Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Who knew that not paying any taxes, asking your "second amendment people" to finish off your opponent, and using your position of power and authority to sexually assault people could lead to becoming the most powerful person in the free world.

We live in the darkest of times.



Upvoted.

At the same time:

Who knew that:

* cheating against wildly popular Sanders,

* being partly responsible for recent wars,

* have your campaign talking like many of your opponents (and a good number of potential voters) are dumb racists

wouldn't be a surefire way to get elected?

Edit: last bullet, blame it on campaign instead of her personally, also most->many


Maybe you should have picked up a better candidate. Losing against Trump is the real shame here. Hillary was just bad, Trump won by default.


> Maybe you should have picked up a better candidate.

Yeah, believe me, we tried =]. I guess the DNC has stronger safeguards against anti-establishment politicians than the RND.


Here's the thing: Trump would have won by a wider margin if he had a clean tax history and wasn't on tape bragging about groping women. But, if you take away his early, inflammatory statements about (illegal?) Mexican immigrants, I think the net results might be fewer votes, but only because those comments seems to propel his media coverage. Trump was great for ratings, and frankly will continue to be. It's been a rich ride if you're CNN and FOX. But also, I think left-leaning media wanted him to be the candidate, because they though he embodied the "racist Republican" characterization Democrats always had in their playbook. I'm not sure if overt racism was a net vote-getter though.

Speaking of free media coverage... Citizens United, a.k.a unfettered super-pac spending seemed to play no part in this election. I think Clinton and her supporters outspent Trump in every measurable way.


>>"Not paying taxes" He did it legally by exploiting (hacking) the loopholes. But is he responsible for having those loopholes? He is just acting like any other smart human. Just like us humans who found fossil fuels and irresponsibly burn those off.


I agree with your points, but I take issue with this statement:

> We live in the darkest of times

You're posting your individual opinion on an internet forum, accessible only with an internet connection, a computer and electricity, and you did so presumably from a place of warmth and comfort.

I do not think you have any understanding, historically or geographically, of what a dark time to be alive might be.

There were times and there were, and are, places, in our world, where you would have been ostracised, physically abused or even killed for expressing your opinion in this manner.

There was a time when you would not have wasted the last oil in your lamp to pen down some little epistle of your small disappointment at the political goings-on around you.

There are places today where there is no internet, even no electricity. You could have been born as many other people alive today and be in a much worse position than you are in.

You could have been born centuries ago, and may already have been killed in war, or by less civilised people more inclined to scavenging in the absence of a system of government or a reliable network of employers and payment fulfilment.

An orange, hypocritical, potentially bigoted/racist/sexist fatcat and chronic bullshitter has been elected to office. Someone who has no obvious qualification to 'have a finger in the nuclear button' or to preside over an economy that dictates the fortunes of millions of people, domestically and internationally.

Which, ultimately, makes him rather similar to his predecessors. No one is qualified to wield the power he finds himself with now. Very rarely are humans rational, and quite often it is the irrationality of a typical human being that precipitates the humane or emotional choices, while it is often the rational and pragmatic decision to pull the trigger.

Make no mistake: Donald Trump is not the only racist or sexist to sit in the oval office. His predecessors simply did not yell it to the reporters because it would have been unwise one or two decades ago.

Today, it was precisely the aggressive cultivation of mixed press that won him the election through increased exposure of a perceived decisiveness and demur character aligning with the electorate.

Hillary did not evolve, and so she lost. She would have been better for the country—as it appeared to be 24 hours ago—but it's a different country than anybody realised or wanted to realise.

Brexit was only the beginning. But do not mistake a few steps backwards for the 'darkest time' — such a millennial naïveté and sense of entitlement and ignorance is a very clear reflection of a problem in contemporary society that does indeed need to be addressed.

Trump may be a monster, Brexit may be a daft move, but they are realities brought on by real complaints and issues from real people. They don't stop being real people just because they didn't attend college or move from the pit to the office to the video conference—and the fact that they were not able to make the transition from dying industries is proof that there has been an issue in society in need of attention.


I did not vote for either but the wrongdoings of Clinton, most of which aren't just empty claims but actual shady events she was involved in, greatly outweigh Trump's. This election is just an embarrassment no matter how you look at it.


You're delusional. Trump has paid more in taxes than you will make in your entire life. Perhaps not income taxes, but some form or another.

He'd be in jail if he broke the law.


Yes, we all know that the extremely wealthy who break financial laws always see justice and punishment.


>He'd be in jail if he broke the law

Let's see, which should I pick for this particular occasion of encountering this fallacy... we've got the US housing crisis, US war crimes and torture, NSA spying... hmm so many choices.


He made his money within a society. Money is not necessarily adding value (increasing the pie), it is also just shifted around. If his income were distributed more equally between many others who would instead pay taxes, the amount of taxes would be far, far higher.


> He'd be in jail if he broke the law.

Unless he bribes the prosecutor, of course.




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

Search: