone that he hates the judges culture.

I don't know how impartial I would be if i thought I was ruling against a hardcore racist who hates my culture.

⬐ carapace

Well, I hope you're not a Judge then, eh? ;-) (You're supposed to recuse yourself in a situation like that, you know.)

Even if he was trying to impugn human nature and not Mexicans, he's still saying that race trumps Justice (in the person of the Judge.) That's not the values I want my President to treat as normal, because it effectively promotes racialism.

Certainly his election has already emboldened racists to make physical and verbal attacks across the country. Do I care if he's really racist or not?

⬐ ebcode

It's called dog-whistle politics. It's subtle, so you have to listen hard, but here it is: "To the people who are used to influencing our choice of leaders, ..." and he goes on to describe "wealthy" and "successful" types of people. Basically he's talking "to" and "about" people like himself, namely, white men. The man is a bigot, and like all modern bigots, he hides (and shows) his bigotry in coded language like this.

edit: just to clarify, "people who are used to influencing our choice of leaders", I am interpreting in the context of voting rights in the United States, which of course were originally denied to everyone but white men. So those are the ones who are "used to it."

⬐ defgeneric

Seems clear to me that "people who are used to influencing our choice of leaders" means people who give 1M to campaigns, buy TV ads, etc.

⬐ betolink

He supports bigotry I think on minute 0:00... by calling to vote for a racist bigot who thinks that climate change is a hoax.

⬐ sintaxi

Do you then also suggest that those who called to vote for HRC support the destruction of government data, lying under oath, and support the unlawful invasion of Iraq?

⬐ colemickens

He supports a Presidency which built its campaign, to a large extent, on abject racism and outright sexism. A ticket whose VP supports electro-shocking gay teens to turn them straight.

How, exactly, do you give such people $1.25 million and join their team without at least implicitly endorsing such views?

⬐ colemickens

Love it. -4 and not a single reply. Pathetic.

⬐ tptacek

How is this a coherent argument? "Here is an individual moment from someone's life. Use it to prove they're bigoted."

How about we cite other moments in his life? Like the (multiple!) Stanford peers he had who recounted his support for apartheid, or the book he wrote about the evils of diversity, or the blog post he wrote for Cato in 2009 lamenting that women had obtained the right to vote? How about getting up on stage and calling a person who repeatedly said that Muslims citizens of the United States should be forced to register themselves --- at their mosques or at lots of other places, we'll figure it out! --- the most honest candidate in the race?

There's a point at which the challenges you choose to raise cross a line into gaslighting --- who are you going to believe, Thiel or your own lying eyes? --- and while you haven't crossed it, writing in a tone that suggests it's unreasonable to question Thiel's inclusiveness definitely brings you right up to it.

⬐ davidp

> or the blog post he wrote for Cato in 2009 lamenting that women had obtained the right to vote?

He said no such thing in that article[1]. I have no idea about the rest, or about Thiel in general, but I did read the article. Your statement is as bad and inaccurate as any one-liner soundbite on right wing media.

The section in question (emphasis mine):

  As one fast-forwards to 2009, the prospects for a 
  *libertarian politics* appear grim indeed. Exhibit A
  is a financial crisis caused by too much debt and
  leverage, facilitated by a government that insured 
  against all sorts of moral hazards — and we know that
  the response to this crisis involves way more debt and 
  leverage, and way more government. Those who have
  argued for free markets have been screaming into a
  hurricane. The events of recent months shatter any 
  remaining hopes of *politically minded* libertarians. 
  For those of us who are libertarian in 2009, our 
  education culminates with the knowledge that the 
  broader education of the body politic has become a 
  fool’s errand.

  Indeed, even more pessimistically, the trend has been 
  going the wrong way for a long time. To return to 
  finance, the last economic depression in the United 
  States that did not result in massive government 
  intervention was the collapse of 1920–21. It was sharp 
  but short, and entailed the sort of Schumpeterian 
  “creative destruction” that could lead to a real boom. 
  The decade that followed — the roaring 1920s — was so 
  strong that historians have forgotten the depression
  that started it. The 1920s were the last decade in
  American history during which one could be genuinely
  optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast
  increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of 
  the franchise to women — two constituencies that are 
  notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the 
  notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.

He's talking about the poor receptivity he (and apparently other libertarians?) believe those groups have to libertarian ideals, specifically of getting them to vote for libertarian policies; he's not lamenting their existence per se.

Indeed, there's a follow-up on this exact topic posted at the bottom of the article:

  It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will
  be taken away or that this would solve the political 
  problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of  
  people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope 
  that voting will make things better.

And finally:

  I believe that politics is way too intense. That’s why 
  I’m a libertarian. Politics gets people angry, destroys 
  relationships, and polarizes peoples’ vision: the world 
  is us versus them; good people versus the other.

He may be naive or disillusioned or depressed or whatever, but your misleading soundbite perfectly illustrated his point.

[1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

⬐ tptacek

Despite its length, your comment is not in fact responsive to mine.

⬐ Chris2048

At least it provided some sources, than just bare assertions.

⬐ tptacek

Who do you think you're kidding? [citation needed] isn't the closer you think it is.

⬐ Chris2048

Neither is "Who do you think you're kidding". Who do you think I'm trying to kid?

He explains his rational argument here[1]. Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously".

1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4

⬐ pmelendez

Being Venezuelan I am familiar with the whole "pay attention what he does instead of what it says", and that didn't work well for us.

The problem with authoritarian governments is that they can delay plans but never forget about them.

If Thiel really think that, then he is not only an opportunist but also a fool.

⬐ return0

I don't know, given thiel's track record, maybe we should wonder if we are the fools.

⬐ pmelendez

I have seen successful people having foolish calculations before... specially regarding reading other people.

⬐ andrewchambers

edit: link no longer missing

⬐ sremani

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4

⬐ kbenson

> Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously".

Which I guess is great if you're a billionaire and probably get some time with Trump or someone close to him that knows what he actually plans to do.

In the meantime, all the rest of us are left with "I'm going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something great." Forgive me if I would have preferred something a little more substantial. Then again, I would like other people to have preferred that as well. :/

⬐ ErikVandeWater

Can any politician be taken literally, though? How did Obama's promises on the revolving door between lobbyists and his administration work out? Or his promise on health insurance premiums? These promises aren't the exception, they are the rule. Politicians (almost) always have to lie to win. So Trump not being specific as to what he will do seems unlikely to be any different to interpret than if he made very specific plans.

⬐ kbenson

Well, I think there are differing levels of information that can be conveyed. You can say you want a healthcare system where everyone is insured. You can say you want a healthcare system where costs are lowered. You can say you want both. All these convey some information about the goals of the politician, and how they may or may not align with your own. What they eventually come up with, or not, will inform you how much they compromised on that position. I would hazard most politicians are less likely to compromise on specific goals they stated, and more likely to compromise on ones they didn't state. This allows you to steer yourself towards a candidate that may work for an outcome you want, even if there's obviously no guarantee.

In this case, we have "I will make something great", as if every candidate wasn't implicitly setting out to to do the same and every voter wasn't hoping for the same. So, am I more or less likely to get the outcome I want in this situation? Who knows? I don't because there's no way to, but I would sure appreciate being empowered to at least try to figure that out.

⬐ return0

Can't disagree with you on that. However it's very likely that most of his voters took him seriously. It's not likely that they are all bigoted idiots, and in fact, they were not: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters...

A lot of speculation here about why Thiel backed Trump. If you're genuinely curious, just watch him in his own words https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4. You may not agree with him, but it makes sense, especially from the author of The Diversity Myth.

i prefer his most recent talk and q&a https://youtu.be/ob-LJqPQEJ4

I don't know why anyone would think he is foolish. Listening to his speech at the National Press Club a few days ago it's hard to find many things to disagree with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4

⬐ murbard2

No it isn't. http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=32058

⬐ gragas

You're out of touch, as proven by the election tonight.

⬐ ant6n

Let's remember the results: 47.5% vs 47.7%. It was a coin toss decided by the distribution of the votes.

⬐ murbard2

I bet heavily on a Trump victory so, no, I don't think I'm out of touch.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H. L. Mencken

⬐ nhaehnle

The linked article was talking about facts, a dissection of various arguments made by Thiel and Trump. Elections aren't about facts (unfortunately?), so they cannot prove anything about whether that article is right or not.

“The Advocate, a magazine that once raised me as a gay innovator, even published an article saying as of now I am, and I quote, ‘not a gay man’ because I don’t agree with their politics,” he announced. “The lie behind the buzzword of diversity could not be made more clear. If you don’t conform, then you don’t count as diverse. No matter what your personal background.” -Peter Thiel

[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4

⬐ m_mueller

Thank you for the link, that press conference is quite fascinating.

This is a speech that was immediately followed by an interview; the longer video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 includes the conversation that followed.

⬐ cylinder

Really appreciated how he espoused how Boomers' optimism borne out of an exceptionally easy and comfortable life has been dangerous for the country. I've long felt the same about American optimism, but have been happy to see that it's become much more mainstream to admit America needs a managed decline of its empire this year thanks to Trump and Sanders. Boomers have pushed the American culture of blind optimism into a reality distortion field which draws the country into various bubbles: stock market bubble, housing bubble, war bubble, etc.

Also enjoyed his statement that America needs to be a "normal country again." I have been trying to convey this sentiment due to my understanding of other countries. Most Americans probably don't understand how abnormal the US and its government are in many ways. He says, a "normal country doesn't run a $500 billion trade deficit, intentionally run a broken government, five simultaneous wars."

⬐ vehementi

He almost crushed his own credibility in his opening remarks by saying "Look, our leaders come from a generation of people of whom half are broke!" as if that means anything.

⬐ tzs

> Most Americans probably don't understand how abnormal the US and its government are in many ways. He says, a "normal country doesn't run a $500 billion trade deficit, intentionally run a broken government, five simultaneous wars."

When you look at that trade deficit on a per capita basis, or as a percentage of GDP, it then does look pretty normal compared to other first world countries.

⬐ jonathanstrange

I cannot take anyone seriously who calls himself a libertarian. For Christ's sake, learn something about the various traditions of right- and left-wing libertarianism, study the basics of anarchism (e.g. Stirner), and read some Adam Smith.

Libertarianism is either mislabeled right-wing liberalism, which has a long-standing tradition, or it turns out to be no more than a fairly inconsistent mix of classical liberal and anarchist ideas peppered with some generic right-wing gun-nuttery and diffuse anti-government sentiment. You know, in the end somebody has to pay for the military, police, firemen, ambulances, roads, drinking water, sanitation, food safety, consumer safety (like not getting electrocuted by your vacuum cleaner), schools, hospitals, ...

⬐ grandalf

In isolation this comment is not absurd or incorrect. But when you consider the contorted meaning of nearly every word describing political affiliation, describing one's self as a libertarian is very minor offense, and far less inaccurate than the typical use of "right" and "left" in modern American politics.

⬐ hyperpape

It's a shame you weren't around 15 years ago to tell Robert Nozick he was an idiot for calling himself a libertarian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

(I'm not going to argue etymology with you, and I'm not inclined to defend libertarianism per se, I just think your condescension is gross).

⬐ jonathanstrange

I was around then, and Nozick is indeed an idiot for calling himself that way.

⬐ nkrisc

My personal interactions with a few self-labeled Libertarians tells me that they are fine paying for those services for themselves, but don't want to subsidize them for anyone else. Well, their vision of "Libertarianism" sure sounds good if they're rich. Nevermind the collective society that allowed them to profit in the first place.

I suspect the label "Libertarian" is too widely used for many ideologies.

⬐ davidw

The actual Libertarian in the presidential race is a lot better than Thiel and Trump:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/opinions/making-legal-immigrat...

I still won't be voting for him, but he's got some good points of view. I wish he'd been Hillary's opposition; perhaps we would have had a more substantive debate about ideas, and the size of government.

⬐ kafkaesq

Thoughtful debate about the size of government is nice and all. But it's also important to have at least of basic grasp of major world events. Per WP:

On September 8, Johnson drew widespread attention, much of it negative, when he appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe and was asked by panelist Mike Barnicle, "As president, what would you do about Aleppo?" Johnson responded, "And what is Aleppo?" After a clarification from Barnicle, Johnson answered that he favored greater diplomacy with Russia and criticized U.S. support for the Free Syrian Army and Kurdish forces as well as U.S.-supported "regime change." Johnson's "what is Aleppo?" question prompted widespread criticism.[106][108] In response to charges that he was uninformed, Johnson said that he had "blanked," that he did "understand the dynamics of the Syrian conflict," and that he had thought that Barnicle's reference to "Aleppo" was in relation to "an acronym, not the Syrian conflict."

⬐ davidw

Yeah, I recall that. Certainly a reason to not vote for him. OTOH, unlike a certain major party candidate, he actually appeared really embarrassed and felt bad about his error, subsequently.

⬐ None

None

⬐ None

None

⬐ xname2

Libertarianism is not anarchism, so I am not sure what you mean. Somebody needs to pay A, B, C, D, ..., it does not mean all the answers to the "somebody" is the government.

⬐ jonathanstrange

Libertarianism, as it is actually defended in the US by the libertarian party and others who label themselves libertarians, is de facto a mixture of anarchism and general right-wing ideas.

That is not to be confused with the political constructions and justification of Nozick and other right-wing liberals, of course.

⬐ Analemma_

In general, I can take libertarians seriously... but not Peter Thiel. The depth of his convictions can be measured in microns. He's the perfect example of the "libertarian" who espouses that philosophy not out of any genuine commitment to its ideals, but just because he wants lower taxes and more leeway for whatever despicable business practices he has in mind.

For instance, he founded a company whose, no joke, entire raison d'être is providing surveillance-as-a-service to increase the power of the State. This is something I wouldn't even do, and I'm what might be derisively called a "big-government liberal".

⬐ gizmo

His justification, bizarrely, is that as a hardcore libertarian he is exactly the sort of person who should start a massive surveillance business because other people respect individual rights much less than he does. If the business is going to exist anyway (because of market demand) then having it chaired by a libertarian is the best case scenario.

⬐ Aloha

I suspect Thiel might be willing to argue against his obvious business interest (in re Palantir) and would rather that the government not be in the business of spying on its own citizens.

I have no shame is taking money to do a task I wouldn't ever do myself. Thats part of why they're paying you. So long as I'm not doing 'hard evil' (direct physical, mental or emotional harm to a group) - everything else is open to interpretation.

⬐ jnbiche

> In general, I can take libertarians seriously... but not Peter Thiel. ...and I'm what might be derisively called a "big-government liberal"

Thank you. I'm glad you've been able to distinguish between Thiel, perhaps one of the most anti-liberty, authoritarian 'libertarians' in modern history.

I likewise take many liberals (and conservatives!) seriously, even if we do not always agree. For example, one of my favorite congressmen is Alan Grayson (a pro-liberty Democrat/liberal) and one of my favorite senators is Rand Paul (a pro-liberty Republican/fiscal conservative). I don't always agree with them, but I appreciate their willingness to stick up for their beliefs.

Sadly, people like us are relatively few and far between.

⬐ jonathanstrange

The point is that libertarianism is just one more whacky US misnomer for right-wing liberalism, which has existed since Bentham.

⬐ cm2012

He said earlier that people are tried of being lied to by politicians. Meanwhile, only 30% of statements DJT makes are in any way true: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

⬐ louprado

PT clarifies that the "Wall" DJT wants to build shouldn't be taken literally. It was just a metaphor (metaphor is my word not PT's) for a tougher immigration policy. Wow!

Are there really people still capable of holding an idealized model of DJT in their head while dismissing or spinning anything that doesn't fit that model ?

DJT was my childhood hero so I understand the desire to stay hopeful and avoid thinking. Never meet your heroes feels applicable here.

Edit: typos

⬐ tim333

I was kind of a fan of "Trump" after reading The Art of the Deal. It was only recently I found the actual Trump didn't write any of the book and the guy described was basically fictional.

⬐ louprado

I don't even think he read it.

There's a section in the book where he says that he shouldn't be given too much credit for the Wollman rink project, because the NYC government had regulatory requirements that didn't apply to his construction team.

Only in a parallel universe would DJT give himself less credit.

⬐ gragas

Well, there seems to be tremendous support behind what he is saying. The chat is exploding.

My favorite takeaway so far:

[Thiel on Trump] "The media always takes him literally, but never seriously. I think his supporters take him seriously, but never literally."

⬐ BryantD

A snapshot of comments from the chat:

"Hillary's only claim to fame is she is the only woman not to suck Bill's cock. "

"god this interviewer. CUCKED"

"FBI Stumbled onto Huma's INS Policy to keep her from being Vince Fostered... 53 dead around hillary makes the mob look like Pikers."

"Liberals think Taxes are more important than Hillary Butchering People!!!! Really?! Wake up peeps"

"Wikileaks will ultimately put the Clintons in prison and will hopefully allow President Trump to prosecute the entire Obama administration past and present!"

⬐ pdog

YouTube comments are terrible. What's your point?

⬐ BryantD

My point is that "Well, there seems to be tremendous support behind what he is saying. The chat is exploding." doesn't tell us much. Who cares if the chat is exploding? It's exploding with comments like that.

⬐ TheDrizzle43

What an inspirational group of people.

⬐ forloop

cherrypicked

⬐ gragas

Let me reiterate Thiel's quote, which I think perfectly describes this situation: "The media always takes him literally, but never seriously. I think his supporters take him seriously, but never literally."

Most of Trump's HIGH ENERGY comes from him and his supporters saying over-exaggerated things. Everyone who supports him understands that these things are over the top, but they agree with the basic sentiment behind them.

Most people who dislike Trump, however, take everything he and his supporters say literally. This is a mistake.

⬐ tzs

So how do I tell what his actual positions are?

For example, when he says that vaccinations and doctors cause autism [1], how can I tell if he really believes that (which has bad implications for public health under a Trump presidency), or if it is just something over the top?

Same with climate change...how do I tell if he really believes it is a Chinese plot [1] to get us to cripple our economy, or he is just saying something over the top?

If these are just over the top exaggerations for the sake of HIGH ENERGY, and his supporters understand "that these things are over the top, but they agree with the basic sentiment behind them", could you explain just what that basic sentiment is?

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-comments-on...

⬐ crispyambulance

It doesn't matter what his _actual_ positions are. Trump represents a total F-U to American politics. This is what his people WANT.

He can say anything he wants and get away with it (... and he literally has).

There is some precedent here. Berlusconi in Italy was a similar character (another a-hole media billionaire) who ended up making Italian politics a laughing-stock by grossly mismanaging the running of government. Like Trump, he appealed to fake old-timey values, people were willing to ignore his appalling behavior and character flaws and accept him like some nasty uncle-like figure.

Unfortunately, someone like Trump as president in the USA would be capable of far more damage geopolitically and economically than that clown, Berlusconi, in Italy ever could.

⬐ MichaelGG

Exactly. From the moment I saw Trump, I was excited because it is a radical departure. As close to an independent (both parties hate him!) as is possible in the US and still win.

What specific actions do you think Trump would take that'd create so much damage? And are those things more damaging than allowing a corrupt party (see WL emails on DNC on Bernie) to win? To say hey, corruption's OK in the US, even when it's totally public? Or to get people to think that war with Russia, even if in another country, might be OK?

⬐ tptacek

Something must be done! This is something!

⬐ vehementi

GP gave a couple of easy ones for you: climate change and vaccinations. Is he lying/exaggerating (not sure how you can exaggerate an absolute non-issue like vaccinations) about those things or is he severely dangerous?

⬐ crispyambulance

You're right that is a mistake.

Knowingly or not, Trump has played the media like a fiddle, giving them tons of useless grist in which to spin their wheels in exchange for the equivalent of a Billion dollars in media time which he has used shrewdly to build up his base.

⬐ MichaelGG

This is the other excellent outcome. People trust the news, they eat it up. Trump has shown it to be a farce, a circus (thinking of the tape he leaked a few months ago that got him a full day of coverage about absolutely nothing). This can only be a good thing, although perhaps I'm overestimating the number of people that will actually change habits.

⬐ scott_s

I think you are making two claims, but I want to make sure. Are you claiming that:

1. Trump himself leaked the Access Hollywood recording; and

2. There was nothing relevant in the Access Hollywood recording.

The Access Hollywood recording came out at the beginning of this month, so I'm not sure if that's the one you're referring to.

⬐ prolixus

No, he's referring to the John Miller tape where years ago Trump called up a reporter and pretended to be a PR person so he could brag about himself.

⬐ MichaelGG

No I'm referring to the People Magazine interview, the one where he called back in and pretended to be a Trump employee. Washington Post "broke" the story IIRC, and the media spent a whole day with audio forensic analysts deciding "is this Trump's voice?". Trump got on interviews and says "Well it doesn't sound like me. When is this from? 25 years ago? Come on."

Here's a great cap of it at the end of the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPnMfSJ_qis - skip to 1:50. You can even hear the studio crew start laughing as they realise they've been played.

⬐ scott_s

Understood on the tape you meant. Are you claiming Trump is the one who leaked it?

⬐ makomk

I'm not sure it's Trump that played the media like a fiddle, or at least he had help from a certain Hillary Clinton whose campaign strategy (per the e-mail leaks) was to make him look like a plausible candidate and downplay the actual serious candidates. Basically, her strategy seems to have been to try and make sure what her campaign considered the worst candidate possible ran against her, and she sure as hell has a lot more media connections to pull that off with than Trump ever did.

⬐ radarsat1

There are plenty of people who dislike the basic sentiment behind many things that Trump has said.

⬐ gragas

Sure. And there are more than one hundred million Americans who disagree with the basic sentiment behind what Hillary says.

⬐ radarsat1

So... what are you saying then?

⬐ augustt

Interesting, I thought "tells it like it is" was his whole appeal. As soon as he's in hot water, though, he was being sarcastic! It was just locker room talk!

⬐ subsection1h

> Most of Trump's HIGH ENERGY comes from him and his supporters saying over-exaggerated things.

Imagine that you're older, let's say 40, and no longer a college kid. Do you think you will be more likely to describe Trump's statements as "HIGH ENERGY" (all caps) or "childish"?

⬐ BryantD

Unfortunately, this leaves me with no way to distinguish between genuinely alarming sentiments and exaggerations. I can't support blurring that line.

For example, you can say that Trump didn't really mean you should vote twice, and perhaps he didn't. On the other hand, that isn't stopping some of his supporters from voting twice. So did he mean it? Or is he just accidentally encouraging it because some people are taking him literally? Either way is bad.

Trump's staff didn't kick the guy chanting "Jew-S-A" out of his rally. Conway says she would have kicked him out, which is nice, but nobody on the ground did it. Does that mean Trump thinks the chanter was just over-exaggerating his racism? Would it be OK for Trump to chant the same thing, since we're not supposed to take him literally?

I think it's preferable if people running for President make it clear when they're being sincere.

⬐ gragas

You do realize that people are specifically voting against the ideology that backs your opinion, right? People aren't voting for Trump because he's racist or sexist; they are voting for Trump because of the ideology behind moral-elitist people like you.

⬐ vehementi

Wait, they're voting for Trump to spite moral elitists, not because Trump will make america great again? That's their whole motivation - not trade deficit, not immigration, not the economy, not jobs -- but to vote against moral-elitist people like GP? Holy shit, that absolutely crushes the credibility of Trump and all of his supporters. Wow.

⬐ ConfuciusSay02

Except that he never actually said voters should vote twice, he was implying that his opponents do, and the quote was 100% completely twisted by the media: http://www.mediaite.com/online/cnn-screws-up-says-trump-enco...

Unfortunately, this type of media attack on Trump, whatever you think of him, is common, and it makes people think twice about the credibility of the media and how they're pushing Clinton so very hard.

Furthermore, it seems like a really bad idea for people to base their voting decisions on what "supporters" of a candidate are doing, especially given that we've seen hard evidence of paid infiltrators agitating as fake supporters in order to make candidates look bad.

⬐ augustt

If you were wondering where "deplorable" came from, look no further than that chat.

⬐ MichaelGG

It astounds me how people have set it up in their minds. One friend from SF, who was incredibly anti war, who earlier said Trump was dangerous because he'd start a war, actually said "It's not like we'd really go to war with Russia, it'd just be a proxy war like Vietnam" -- as a reason for why Clinton will be an OK choice. The accuracy of the comment doesn't matter, but the fact people are willing to accept it is mind boggling.

And then I've been told I can't understand, can't have a real opinion, etc. cause I'm a white guy and thus too privileged for my mind to comprehend things correctly.

Even on HN, the yc guys actually said they cannot understand how Thiel can support Trump. If you find yourself saying that, it indicates your understanding is deficient, not the other way around.

It annoys me because this lack of critical thinking is going to cause a huge backlash and I'm afraid some positive liberal values could be collateral damage.

⬐ remarkEon

> If you find yourself saying that, it indicates your understanding is deficient, not the other way around.

My philosophy professor used to give us a ethical debate prompt, and we'd develop our initial positions. Then he'd have us argue the opposite position. Extremely helpful exercise.

⬐ vehementi

"I can't understand how he can support him" doesn't literally mean "I do not perceive the facts", it is "I find it incredible that he holds weights on various factors such that he made a list of pros and cons, calculated the net value based on the factors' weights, and came to the conclusion that supporting Trump is net good in this situation".

For example if someone's weights are:

disruptor, 100

shows signs of insanity, 0.1

then I can "understand" that they support DT. I can't understand why they choose to weigh certain factors like that.

⬐ euroclydon

That was a pretty effective comment Thiel just made: "I think the press never takes Trump seriously, but they do take him literally, whereas his supporters take him seriously, but not always literally."

⬐ louprado

But when DJT takes 3 days to evaluate whether the KKK should be denounced, his non-supporters took that very seriously. Meanwhile while most of his supporters took his eventual statement literally.

⬐ None

None

⬐ rmcfeeley

rhetorical 360 slam dunk

⬐ sofal

That sentence was in The Atlantic in September.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-ma...

⬐ kafkaesq

Per HN's guidelines, there's no reason this post should be flagged. Anything (of genuine public interest) to do with YC's accidental poster boy -- Peter Thiel -- is definitely fair game as conversation material.

⬐ alecco

> 'Diversity has come to mean complete agreement with the establishment or you are out'

Way to prove him right. Now I'm going to see his whole speech.

⬐ pulisse

If you're a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system. It costs too much.

This is not an intellectually serious speech.

⬐ clydethefrog

Link to the actual quote. http://www.tubechop.com/watch/8509031

⬐ throwaway274739

They really ought to be asking some tougher questions. At the end of the day, Trump is a man whose platform consists of removing the rights of large cross sections of the American public (Mexican-Americans, Muslims, women, etc.).

Supporting someone like that makes you a supporter of state sanctioned violence against those people and I think every institution -- the media, law enforcement, universities, businesses, etc. -- have a responsibility to denounce this in the strongest possible terms.

This is not simply a disagreement on tax policy, it's about the fundamental human rights of millions of Americans. To see a supporter of this sort of hate receiving softball media treatment or condoned by respected organizations such as YCombinator is disgusting.

⬐ nolepointer

>Trump is a man whose platform consists of removing the rights of large cross sections of the American public (Mexican-Americans, Muslims, women, etc.)

You cannot be serious.

⬐ ConfuciusSay02

Trump wants to deport illegal immigrants, something that is actually following the law, and something that Obama has done by the hundreds of thousands (millions?).

Trump wants to temporarily suspend immigration from Muslim countries that are near ISIS controlled territory. Suspending immigration from dangerous hotspots is something that has been done regularly by previous administrations. Furthermore, non American citizens don't actually have any "rights" under American law.

Trump wants abortion laws to be decided by individual states. Women in each state will have their democratic voice about that issue at their state ballot box.

You can quibble about how he says things perhaps, but to say that his platform consists of removing rights of large cross sections of the American public is just wrong and ignorant.

⬐ angry-hacker

Thiel is an interesting character but not the best speaker. I wonder how comes is she so successful despite looking not very convincing, neither dominative and confident person.

When the (boring) interviewer asked about the Gawker sex tape, he was literally sweating and looking for water with his shaking hands.

A bit disappointing talk, nothing too interesting. Basically, he says media takes Trump literally. Gawker's case has nothing to do with the first amendment and he talks about the case from a very personal perspective -- destroyed lives, mobs attacking people -- doesn't really answer from the law point of view.

Other answers were kind of dull, it's difficult to understand his ideas. But I still feel like I would like to hear more. Maybe a better interviewer could open him up.

⬐ cylinder

I think we are all tired of slick talkers and charismatics full of hot air.

⬐ uola

Sort of expected a better interview when I heard "The National Press Club". This is mostly "What do you think about x? I think this and that" read from notes.

⬐ purple-dragon

Unfortunately, the National Press Club is now merely a venue. It can be booked for events like any hotel or conference center. Though the club itself still has its own programming, part of the value for an outside party is that it can borrow on the cachet of the name.

⬐ tim333

I just listened to Theil's argument for supporting Trump, roughly that there are problems in America - soaring health and education costs, stagnant incomes for many, excessive debt, financial bubbles, too many wars and denial of the above by politicians, which is fair enough.

He then suggests Trump has the correct policy to deal with this by restricting free trade, reducing wars, avoiding financial bubbles and government denial and returning to the efficient government that built the highways and launched Apollo.

The trouble I see with that is that Theil seems a bit over optimistic about Trumps ability to achieve that stuff. If you look at Trump's record he tends to leverage up and go bust which is not a good model for efficient governance and bubble avoidance.

If you read Trump's Gettysburg speech it seems rather unlike Theil's picture of him https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-...

⬐ ConfuciusSay02

If your measure of a candidate is how likely they are to be able to get things done, I doubt a candidate like Hillary - who would be likely facing federal investigations and impeachment proceedings on day one would be more likely to get things done than Trump.

⬐ programminggeek

He seems like a reasonable guy and his points about how close minded the diversity movement in SV is are interesting.

⬐ arcaster

Currently in class, anyone been capturing the stream? I'd definitely be interested in an offline version.

⬐ None

None

⬐ snerbles

YouTube normally keeps a recording of the stream available after it's finished.

⬐ xname2

The Clinton campaign's strategy on Wikileaks is repeating that the emails could be fabricated. However, it is technically almost impossible. The tech community has been mostly silent on this issue. For example, I did not see @paulg twitter on DKIM verification.

⬐ misiti3780

He speaks in a very similar manner as Mark Zuckerberg, that is the first time I noticed this.

⬐ rmcfeeley

Watching now. Pretty surreal

Will he end on a positive note or send countless liberal techies to the self-medication cabinet this afternoon??

⬐ gragas

Hopefully send countless liberal techies to the self-medication cabinet. The fact that anyone can call this man a bigot is beyond me.

⬐ msbot

I can, and so can women.

"Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron."

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

⬐ TenOhms

Isn't he saying that the welfare programs have effectively subverted democracy by locking certain people (and women especially) into a certain constituency group, which once locked, are extremely difficult to escape (and those people's vote are extremely easy to manipulate)?

⬐ msbot

He's also citing the inclusion of women's right to vote. To even question a demographic's right like that makes him incredibly suspect in my eyes.

⬐ throwaway76543

He isn't questioning it. He's reasoning about its effects.

I think everyone agrees about those effects, don't they?

⬐ nanistheonlyist

If you are not subject to the draft then those that are should not be subjected to your vote.

⬐ Jtsummers

> If you are not subject to the draft then those that are should not be subjected to your vote.

Makes sense. Only 18-25 year old, healthy men should be able to vote. Totally makes sense.

⬐ remarkEon

"Service Guarantees Citizenship."

⬐ tanderson92

Even unhealthy males must register with the selective service[1]. Furthermore, males who are now over the age of 25 must have been registered at one point (excepting those born prior to 1960). The point made by nanistheonlyist broadly holds.

[1]: https://www.sss.gov/Registration-Info/Who-Registration

⬐ Jtsummers

Even so, they aren't truly subject to it for this purpose.

And the idea that only those subject to the draft should be voting is absurd as it neglects the rest of the current military.

Along with neglecting every issue that's effected by voting (well, by our representatives) that aren't military/war. Everyone in this country is a stakeholder in these elections.

⬐ tanderson92

I would rephrase it to be "only those at risk of dying in a foreign military conflict" should, in a just world, vote on matters of international "engagement" (the euphemism pols like to use). It's not an irrational position as long as we have the draft.

True all people in the country are stakeholders but not all are similarly exposed to the risks of war (the military is primarily poor and filled with minorities--but that's a separate issue).

Fortunately women will soon be required to register with the selective service so this critique will be outdated.

⬐ Jtsummers

> the military is primarily poor and filled with minorities

I haven't found the numbers for economic background prior to joining, but with respect to minorities. The US military is around 75% white. They are underrepresented versus the population as a whole, but still make up a significant chunk of the military.

https://mic.com/articles/59699/one-stat-about-the-u-s-milita...

At least circa 2008, people from lower class (financial) backgrounds were underrepresented versus their middle class and upper class peers in the US military.

====

This doesn't mean that minorities and the poor aren't targeted for enlistment. They almost certainly are, but by the raw numbers, they aren't filling the military.

⬐ rayiner

Thiel isn't questioning womens' right to vote. The statement is descriptive, not normative.

Consider the statement: "The fact that Louisiana and Alabama have votes in U.S. elections means that policies like DADT and DOMA survived much longer than they otherwise would have."

The most reasonable construction of that statement is not: "People in Louisiana and Alabama shouldn't be allowed to vote."

⬐ whiddershins

Why is this flagged?

⬐ None

None

⬐ postcarnival

Is this being censored from the homepage? I'm surprised I'm not seeing Peter Thiel's speech on the homepage of HN.. seems fishy

⬐ hga

Yes, anything about him is gone within 2-3 hours, I went so far as 5 pages past the homepage and all 6 items as I type this (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=peter&sort=byPopularity&prefix...), including this one that got a lot of votes, but also one of the 5 or so votes one that showed up on the home page for a tiny bit, have been disappeared.

Perhaps the mods will step in, assuming they aren't behind it; me, I wonder what'll happen to these people's minds if/when Trumps wins.... Nothing good, especially to those who's business includes needing to sell to ~half the country.

ADDED: And now it's flagged; guess he won't be getting to give his side of his story to the HN crowd.

⬐ grzm

Just speculating, but it may have been caught by the flamewar detection software. I don't know how it works. Here's a couple of mentions of it being used in the past:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12792215

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12729921

⬐ skoopie

I noticed that too. I had to go back in my history to find the link.

⬐ postcarnival

If true that only shows further how extreme the anti-Trump censors are that want to tell us how we should think. That is exactly why Trump will win.

⬐ davidw

Actually, if you read the guidelines, politics is considered off topic:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The resulting discussion here is all politics.

⬐ postcarnival

I think it's pretty fair considering his role in the Tech community

⬐ sctb

No. This is the usual case of user flags and the flamewar software. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738677.

⬐ grzm

Thanks for clarifying and providing the link!

⬐ None

None

⬐ cconroy

It would be interesting to get a list of thoughtful people supporting Trump. So far I have:

- Peter Thiel

- Scott Adams

- Nassim Taleb??

Who else?

Most thoughtful people I follow pick against Trump and more or less believe he is a threat to the Republic. I tend to agree with them mainly because of his attitude toward the press (even though I agree they are biased against him) and his proclivity to violent rhetoric.

Edited: formatting

Edit: I also want to clarify the biasedness of media was based on Wikileaks coverage and the [0]social media blackout after the Comey's letter to congress. I acknowledge their coverage of him probably helped him.

Edit: It is possible Taleb does not support DT, there is no direct evidence of this. I added '??' to him. See this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12838352

[0] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-29/social-media-blacko...

⬐ Analemma_

Scott Adams thinks he is a wizard whose voice has hypnotic mind-control powers, and that the Clinton Foundation personally bankrolls an army of trolls to harass him on Twitter. In other words, he's delusional. He is not in any sense of the term a "thoughtful person"

⬐ adnzzzzZ

>Scott Adams thinks he is a wizard whose voice has hypnotic mind-control powers

He thinks Trump is a good persuader. And he is. Trump's use of confirmation bias is very skillful and effective.

⬐ gamache

It would seem to me that relying on confirmation bias means he's not much of a persuader at all.

⬐ Analemma_

That's probably true! But the "he" in my sentence refers to Scott Adams, not Trump. Scott thinks of himself as a brilliant persuader, a theory that is ill-supported by the evidence.

⬐ MichaelGG

FWIW I've used Scott's arguments to get at least 2 more votes for Trump. Including one from a 20-something girl that was a diehard Bernie supporter. I know, anecdotal.

What I find effective is asking people to really state exactly, specifically, what actions Trump himself is going to do that'll lead to the downfall of civilization or whatever they think's going to happen.

Clinton's dirty play with Bernie also helps quite a bit. And honestly, the US accepting that kind of thing, openly (as in, act like this, have it exposed, still become president) would be much more damaging to society.

⬐ alva

"thinks.. Clinton Foundation personally bankrolls an army of trolls to harass him on Twitter. In other words, he's delusional"

If you were presented evidence that shows this to be true, would you be opened minded enough to update your beliefs?

⬐ postcarnival

it's called CTR

⬐ tim333

I read Scott's stuff and he also complained about the trolls putting bad reviews on amazon. I had a look and there were exactly two bad reviews giving 1* and saying don't buy because he's promoting Trump. I suspect the Twitter thing is similar in that a handful of readers criticize him and he figures that's an army of trolls.

⬐ sergiotapia

Yeah bullshit. It's been 100% proven the Clinton campaign paid thousands of online bullies to astroturf everywhere from Twitter to 4chan.

⬐ tim333

[citation needed]

⬐ sergiotapia

https://correctrecord.org/

⬐ subsection1h

Where precisely is the evidence of that "100% proves" the existence of "thousands of online bullies" that were "paid"?

⬐ ConfuciusSay02

They use the term "correcting the record" instead of trolling and bullying. But it's undeniable that they're spending millions to pay people to post on social media in favor of a candidate (usually without any type of disclosure).

⬐ kafkaesq

He is not in any sense of the term a "thoughtful person"

The problem is, there's no inherent contradiction between being "delusional" and being "thoughtful". In fact, throughout history many of the very people generally regarded as having unleashed the greatest amounts of havoc in the world got into positions where they were able to do that precisely because they were able to reconcile these seemingly contradictory traits.

⬐ angry-hacker

Why attack here? You pretty much proved people on the left side do attack him. Did he ever say the people attacking him are paid by Clinton.

⬐ BryantD

Yes, he did.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152337049156/watch-the-persuasi... -- "Hordes of either paid or volunteer Twitter trolls descended on me with two specific types of attacks."

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party -- "We also know Clinton’s side hired paid trolls to bully online. You don’t hear much about that."

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/791855586870571008 -- "Apparently Clinton's army of paid Hillbullies made her anti-bullying message feel awkward."

⬐ angry-hacker

You don't have to take everything literally, do you?

And Correct the Record did exist.[0]

[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock#Correct_the_Record

⬐ raesene6

that's hillarious. You asked the commentor for evidence of their claim, they provided it and you responded "ah well don't take it literally"

So there's nothing they could've said which would be right there either a) provide no evidence "ah your wrong" or b) provide evidence "ah don't take it literally"...

⬐ angry-hacker

Go ahead and read in what context the tweet was written in.

Paid astroturfers is a known fact. Probably for every political candidate nowadays.

⬐ sigmar

>You don't have to take everything literally, do you?

>Paid astroturfers is a known fact.

I'm so confused. Are you arguing he wasn't serious about there being astroturfers? or that he was being serious and it's true?

⬐ angry-hacker

Half serious since he does not have enough proof, but it has become obvious the "paid trolls" or young politicians are doing it for both sides. Either they are directly or indirectly paid.

I'm talking about the fact the guy really was attacked by a mob, wasn't he? Does two wrongs in your eyes makes one correct?

⬐ zxcvvcxz

> the Clinton Foundation personally bankrolls an army of trolls to harass him on Twitter.

Have you ever heard of "Correct The Record"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock#Correct_the_Record

⬐ cm2012

Correct the record had a $6 mil budget back in May - not enough to hire trolls. Mostly they identify themselves and link to http://correctrecord.org/. They certainly don't waste time trolling cartoonists.

⬐ 551199

Excuse me, you are saying 9 MIL isn't enough to employ people to troll behalf the campaign?

There is a list of all the people working for ctr half or full time provided by the gov.

CTR Budget: 9,4MIL[0]

[0]https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00578997

⬐ cconroy

He also said he doesn't want to live in a society were all of its citizens are not covered for healthcare and praised ACA for including more people (~20 mil).

And his analysis of Trump seems better than most who claim he is dumb and/or Hitler. I don't agree with Adams nevertheless he is thoughtful.

⬐ zorpner

Most thoughtful people I follow pick against Trump and more or less believe he is a threat to the Republic.

Thiel clearly also believes this, but he's also quite pro-threat-to-the-Republic.

⬐ gizmo

Those three people are consistent contrarians. Contrarians are of course more likely to support Trump. It's important to remember that being a contrarian is easy, but it's extremely hard to be a contrarian about the right things.

⬐ malchow

This isn't terribly useful, but I'll just add that I personally know a number of name-brand academics, investors, and tech people who support him privately.

⬐ cconroy

I agree it isn't useful and you could argue dangerous but I am very curious!

⬐ mrgordon

Define "biased"

Its like saying the US media was biased against Hitler. He espouses hateful, racist, sexist, and violent ideas. Its not a case of bias but rather rational distaste and fear.

⬐ angry-hacker

I believe the point is media not digging into Wikileaks' papers. You can compare it when Wikileaks showed Bush's faults -- the media was after it right away.

It doesn't take a lot to understand Hillary is corrupted. Watching CNN from over the ocean here it's almost a joke. They only talk about Trump's sex allegations that are not even at the court yet. At the same time you can read from Wikileaks about shady things Hillary is doing, but the breaking news is a pornstar accuses Trump, Trump said that, Trump did a funny face.

⬐ MrZongle2

"I believe the point is media not digging into Wikileaks' papers. You can compare it when Wikileaks showed Bush's faults -- the media was after it right away."

If nothing else, a Trump presidency would mean the return of investigative journalism on the national level.

The "Fourth Estate" has become terribly out of shape in that regard.

⬐ raesene6

you must watch different media to me. Today is wall-to-wall Clinton E-mail stuff and little about Trump apart from him talking about Clinton's e-mail.

The media go with what they think will get the most views/clicks/sales, that tends to be the most outrageous thing they can find.

Trump says many outrageous things, ergo he gets more coverage.

⬐ angry-hacker

Today yes since it's breaking everywhere. During the Wikileaks -- no. Despite it would be a hit to write whatever you find from the documents.

⬐ BryantD

There's no social media blackout. If you look at trending topics in politics on Facebook, you have Anthony Wiener, Harry Reid, Eric Holder, and Loretta Lynch -- all related to the letter.

Twitter Moments is full of related news, especially if you click through to Election 2016.

Trending Buzzfeed news is very rarely political.

⬐ PhillyPhuture

Sorry, but why hold any of these people out as purveyors of truth?

I could rip a apart Thiel, Adams or Taleb on ___(their own dumb kryptonite). For example, listen to Taleb on religion. He's a buffoon. On power laws...very insightful.

I see no reason to glorify individuals outside of their domains.

Regarding Trump, he's just a Republican, as Hillary is just a Democrat. They are the faces of the machine. This is how most Trump-backers get comfort with Trump.

If Trump TRULY TRULY was anti-establishment, he would sound more like Lawrence Lessig and less like Archie Bunker.

⬐ Aloha

I think the core of Trumps message and support base is that the people in power seems to have forgotten about, and left all the Archie Bunkers behind. This seems like a valid argument, and one that I agree with wholeheartedly.

As a gay man, I also worry that those of us who fought hard for equality may be trying to close the doors behind us, and prevent some other group from getting there.

I can't vote for Trump, largely because I consider him to be a buffoon - but that doesn't mean he's all wrong either. Even idiots sometimes have a good point to make.

⬐ ZeroGravitas

I don't know if you've been following it but even lifelong Republicans who are gay have decried the new GOP party platform as being the most actively anti-LGBT in the party's history.

And Trump has declared that his Supreme Court picks will be based on opposition to marriage equality, so shutting the door to other groups is perhaps the least of your worries.

⬐ Aloha

I'm aware - but other than for some extreme party loyalists - no one cares. I think the platform is bullshit.

⬐ misiti3780

wait - Taleb supports trump ?

⬐ kafkaesq

Yeah, who'd have thought? But according to Tyler Durden (at ZeroHedge), we have the following tweet from his account:

"I far prefer Bernie Sanders to Trump but absolutely no Hillary."

Followed with:

"No SHillary"

Which in Tyler's words, "seems to sum it all up perfectly."

⬐ cconroy

Ok, I could not find that tweet anymore. Perhaps that is a sign of him not supporting DT. I put a question mark next to him. In fact the lack of thoughtful people supporting him is damning in itself.

⬐ rayiner

> attitude toward the press

Just because Trump hates the media doesn't mean the media isn't completely obsolete and irrelevant. I thought we were all in agreement that the U.S. media is long overdue to be replaced with reddit/Twitter/HN.

⬐ algorithmsRcool

From a consumption standpoint I could see that. But from a content creation standpoint HN and Reddit lack the expertise, discretion and attention span to provide in-depth reporting and investigation that is critical to uncovering and discouraging corruption.

⬐ None

None

⬐ None

None

⬐ 551199

I'm just a nobody but let me share my story:

I thought Trump was a racist who is inciting hate. At some point I read somewhere saying Trump hadn't said what media was reporting. I thought it to be BS and went to see myself. Lo and behold after searching more and more pretty much all the media reporting are false.

They are mostly positioned to counter what Trump is saying about Clinton or see what sticks. Trump calling out Bill's rape victims or remember before Clinton campaign was bombarding Trump that he wouldn't get along with Russia.

As a side note: It's quite scary to see paulg comparing Trump to Hitler and accusing FBI dir for doing his job.

-Read the Podesta emails. Clinton campaign is in bed with mainstream media.

-Media coverage is absolutely joke. FBI has been investigating Clinton Foundation for weeks and there is no coverage of that. Should be headline news.

-The only campaign inciting hate and violence is the Clinton campaign[0]

-Twitter constantly takes down trending hashtags that are created by Trump supporters and are against Clinton. Reddit blocks all pro Trump from /all, check out r/politics not a single negative Clinton story etc.

Trump looks like to be the next President and I would recommend doing your own search to see why.

[0] Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump: Rallies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

⬐ None

None

⬐ postcarnival

+1 MAGA

⬐ davidw

> -The only campaign inciting hate and violence is the Clinton campaign

Not really.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-punch-pro...

Not to mention the attacks on Muslims, Mexicans and a generally terrible attitude towards women.

⬐ tim333

The [0] video is kind of suspect: http://www.salon.com/2016/10/21/donald-trump-foundation-paid...