Trump - <AUTHOR> http://blog.samaltman.com/trump <comment><USER2> This certainly doesn't match what I've seen. All the people who think Trump is unfit seem perfectly willing to say so. All of the people who support him seem to be completely sincere in their belief that Trump would make a good president. I don't see anyone giving any indication that they think Trump shouldn't be president, but that they're afraid to say so. There is no "charade," as the author puts it.

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

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

<comment><USER3> _What 's scary is that so many people actually want him to win._

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

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

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

<comment><USER4> Imo, its scary because an overt racist is a viable candidate.

<comment><USER5> _" When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor."_ \-- Bernie Sanders

<comment><USER6> Taken in context that quote is not very shocking and certainly wasn't racist. Moreover he clarified his remarks the very next day. Trump's remarks about the judge are racist in any context and he repeated them for several days. It's rather disingenuous to compare this to Trump and suggest that it's even in the same league as what Trump said.

<comment><USER7> I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear an assertion that a white judge had mistreated someone who wasn't white on the basis of the latter's race. There might (or might not) be public debate over whether the assertion was true, but no one would be appalled merely at the claim's having been made. (Indeed, such claims are made daily and have been for many years, yet rarely seem to be regarded as less newsworthy for that.)

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

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

<comment><USER8> Trump decided to use his position as the presumptive presidential nominee of a major political party to interfere in in a civil suit related to his personal business interests. That alone makes me wonder if he would abuse the power of his office should we win the election. That he did so by invoking the judge's race made him look desperate and unable to control his own temper.

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

<comment><USER9> That is still peanuts compare to the other and only female presidential candidate. Just google how bad she abused her power all the way back in decades. Using that as benchmark, Trump looks damn honest and worthy of POTUS and MAGA. He has my vote (together with almost few hundreds of my family and friends votes in Nov). It is always the choice of lesser of 2 evils and economy. Trump proved with his billions that he can do it when it comes to money. Though I don't know how evil he is, I do know the other candidate is on par with Dick if not greater. Don't get misdirected by the media and headlines. Do your own research and see the facts unedited for yourself to form your own opinion.

<comment><USER10> Do you consider [http://www.politifact.com](http://www.politifact.com) a credible source?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Trump's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without > precedent among major presidential nominees. He has said that a judge of > Mexican descent couldn't treat him fairly because of his heritage

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

> we should ban Muslims from entering the country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<comment><USER12> > > He has said that a judge of Mexican descent couldn't treat him fairly > because of his heritage

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

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

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

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

<comment><USER13> > Reducing people's behavior to something fueled by ethnicity is racism.

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

> Freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right.

Most rights are suspended at the border anyways.

<comment><USER12> > So when people say "white people are often racist", that's racism?

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

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

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

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

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

I see what you did there. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Disappointed to see Sam repeat things that are plainly false. Everyone says that Trump says such horrible things, but why is it that so often those same people have to misquote him to make it seem horrible?

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

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

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

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

<comment><USER15> Given that many believe Trump to be literally Hitler, bending the facts is a small price to pay to stop him.

<comment><USER16> Probably nobody who is against Trump is bending any facts to try to stop him. The only one who has no respect for reality is Trump himself.

<comment><USER7> > Probably nobody who is against [a presidential candidate] is bending any > facts to try to stop [him/her]

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

<comment><USER16> If Trump were any less of a lunatic I would say that people are definitely bending the truth around him. But he supplies so much fuel for his opponents there's really no need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The only things Trump is right about are the exact same things that every politician says:

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

It's demagoguery 101.

<comment><USER18> I would question the assumption that every politician says PC is something negative that we have too much of. Certainly I'd have hard time finding many left-wing politicians saying that.

<comment><USER10> For that you get people like Bill Maher...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For the love of 100 million people dead in Europe in a short span of 32 years. Please stop comparing every other 'Native Populist' to Hitler, Mussolini etc. The politics may look similar, yes, there is a racial undertone to it, but seriously, argue the facts not fiction. Comparing Trump to Hitler is intersection of intellectual overreach and laziness.

<comment><USER20> Disagree.

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

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

<comment><USER21> Keep in mind, though, that not everybody who sounded like late 1920s Hitler turned into 1940s Hitler. (Can't think of any counterexamples off the top of my head, but I suspect there are more who didn't than more who did.)

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

<comment><USER20> The safety engineering analogy is exactly it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's been very interesting to follow this election cycle along with Sam Harris' podcasts. Would strongly recommend it, he's spoken in depth and very eloquently about the Trump situation: [https://www.samharris.org/podcast](https://www.samharris.org/podcast) .

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

</comment><comment><USER23> Terry Tao recently did a post on the trump situation:

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

It is time to get serious.

<comment><USER24> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11843318](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11843318)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Terrible Godwin flamebait. Not disappointed, merely amused and surprised. If you can not make a statement about a politician without invoking Hitler and dictatorship, you should really reconsider speaking up.

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

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

This is fighting fire with fire.

<comment><USER26> I don't understand this "You called me nazi-like so your arguments are invalid" argument. Clearly, in some situations the comparison is apt. Situations in which a potential leader is using the fear of the "other" to gain power is textbook Nazi and/or fascist behavior.

<comment><USER27> > Situations in which a potential leader is using the fear of the "other" to > gain power is textbook Nazi and/or fascist behavior.

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

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

<comment><USER26> The 'otherness' in this regard is specifically with respect to religion/race/nationality, making the Nazi comparison even more apt.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > But Trump is wrong about the more important part: how to fix these problems. > Many of his proposals, such as they are, are so wrong they're difficult to > even respond to.

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

<comment><USER26> P.J O'Rourke is the best. Its sad more conservatives don't listen to proud conservative voices like him. As an avowed progressive, I would gladly talk about a compromise with him. Also, he's hilarious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> While I think Trump is a bad choice, I think comparing him to Hitler is overzealous and irresponsible. There are no doubt similarities between the two but Hitler wrote an entire book about the "Jewish Peril" and how it was destroying society and needed to be dealt with. It was clear that Hitler had an agenda that was anti-semetic, and the charisma/ability to execute on it. Trump is a racist and a bigot, but he is far from someone that would be able to implement a "Final Solution". By drawing the comparisons to Hitler, we oversell Trump and what he is and at the same time bring Hitler and his actions to a lower level which they never be at. We should sell Trump for what he is: someone who uses the racism and ignorance of the American people to cover up the fact that he has no idea what he is doing.

<comment><USER30> Among the _very_ few specific policy proposals Trump has put forward, these are the most prominent:

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

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

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

<comment><USER31> Although I don't want to turn this into oppression olympics, and at the risk of getting downvoted heavily, I want to point out that mass deportation of Hispanics wouldn't compare against hundreds of years of slavery of African Americans, forced mass migration and slaughter of Native Americans and the placing Japanese Americans in internment camps.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Something that's becoming common (and predates trump) is to say "I don't want to get political, but issue <x> is a matter of morals and there is no room for debate"

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

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

</comment><comment><USER33> Oh how I am disparaged by Sam Altmans words. Not because they are wrong, but because they seem naive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<comment><USER34> Illegal immigration from Mexico is around net zero. Why should we focus on illegal immigrants when there are so many major issues to solve?

<comment><USER33> Simply not true.

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

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

<comment><USER13> Your math is wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Tangential sidenote, Burke never said that.

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

</comment><comment><USER35> Finally someone speaking up.

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

<comment><USER2> I don't think he really has anything to lose. The government isn't going to do anything to him, even if Trump wins. And among his peers, I'm sure that criticizing Trump as being unfit for office is about as controversial as insulting the taste of Bud Light.

<comment><USER35> I didn't mean it that sense. People in the US tend to always bring a person's employer into the picture whenever they disagree with said person's opinion. So his public opinion can affect ycombinator.

<comment><USER2> The tech community as a whole is heavily anti-Trump, so this will only help his image there.

<comment><USER35> Understandable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > _we are a nation of immigrants, and we know that immigrants built this > country_

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

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

</comment><comment><USER37> I am no Trump fan, but I noticed a couple of points that might be misguided or incomplete:

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

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

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

\-- immigrants __and slaves __built this country

<comment><USER10> 1\. I think there's ample evidence Trump is a pretty unusual major party candidate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > I take some risk by writing this

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

</comment><comment><USER38> This year's race for president can be summed up easily by two well-known quotes (one in Sam's essay):

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

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

<comment><USER39> funny thing, the Burke one seems to be a misquote

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

<comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure the Einstein one is as well.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I think the real danger is that Trump pivots to the middle for the general election, and dupes moderate republicans into supporting him. Hitler also did this (i.e. started out very radical in the 30s, shifted to the middle to gain mass appeal, and then consolidated his power once in office).

</comment><comment><USER41> It's funny how candidates can just state problems to get people excited (e.g. Bring jobs back to America, We're getting screwed by the system, Break up the banks, etc.), and yet most people care so little about the solutions.

<comment><USER42> Because problems are easy; even Altman and Trump can agree on the problems. It's also easy to look backwards -- we can see what the problems are and how they were caused but to look forward is to look into the unknown and unknowable.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Lets start with a very bad assumption that people mostly make rational choices and want good things to happen to themselves and their country fellows.

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

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

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

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

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

</comment><comment><USER44> Before Hitler was around I wonder, who was used as the model of living evil.

<comment><USER45> The British used Napoleon, I think (source newspaper cartoons from the 1700's and 1800's). Supposedly, to get them to eat quickly or to go to bed, they would frighten children by telling them that Napoleon would get them if they didn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Both sides pointing fingers that the other is living in a reality distortion field.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<comment><USER47> To be fair you first link on point 3 is about the IRS having a new class of legal tax entity to regulate and not enough time or money to check all applications. So, they admittedly focused on anti-tax groups assuming they would be most likely to be in violation of tax code. Those groups just happened to be mostly conservative groups, and the IRS happened to be right, they caught a ton of them breaking the rules.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> While I agree with the sentiment of the post, I was surprised by some of the examples provided, because they are what the press said and not what Trump said. With that said, it's surprising what choices for President the most powerful country in the world has.

</comment><comment><USER49> I'm a little shocked at how many Trump supporters are in this thread. Is Trump popular in the startup scene?

<comment><USER50> The startup scene is primarily young, white and male. It isn't all that surprising that Trump has support among the startup scene. American tech workers are also particularly vulnerable to outsourcing and have suffered from the H1B program.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am no fan of Trump (in fact, I think selecting Trump is a huge problem for Republican party and he's one of the worst candidates the GOP had lately), but the post seems to be repeatedly confusing actual Trump with media myth of Trump (not uncommon among both supporters and detractors, and somewhat excusable given how much media manipulation Trump engages in).

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

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

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

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

<comment><USER10> I agree with your "factual" statements about Trump, but keep in mind, the media is trying to hold him accountable not just for what he said, but for what he meant to say. Rubio didnt say Trump had a small penis, he just implied it. Saying Rubio never actually said that, in my view, is more dishonest than missquoting him with actually saying it. Trump, being a presumptive nominee has a really big megaphone. He should be able to convey a very clear message. When he says, Obama has something else going on, the media is right to press, so what exactly are you saying? And Trumps response is: people should fill in the blanks, I don't know. In other words, I agree politicians lie and exaggerate, and sometimes say things they don't mean to say, but they correct the message, move on. Trump doesn't, he doubles down. He cites completely crazy and outrageous conspiracy theories, again, correctly saying, "I heard" or "some people think"... that is complete bs. I hate Ted Cruz, yet I was outraged when he was, again, factually just saying a tabloid run a story claiming Ted's dad was involved in the JFK assassination. "I'm not saying he was involved, but some people think so, and nobody talks about it". Factually correct, yet completely insane coming from a presidential candidate.

<comment><USER18> > Rubio didnt say Trump had a small penis, he just implied it

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

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

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

> Trump doesn't, he doubles down.

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

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> If there were a worthwhile contender, then perhaps I'd consider voting. As it is, I don't see how casting a vote for Johnson does anything more than legitimize the election and thereby our totalitarian democracy. And that's exactly what Trump and his rhetoric are - inevitable products of late-game democracy.

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

<comment><USER21> Voting for Johnson (or any third-party candidate) is a way of telling both major parties that they messed up in choosing their candidates. It's a message worth sending.

<comment><USER51> Except the stats trumpeted are "Percent for Demlican", "Percent for Repubocrat", and "Voter turnout". Increasing that third number just shows support for the state religion of totalitarian democracy.

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

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

<comment><USER52> Do you have any arguments or just name calling?

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

<comment><USER51> There were several arguments in my above comment, but I understand that questioning one's own assumptions is tough.

<comment><USER21> Apparently so...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> _Trump 's casual racism, misogyny, and conspiracy theories are without precedent among major presidential nominees._

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

<comment><USER54> "Casual" being the operative term here. Nixon et al had plenty to say behind closed doors that at least for the last generation or two, would not be tolerated by the decent voting public from a mainstream candidate with any hope of being elected. Trump is not only saying these things in public, on the record, but he's campaigning on them. He's a _leader_ in misogyny and bigotry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> So we flag posts that are political opinion pieces but as soon as Sam Altman does it we're free to hit the front page and keep it up in perpetuity?

<comment><USER56> This fell off the front page in less than half an hour despite getting > 200 votes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Oh for fuck sake. Not another smart person who links Trump to Hitler. PG spends a third of his twitter feed making that comparison, it is getting tiresome. Back when Bush was president we (meaning the leftist groups I read) used to assume Bush would turn the US into a concentration camp, would institute military law, etc. We were certain that he wouldn't give up power to a black guy and just leave the White House peacefully. Death certain. Guess what? We were wrong.

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

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

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

<comment><USER56> "but what is Clintons alternative?"

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

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

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> What's the point of writing this article now, after all of the legitimate candidates have fallen? What do you want us to do?

<comment><USER59> If 'you' includes us non-Americans who are liable to be affected by US government policies: my suggestion would be to vote Libertarian. Sure, the Libertarian candidate won't win this election, but that's not the point. It's about what message you are sending, what incentives you are conveying, to both current and future politicians.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> > At least Trump is willing to talk about the fact that the US is not on an > acceptable growth trajectory. The Big Truth in Trump's slogan is "Again"—we > do need a fundamental change to get back to where we were. Clinton's > dangerously bad Big Lie is that there's no problem here at all.

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

</comment><comment><USER7> Silicon Valley couldn't do a better job endorsing Trump if he paid them for it. (Not that they'd need him to. But he wouldn't need to, either! Unless there's some money changing hands that Mr. Altman didn't disclose, this blog post got written for free.)

</comment><comment><USER47> >we're drowning in political correctness I'm always curious when people say this, what do they actually mean? Is there a specific thing happening that I'm not aware of here? In all seriousness, what is Sam referring to here?

<comment><USER60> Silencing other points of view. Safe spaces. Refusing to call radical Islam what it is.

Just a few examples.

<comment><USER47> Oh please, demagogue of every stripe try to silence dissenting views. And you're really upset about safe spaces? Who cares if kids at liberal arts colleges want to shelter themselves from whatever bothers them about the world, they're hardly hurting anyone. And "radical Islam" vs. whatever else you want to call someone else's world view is really just a name. With respect to "radical Islam", it hardly tells you anything if you use the term. Are you talking about Salafism, Jihadist-Salafism, Wahhabism, various religiously tinged forms of Arab Nationalism, etc. They're all very different things and when you call them all "radicalism" you risk wiping away important nuances that inform better decision making.

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

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

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

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Thanks for a thought provoking post, Sam. It's good to challenge one's beliefs regularly.

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

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

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

</comment><comment><USER62> The conditions that has enabled a Trump like persona's, won't go away… show up to a ballot booth as many times as you want… see how well that worked for greeks, and soon the british. Maybe a sprinkle of metadata drone strikes within the continental US might fix things… only to be expected eventually after what delightful gifts we giveth others abroad and at home these past hundreds of years, but lets not suggest that no matter who wins this election, we will only see more of what we have seen so far, and as we all know, arms manufactures in dire times will sell to all parties :P

</comment><comment><USER63> Thank you for writing this. So many want to tiptoe around and ignore this election, like they've always done before, and that may be the worst mistake of all in this situation.

</comment><comment><USER24> > To anyone familiar with the history of Germany in the 1930s, it's chilling > to watch Trump in action. [...] Demagogic hate-mongers lead down terrible > paths. It would be particularly embarrassing for us to fall for this—we are > a nation of immigrants, and we know that immigrants built this country (and > Trump, of course, is the grandson of immigrants and married to an > immigrant).

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

<comment><USER64> Only technically. Austria was historically always seen as part of the German nation, just not part of Germany-the-country for purely political reasons – first the Habsburgs didn't want to subjugate themselves to the Prussian upstarts, and when Austria-Hungary fell apart, the Entente forbade Austria to join Germany, but couldn't prevent the two from closely cooperating, nor the German population from accepting Austrians. So nobody saw him as a migrant.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Why isn't this submission [flagged], whereas every /non-anti-Trump/ political submission gets flagged here within few minutes?

</comment><comment><USER66> Good post, Sam. It's much better that we break down the issues at hand and move beyond the name=good/bad binary discussion.

</comment><comment><USER67> Sam, what do you think about YC companies whose founders support trump? Or on the other side Apple not supporting GOP convention?

</comment><comment><USER40> It will be interesting to look back on the comments of some Trump supporters here in 30 years (assuming HN is still around). I suspect history will paint them in a similar light to folks like George Wallace, who presented calm and calculated arguments in support of segregation.

</comment><comment><USER68> How could anyone know what Trump stands for? It seems to change with every speech. He's a crude opportunist embarrassing our country every day.

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

</comment><comment><USER52> I still wonder if any large tech companies (Google, Apple, etc) will endorse against Trump before November. They did on Prop 8, and Trump will similarly have an immediate negative impact on many of their employees.

<comment><USER17> Apple has already abandoned the RNC [1]. I'm disappointed that no other large companies have so far.

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

<comment><USER69> Several large companies have sharply withdrawn support from the RNC without abandoning it completely. Microsoft used to make monetary donations to them every election cycle, this year they are donating technical support to the convention but no money. YMMV on whether that's good/bad/enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I just wanted to mention "climate change" as my personal biggest issue of this election, and I'm a bit surprised to not see it mentioned more often. Trump takes a radical position thinking that "climate change" is a Chinese conspiracy. How does smart Trump supporters even "argue" for that position? I understand we can debate the extend of actions immediately required, or many other things, but this anti-intellectual position, makes it impossible to have any sane conversation on the topic. This is why I also think anti- intellectualism is the worst thing that can happen to a democracy.

</comment><comment><USER70> "Being right about something" is a basic prerequisite to being a successful demagogue

</comment><comment><USER71> > And without it, we'll lose our position as the most powerful country in the > world.

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

<comment><USER50> As an American, I care much more about the fate of America than I do about the fate of Europe. People are tribal animals.

<comment><USER71> Perhaps, or maybe people were* tribal animals, just as they were once cavemen.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> At

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

Sam Altman posted

 _TRIUMPH OF EVIL_

about D. Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> He is irresponsible in the way dictators are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump said:

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

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

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

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

"I'm building a wall. It's an inherent conflict of interest," Mr. Trump said.

At

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</comment><comment><USER73> _He 's right that we're drowning in political correctness..._

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

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

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

<comment><USER74> We understand that those are intwined in Trump's head. That's an expected consequence of his general lake of nuance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I thought "pure politics" posts weren't allowed/were discouraged on HN?

>dang 47 days ago

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

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

<comment><USER75> > _Such posts always get heavily flagged_

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

<comment><USER76> It's now off the front page.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's hard in this area not to say anything controversial.

I agree there is no plan.

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

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

</comment><comment><USER16> Admire that you felt the need to say something Sam, but unfortunately I don't think anything productive is going to come from it.

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

</comment><comment><USER77> Let's start with you guys Sam, stop taking money from Peter Thiel who's a Trump delegate.

</comment><comment><USER60> I feel like Sam really misrepresented Trump's views, but that's expected from someone who's opposed to him.

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

<comment><USER10> Isolationism and a trade war with Mexico and China will not create more jobs. A bravado leader will also likely not lead to a more stable (read: secure) world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> If Colin Powell were to run on an independent ticket, who would the best running mate for him?

<comment><USER78> He led us in to a war on BS. He has no chance and no base.

<comment><USER2> Yes, pretty much the worst of both worlds there. The people who loved Bush will hate him for speaking out afterwards, and the people who hated Bush will hate him for being spineless and not speaking out when it actually might have mattered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Another liberal who hasnt understand Trump's appeal in the slightest. How you can put "political correctness is bad" and then say literally 2 sentences after that "he is a racist and a misogynist" I mean the level of brainwashing is amazing.

<comment><USER20> Hmm, okay. Continuing down this line of discussion, can you share with us some details on Trump's proposed solutions for the various economic and social problems we face?

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> With Trump already an also-ran in November, who may even have to run as an independent, it doesn't take much courage to write this now. It just became politically correct to slam Trump in public. If you wait too long, he'll have dropped out already! "Daddy, what did _you_ do in the Great War?"

</comment><comment><USER81> #feelingit

<comment><USER81> Being positive lol, why the downvotes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Demagogic hate-monger seems a little strong.

<comment><USER82> demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument

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

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

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

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

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

<comment><USER83> Are there any non-demagogue politicians, then? Successful ones, I mean.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> I can't vote for Trump or Clinton. I'm planning on writing in Bernie Sanders, but I wonder if I should write in Bernard Sanders instead. Not that my vote will count, but does anyone know if it matters which form of his name I use?</comment>


Ask HN: hacker pets - <AUTHOR>

What pets do you guys have/want? Some people like pet rocks, I'm thinking a sloth - http://vimeo.com/11712103<p>Any other suggestions? <comment><USER2> Isn't the sloth an endangered species ?

</comment><comment><USER3> are hacker pets different to any other kind of pets?</comment>