[thght]

Shame on you for blaming Y Combinator. If it was 1.25 million for Clinton you would probably praise Y Combinator, no? This feels more like a clash between your personal political preferences and Mr Thiels's. You are just blaming Y Combinator to inflate this story, trying to get more people on the Clinton side. Shame on you!

[Upvoter33]

Why do people keep making this false equivalence between the two options? One candidate has repeatedly taken racist and sexist stances, as well as demeaned those who are handicapped (and honestly, the list goes on and on). If people don't take a stand against this type of thing, it is a tacit acceptance.

[nugget]

Many very smart, educated, and informed people I know believe that Hillary has effectively monetized public service/political influence and is the most corrupt major party nominee to run for the Presidency in modern history. If people don't take a stand against that type of thing, isn't that tacit acceptance as well? Pick your poison, so to speak. Hillary's supporters will argue that she's not corrupt and has been investigated and cleared of all charges, just as Trump's supporters will argue that he has a 40 year history of helping women and minorities shatter glass ceilings in the construction industry, and therefore is likely not a racist or a misogynist, rather just an ''equal opportunity asshole''. I think this election cycle is much more about voting against the candidate you hate, than for the candidate you love, which should make election day all the more exciting since the normal polling and turnout models could be totally off the mark.

[beachstartup]

i agree, and believe many trump voters will privately and reluctantly vote for him, and publicly say they voted for someone else for this very reason.

i also believe many others will vote for trump simply to push the country toward a breakup of the 2-party system into a 3 or 4-party system. they very well could have voted for bernie if that were an option.

[protomyth]

I was told in another thread that was "Shy Tory Factor"[1]. I get the feeling polling is going to need to really look at what they do since they got Brexit and 2014 US wrong.

1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977911

[chourobin]

In 30 years of public life, there hasn't been a single shred of evidence to back up that claim. These people you know are sadly misinformed.

[hellbanner]

So Clinton Cash is 0% truth then? https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Busi...

[Bartweiss]

I think the point is that in context, that doesn't matter. If everyone believed that, Hillary would be polling at 70%.

Starting an argument from "this is ok because we're right and they're wrong" means that you have to expect the other side to use the exact same argument. I'd rather not see us go down the road of firing people for supporting popular candidates, if only because everyone can do it.

[rfrank]

"hasn't been a single shred."

http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf

[zimpenfish]

Worth pointing out that GAI was co-founded by a STEPHEN K. BANNON which, coincidentally, is the same STEPHEN K. BANNON that runs Breitbart and is currently the campaign chairman for DONALD J. TRUMP.

Possibly not the most unbiased of sources, I think.

[rfrank]

Do you have an actual comment on the content of the report, or just low level FUD about its source?

This comment is actually pretty hilarious given the fact that Teneo Holdings, mentioned in the report, was founded by ex Bill Clinton staffers, and had Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as 2 of it's original 3 advisors. Huma Abedin is presently on the Teneo payroll.

If those sorts of ties between people are problematic to you, then you must ABSOLUTELY HATE the Clintons, because the same type of arrangement is how literally everyone close to them got there.

[anExcitedBeast]

Every political research product is funded by someone with an agenda. GAI, Brookings, Cato, Heritage, take your pick.

Funding should always be considered, but is not cause to discount otherwise valid methodologies and findings.

[psyc]

I think you must mean Unassailable Proof. There's certainly plenty of Bayesian evidence.

[beachstartup]

> hasn't been single shred of evidence to back up that claim

saying stuff like this doesn't help your cause. it really, really doesn't.

[mabbo]

A large proportion of Trump supporters are not for Donald Trump the human being and all the things he's done. They're for the Republican party being in power; they're against Clinton for her faults (real or imagined); they're for someone who isn't a mainstream candidate being in charge for once. There's all kinds of reasons to support the GOP Presidential candidate that many people may see as more important than the insane, racist, sexist things Trump has said and done.

(I say this as a left-leaning guy by Canadian standards. Believe me, I'm terrified you guys might actually elect that monster.)

[tptacek]

You're right: many people are supporting the top of the GOP ticket out of loyalty to the GOP, or because they're pro-life. They don't support Donald Trump.

But Thiel does. We know this, because Thiel got up on stage at the Republican National Convention, in a nationally televised speech, and proclaimed to the nation that Donald Trump was the best candidate in the race --- and the only "honest" one. Thiel's support for Trump is not in question.

[mabbo]

... touché...

[bengale]

Right, but a large portion of supporters are not donating over a million dollars. I'd expect that person to be for Donald Trump, rather than some vague wish for republican values.

[nugget]

I've traditionally associated more with Republicans than Democrats. Like many others around here, I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal. The Republican party's stance on social issues, especially marriage equality and lack of tolerance in general, has been chronically infuriating to me. I believe Thiel was the first openly gay convention speaker in the history of the Republican party. He received a standing ovation. That was a major moment that went unnoticed by many. But not by me. Consider for a moment that there may be more going on here than meets the eye. Thiel may be quietly doing more to move many old school rank-and-file Republicans out of the past and into the future than anyone else this cycle, and that's a positive development for the entire country.

[Perceval]

There was that moment with Theil's speech, but there was also the moment in Trump's acceptance speech where he said that we were going to protect the lives of all LGBTQ Americans, and he got a big round of applause from the crowd, and then he added, “And I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you.” It was a pretty amazing moment.

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/07/22/trump-makes-histo...

[joshcohen]

Why?

[Bartweiss]

This is serious question-begging, though.

Most of Trump's supporters don't accept that he's racist, or generally sexist, or the other charges being made. The ones I've talked to largely believe that he's just rude, and sometimes directs that through traits like race, gender, and disability. On policy, they would say that opposing things like illegal immigration isn't actually racism.

Laugh at that if you want, say they're stupid, but realize they're saying the exact same thing about you and the claim that Hillary is dangerously corrupt. "No she isn't, it's just..." - same structure.

My point is that you can't rescue a stance of "fire Trump supporters" by saying he's the bad guy. If that were consensus reality, the election would be over.

So you're absolutely opening the door to retribution from people who think the same way in reverse. That's exactly why the value of having a norm against punishing people for holding popular opinions, no matter how divisive.

[DoofusOfDeath]

> Most of Trump's supporters don't accept that he's racist, or generally sexist, or the other charges being made.

I wonder if we have enough evidence to reach that conclusion? Respectfully, I'm not sure you've talked to enough supporters to generalize about the whole group.

Speaking only for myself, if I end up voting for one of those two, it will be for Trump. I accept the strong possibility that every one of the negative personality traits he's shown are genuine.

I think in policy matters he's basically a wildcard. But I find Clinton so undesirable as a candidate that I would prefer a wildcard.

Does this mean I approve in any way of Trump's apparent personal characteristics? Absolutely not.

[Bartweiss]

This is a reasonable point.

I should probably have said "don't accept that he's racist or sexist in a way that precludes voting for him". The claim I meant to make is that most of his supporters are not voting for him because they feel that racism and sexism are good. That claim, I think, carries no matter what the breakdown between "he doesn't mean it", "he's racist but I'm not", and "he means it but I don't think it's racist". Certainly, I've seen all three assertions.

My broader point was simply that "but Trump is worse, false equivalence" is absurdly circular reasoning. There are plenty of people (yourself included?) who could make the same charge against Clinton.

For myself, I wouldn't want to be accused of 'tacit acceptance' of the stances of any of the candidates. Everyone running (third parties included) has at least one view or policy that I find abhorrent, so I get personally uncomfortable about the idea that voting for someone means accepting their stances.

[gdilla]

Yes we do. Grab em in the pussy = sexist attitude. Nationwide stop and frisk in the inner cities = racist. Central Park 5 fiasco - also racist. Denying black people housing in the 70s - racist too!

[gdilla]

Just look up his behavior on the Central Park 5 (and he still thinks they're guilty, even after all the evidence). Also his nationwide stop-and-frisk desires. None of that has to do with illegal immigration and it's very racist.

[macspoofing]

> One candidate has repeatedly taken racist and sexist stances

I dislike Trump immensely, but this narrative that this guy is OBVIOUSLY a racist, homophobe, a misogynist whatever, is not good for your country. Every election the DNC dog-whistles that the GOP candidate is all those things in order to discredit their opposition. For example, Romney was a flake but generally a decent guy and yet he was spun as a misogynist!! He's not a misogynist. Trump is a narcissist and a huckster, but he's not a racist. I'm not even sure he's a misogynist either.

You cannot disparage your opposition like that. It's unproductive because it entrenches supporters in their views and even radicalizes them. You're basically alienating 100 million people from mainstream politics - do you really really want to do that?

Stick to the issues.

[saiya-jin]

This election is generally perceived as choice between 2 bad persons, 2 bad leaders, or choosing lesser evil if you prefer.

Some people have higher preference of political correctness, smooth behavior and strong, likable speeches. Some feel bad/desperate enough to don't give a f__k about this and rather want to see a change in current not-so-bright-for-them situation. This kind of situation happens very often, all around the globe where you have elections.

Personally, choosing between spoiled amoral brat who didn't achieve much without daddy's cash and influence, and Clinton which is arrogant lawyer (where is the common lawyer hate when it matters?) apparently too deep in corporate pockets to ever see or solve anything real... well, I guess I would just pick a candidate that doesn't have a chance.

luckily not US citizen, so this is just outside view

[grey-area]

Taking a stand against those sexist and racist stances (which several prominent members of YC have individually very strongly) does not preclude also taking a stand against attempts to ostracise and vilify anyone who supports the republican candidate. Should the US take citizenship away from the 40% of citizens who would vote for Trump because they are supporting someone beyond the pale?

Your position undermines the very democracy it purports to defend.

[joshcohen]

One candidate has repeatedly been dishonest and suspected of corruption while in government previously (and honestly, the list goes on and on). If people don't take a stand against this type of thing, it is a tacit acceptance.

No it is not tacit acceptance. People weigh pros and cons of each candidate and make a choice. No donation or endorsement implies 100% allegiance, only an overall preference. I'm sure Thiel thinks Trump is fairly idiotic. "But he's a sexist" doesn't change anything even if it were true.

Anyone is free to shun people for their publicly stated political stance but any particular policies or personal attributes of Trump or anyone are not in a special category that is shun-worthy.

[SapphireSun]

It's worse than that. Trump is existentially dangerous for the following reasons:

1) Questioning the legitimacy of the electoral process without evidence. This could turn the US into a powder keg if he keeps it up past election day.

2) Rejecting nuclear non-proliferation and the stability of international alliances, paired with a volatile and immature temperament, could lead to the nuclear clock ticking to midnight.

3) Proposing the blacklist people based solely on a religious test. I'm not religious, but if there was one thing I learned in Hebrew school, is that we must never again allow this.

4) Obliquely threatening his political opponent with violence and directly threatening to jail his political opponent. Does this sound like a candidate from a first world country?

[obj-g]

Because obviously not everyone sees it the way you do?

[crdoconnor]

I wouldn't support Trump but Hillary's fealty to Wall Street and die-hard neoliberalism ("hemispheric FTA, etc.") affects hundreds of millions of people whereas whomever Trump groped affected maybe 50 people.

And no, turning it into a symbolic issue in a Presidential election isn't going to help prevent it happening to the women in your life.

For all the fearmongering over him (and let's face it some of it has been absurd) I think he'd end up being a lame duck president who doesn't do very much except primp, preen and massage his ego. Assuming that's true (he never has been particularly well connected to reality and the president can't do an awful lot unilaterally), that might actually be the preferable option.

Ironically many of the people who were against Bernie because "he wasn't realistic" and what he wanted "isn't achieveable" seem intent on forgetting that now that an orange attached to a blonde mop is running for president.

[Chris2048]

The other candidate is corrupt, more politically savvy, and a career politician.

Also racism and sexism is a subjective issue, asking people to take a stand against "this kind of thing" without specifics is playing into the political banter.

[CalChris]

This is equivocation. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are in no sense equivalent. In fact, Trump is so historically bad that leading figures of his own party are disowning him. Major donors are clawing back contributions. The RNC even halted its support.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/rnc-halts-all-victory-...

[drakonandor]

You could almost say the establishment hates him, eh?

[mcphage]

If it was $1.25 million for Clinton, there would have been no complaint. If it was $1.25 million for Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or even George W Bush, there would have no complaint. Donald Trump is a different and unique circumstance, as Sam Altman and Paul Graham repeatedly claim in their writings, but do not follow through with in their actions.

[throwsincenotpc]

> If it was $1.25 million for Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or even George W Bush, there would have no complaint

Are you kidding ? when Condoleezza Rice got a seat on DropBox's board, people here on HN very much complained and said how they were going to "drop" Dropbox because someone on its board was on the wrong political side.

I'm not republican but it's pretty clear in most US tech circles,especially in the Silicon Valley, you just cannot be republican or people will be out to get you. Trump or not, that's a fact and it's ridiculous.

[Humdeee]

You stole the words right out of my mouth. This is no place for pushing a political agenda.

[e40]

Because they are both the same, right? Just opposite, right?