The 2016 Election - <AUTHOR> http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election <comment><USER4> This submission has received a huge number of user flags. We've overridden flags and other software penalties for several of these stories already for being related to YC, but our primary duty is to the community and we have to let it protect itself from being ripped apart by politics.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12716825](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12716825)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12720673](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12720673)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12726970](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12726970)

</comment><comment><USER5>
      > We should all feel a duty to try to understand the roughly
      > half of the country that thinks we are severely misguided.
      > I don't understand how 43% of the country supports Trump.
      > But I'd like to find out, because we have to include
      > everyone in our path forward.  If our best ideas are to
      > stop talking to or fire anyone who disagrees with us,
      > we'll be facing this whole situation again in 2020.
      >
      > That kind of diversity is painful and unpopular, but
      > it is critical to health of a democratic and pluralistic
      > society.  We shouldn't start purging people for
      > supporting the wrong political candidate.
      > That's not how things are done in this country.

This impresses me. That is exactly what I was trying to explain to somebody else in the other thread, and I was starting to feel like it was a position that nobody else held.

<comment><USER6> Sam tweeted that this was his favorite article about the election: [http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no- on...](http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks- about/)

It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters.

<comment><USER7> > It really does a great job of helping explain Trump supporters.

I think what we're seeing are the results of taking 6 trillion dollars that should have been spent building infrastructure for working class Americans and instead wasting it in Iraq.

<comment><USER8> I think this is basically the major and effective meme/emotion that Trump plays into: Nostalgia. Thiel also voiced concerns about the state of the infrastructure at a GOP Convention. Nostalgia is a strong emotion and it is often based on false memories or weak comparisons. Sure, large parts of our infrastructure are worse than they were 50 years ago, but on the other hand we had very different problems back then. We used to consume goods that turned out to be toxic. Today almost everyone has access to extremely fast transportation via air travel. Almost everyone has access to the world's knowledge at any time. Medicine has improved a lot. "Make it great again" is the central lie and people are dumb enough not to question it and to believe his financial independence would make him a superior leader, when in fact he only displays characteristics that are opposed to the ones we should expect from a good leader, for example decency and intelligence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this one:

> [Hillary] shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for > human decency, and I fear for national security if [she] becomes our > president.

Other sentences would just exchange antonyms and not make it sound any better. You call Trump isolationist, they call Hillary interventionist.

I fear that your reasoning for why you endorse Hillary and not Trump doesn't really speak to someone who likes Trump in the first place. Calling Trump racist, for instance, isn't going to flip anyone's voting bit.

The only very cogent Hillary endorsement (or rather Not-Trump endorsement) I've read that would actually speak to conservatives is this one: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/28/ssc-endorses-clinton- jo...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/28/ssc-endorses-clinton-johnson-or- stein/)

Which is fairly long and not the kind of thing I'd suggest sharing with your Grandma or Thiel, but I think you could distill more convincing talking points from it that would appeal to people much more conservative than yourself.

Note: My own opinion is too wordy for the small margins here, I'm just relaying sentiments of people I've talked to. I'm from New Hampshire, and people here, especially up north, have had Trump signs from very early on in this campaign, way before anyone in the media seemed to take him seriously.

<comment><USER10> > Sam, just so you know, many of your sentences could exchange Trump for > Hillary and be exactly what Trump supporters I know say. Especially this > one:

> > [Hillary] shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for > human decency, and I fear for national security if [she] becomes our > president.

Except one is based on a set of statements made by the candidate and his own campaign, the other is mostly built upon the massive pile of conspiracy theories and mountains-made-from-molehills that constitute the argument against Hillary.

<comment><USER11> > built upon the massive pile of conspiracy theories and mountains-made-from- > molehills that constitute the argument against Hillary.

Like the "conspiracy theories" that Hillary's campaign was behind the violence at this year's Trump rallies?

Seems like they're no longer 'theories'... ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&feature=youtu.be&t=9m35s))

<comment><USER10> A Project Veritas Action video? Project Veritas is James O'Keefe's new project, right? The guy who's whole MO is releasing questionable videos to attack liberal organizations?

Trustworthy.

<comment><USER11> How does that change the verbal content inside?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Except Thiel is saying many of the repugnant things that made Trump popular.

\- Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump.

\- Thiel believes that the 19th amendment destroyed democracy, because women vote in favor for anti-libertarian welfare measures. When faced with the choice between saving democracy and capitalism, Thiel chooses capitalism. Trump shares this antidemocratic sentiment.

\- Thiel: "A startup is basically structured as a monarchy. We don't call it that, of course." Trump shares this authoritarian leadership style.

\- Thiel wants to restrict immigration to highly educated people. Just like Trump.

\- Thiel is the (primary?) backer of Curtis Yarvin, the alt-right (read: white supremacist) thoughtleader about "human biodiversity" (read: why some races are biologically inferior). Trump has proudly declared his biologically superior ancestry.

\- Thiel is a climate skeptic: "The idea that human activity alters the climate is "more pseudoscience" than science". Trump famously called global warming a hoax invented by the Chinese.

\- They're both billionaires that want to lower taxes for the 1%.

Thiel supports Trump because Thiel _agrees with_ Trump. Really.

<comment><USER13> Assuming all of this is accurate, Thiel's thinking and actions are so full of contradictions and irrationality it's hard to understand how he became a billionaire. Just two that stick out right away:

"\- Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump." \- unless he determines that the political incorrectness in question happens to affect _him_ in some adverse way. See: Gawker.

And yes, I think outing someone without their express consent is a form of political incorrectness, in addition to a personal violation. I also don't think that financial bankruptcy is an appropriate punishment for doing so.

"\- Thiel wants to restrict immigration to highly educated people. Just like Trump." \- But also believes higher education is not so worthwhile that it should be required or even considered important for all Americans. See: Thiel Fellows

<comment><USER14> I'll play devils advocate here and unify both those points with Thiel's apparent views:

Striking back at Gawker wasn't about political correctness, it was about the boundaries of public/private life. He doesn't care if people hate him / judge him for his sexuality, but he believes it's nobody else's business and the press should be kept from revealing similar private info in the future. This reconciles well both with the specific case he chose to attack them through (Hogan's sex tape) and with a vague 'yearning for the past.' Past presidents had extramarital affairs as sort of public secrets with the press corps, because exactly this sort of thing was considered immaterial.

The second one is even easier to reconcile. Thiel believes there's a significant variance in the fundamental capabilities of different humans. The Thiel Fellowships are for exceptionally capable people, but he could still think the 'middle of the pack' needs higher education to maximize their contribution to society. He wants to make startup kings, not pull everyone out of school to start co-ops.

<comment><USER15> This public/private dichotomy reminds me sharply of a novel I read at one of those late teen-age formative periods, _For Us, the Living_ [1], by Heinlein. In that story, it was a norm that you could declare "private sphere", and journalists et al would have to ignore the ensuing events until going "public" again. In that world, it had basically put the papparatzi out of work. There are some other gems in there, like a future law where if a country was to go to war, it was put to a popular vote, and if the measure passed, those who voted for war were moved to the head of the draft list.

I'm not sure whether everyone should be banned or required to read Heinlein in high school...

[1] [http://amzn.to/2eemScq](http://amzn.to/2eemScq)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no > longer be part of Y Combinator).

This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively _is_ saying what Trump is saying.

Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalist.

<comment><USER17> What? Why is money speech? What makes donation different from voting pragmatically? (eg. "I'll put up with an offensive loudmouth for President if it means we get to avoid destroying another Middle Eastern civilization and potentially starting WW3")

<comment><USER16> This was the shocking conclusion of a landmark case, Citizen's United vs FEC, that was heard by the Supreme Court.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC)

<comment><USER18> A case where it was divided along partisan lines 5 to 4 on the SCOTUS. One of the 5s seat is now vacant and the next president will appoint a replacement.

This is the primary reason I am so frustrated with friends of mine who are content to see Hillary and Trump as 'the same'. One of these two people will tilt the court away from the majority that decided on Citizens United. The other will tilt it further in favor of the side that decided on Citizens United.

 _Even if HRC was ideologically opposed to my own views_ I would vote for her since 4 or 8 years of HRC trumps (pardon the pun) the 40 years of SCOTUS seating the next president will set.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's a slippery slope to not associate with people based on politics. It is also a slippery slope to continue to associate with people because the views they support are those of a politician.

David Duke is running for senate. Does that make Holocaust-denial a political issue?

There was a time when women having the right to vote was a political issue. Today it is not (though Thiel has raised concerns about what women's suffrage did for capitalist democracy[0].)

There was a time when slavery was considered a political issue. Today it is not.

I don't think sexual assault is in the realm of "personal politics". I don't think racism is either. Can I take the time to understand people who might advocate for these? Sure, but that doesn't mean I want them as leaders.

Having Thiel as a partner in YC, when Silicon Valley has tremendous issues with diversity already, sends a strong message. It's not about supporting a political party. I'm sure the YC partners have a wide spectrum of political views. This isn't about politics.

[0]: [https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter- thiel/educatio...](https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter- thiel/education-libertarian)

<comment><USER20> If I believed that Clinton was going to start World War III, and that Trump would stop it, then I would vote for Trump despite all of his nastiness.

In reality, I believe Trump is much more likely to start WWIII, which is yet another reason to be opposed to him, but it is extremely uncharitable to assume that all of his supporters support everything that he does. I think most Republican voters simply believe he's the lessor of two evils. I strongly disagree with them, but respect the democratic process.

<comment><USER21> I think Clinton and Trump would each start WW3 in different ways, which makes it harder to directly compare. He would do something stupid/impulsive which couldn't be walked back (most things can, thankfully), or would cripple long- term alliances making war more likely later. She would get involved in some situation (no one thinks Trump is competent enough to let him actually engage in an intentional expansion of a conflict), which then escalates out of control.

I completely agree that being a single-issue voter on "preventing WW3" is the most moral thing possible. It's just really hard to tell which is less likely. And maybe if it is 0.00000001% vs. 0.000000011%, some other issue should have priority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Its pretty simple why a lot of the country supports Trump.

Every election the media brands the Republican party candidate the devil and stupid (Romney was tagged as a racist last election and stupid for thinking Russia might be a threat). They also read all the leaked e-mails calling them stupid and see what the Clinton Foundation has done. They aren't ignorant or stupid and see when a fix is in. Never mind the various people that Sec. Hilary has declared she will put out of business.

I said it in another thread, "if you keep demonizing a group, expect them to send an actual demon eventually".

I honestly believe if you cannot understand why people support Trump, then you just don't want to understand or believe that they are full of hate. They aren't full of hate. Most just don't believe the media anymore. Take the media outlets this morning blaming Trump for the burning of a GOP office. I think the quote that comes up most often is "If he were really that bad, NBC would have had to fire him during his time on TV and besides Bill is worse". The media outlets didn't do themselves any favors by holding onto tape from 2005 until after the convention and using it as an "October Surprise".

As for me, I didn't get to vote in the primaries because of issues with the GOP and the ND GOP. My candidate didn't get in (Rubio), and the Libertarian candidate is a disaster. I was hoping the Libertarians could get that magic 5% like Perot's party did in 1992. I might still vote Libertarian. I really doesn't matter as far as electoral split. I am more interested in the governor's race. I won't vote for Hilary since she is an actual demonstrated threat.

</comment><comment><USER23> > We shouldn't start purging people for supporting the wrong political > candidate. That's not how things are done in this country.

Amen.

<comment><USER24> I am always skeptical when somebody takes his personal opinion as the metric to tell the world what right and wrong is.

<comment><USER25> He explained pretty clearly in the article why Trump is objectively wrong.

<comment><USER26> No, "subjectively" wrong. Trump is wrong from Altman's standpoint, not from an absolute "good" or "evil" standpoint.

Except if you __do __believe the latter, and in that case any discussion is moot.

<comment><USER25> No, objectively. Granted sama doesn't provide detailed references, but you can find factual backing for statements such as these ones easily if you look:

 _" A Trump presidency would be a disaster for the American economy."_

 _" He has no real plan to restore economic growth."_

 _" His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer"_

 _" He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage. He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants."_

 _" Trump shows little respect for the Constitution"_

<comment><USER26> Not that I want to split hair but in the examples you gave:

1) Subjective

This is an opinion, not a fact.

2) Objective

I agree. But that does not make him "objectively" wrong.

3) Subjective

Without starting a discussion about Trump alleged racism, whether or not a somewhat isolationist policy would either divide our country or make American innovation suffer is a matter of opinion, not facts. Some other prominent investors seem to disagree.

Besides, examples in our history would tend to show the contrary (I am referring to Roosevelt policies after the '29 crash).

4) Subjective

Unless SCOTUS rules that his stands are unconstitutional, it's only a matter of interpretation.

<comment><USER25> _A Trump presidency would be an economic disaster_ : Objectively true because his policies involve reducing taxes, increasing spending, and isolating the country from free trade (eg. withdrawing from NAFTA which has been shown to have created jobs and growth on both sides of the border).

 _" American innovation would suffer"_: Because of economic consequences, so see above.

 _" He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage"_: I don't even know how you can argue against this, just watch one of his speeches.

 _" He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants"_: He personally is a threat to women, and his policies, such as they are, are now stiring up racial hatred. Again, an objective truth.

 _" Trump shows little respect for the Constitution"_: He announced several completely unconstitutional plans, such as suspending the right of US citizens to return to the country if they are Muslims. You don't need a ruling from the Supreme Court on this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I already made this point today but Hillary Clinton, whom sama is endorsing, has directly contributed to starting two wars (in Syria and Libya). While Trump threatened to ban Muslims from entering the US, her actions have already led to thousands of Muslims being killed. Isn't that strictly worse?

<comment><USER28> Yeah I'm not quite sure I understand the whole "I'm voting Clinton because it's the only way to stop Trump" argument.

No it's not. If enough people who are voting Clinton purely to stop Trump voted 3rd party, 3rd party would actually have a chance.

In this overflowing toilet bowl we call the 2016 Presidential Election, your best bet to unclog it is to use a plunger, now throw another turd in. Vote for the plunger, not the turds.

<comment><USER29> They probably wouldn't. I think you overestimate the number of people voting Clinton just to stop Trump. A lot of people truly like her the most. (Not me, I'd like to note - not that I will be voting as an Englishman).

It's also worth noting, what third party candidate? There isn't a perfect option there either.

It's a first past the post system - third party candidates are never going to happen because of the psychology, number of ingrained voters, and the way electoral college votes work.

If you are in that situation, the best thing is to vote Clinton, then instantly start putting as much pressure on her and other Democrats to change that system once she is in office. Start now, and get support for a candidate so in the next election you can have one you actually like standing, or at least push towards one. The biggest problem is people getting worked up in the presidential election, then when it's over, ignoring politics for four years.

Change in politics does not happen quickly - generally it involves waiting for old people to die, because people are bad at changing their beliefs. I'd love to believe a third party vote was worthwhile, but the truth is, in reality, it's not. We know that. The system is broken. Work to change that.

First past the post simply isn't democracy. It's a vague semblance of. Until you change that, you'll have two parties and your choice between a turd sandwich and a douche.

<comment><USER30> IIRC, Surveys consistently show that 40-50% of people would like to have a third option besides clinton or trump, which is rather high. That should be enough to get at least a plurality, except for "psychology" (people don't want to lose; network effects; with-me-or-against-me-ism)

> what third party candidate? There isn't a perfect option there either.

As long as you acknowledge the double standard implicit in your language: For a non-third-party candidate, it suffices to "not be as bad as the other person"; for a third-praty candidate one must be "perfect".

> the way electoral college votes work.

Electoral colleges don't work that way. In order to win, one need only get _one_ state (it's unlikely, but McMullin seems to have a shot at pulling that off; less likely: Johnson).

Really a smart campaigner could grab one state, and then use the momentum (as you might say, "psychology") to continue grabbing states.

<comment><USER29> Let me restate: I don't see a third party candidate that is that much better than Clinton. Most are better in some ways, worse in others. I used the word 'perfect' because I think that, for a third party candidate, you would need to get the perfect mix to inspire enough support to break through. If I'm throwing my vote behind someone for ideological reasons without an expectation it will work, I want it to be someone I can truly support without reservation.

The momentum thing, I don't buy. It might technically be possible, but it's practically never going to happen, because FPTP is broken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> As much as I hate Trump, I'm kind of hoping for him to win. Fundamentally, I think that 4 years of Trump might be better than 8 years of Hillary. Also, if Hillary wins, the DNC won't have to change. If Trump wins, in 2020, they will be forced to nominate maybe someone like Sanders.

Trump winning will also really underscore how broken the US political system is and I'm hoping that him winning could be a catalyst for some change.

<comment><USER32> Four years of Trump would allow him / the GOP to appoint at least one SCOTUS justice. That alone is enough for me to vote against him.

<comment><USER15> See, that is the whole reason I vote _for_ him. I cannot abide the thought of a liberal who has a hard-on for suppressing the 2nd Amendment and other integral parts of the Bill of Rights appointing at least two supreme court judges (RBD is in her 80s). I could hope that the GOP holds enough of a majority to block those appointments until the tide changes, as they have this year, but that is possibly akin to playing Russian roulette.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> YC: Happy to cut people off over SOPA support.

YC: Can't bring itself to even censure a billionaire who only works with them "part-time" for supporting actual hatred and sexual abuse.

I await this thread filling up with "but how you can be tolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance?!" and other Phil-101 Do You Sees

<comment><USER34> Might as well just copy-paste my comment from yesterday:

"Taking the high road like this is only possible when it's not your neck on the chopping block. Thiel thinks giving women the right to vote was a mistake; Trump thinks all Mexicans and Muslims are violent madmen who should be barred from entering the United States. Hacker News can gregariously see past these faults because they're not in the crosshairs, but if Shanley Kane were a YC partner and saying "all men support rape culture, even if indirectly", there's no friggin way this comment section would be so sanguine."

<comment><USER35> > Trump thinks all Mexicans and Muslims are violent madmen who should be > barred from entering the United States.

ok honestly this is just outright wrong. you're just reciting false talking points from your liberal tv when you clearly haven't actually taken the time to listen to what Trump _actually_ said. He never once called all Mexicans rapists yet you say he did. He never once said he wants to ban ALL Muslims from entering the US yet you did. For your information, the FBI notified congress and local governments that they currently are not confident that they can properly vet all incoming refugees. If the FBI is saying that, how on Earth can you claim it's wrong for Trump to call for a temporary stop until the FBI says it has a handle on it?

<comment><USER36> > He never once called all Mexicans rapists

OK, that's correct as far as I can tell. He didn't say "all Mexicans are rapists". You might still want to reflect on how what he _did_ say was nonetheless offensive, not to mention factually incorrect.

However,

> He never once said he wants to ban ALL Muslims from entering the US

this is plainly false. From his website:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"

[https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press- releases/donald-j.-trump-...](https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press- releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration)

It's clear that he's not asking for a permanent ban. The parent poster did not say "permanent ban". It's still clearly a "ban" by the plain meaning of the word.

If you're going to defend Trump, at least read what he puts out on his own website.

kthx.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > His racist, isolationist policies ...

Had to take a pause right there. (Disclosure: I am a Muslim, naturalized American citizen that emigrated to US in '79.)

Critiques of Trump's positions are as exagerated as the candidate's own verbiage, perhaps even more so.

I will not touch the "racist" item :) but as to "isolationist", this is false at face value. _Non-aggression_ is not isolationism. Very clearly stating that US should work with Russia, Syria, and Iran (!) to finish ISIS -- oh, the irony -- is not an "isolationist" position.

There is a very clear choice on the table: Will US continue as one of the principle entities pushing for globalism, or, will we revert back to pre Bush '41 and let the globalist deal with their collapsing house of card in EU and elsewhere, while we reboot substantial industry (read: not "service" industry) in this nation.

[p.s. I am endorsing Jill Stein, per my evaluation of the entailed Karmic risks in this election. /g]

<comment><USER38> > Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims > entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure > out what is going on.

In that instance not racist since Islam isn't a race however that complete lack of nuance and the absolute torrent of shit he has said makes him incredibly dangerous.

<comment><USER37> I've noted a moderation and more nuanced position lately.

To be perfectly frank, sometimes I wonder if DJT is not the establishment's strawman designed to keep us with the globalist agenda.

The globalists' agenda is _directly_ responsible for the death of _millions_ of Muslims and likely a substantial number of Iraqi and Syrian Christians, with Sam's choice of president being very much in the loop, starting with her husband's policies (that resulted in the official toll of 500,000 dead Iraqi children, which WJC's secratary of state famously considered as "worth it"), to the destruction of Libya and its attendant miseries, and in Syria with millions of dispossed, and yet another nation in ruin.

As a Muslim, let me assure you, if I was the president, I would make sure every single person arriving from these war zones is fully vetted. Given that I am from West Asia (the so-called Middle East) you should note that neither racism nor aversion to Muslims would motivate that approach. It's just common sense.

Further, while I fully agree that since we have instigated this global crisis and thus even beyond the call of human empathy are responsible and must sleep in the bed that we have made, let it be noted that the best way to help Syrians and refugees is to STOP THESE WARS so they can live in peace in their own homeland. Again, this is just common sense.

Clinton and her fellow travellers (and they are quite a few of them!) are _ideologues_. And ideologues are dangerous, imo, since it is their ideological framework that does the thinking for them. You can practically substitute any other neo-con/liberal for Hillary Clinton and it would not make an iota of difference.

That said, note, I am voting Jill Stein. I agree with the 10 Nuclear officers that in their recent open letter noted that the psychological profile of Donald Trump is that of a man that can easily be provoked (gamed).

<comment><USER39> Since you understand both cultures, why are people in USA not able to see the threat posed by Hillary.

<comment><USER37> The cultures I identify with are American and Iranian. But what does it have to do with culture?

> the threat posed by Hillary.

The Americans who are clued into the geopolitical equation recognize that either America accepts getting demoted from world hegemon to ex-Anglo-Empire Deux, or, the "world" will need to duke it out "one last time" ... again.

I have a feeling The Donald will not react pleasantly when Putin and company (not who you think, imo) tell him "You're fired!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm not from the US but I'd vote for Trump. To me Hillary represent the imperial US, the economic Hitmen US, the could war US, the NSA US, the make sure Russia-Europe relations are poor US. She represents the elites, the Rothschilds, the banks, the family of secrets, the kill-list, the endless meddling in countries that have a lot of natural resources "for the common good". She represents Guantanamo bay, more drones and more trade agreements to sue poor countries if their companies behave poorly. She represents the lobbying culture, the Monsantos and the Bechtels.

I will be downvoted, I am already looked at as if I'm less intelligent than all the others at work. But I honestly think the 3rd world war is less likely to happen under Trump. He wants to talk normally to Putin. He represents a more US focused US imho and I am convinced the mainstream media hates him because they are in the pockets of the current rulers.

<comment><USER41> As a non American who would probably vote for neither of them, Hillary definitely ranks way higher on my internal psychopath detector. The constant fake smiling, cold and calculated question answering, passive aggressiveness, etc. In short, the traits of a great manipulator. Trump is guilty of some of that too but he is somewhat redeemed by the fact that he seems dumb/naive enough to believe whatever he preaches.

<comment><USER42> > The constant fake smiling, cold and calculated question answering, passive > aggressiveness, etc. In short, the traits of a great manipulator.

Aren't those, pretty much by definition, the traits of a poor manipulator? A great manipulator wouldn't seem so false.

Let me put it this way: How natural do you think you would seem if you were spending hours of every day in front of dozens of cameras, knowing that the slightest misstatement or weird facial expression is going to spread across social media to the entire country and be analyzed and picked apart and turned into memes and used against you by your opponents? I think anyone who seems like a "normal person" in that situation is anything but.

<comment><USER41> > Aren't those, pretty much by definition, the traits of a poor manipulator? A > great manipulator wouldn't seem so false.

This is a good point and it baffles me to be honest. I said "great" manipulator because it seems to be working so far. Great manipulators don't necessarily need to be great with everyone all the time. Or maybe she intentionally wants us to think she's a poor manipulator so that we trust her more? But that surely fails Occam's razor.

To answer other comments, I didn't get this impression solely by watching her on TV, it is corroborated by her history as a politician and recently leaked emails.

<comment><USER43> It could be that people support Clinton for reasons unrelated to her personal skills at manipulation.

I mean, even leaving aside all issues of substance, campaigns spend a lot of money hiring people _specifically_ for their manipulation skills; even if it's all about manipulation, the candidate's skill isn't the only weapon in the campaign's arsenal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> There are a lot of negative things about Trump in this post, but aren't any positive points about Hillary. It seems to me that if one were to endorse one candidate over another, they should talk about the policies of the candidate they're supporting in a positive light.

> He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage.

There are a slew of former Secret Service agents from Bill Clinton's detail who say the same exact things about Hillary. One even cites being hit in the back of the head with a Bible by Hillary.

Also, is anyone even the slightest bit concerned about the revelations in the Podesta emails? One in particular that comes to mind is a conversation about Hillary hating the 'Everyday American.'

To me, having done hours upon hours of intense research into the two major candidates, this post _sounds_ more like a regurgitation of the narrative put forth by the mainstream media rather than a well thought out and informed point of view.

<comment><USER17> The email was referring to hating "Everyday Americans" as a choice of slogan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I think a lot of the problems with the YC/Thiel discussion stems from the difference between how people view it: is it a political disagreement, or is it an _ethical_ disagreement?

In a "normal" election, this would be pretty cut-and-dry: it'd primarily be a political disagreement over taxes or something, and letting someone go because of their political beliefs would be viewed by many as being pretty extreme.

Many people — myself included — view support for Trump today as an ethical problem. When you see him and his followers advocating misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, aggressiveness, and basically all the other -isms and -obias, it becomes much harder to "see the other side" of the debate. It's not political for many people who will see — and _have_ seen throughout this election cycle — very real repercussions in terms of discrimination and hostility that affects them every day in their lives.

So yeah, there's a lot of anger with YC supporting someone in a leadership position here. I know YC keeps mentioning that Thiel is in a part time position, but he's still in an advisory position, which brings with it a lot of responsibility and ownership that we'd hope YC would be much more understanding about the impact of such a position.

I appreciate that it's a tricky situation for Sam and others to be in, but I do hope that they'd reconsider their stance in the future. Until then, on a personal level, I'm not interested in applying to Y Combinator. That's one small thing that I can do in the meantime, at least.

<comment><USER41> This is 900% rationalization.

> When you see him and his followers advocating misogyny, racism, xenophobia, > homophobia, aggressiveness, and basically all the other -isms and -obias, it > becomes much harder to "see the other side" of the debate

The exact same argument could be convincingly used to discriminate against members of the two largest organized religions. Are you also going to ask potential hires who they voted for at the last election too?

<comment><USER46> Thiel is not simply voting for Trump, he's actively trying to help get him elected (first with an appearance at the RNC and then to the tune of 1.25m). And that's _after_ the "hot mic" tape. Which means that Thiel thinks the propensity for commiting sexual assault should not be a disqualifying feature of a presidential candidate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> _The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less._

I see it differently than Sam here. My father is also a vocal Trump supporter. His path, and the path shared by his friends, appear to me to be driven not by what Trump says he will do, but by what they feel the government has not done. These people feel disenfranchised by their own government who appears unresponsive to their concerns and dismissive of their point of view. And in their world view, by reflecting their fears, Donald Trump appears to be listening to them.

When you overlay this perception of listening, and the historical divide of the role of government (Is it there to take care of you or is it there to enable you to take care of yourself?) It surfaces a lot of Trump supporters.

</comment><comment><USER39> >unprecedented threat to America

Hillary is an unprecedented threat to the world. But I guess Americans are so cut of from the rest of the world, it's hard for them to see things from others perspective. As a citizen of third world please don't unleash Hillary on us.

<comment><USER48> You would prefer Trump? Why?

Serious question.

<comment><USER39> Trump is a racist, Hillary is a warmonger. As an American you might be more concerned about racism. But I guess rest of the world is more concerned about drones and missiles that miss the target.

<comment><USER48> So what leads you to believe that Trump is LESS of a warmonger than Hillary?

I see lots of talks from Trump about "negotiate tough" (sounds good), but then a lot about "smash them up" (sounds not so peaceful). Doesn't seem very peace like.

<comment><USER39> Trump is not the one courting Kissinger

<comment><USER49> Trump is the one who said that Russian war planes overflying American warships should be shot down to teach a lesson.

I can't think of a better way to start WW3 in current climate.

<comment><USER39> Why would Russian planes fly over American ships.

<comment><USER49> You'll have to ask them why they do it.

[http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/politics/russia-jets-buzz- u-s-...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/politics/russia-jets-buzz-u-s-ship- rules-of-engagement/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> So does Sam denounce the previous actions of YC banning companies who supported SOPA from demo day?

Either YC is an organization that takes political stands or it's not.

<comment><USER51> I think those organizations were wrong to support SOPA, and it was wrong for us to say we wouldn't invite them to Demo Day.

<comment><USER50> Thanks for the honest reply. I think that helps some of us square the circle on why you felt so strongly about not cutting ties.

It does a lot to make sure this doesn't come off as "YC won't take a stand on political actors unless it directly affects almost all of our founders."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> > I don't understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. But I'd like to > find out.

This is the attitude we need. Not the name calling and shaming. Instead, go grab a beer together, talk about the issues, agree to disagree and in 9 out of 10 cases you will usually find out the person voting for $theOtherCandidate isn't a huge asshole and probably cares about other people just as much as you do.

</comment><comment><USER53> I am officially endorsing Donald Trump for president.

I doubt my endorsement, coming from an anonymous commenter on HN, has much weight but I'll put it out here for one reason in particular: _As a message to anybody else who 's feeling the same but feels that even announcing something like this will cause you to be shamed._

<comment><USER54> I upvoted your comment because I think it's important, even though I disagree with you. Would you mind explaining your position? I think it might be helpful in furthering people's understanding, although it does run some risk of devolving into an argument.

<comment><USER55> Trump is a new player in politics, whereas Hillary represents business as usual.

Hillary means more drone strikes, corporate appeasment, global interventions, weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, and a complete lack of transparency into government.

I will not vote for a candidate that represents so much of what is wrong with this country, solely becuase she wants me to believe the other guy is worse.

Fear tactics are the last resort of tyrants, my mind was made up after the DNC Leaks.

<comment><USER54> I agree with most of that. And I agree that her campaign is mostly about fear tactics. I suppose the difference between us then is just that I think, despite the lameness of fear-as-platform, I think that fear is pretty justified by the thought of Trump being president.

When you honestly consider that prospect, does it not terrify you? I don't mean that question rhetorically.

<comment><USER15> I am terrified by the supreme court justices that would be appointed during 4-8 years of Democratic rule. Unless Democrats become associated with strict constructionism, I will continue to fear them and oppose their appointment to lifelong positions.

<comment><USER54> Out of curiosity, is it a 2nd amendment thing for you, or do you have other specific fears? Or just more general?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Thanks for clarifying your support, Sam.

You mentioned you'd like to understand Trump supporters. Have you considered asking people in your network to confidentially contact you to explain, and then publishing the anonymized findings? With your reach, it seems like you could really help build this bridge you want to see exist, and the results would probably be interesting to read.

</comment><comment><USER57> > I will continue to try to change [his grandmother & Thiel's] minds.

I can get behind that.

> of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no > longer be part of Y Combinator

sama should address the weird things Peter has said about women voting.

<comment><USER54> He didn't say women shouldn't be able to vote. He said that giving women the right to vote has eroded some of his libertarian ideals, because women tend to oppose those ideals. Which is a true statement.

<comment><USER58> It seems to imply a hell of a lot.

"I'm not saying that darawk's down/up-voting should be revoked, but he sometimes upvotes things that aren't the best for our country."

The above (wrong) sentence would be an example of this type of implication.

<comment><USER54> It's not really fair to hang someone by what you infer from a truthful statement. You could say "Ending slavery caused enormous economic problems for the south" without supporting slavery. In reading the full context of what he said, it doesn't seem to me that he's implying we should take away women's suffrage.

My reading of what he said is more akin to recognition of a marketing problem. That he thinks libertarians haven't presented themselves sufficiently well towards women, and there is room for improvement there.

<comment><USER58> Thanks for clarifying; by your statement it does indeed appear that the quote is being unfairly taken out of context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Could I please, pretty please with a cherry on top, have one sanctuary that isn't infested with "Vote for X, because Y is unacceptable"? It's already been done everywhere else ad nauseam.

<comment><USER60> Yep. Same old "lesser of two evils" argument that allows the Dems to keep selling real liberals out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> >(of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says >himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator).

Uh, what about the if "People _acted_ the same way Hillary did while in office they would be in jail."

This is not hyperbole. Perjury is still a crime (one that got her husband impeached). Her lies weren't to the public, they were to the Justice Department - not knowing that the red "C" stood for classified. Furthermore, her concealment and destruction of her emails were federal crimes (plural).

Not only would this end in discharge for military personnel or removal from office of a government official, but criminal charges and restriction of civil liberties. Of the millions of federal employees, she's proven herself to be in the distinct minority as disqualified to hold a position of authority.

See:

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, _willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States._ As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071)

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I don't see how anyone could support Hillary, based on her actions.

<comment><USER62> > I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. I don't see how anyone could support > Hillary, based on her actions.

I feel that way about them both. Who can legitimately be excited by any of this? It's just degrading to see our republic reduced to these depths.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> The polarization in politics has gotten worse and worse. A lot of people are feeling marginalized and unheard. The echo chambers we find ourselves in make it difficult to even perceive how the other side could hold the views that they do. Yellow journalism is worse than I've ever seen. Viral social media posts that are more click bait than fact are spreading more misinformation than valuable insight. It's more than anyone can sort out. Even intelligent people are susceptible to bias and believing stories that align with their preconceived notions. What are we to do, as technologists, to alievate this problem?

<comment><USER55> Build truly open communication platforms.

Reddit, Twitter, HN, and Facebook have all shown heavy bias and a willingness to stifle conversation that they didn't agree with.

I would like to see ad free communication platform that supports content creaters through donation and patronage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> > (of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no > longer be part of Y Combinator).

So when he wrote that giving women the right to vote has been eroding capitalist democracy ... ?

<comment><USER65> _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._

You can disagree with the statement, but why do you think it is punishable?

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> endorsing hillary because of claims that Trump is "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic..." must be the very definition of a low-information voter. you have the knowledge of the world at your fingertips and wikileaks is giving you direct view into the inner workings of the dnc.

i don't understand how engineers that were horrified by the wage-fixing pacts of apple, google, etc. can vote for open-borders. is this the tech version of 'everyone thinks they will be rich someday'? at this rate we will end up in childless marriages with flatmates.

some serious gaslighting going on. don't let them steal your future :(

</comment><comment><USER67> I'm heartened to hear that Thiel's support for Trump --- which is ongoing and extensive --- has been a strain on Altman's relationship with him.

Thiel is not merely one of the 43% of Americans who supports Donald Trump. There are degrees of support, and there are different reasons to support him. Thiel has chosen to serve as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, appearing on stage for him at the RNC in a nationally televised event even as many of the leaders of the Republican party (including all of their previous Presidential candidates) refused to do the same. His support for Trump has continued even after Trump pivoted his election to run against the legitimacy of the US elections themselves.

I strongly agree that we must avoid ostracizing Republicans because of the actions of a few monsters in their party. We should continue the work HRC and Obama started earlier in this election, to de-normalize Trump and separate him from the mainstream Republican party. The country needs a loyal opposition and a voice for limited government, the strengths of our private sector, and humility in regulation. HRC and Obama have stopped this work, believing that the outcome of the election is a foregone conclusion, and are now trying their best to tether the party to Trump in an effort to win downticket races. As a loyal, lifelong Democrat, I think they're making a terrible mistake.

But that does not mean we should forget that the Trump campaign itself is truly monstrous, nor does it mean we're required to tolerate the least tolerant members of our society --- the white nationalist fringe that, according to Sam Wang at Princeton, has been within striking range of the Presidency for much of this election cycle.

Thiel isn't just a supporter of this campaign; he's a part of it. We should recognize that, and not gloss over it, or pretend that the discussion we're having is the same as the kind we'd have with John Fund and Jonah Goldberg at The National Review. Thiel isn't William F. Buckley. He's a man that just last week mustered $1.25MM in an attempt to rend the fabric of the American political system, a system which he has repeatedly argued against.

I don't ask that Altman sever formal ties with Peter Thiel. Shit's complicated. But as someone who has, yet again, acknowledged in writing the grave threat Trump poses to our country, I do ask that he live up to his own words and recognize publicly the role Thiel has played in this election.

This post was a good start.

</comment><comment><USER68> Nice statement, to the point and a reasonable call for civility. It will be nice to see if / when a return to a more 'traditional' US political discourse can gain momentum; history is repeating itself in watching a party tear itself apart. Boehner rage-quitting opened my eyes quite a bit.

As Katy Tur has frequently reported - and others as well - a significant portion of Trump supporters firmly refute easily provable facts (re: Birtherism) or outright believe lies (re: Actual Border Wall). It's unfortunate to sit back and reflect on this segment of the population, because, unlike the level-headed, rational post by Sam, such tactics are ineffective. These people are walking Poe's Law conundrums, and as _nice_ as the intention is to include them in the big picture, that's a genuinely problematic proposition. It's why Donald Trump is such a ridiculous candidate - he's like a child, and his immaturity doesn't allow adults to have adult conversations.

Fortunately, I'm quite able to sleep easily at night knowing that the mistakes of the political and journalistic mainstays (GOP in primaries, media enabling Trump) are quickly being rectified - the cannons are melting with how much ammunition is being shot his way and hitting over and over. It's a deluge, and I don't think it's over even as of this writing. This will be a lopsided outcome due to an extremely motivated voting populace by 2XXX standards. Glenn Beck and Michael Moore voting for the same person? I, um, didn't see that coming, but hey, here we are.

What's wonderful about the US, as I learned from extensive study of both Hunter S. Thompson and Mark Twain, is that freedom of speech is great: People are free to speak their minds and show the world if there's anything inside of worth.

</comment><comment><USER69> As a foreigner in his 30s, no need to say that the 2016 elections feel like one of the most obnoxious US elections ever, it's worse than Bush vs Gore. The amount of dishonesty, propaganda, spin, is ridiculous. Of course the internet isn't off the hook as most websites and social networks are heavily involved into the propaganda machine. The political divisions in US is at a all time high. But the US democratic process will survive, I'm pretty sure it has seen worse in the past.

But the IT aspect is interesting. It seems that now, if you do not follow a specific political ideology, you will be automatically excluded from the american tech community as people will try to get you and ruin your career, your business and the lives of your families, prevent you from speaking at conferences, insult you on Twitter/Facebook and co because you broke the "ranks" and didn't follow the SF bay "political mindset" so you're fair game...

</comment><comment><USER70> What about Brendan Eich and Prop 8? It was acceptable to denounce him then. But supporting Thiel is okay?

<comment><USER69> People can think what they want about Prop 8 he shouldn't have been forced out of Mozilla because of this. There is absolutely not 1 proof that he behaved inappropriately at Mozilla. His track record was almost flawless there. He was pushed out by people who clearly don't care about Mozilla, just about unrelated politics and of course ,nobody can ignore the cabal right here against Eich on HN. It was despicable back then it still is now.

It's exactly the same things as the handful of idiots who tried to paint Doug Crockford as a misogynist and kicked him out of Nodevember conference. These people don't have the best interests of the technology community in mind. For them getting the head of this or that prominent guy is just about collecting trophies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> >racist policies

Citation needed. I expect better for a top story on HN.

I'd also add that the US electing Clinton will show that corruption is now openly allowed in the US at the highest levels. That it simply doesn't matter. This sets a far more damaging precedent around the world than whatever it is people think Trump will do (like not starting a war).

</comment><comment><USER72> I live in central Europe. It is really sad to see so many manipulated people in the US by politics propaganda. 90% of people support Clinton/Trump because they dislike the other candidate more. That's it. Why do you offend each other? Both candidates aren't very good, so to speak.

The real problem is the current political system. I would like to see some innovation here on HN, what can be done to unleash the potential of the wisdom of crowds, also in politics, similary what open source, stackoverflow, github etc. did for software engineering.

PS. East Germany producted two awful cars: Trabant and Wartburg. But car owners were not offending owners of the other brand. Everybody knew that the socialist system was bad.

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

</comment><comment><USER73> The only way I can see that someone can't understand why some people support Trump is because they have not made an attempt to understand the other side's positions. I agree with close to none of Trump's positions and abhor the man, but it is simply smug to dismiss his supporters (credit to Sam for not dismissing them as dumb).

1) Anti-Free trade. Bernie and Trump both were very popular with working class individuals who are out of work. Trade deals have definitely caused job loss for many workers. Many anti-NAFTA people blame it on causing the immigration from Mexico

2) Anti-Immigration. Job loss and racial identity are both at play here. Lack of homogeny in the country. Too much diversity etc.

3) Disgust with career politicians. They like how brash he is.

4) Lower taxes

etc.

FWIW, this is exactly the kind of post that shouldn't be on hacker news.

<comment><USER74> I am sure you are correct on those points. But I feel that something deeper is at play. American society has an excess of complexity that people are unwilling or unable to deal with. There is a desire for simplicity that is sated by Trump.

The more comfortable you are with complexity in society the less you need Trump.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> The image I like to remember is the victorious Ulysses S. Grant telling the defeated Robert E. Lee and his officers to keep their horses, keep their sidearms, and go home to their families, but not before being fed from Union rations.

Lee returned to his men and said: _" Go and be as good a citizen as you were soldiers"._

And Grant went to his: _" Stop the firing. The Rebels are our countrymen again."_

Lincoln later remarked: _"To be harsh or spiteful, or punish them, or throw (the Union 's) win in their face, was not going to do anybody any good."_

If these great men could so magnanimous after a vicious and bloody war, what does it say about us that we are so spiteful and triumphalist in the course of ordinary politics.

</comment><comment><USER76> > if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be > part of Y Combinator

That could be scary to employees of Y Combinator... what things fall on the blacklist? To me it's obvious that you will fire someone for saying racist or sexist remarks but it's not clear exactly what I can or cannot say to avoid being fired.

<comment><USER77> I don't think it's that controversial a statement. Trump is basically a walking HR nightmare and would never be employable at a typical company given any of the things he says about (or does to) people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Sam's entire post has one line about Hillary and ten about Trump.

Instead of trying to demonize Trump, perhaps it is important for you to advocate for your candidate. As the president said, go work for your candidate. People are not dumb. The contrast will be clear and then people can make their own choice.

I know its hard to compare, but would you say, "Buy my product to stop the other product from being successful because the other product makes claims that are outrageous". Rightly everyone then says, "Why buy any of the products?" Or "Let me try a third product".

</comment><comment><USER79> > I don't understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. But I'd like to > find out, because we have to include everyone in our path forward.

I think this video by the Guardian helps to clear up why some people are Trump supporters: [https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/video/2016/oct/12/west-v...](https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/video/2016/oct/12/west-virginia-donald-trump-supporters-mcdowell-county- poverty-video)

</comment><comment><USER80> Bravo to Sam for the endorsement and for calling Trump out for what he is.

On the issue of Peter Thiel, for those of you that believe it's wrong to fire someone based on their political actions, is there any limit? If David Duke ran for office, or the Ku Klux Klan fielded a candidate for president, and someone gave a high profile speech endorsing them and supported their campaign with a million dollars, would it still be wrong to part ways with that person?

<comment><USER24> We are talking here about 40-50% of the American electorate not some fringe maniac. If you think those people's opinion should be shunned than your world view seems very restricted to me.

<comment><USER81> People need to understand, about 43% of eligible electorate are going to Vote for Trump. Its better trying to understand them rather than demonize them. What next, no funding to start-ups in Texas since it voted Trump.

Trump is obnoxious but Stalinist purges are not an answer for it.

<comment><USER82> Funny you should mention Stalin, because it seems that people on Clinton's side are mostly using free speech to express their disgust, while Trump's camp has _literally_ advocated mass deportation and legislating unsympathetic newspapers out of existence.

<comment><USER83> Yeah, Clinton's side is all rainbows and ponies. This whole post is about Clinton's side wanting to throw Thiel out because of his views! Like happened to Eich. That doesn't clear Trump in any way, but don't you see both sides are the same? That's the problem!

<comment><USER82> How could you possibly equate a private company disavowing a single billionaire with the president of the United States harassing and deporting millions of people?

<comment><USER83> I'm talking about the general principle of shaming. Trump's an idiot - <USER2> argument there. Shaming and going after someone because they see _some_ amount of value in a person is not OK. And both sides do it. What I'm calling out is all the finger pointing and name calling, when both sides are doing exactly the same thing as what they're calling others out on. Frankly, I don't see how this country will ever again be united in any real, lasting way because of all the demonification.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> I respect Sam's opinion, but I would like to hear any of his ideas for improving the economy in suburban and rural areas or creating greater opportunities for people who are less privileged or gifted.

Much of intelligence is a natural ability gifted at birth, and it's often easy to lose touch with that when you are surrounded by highly skilled and intelligent peers, as many in Silicon Valley or cities often are.

As an example, if you are an unskilled laborer looking for work, which is a large portion of the population, it may be directly applicable and not necessarily racism or xenophobia to be upset if illegal immigrants do indeed take those jobs. I have not been in that situation nor seen it directly, but I can envision scenarios in which it might be a valid frustration. If you wish to understand that 43%, you might not immediately dismiss the views that resonate with them as racist or threatening, and try to understand why they are agreeing with those ideas.

Many of those people also likely do not use computers or have effective typing or competitive communication skills, and may be very frustrated by their inability to voice their complaints in intellectually competitive online communities. I think it's possible that Trump has employed many manual laborers or "blue collar workers" in the construction of his properties and he may been been exposed to certain types of complaints which are uncommon in other corporate environments, which he is now championing to address. Given these circumstances, I can understand how to a large group of people Trump would not appear as a monster or dangerous, but rather as a legitimate hero.

Likewise, I believe Trump should do a better job of addressing how those policies might affect immigration as it applies to tech companies, and I can completely understand the emotional reactions to his policies from the tech industry.

<comment><USER23> > If you wish to understand that 43%, you might not immediately dismiss the > views that resonate with them as racist or threatening, and try to > understand why they are agreeing with those ideas.

You mean, like how he did in his previous blog post acknowledging how Trump and his supporters are right on some issues?

[1] [http://blog.samaltman.com/trump](http://blog.samaltman.com/trump)

<comment><USER84> Thank you for posting this. I disagree that Trump does not have any real plans, but I don't see any alternative solutions proposed in this article, that's what I would like to hear from Sam. I would love to see the collective intelligence of Silicon Valley tackle some of these issues, regardless of who becomes president.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> As an outsider, I am having troubles understanding why the Democrats put against Trump the only candidate who had a poor enough track record to make this election "interesting". Why didn't they choose Sanders who is not as vulnerable as Hilton? By they I mean the Democrat elite.

<comment><USER86> You're right, polls showed that Sanders would do better than Clinton against Trump. The Democratic elite doesn't want Sanders because he doesn't represent their interests.

BTW, you should know that, at this point, the election is basically over and Clinton has won. This election is far too polarizing for the kind of swing Trump would need to win (people who still have hope for Trump are basically hoping for a Brexit scenario where polls significantly underestimate his support). So their strategy worked, even if it was risky.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> HRC has moved the Democratic Party to the right. This has left many poor and angry people in the dust. Many have gravitated toward Trump.

Yes, poor people are more likely to be criminals and racists but let's be real, mainstream pols have been speaking racist language in a more coded and subtle way for a long time. It has always been ugly. HRC has done it herself when it benefits her.

What irritates me about this essay and the "stop Trump" argument for HRC in general, is that it supposes that it is not necessary to hold one's chosen candidate accountable and that we should just get on board and be grateful someone is running against Trump.

I could never vote for either candidate. But Trump's stark and unthinking narrative is matched by a similarly stark and unthinking anti-Trump narrative.

<comment><USER49> > HRC has moved the Democratic Party to the right.

Comparing the Democratic platform over the past several presidential cycles side by side does not support this assertion.

Indeed, it has steadily moving left since Obama, and Clinton was pretty much forced to follow in the primaries. She didn't move as far left as the Sanders crowd (myself included) hoped, but we still got a pretty good platform this year.

<comment><USER87> > Indeed, it has steadily moving left since Obama,

I'm not sure you could possibly be serious.

\- Obama continued and escalated GWB's wars and ramped up the war on whistleblowers and the use of drone assassination and terror campaigns.

\- Obamacare was a big corporate giveaway, ushering in the new Halliburtons of Healthcare. The Mylan epi-pen fiasco is one example among many of how the program catered to corporate interests and profits extensively. Ironically this was one reason Obama beat HRC 8 years ago, his healthcare plan was much more open to compromises with incumbent pharma and medical supply companies. He signaled this effectively through a few minor differences with HRC's plan way back then, and it got him elected.

\- The only trending leftward has been inevitable changes in social values (support of gay marriage, marijuana legalization, etc.) that are an inevitable part of the oldest generation of social conservative voters dying off. Both Obama and HRC lagged by about 4-8 years on gay marriage (both opposed it until it was abundantly safe to support it).

\- There has been no serious reform of Wall Street, no serious GSE reform, and Obama has called for the significant expansion of student loan programs... which are the only kind of debt not discharged when someone declares bankruptcy, making them extremely socially regressive and akin to debt slavery. Someone who is 18 taking on massive debt to attend college is not an informed consumer and does not deserve debt that they will be straddled with no matter what circumstances befall them later.

These are just a few examples. There is a reason why so many Republicans (including the Bush family) has endorsed HRC -- she's essentially running a Republican platform, with a few easily broken promises to the left thrown in.

<comment><USER49> What is your baseline?

<comment><USER87> Well, Republicans have been moving to the left for a while too...

GWB ran on the idea of "compassionate conservatism" which was another way of saying that the Federal government should spend more money on social welfare programs. For GWB, it meant ensuring the support of a wide variety of faith- based organizations who saw it as an opportunity to get some free money, and when it worked to help get GWB two terms, the GOP realized it was a winning strategy. It helped counteract some of the appropriations championed by Democrats that resulted in lots of loyal voters.

Similarly, post-911 the neoconservative faction of the GOP took a strong hold on power. The older generation of Republicans, many of whom had served in combat, were far more weary of costly foreign wars, but the young generation, most of whom had not served, were eager to seize upon the opportunities left around the globe after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The invasion of Iraq was neoconservative: It was sold on the basis of its alleged humanitarian objective (freeing women who were oppressed under Saddam) but also on the basis of the grand existential threat of terrorism. Americans had to be sold on the idea that the war made sense, and GWB and his neoconservative team created a villain out of Saddam, Hans Blix the UN weapons inspector, the European countries that urged restraint, etc.

Of course, this was all so that the US could invade a country that had once been part of a proxy war with the USSR and was now essentially available for the taking. We've seen US dependence on Israel decrease post Iraq invasion, as we now have our own territory for bases and our own projection of force in the region. The current situation with Syria is Russia's latent attempt to retaliate and not lose its last foothold in the middle east. The Iran deal was (seemingly unsuccessfully) intended to be a carrot preventing Iran from aligning with Russia, etc.

Neoconservatism has been described as "liberals with guns" because there is an element of a moralistic crusade behind the war, and the war often does not involve direct threats to national security. Post Saddam, the US doled out the Iraqi oil industry contracts to American and coalition firms, effectively redistributing Iraq's trillions in oil wealth substantially, cutting out French and German companies that had won these lucrative contracts before.

In spite of campaigning against Bush's wars, Obama has generally kept the same ideological approach. For all the ranting about Obamacare, the GOP largely supported it, mainly because there are enough firms in GOP districts to result in the required number of votes.

At this point, the main reason the GOP would want to change Obamacare is to make it more lucrative for specific firms, not because of any sort of philosophical disagreement with the program.

So both parties are converging on what I'd call corporatist neoconservative centrism. It generally preserves the status quo, the broad policy strokes are bold plays to enrich massive industries through public/private partnerships (middle eastern oil, US healthcare, US housing, US financial services, etc). Foreign policy is heavily propaganda-based and heavily moralistic in its tone, foreign leaders are subject to ad hominem attacks, and existential evils are spoken about with the wide-eyed seriousness of children discussing fairytales.

When you think about, say, Jeb Bush's platform and HRC's, there is little difference when you filter for issues that would ever actually come to a vote. Notable in the leaked emails was the HRC team scrambling early on in response to a speech by Jeb Bush which they described as "HRC agrees with all of this". They were fearful that his messaging approach was better than what they'd come up with.

The biggest beneficiaries of the idea that HRC is "extremely liberal" or that Jeb is "extremely conservative" are the candidates themselves. They create the illusion of difference were little exists. Many of the other leaked HRC emails show that she holds or recently held many socially conservative views to go along with her free-trade pro-wall-street economic views. These things aren't a surprise, but they do provide actual evidence of the profound similarity between the two parties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> I'm glad he addressed this... I'm also a big Peter Thiel fan, but struggling to understand how he can possibly support Trump. I think there is an important distinction between "contrarian and right" and "contrarian and wrong", which supporting Trump doesn't seem to acknowledge.

And I wondered what Thiel's peers thought of his support, so this clarified it a bit for me.

But I also agree that the anti-Trump crowd should recognize that people in this country are angry, and Trump says what they want to say. Trump's not the solution but he's calling out the problems in a way that resonates with people.

(Of course, even if he had the right solutions, to me it seems clear he wouldn't be able to execute... but that's a political argument.)

</comment><comment><USER89> There's another issues, both parties are courting the more extreme views within their parties.

That is, the Democrats are looking further left/liberal, and the Republicans are looking more right/conservative.

Neither is looking after the centre, they only seek to appease the more vocal within their ranks... the extremists.

Typically when the pendulum swings things average out, but politicians have learned over the past several decades that if they want to gain 10 miles of political position they should negotiate for 100 miles from the outset and beat the other party into submission before settling on 20 miles (everyone's a winner).

The entire system seems to promote seeking an extreme position even if such a position isn't desired by anyone.

<comment><USER49> > That is, the Democrats are looking further left/liberal, and the Republicans > are looking more right/conservative.

True, but misleading without comparing the degree of the same on either side.

For example, on the right, the manifestation of partisan polarization was the emergence of the Tea Party, which had successfully ran many candidates across the country, and significantly redefined the party platform at its peak of prominence.

What's the left equivalent? Sanders? He came later, and his successes were far more limited.

Here's a very simple exercise you can do. Look up Democratic and Republican platforms for every electoral cycle in the past decade. Observe how much each has changed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> "The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are."

There's a ton of value in this sentence, because I find especially amongst the tech crowd, people are so isolated in the echo chambers created by their local populations, their choice of friends on social media, etc. We seek out likeminded people, and eventually, once we surround ourselves with them, suddenly other views, even popular views, seem crazy and radical. But they do come from somewhere, and generally those people have legitimate reasons for feeling the way they do.

</comment><comment><USER91> Does Sam also endorse the DNC 'consultants' who are paid to incite violence at Trump rallies?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY)

<comment><USER55> Or the firebombing of election offices?

<comment><USER92> Please provide a list of DNC officials that support from fire bombing. The candidate that he supports has said it was terrible. Democrats organized money specifically for the office to be rebuilt.

You're not adding anything of value to the conversation here.

<comment><USER55> It doesn't change the fact that the US population has been whipped into a frenzy by "Trump is literal hitler" rhetoric.

We are in a thread that is debating the merits of a political purge in the workplace, the "value added" isn't up to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> I'm sure I'll be labelled a cynic, but I'm pretty sure if Thiel didn't make a shit ton of money and is likely to make more money in the future, YC would have dumped him over politics a long time ago.

</comment><comment><USER94> If you were to dissociate with Thiel over his political views it would lead to LESS diversity at Y Combinator!

</comment><comment><USER95> There is definitely a core of this message that I agree with, but another part that when I think about it makes me disagree somewhat with it.

I understand that a good chunk of the country supports Donald Trump. I also don't understand why, and I would also like to understand why.

However, there are too many parallels between what Donald Trump publicly supports with things of the past that I cannot ignore. An example that some may believe to be an exaggeration but I think is a close parallel. Segregation. There was a time in which a person running for office would be in full public support of segregation. I did not live through those times. But I imagine that those that privately frowned upon those views regret not publicly distancing themselves from those that did support that view.

Let's take that example into today. Where is the line that we draw when we talk about political opinion vs moral opinion? If Donald Trump was a public defender of segregation, would you then make an effort to publicly distance yourself from his associates? If so, what's the difference between segregation and xenophobia? Is the difference that many had to loose their lives and sacrifice their well being for years for us as a country to realize what an awful mistake we made?

I'm not asking rhetorically. I'd like to understand where the line is drawn, because frankly I don't see this as a political difference but a moral one that I'd like to understand, but not to excuse it.

</comment><comment><USER96> > if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be > part of Y Combinator.

I find this logic is similar to the logic some GOPs use to support Donald Trump. Even though they condemned him for saying lewd/racist comments (or even committed to), they still give him the support. I don't know how you would continue dodging this for Peter when Donald Trump is being sued for actually committing to a criminal offense. YC needs to draw a line instead of playing this blurred line.

</comment><comment><USER97> Is really Thiel just a mere supporter as Sam put it or more of a partner in crime?

He's clearly investing in his vision for your country to turn them into reality, and therefore should be dealt with accordingly and not just dismissed as just some politically uninformed and misguided guy on the street who happened to espouse dangerous and vile political views but he'll grow out of it in due time.

</comment><comment><USER98> Meta notes on the comments so far

1\. YC banning companies that supported SOPA was a mistake. I'm sure they now acknowledge that.

2\. Mr Thiel donating $1M does not mean he believes or endorses in everything Trump stands for or says. I don't happen to agree he should have made the donation, but please use common sense.

3\. Mr Altman used his personal blog not the YC blog. This is important. But the line is blurred between this being a personal statement or a statement on behalf of a corporation (YC).

4\. Nobody should be persecuted or fired a political belief that a large part of a country endorses. This point is clearly stated and easily defended. Those attacking it should have a deep think about representative democracy - <USER3> the good parts and bad. Representative democracy is a decent, practical system but it is not perfect and America's flavor of it could do with a lot of refinement. This election cycle should make that pretty clear to the average HN reader.

<comment><USER55> "Representative democracy... practical system"

Not anymore. We need to restructure if we the people are ever going to have say in government again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> > The only two vocal Trump supporters I am close to are Peter Thiel and my > grandma.

Ignoring the Thiel stuff in this particular comment to focus on the grandma part. If you read this, sama, is her support based on anything more than him being the Republican nominee? I ask because my grandparents (from a very rural upbringing, and lifelong Republicans) are also the only Trump supporters I'm close to. It's been illuminating to me, as they vehemently opposed him in the primaries, and his policy positions (if you can call them that) are at odds with everything they've ever discussed believing in. Their justification seems to be based on a simple assumption that once he's elected, he'll just become a generic Republican, and that everything he says during the election is irrelevant bluster. It honestly has made me question if they'd vote for Hillary had she run as the Republican nominee.

</comment><comment><USER100> What is really bad here is that we have to vote against a very bad candidate, not for a good one. Hilary needs to commit to certain priorities for all those groups that decided to vote for her - potentially compromising what she has promised so far - simply voting against Trump. Otherwise voting for her is a lost vote...

</comment><comment><USER101> > The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the > first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. > The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not > good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less.

This really resonated. It's hard to overestimate how isolated we are from The Outgroup and how rarely we actually do anything about it.

If anyone is genuinely interested in talking to someone who is very different than themselves, I'm volunteering to play recruiter/matchmaker and coordinate some (hopefully) interesting conversations. I started a Ask HN thread to discuss so please let me know: [https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=12729057](https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=12729057)

</comment><comment><USER92> I think this whole thread should be purged there is nothing substantive here. Just a bunch of people espousing opinions that approximately half of people disagree with (me included).

I personally have gained nothing out of reading all of this and I suspect that this is the case for the majority of people here.

</comment><comment><USER102> If I had an employee whose job description involved hiring (or providing advice about hiring) a high-level addition to our company, and said employee advised that we should hire an individual who is widely known to be:

\- racist

\- erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage

\- a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants

\- shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency

I would conclude that my employee has bad judgement. Very bad judgement. I would fire said employee immediately. I would also likely shun said employee on a personal level.

I don't think people get a pass on this one just because this decision is being made in the context of politics.

<comment><USER103> This is exactly the kind of "my politics are so certain they aren't even politics anymore" manipulation that I'm seeing everywhere.

Movements don't exist in a vacuum. A massive trend like roughly half the country making a choice you don't agree with is pressing back against _something_, and one of the things it's pressing back against is attitudes like this.

<comment><USER102> but since when is racist, bragging-about-sexual-assualt-against-women, anti- muslim, "politics"?

I'm critical of supporters of Trump not because of his (Trump's) politics but because of his personal characteristics.

If I was interviewing someone for a job at my company, and I saw a video of them bragging about how they like to sexually assault women, I would not hire that person. No matter how bad-ass a coder he/she was.

Would you?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> The problem I have with this campaign is that _both_ candidates present a legitimate threat to the republic, in different ways. Sam is of course correct, but a similar argument can be made for Hillary.

Is there still time for a do-over?

</comment><comment><USER105> Is it really that they support Trump or are just anti-Hillary? From this post, you are not really pro-Hillary, you are just anti-Trump, so consider that it goes the other way too.

</comment><comment><USER106> Funny how two attendees of the 2016 Bilderberger meeting and partners in YC - Altman and Thiel - support opposing candidates - Clinton and Trump. USofA never ceases to amaze me.

</comment><comment><USER107> I'm an American voter and I'm not voting for either creature. I did my civic duty in the primaries by not voting for either. For the election, I'll just write-in someone I prefer and sit this circus out.

I have to assume that there were a LOT of uninformed voters that had their anger whipped up by Trump. I suspect there was a lot of cross-over voting in open primary states.

Perhaps we've made it too convenient to register to vote, and the misinformed/lazy have stolen the show.

</comment><comment><USER108> I have never really liked Donald Trump, he is an abrasive egocentric character and I quite like Hillary she being an attractive intelligent woman. Now I am not so sure, I find Hillary smug and untrustworthy and am finding Trump refreshing honest, if a little over-exited at times. its important to respect diverse views even if they fly contrary to your deeply held beliefs. Its not easy but if there is an open debate. thats probably a good thing

</comment><comment><USER109> > of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no > longer be part of Y Combinator

He said them $1.25m times. Cut ties or lose deal-flow. It's on you.

</comment><comment><USER110>
      > That kind of diversity is painful and unpopular, but
      > it is critical to health of a democratic and pluralistic
      > society.

Is it? How does having someone who endorses xenophobia, sexism, etc, as one of the most visible members of your organization achieve these goals? If we tolerate this kind of thinking, how many opportunities are we losing out on because of people who couldn't get past the barriers it sets up?

<comment><USER68> I can relate to both sides, but I think the logic of wanting to engage is that at least having a dialogue path is an avenue to submit contrary evidence or examples for consideration. Sort of like "All X are like Y!" and then the refutation of showing "Several X are not like Y" without trying to attack the conversation participants. It takes both parties agreeing to the rules, and I'm not claiming either side always works through the dialogue in a mature or analytical fashion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER111> I've said this in another thread ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728761](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728761)) but in case that submission gets flagged off the page again, I'll include it here:

From The Education of a Libertarian [0]

\---

"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. Politics is about interfering with other people's lives without their consent. That's probably why, in the past, libertarians have made little progress in the political sphere. Thus, I advocate focusing energy elsewhere, onto peaceful projects that some consider utopian." \- Peter Thiel [0]

[0]: [https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter- thiel/educatio...](https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter- thiel/education-libertarian)

\---

Leaving aside all the drama surrounding YC and Peter Thiel, this is where it all breaks down for me. How am I supposed to take Thiel at his word today, when less than a decade ago he was convinced that politics is "too intense" because it angers people, divides them into us-vs-them groups, and tears them apart.

Is it simply that he's changed who he is in that time? I mean, that's a legitimate reason, and one I could respect even if it means I don't agree with who he is today. I'd want to know what changed his mind.

Or are there different Peter Thiel personas? I can understand this, too. As Hillary Clinton pointed out, Abraham Lincoln believed that politicians have a private and a public persona, because most of the electorate would shudder to see how our tasty, democratic sausage was being made.

Or is he a capricious man who doesn't stick to his principals when motivated by financial or political need? That would be disappointing, but the cynic in me says it wouldn't be surprising.

Without knowing who he truly is, and why there is such a divide between just 7 years ago (still fully within his adult life) and now, his whole persona just doesn't compute with me and I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that he's too chaotic to trust.

Does anyone have any insight?

</comment><comment><USER112> This Reddit post really opened up my eyes to why people support Trump:

[https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/579v4z/head_of_iow...](https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/579v4z/head_of_iowa_womens_gop_group_quits_over_trump/d8qafb4)

</comment><comment><USER113> Sam, thanks for ending this on the most important note (imho): understanding.

Not understanding each other is how we got into this mess.

</comment><comment><USER114> > This submission has received a huge number of user flags. We've overridden > flags and other software penalties for several of these stories already for > being related to YC, but our primary duty is to the community and we have to > let it protect itself from being ripped apart by politics.

Surely, you jest.

</comment><comment><USER40> Btw, how can this 383 (currently) points article, posted 1 hour ago be below a 34 point article of 16 hours ago. This feels like a multi-hour front-page article to me...

Edit: Ah flags, just reading about what they are. We have to be protected from ourselves then.

<comment><USER15> Most of the really interesting stuff to discuss gets blown away by flags all the time. It feels a little broken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> Remember before commenting: please do not to think in absolutes. us or them. with me or against me. true believer vs burn the heretics.

it's a descent into tribal warfare where reason and logic give way to misunderstanding and escalation of perceived wrongs.

<comment><USER115> ok, fine. stupid of me to expect thoughtful consideration of topics and ideas rather than political foghorn barking.

ban politics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> Why would Sam not go for a third party who was less problematic? There are third party candidates available. Is it because they are unlikely to be elected? If so, this thinking keeps on trapping us into voting for the least bad of the bad.

<comment><USER117> > Is ot because they are unlikely to be elected?

It's more than unlikely. There is effectively zero chance of a third party candidate getting elected president in 2016.

Voting for one is throwing away your vote. Worse than that, it's throwing away an opportunity to indicate your second choice preference.

The US's first-past-the-post electoral system is not great, but voting for a third-party candidate does not at all address that problem. Instead, it plays exactly into the agenda of the two dominant parties by effectively disenfranchising yourself.

If you don't like the US's voting system, great, work to change it. Probably start by pushing for more small scale and local elections to switch to smarter voting systems. That way, citizens can used to them there and the venues are easier to change. Maybe eventually that will percolate all the way up and we can change the Constitution and change how the president is elected.

In the meantime, vote strategically for which of the two options to choose from that is most closely aligned to your interests.

<comment><USER99> > Voting for one is throwing away your vote.

No. It is not. The reason the two party system continues to exist is because so many people insist on there not being other options, despite there literally being other candidates on the ballot. There's a reason why Democrats have continued to spend money on turning Texas blue for years, despite the argument that they are "throwing money away." Momentum matters. Please don't listen to this. It's the absolute worst outcome of the two-party system: they've effectively convinced people that they're stuck with them, and it's why there are regular Republicans voting for Trump. Someone told them that not voting for him was throwing their vote away, and they listened.

<comment><USER117> > The reason the two party system continues to exist is because so many people > insist on there not being other options, despite there literally being other > candidates on the ballot.

No, it's because the mechanics of the voting rules themselves lead to a stable two party system.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)

<comment><USER43> And because people complain about the candidates each election, but never do anything about the system.

<comment><USER117> Voting for a third party presidential candidate does not count as "doing anything".

<comment><USER43> Right, it doesn't count as doing anything _about the electoral system_.

There are ways to do things about the electoral system, both within the parameters of partisan politics and outside of them (at least, in the latter case, in the states with direct citizen initiative.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER118> The answer was written months ago: [https://twitter.com/leyawn/status/747424519887925249](https://twitter.com/leyawn/status/747424519887925249)

</comment><comment><USER11> Sam, do you have any comment on this video?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&t=9m35s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&t=9m35s)

</comment><comment><USER119> > I don't understand how 43% of the country supports Trump. But I'd like to > find out

So, have you not sat down with Thiel and asked him why he supports Trump? If so, what were his reasons.

</comment><comment><USER120> By the way it seems like both presidential candidates' main selling point is is that they are not the other candidate. Really not how things should be.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'd never heard the phrase "crazy pills" before but I've read it three times in this one topic, from three different posters. Hmmm.

</comment><comment><USER103> It seems like the list of things for which people want you to lose your job or business has experienced rampant growth

</comment><comment><USER121> > _I don't understand how 43% of the country supports Trump._

Didn't Clinton "explain" that a few weeks back?

</comment><comment><USER122> Would YC keep Thiel if Trump were running as an independent polling at 10%?

</comment><comment><USER123> I'm happy to take 'yes' for an answer.

On some glorious day, notorious vampire Peter Thiel will be hoisted by his own petard, find himself stranded in the sunlight, and turn into a column of ash.

In the meantime, this was an appropriate stance to take.

</comment><comment><USER87> Sam, could you add a paragraph or two with critiques of HRC that you acknowledge but which don't change your voting rationale?

</comment><comment><USER124>
        > (of course, if Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator)

This is the difference, in my book, between casting a ballot and writing a big check. Casting a ballot is what you have the right to do privately, without judgement from the world. When you write a check (especially one of the 7-figure variety), and amplify the message, you bear far more responsibility than a voter.

One of the best ways to fix our broken campaign finance system would be to hold asshats like Thiel responsible for what their dollars are funding.

<comment><USER55> How about holding people like Clinton responsible for where their funding comes from?

<comment><USER124> Sure (and to some extent, Obama did it in '08, and Bernie did it this year). It's 100% reasonable to run a campaign on a message of "My opponent is funded by $BANK and $PHARMA and whatnot. I'm funding this out of my own pocket / I'm funded by small-dollar donors / My entire staff is living off of ramen".

Does it single-handedly win an election? Probably not. Does it win some # of votes? Most certainly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER125> > I don't understand how 43% of the country supports Trump.

I don't understand how 43+% of the country supports Hillary. A lot of what Trump says makes sense to me - questioning why the US military is involved all over the world, questioning TPP etc. Hillary is more militaristic, historically more pro-TPP etc.

It seems more sensible to get tough on people illegally crossing our border than to get tough secretly bombing Syria as she suggests in Wikileaks e-mails. She's picking a fight, he is not.

Also, 43% of people don't fully support Trump. Some see him as the lesser of two evils. They may not like aspects of his personality or policies, but they prefer it to the alternative. The congress that will be elected will more accurately reflect how Americans think, with Trump and Clinton the choice is binary.

I don't support Trump, mainly because I think he would increase tensions between Latinos and non-Latinos in the US. However I also don't like Hillary's desire for military adventurism, how she leaned towards TPP etc. before polls quieted that down etc.

Trump is not the creation of yahoos from rural Indiana. He is the creation of the museum and concert hall sponsoring Koch brothers, whether their calculations include funding him or not. He is the creation of one of our media oligopolies, News Corp. He's the creation of neutered government regulators which allow scams like Trump University to exist.

Rural white workers voted for FDR, Truman, LBJ, Carter and Clinton. They haven't changed, it's the Democratic party which changed. Soros and company have destroyed the decentralized, grassroots Democratic machine and replaced it by a centralized, technocratic, machine learning targeting party focused on fundraising, not voters, and the interests of wealthy and upper middle class urban liberals.

From 1932 to 1996, West Virginia was a fairly reliable voter for the Democrats. Overwhelmingly white, poor and working class and rural. The Democratic leadership started writing them off, and the Republicans courted them, and now they vote Republican. Why do you think Trump and Pence drop mentions of supporting coal?

</comment><comment><USER126> One thing the author seems do not understand is that people could be non- racist but also refuse their own country be occupied by more and more illegal immigrants and people of different religion. They do not hate those people, but they just do not want this country to be taken over by a group of people very different from themselves. Is this OK to the author?

<comment><USER127> the part about "people of different religions" violates the 1st amendment to the constitution.

<comment><USER126> I was not talking about making laws, I was talking about people's feeling. Maybe you are right, even if the country is taking over by more and more Muslims, and Christians slowly become minority and they cannot legally do anything about it and should just swallow it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER128> I am voting for Donald Trump.

I have weighed the issues in reference to the interests of myself, my family, my community, and my country. As an independent, I kept seeing the same pattern: people on the right are open to discussing issues, people on the left want to alienate me and act hostile and throw around pejoratives without providing substantive evidence. That's honestly enough for me.

But here's the real kicker - it is going to take an outsider to deal with corruption. This was the tipping point for me: [https://i.sli.mg/jozAB1.jpg](https://i.sli.mg/jozAB1.jpg)

<comment><USER129> That's what tipped it for me too. We have to fix corruption first because so much else depends on it. I just don't know when the next time we'll see an outsider get this far, and while there's plenty I disagree w/ him on, I'm willing to risk it can be corrected later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER130> This has no place on HN.

<comment><USER55> There was a post the other day on the front page about how someone's wife got offended on a subway.

This site has been shit for a while. Every now and then I pick up some new tech, but it is mostly news about SV housing market and self important "technologists" stroking their ego.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> FLAGGING FOR POLITICAL CONTENT

(not because Trump but because the Thiel NY Times story was so mercilessly flagged)

<comment><USER131> Here's the thing about HN - when it's political content that isn't palatable with the HN echo chamber, you get flagged. Else, you're a hero.

Reminds me of the song "Orgasmatron" \- "Hypocrisy made paramount, Paranoia the law."

</comment></comment><comment><USER128> > I don't understand how 43% of the country supports Trump.

Then you're really not gonna understand how he will win by a large margin.

Here are the facts: people don't want to vote for Hillary. Trump supporters are extremely passionate. Consider the following online metrics:

Facebook likes: Trump: 12.17M Clinton: 4.39M

Recent Live Stream Videos (Oct 14): Trump: 135K likes, 18K shares, 1.5M views Clinton: 9K likes, <1K shares, 121K views

Average Views Per Live Stream: Trump: 160K Clinton: 400 (5000% more views for Trump)

Instagram Followers: Trump: 6.2M Clinton: 0.8M

Reddit Subscribers (to their main subreddits): Trump: 230K Clinton: 21K

"Do you plan on voting Hillary Clinton for President in 2016" 84% NO Source: MSNBC ([http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll- hillary-2016](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-hillary-2016))

EVEN WITH Clinton's "Correct The Record" online (and PAID) team of internet jokeys, she can't come close to competing with the passion of Trump supporters online. The key point: you cannot honestly believe that this disparity will not correlate with the popular vote. If you do, you're in denial and your candidate will probably lose. "Oh it's just online raids" \- do you not think these people will be passionate enough to vote, but waste hours of their time for free discussing and liking the other candidate?

One final comment:

> I am endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.

You mean the one that wanted to drone strike Julian Assange?

[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562/phot...](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Trump's said mean things, has different policies than typical liberals, and has had a ton of personal accusations conveniently come up 3 weeks before the presidential election -- after over 30 years in the public eye.

Given how corrupt the democrats are and how they treated Bernie Sanders, how can one trust Clinton and the Dems at all? Many people think Bernie was cheated out of the nomination. And there are more than emails, some interesting studies, to show this as a strong possibility as well:

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0/view?pref=2&pli=1)

</comment><comment><USER132> And I, an everyday young American, will still be voting for Trump.

<comment><USER133> Care to explain why? Let's start the dialog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER131> Castigating/firing people for their opinions is illegal under the constitution. Even if Thiel said the things Trump did, it's _his_ right to free speech, and YC, as an employer, cannot fire him on any constitutional ground.

Disclaimer - before HN goes on a witch hunt, I do find Trump repugnant. But I'll defend his _constitutional_ right to say it.

<comment><USER134> > Castigating/firing people for their opinions is illegal under the > constitution.

Citation Needed.

Edit: Here's a link on the front page of a google search for 'firing people for their opinions is illegal under the constitution' that refutes your claims.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/your-money/speaking- about-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/your-money/speaking-about- politics-can-cost-you-your-job.html)

A private company certainly can fire people for their articulated political views (edit: under the constitution).

<comment><USER131> It's not black and white. Depends on which state you live in. Quoting [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-ballman/can-you-be- fired...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/donna-ballman/can-you-be-fired-for- your_b_9154066.html)

"Activity outside work: Some states and localities prohibit employers for firing or disciplining employees for legal activities outside work. If you're involved in a political campaign and you work in one of these states, you can't be fired for your political activities as long as they are legal activities."

<comment><USER134> Good point. I was just pointing out that the US constitution itself doesn't provide a protection, as the original comment suggested. You're right that states certainly could place additional requirements on businesses. I edited my post to reflect that. Thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER135> This is what leaders do. Great one, Sam

</comment><comment><USER135> Much needed clarification, Sam. You have said it like it is. Trump is dangerous.</comment>