Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Oct 2016 20:23 UTC
In the News

Marco Arment:

Y Combinator is extremely influential in tech startups and startup culture.

Peter Thiel, an investor who often participates in Y Combinator, is donating $1.25 million to Donald Trump's political efforts, which has incited outrage among the tech community with many calling for Y Combinator to sever ties with Thiel.

Y Combinator has apparently decided not to. President Sam Altman defended this position in a blog post, framed as a Clinton endorsement, that begins with a partial overview of how reprehensible and dangerous Trump is, but ends with a defense of continuing Thiel's involvement in Y Combinator that's effectively framed as a free-speech or tolerance issue.

I completely agree with Arment.

One thing doesn't sit entirely right with me about this, though. Y Combinator is getting a decent amount of flack for this, and rightly so - a sexual assaulter like Trump should be in prison, not in the White House. However, where's all the outrage about Tim Cook organising fundraisers for Donald Trump's political party? Why is that fact almost silently swept under the rug and brushed aside, but Y Combinator gets skewered for doing the same thing? Why is Tim Cook supporting Donald Trump okay, but Y Combinator not cutting ties with someone supporting Donald Trump not okay?

Is it, perhaps, because Apple and Tim Cook get graded on a curve, to use a phrase popular in the Apple blogosphere?

It's almost as inconsistent as iOS. I guess that runs deeper than I thought.

Order by: Score:
Where is the decency ?
by zhengiszen on Wed 19th Oct 2016 20:54 UTC
zhengiszen
Member since:
2012-08-26

I don't endorse any of the two candidates, besides I'm not american.

But there is no more decency to defend Trump or Clinton.

The vast majority of the western media focuses on Trump's faults but "forget" all the crimes committed by Clinton ...

She is a Real War Criminial that destroyed a whole country, Lybia and transformed that once rich country into a failed state... Worse she bragged about it, NO remorses.

At least Trump has not (yet) blood on his hands...

Reply Score: 6

RE: Where is the decency ?
by ajboyle on Wed 19th Oct 2016 20:59 UTC in reply to "Where is the decency ?"
ajboyle Member since:
2014-12-02

absolutely spot on correct. Thom's claims that Trump should be in jail are pure ignorance.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Where is the decency ?
by CaptainN- on Wed 19th Oct 2016 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Where is the decency ?"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

Inappropriate sure, but far less inappropriate than Trump's campaign promise that Clinton go to jail...

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Where is the decency ?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 19th Oct 2016 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Where is the decency ?"
RE[3]: Where is the decency ?
by ajboyle on Thu 20th Oct 2016 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where is the decency ?"
ajboyle Member since:
2014-12-02

You are wrong. This is consensual:

“I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,” Trump says. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

“And when you’re a star they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Where is the decency ?
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Where is the decency ?"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

This is consensual

Do you even now what "consent" means? "I don’t even wait." - how can you know there's consent if you just kiss a women without first establishing she wants to be kissed?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Where is the decency ?
by tylerdurden on Thu 20th Oct 2016 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where is the decency ?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Not denying that Trump is a piece of shit of a human being. But consensual sex between two (or more) adults, regardless of how unromantic and unappealing to your sensitivities it may have been, is still in no way shape or form at the same level as destabilizing a sovereign country and have it descend into a state of chaos that has cost thousands of people's lives.

Also, publicly shaming and chastising people for their electoral choices rubs off as somewhat authoritarian in nature...

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Where is the decency ?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Oct 2016 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Where is the decency ?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Also, publicly shaming and chastising people for their electoral choices rubs off as somewhat authoritarian in nature...


That's a pretty good description of the majority of the left wing and its associated collective feminism. I consider myself lucky that (at least some of them) philadelphian anarcha-feminists are wiser than that.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Where is the decency ?
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Where is the decency ?"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Not denying that Trump is a piece of shit of a human being. But

There's no but. Any "but" will be apologetics.

consensual sex between two (or more) adults,

He probably had consensual sex with his wives. Grabbing random women in the crotch is by no means "consensual".

is still in no way shape or form at the same level as destabilizing a sovereign country and have it descend into a state of chaos that has cost thousands of people's lives.

Destabalizing sovereign countries has been the pastime of US presidents since forever. There were two guys named "Bush" for example, that were very good at it. And then there was this guy named "Reagan"...

Also, publicly shaming and chastising people for their electoral choices rubs off as somewhat authoritarian in nature...

Really? So people that vote for racists and sexists can't be called out because it's their "electoral choice"? That's just as dumb as saying that critizing someone's speech is an attack to free speech...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Where is the decency ?
by tylerdurden on Thu 20th Oct 2016 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Where is the decency ?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Both Trump and Clinton are shitty people. It's a moot election, either party is unpalatable from the standpoint of basic human decency, or anything remotely relatable to the interests of the vast majority of the citizens they want to govern.

If you're focusing on the sins of one, while doing all you can to ignore the awful deeds of the other. Then that's a clear indication of the lengths you are willing to go in order to preserve your cognitive dissonance.

In this case you're passing Trump's inane misogynist metaphor with the literal, while doing all you can to deflect from Clinton's literal death toll. It's quite telling.

PS. Other than the obvious need for clickbait I fail to see what politics has to do with the supposed intent of this site.

Edited 2016-10-20 19:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Where is the decency ?
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Where is the decency ?"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Both Trump and Clinton are shitty people.

Sure they are. But one is much shittier when it comes to human decency than the other. I'll take a candidate that is pro-science and pro-women over one that's anti on both anytime.

If you're focusing on the sins of one, while doing all you can to ignore the awful deeds of the other. Then that's a clear indication of the lengths you are willing to go in order to preserve your cognitive dissonance.

I'm not blind to "awful deeds" of anyone. However, it's the potential awful deeds of Trump and the rebuplicans that scare me more than anything he's done in the past. Trump is a racist and sexist, but the Republicans, his running mate at #1, are much, much worse.

Clinton's literal death toll. It's quite telling.

I'm really at a loss why anyone would think that Clinton would be, or even could be, responsible for this "death toll".

Other than the obvious need for clickbait I fail to see what politics has to do with the supposed intent of this site.

The intent of this site is whatever the owner and main operator of this site wants. And when politics and tech intersect, this site reports on it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Where is the decency ?
by tylerdurden on Thu 20th Oct 2016 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Where is the decency ?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Thanks for proving my point; you're focusing on the possible future speculative shitty deeds of the guy you don't like, while going out of your way to either ignore or gloss over the past recorded shitty actual deeds of the gal you root for, in order to preserve your cognitive dissonance.

They both suck as human beings. You can try all you want to debate what part of a shit smells better, but at the end of the day it is just that; shit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Where is the decency ?
by Netfun81 on Fri 21st Oct 2016 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Where is the decency ?"
Netfun81 Member since:
2008-03-25

The "tolerant left" has become more fascist and less for freedom of speech than ever before. Let's punish those that disagree with us, is the new motto. It seems the old saying is true "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them stink".

I for one would love to see less opinion on OSnews and more technology stuff.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Where is the decency ?
by jerryk on Thu 20th Oct 2016 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where is the decency ?"
jerryk Member since:
2010-09-24

Thom, you are OK with a pedophile in the white house? Ever hear of the Lolita Express and Bill Clinton's travels to rape underage girls? (Bill is Hillary's husband.)

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Where is the decency ?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Oct 2016 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where is the decency ?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Trump is a crude, rich bastard. But he has not admitted sexual assault, nor implied such an admission. It is a neo-liberal (in the US-sense) feminist misrepresentation. He merely said that succesful, confident men were so attractive,they'd* consent to anything. And while his version was crudely worded, he is right, after all.

His views on mexicans and free speech are deplorable. But admitting to sexual assault, he did not.

* "they" are the women** of course.
** I am referring to the sex (biological gender) and not the neo-marxist theory of social gender.

Edited 2016-10-20 02:40 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Where is the decency ?
by Alfman on Thu 20th Oct 2016 03:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Where is the decency ?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

dylansmriones,

His views on mexicans and free speech are deplorable. But admitting to sexual assault, he did not.

* "they" are the women** of course.


Why assume that? He might be into assaulting male cross-dressers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

While just an act, it's oddly relevant to his predicament.

Edited 2016-10-20 03:27 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Where is the decency ?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Oct 2016 03:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Where is the decency ?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, he did say women (one can strictly speaking not cross dress, seeing there are no such thing as manly/male or womanly/female clothes). And what he said you could do to them does not constitute sexual assault.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Where is the decency ?
by Alfman on Thu 20th Oct 2016 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Where is the decency ?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

dylansmriones,

And what he said you could do to them does not constitute sexual assault.


Just to make sure we are on the same page, here is what he said:

"You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful. I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss, I don't even wait. And when your a star, they let you do it, you can do anything, grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

Whether you choose to believe Trump or his accusers is up to you, but it's incredibly awkward to defend from accusations by women stating he did exactly what he said he was doing.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Where is the decency ?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Oct 2016 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Where is the decency ?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

"they'd let you do it" <- consent, therefore not sexual assault.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Where is the decency ?
by emphyrio on Thu 20th Oct 2016 04:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Where is the decency ?"
emphyrio Member since:
2007-09-11

Trump confessed he sexually assaults women. So yeah, I think he should be in jail for that. I don't think that's a very controversial thing to say, but maybe in Trump's America, sexually assaulting people is just fine and a-okay.


Well, no. Confessing to and actually having performed the act are two different things.

Luckily, it is not your job, neither that of any media to convict him of anything. It's for the judge/jury (depending on the legal system) to decide whether he actually assaulted anyone, in a proper court of law, not the court of public opinion.

Edited 2016-10-20 04:35 UTC

Reply Score: 1

I'm American
by CaptainN- on Wed 19th Oct 2016 21:04 UTC
CaptainN-
Member since:
2005-07-07

As an American, all I can do is apologize for my countries crappy 2 party system, and the very very seriously delinquent result of this broken primary system. I did my part and supported neither candidate in the primary, but alas, in a first past the post election system, those efforts yielded absolutely nothing at all.

This is embarrassing, and not in any way fun. What a terrible election.

Reply Score: 10

Sexual assault
by WorknMan on Wed 19th Oct 2016 21:31 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

a sexual assaulter like Trump should be in prison


I wasn't aware that Trump had been found guilty of sexual assault in a court of law. Did I miss something?

Edited 2016-10-19 21:31 UTC

Reply Score: 7

v RE: "Sexual assault"
by cade on Wed 19th Oct 2016 22:41 UTC in reply to "Sexual assault"
RE[2]: "Sexual assault"
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE: "Sexual assault""
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Can we create a new internet law by which anyone saying "Benghazi" in a political discussion has lost that discussion instantly?

Reply Score: 0

Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Wed 19th Oct 2016 21:37 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

The difference between Thiel vs Cook is that Thiel donated money to an absolutely reprehensible man to help him get elected, while Cook's donation was merely to the Republican party.

Cooks' contributions are to the party platform, while Thiel is to Trump.

Not that this both are completely different from the situation with the Mozilla CEO that was outed after people learned of his political contributions - nobody cared about his donations to candidates that had restriction LGBT rights as part of his platform, but they took exception to his donating to a California proposition that saught to deny rights to LGBT people. At least with a party platform, or a candidate's platform, you sometimes have to take the bad with the good. Not so when you donate to a single-issue initiative.

Reply Score: 11

v Next to Bill Clinton
by tomz on Wed 19th Oct 2016 21:45 UTC
RE: Next to Bill Clinton
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 15:18 UTC in reply to "Next to Bill Clinton"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Bill Clinton is a Rapist.

For which you have absolutely... 0 proof. Note that anything Trump says doesn't count as evidence.

or the problem with the refugees from the middle east raping women in the street.

Again, anything Trump says does not count as "reality".

and no one even mentions much less condemns him

Perhaps that's because he's not running for president, while Trump is.

And Hillary shielded her husband and harassed his victims.

Nice to see that you repeat ad verbatim what Trump has said. You do know that it has no basis in reality, right?

Trump is bad. Whatever anyone else did in the past, whatever what anyone else who did things in the past is unreported, Trump is bad. You may call out hypocracy, sure, but all you do is point away from Trump. Men rape, and have raped for millenia. But you don't want a rapist for president. And if a rapist runs for president, it's fully justified to call him out on that, even if *all other men* are also rapists. Since all other men aren't running for president, and rape is bad.

And what about the accusations against Julian Assange who is under house arrest?

Julian Assange is a despicable human being who should be tried for rape.

Reply Score: 0

Come on...
by galvanash on Wed 19th Oct 2016 21:53 UTC
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

There is no moral distinction between supporting Trump and supporting Clinton. None.

You have Whitewater, Trump University, Benghazi, Trump's 4 bankruptcies, email scandal, there is no point in going on - both candidates have a rap sheet a mile long of controversies, legal entanglements, shady financial dealings, etc. They are both documented liars (multiple times over). They are both horrible people and will both make horrible Presidents.

Literally the only thing that Hillary has over Trump is she has enough intelligence to keep her mouth shut when she should (usually). Trump is just an idiot, which is refreshing in a way because at least with him you know exactly what your getting straight out of the horses mouth.

No. I'm not going to call for pitchforks over some guy like this supporting Trump - what about the other 90% of the tech sector firmly supporting Clinton? May as well burn the whole country down if we are going to start doing that...

I'm probably just going to vote for Gary Johnson, even if realistically he cannot win. He has some pretty stupid policy ideas I don't agree with, but they are slightly less stupid than Jill Stein's. I don't think he would really make a good president, but at least he seems to have the correct number of chromosomes and I don't think he would kill little children to save his own career.

Ill sleep better knowing I didn't help to elect either one of these degenerates.

Edited 2016-10-19 21:54 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Come on...
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Oct 2016 03:49 UTC in reply to "Come on..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well said.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Come on...
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 15:21 UTC in reply to "Come on..."
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Literally the only thing that Hillary has over Trump is she has enough intelligence to keep her mouth shut when she should

To which we can add she doesn't sexually assault women, nor desires to do so, and supports women's rights, doesn't pander to conservative misogynists and religious fanatics. Oh, she's also not a racist. And supports science (evolution, climate warming). But yeah, literally the only thing is she's more intelligent.

Trump is just an idiot, which is refreshing in a way because at least with him you know exactly what your getting straight out of the horses mouth.

It may be refreshing, the actual things coming out of his mouth should be bad enough for anyone not to vote for him.

Reply Score: 2

This article is garbage
by jxiz on Wed 19th Oct 2016 22:14 UTC
jxiz
Member since:
2012-03-23

> that's effectively framed as a free-speech or tolerance issue.

So, we don't want free speech or something?

> a sexual assaulter like Trump should be in prison

Last I heard, he has not been found guilty or even formally accused of anything like this. If you want to throw around informal crap, well Hillary actually threatened rape victims. Also, Hillary should actually be in prison as she has committed numerous actual crimes: perjury, mishandling of classified info, etc. Not to mention getting many Americans murdered.

> It's almost as inconsistent as iOS.

What.. the fuck?

This article is so full of false information and stupidity. Thom, this is embarrassing for you.

Reply Score: 5

Trial by internet
by Berend de Boer on Thu 20th Oct 2016 00:30 UTC
Berend de Boer
Member since:
2005-10-19

That's how they do it in The Netherlands apparently:

Thom: a sexual assaulter like Trump should be in prison

If he did commit such assaults, yes obviously. But in the case he did commit that (nobody has even gone the police yet), he may be able to use the Hillary defence: he didn't intent to commit sexual assault. That'll do.

I'm just too lazy to refer to all the posts your wrote about Julian Assange, but that'll only embarrass you further. And please, can citizens of other countries stop reporting on the US election? I'm utterly sick of it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Trial by internet
by winter skies on Thu 20th Oct 2016 08:26 UTC in reply to "Trial by internet"
winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

And please, can citizens of other countries stop reporting on the US election? I'm utterly sick of it.


^ OMG this must be one of the most laughable comments I have ever seen on this site.

Yeah, you're right, you know, it's not as if the USA's economic and foreign policy has a direct impact on the whole world and the well being or even the lives of many people outside America depend on the choices of its governemnt. So it's not like reporters from other countries should care about your fucking elections – they're just your business, ain't they?

Oh wait...

Next time think twice please.

Reply Score: 5

Keep politics out of the workplace
by jonsmirl on Thu 20th Oct 2016 01:46 UTC
jonsmirl
Member since:
2005-07-06

The only common sense thing to do is to keep politics out of the work place. Insanity will ensue if businesses become aligned with political parties and start catering to only Rep or Demo customers. What is next? A test on whether you are Rep or Demo before you can get hired? This is just insane.

Reply Score: 2

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Insanity will ensue if businesses become aligned with political parties

Really? If one political party wants rights for straight white men only, and another party is inclusive of everyone else, *automatically* a business will become anti-aligned with the former if it proclaims humanistic values. Politics should be about everything that does not follow from humanistic values, instead of 90% about racism, sexism, misogynism and science denial as it is currently.

Reply Score: 2

Thom Blind to Irony
by trijdw on Thu 20th Oct 2016 02:28 UTC
trijdw
Member since:
2007-08-31

Hilarious seeing the statement that Trump should be in jail for sexually assaulting, but being oblivious to the irony of him supporting the candidate who savaged not only a 12-year-old rape victim in court, but savaged her "husband" Bill's sexual assault victims. BTW, I'm NOT voting for Trump.

Also fascinating to see the VERY common desire by leftists to see their political opponents ostracized entirely (slam at Tim Cook for daring to not do 100% of his fundraising for Democrats) or silenced entirely.

"Tolerant" "open-minded" lefties are so confident of their views that they prefer seeing opposing views shut down.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Thom Blind to Irony
by winter skies on Thu 20th Oct 2016 09:20 UTC in reply to "Thom Blind to Irony"
winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

It's so nice and refreshing to know that supporters of the Democrats are being called "lefties", as if there was anything leftist in most areas of Dem policies.

Reply Score: 3

Tim Cook
by nicubunu on Thu 20th Oct 2016 06:25 UTC
nicubunu
Member since:
2014-01-08

Call me confused: so Tim Cook is a fundraiser for the Republican party and still considered as a potential vice-president for by the Democratic party?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Tim Cook
by trijdw on Thu 20th Oct 2016 12:49 UTC in reply to "Tim Cook"
trijdw Member since:
2007-08-31

Despite what Thom said, Cook held ONE fundraiser this year for a Republican: House Speaker Paul Ryan (hardly an enthusiastic Trump supporter). On the other hand, Cook held a fundraiser specifically for Hillary Clinton's campaign. In addition, Apple provided resources for the Democratic National Convention, but didn't do so for the Republican National Convention.

That's not good enough for Thom, apparently.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by sj87
by sj87 on Thu 20th Oct 2016 09:26 UTC
sj87
Member since:
2007-12-16

It would be only fair, Tom, if you could understand and acknowledge that Hillary is a f--ked up candidate aswell. No matter how awful Trump might seem, some might rather choose anyone but Hillary. Trump happens to be the only alternative and that's nobody's fault really.

Edited 2016-10-20 09:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by sj87
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 15:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by sj87"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

You can also *not* vote, if both candidates are bad. But any decent human being would avoid voting for a racist, sexist, narcisist and alround idiot.

Edited 2016-10-20 15:10 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by sj87
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Oct 2016 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by sj87"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That would be both candidates then.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by sj87
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by sj87"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Riiiight... Hillary is racist and sexist...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by sj87
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Oct 2016 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by sj87"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Sandnigger? Her slurs against Bills victims? Her abuse of a 12 year old rape victim?

Not to mention all the other shit. Both candidates are fucktards unworthy of the presidency. Neither is better than the other. Both are evil in a way that cannot be graded.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by sj87
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by sj87"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Sandnigger? Her slurs against Bills victims? Her abuse of a 12 year old rape victim?

Fantasies out of Trump camp's hat.

Neither is better than the other. Both are evil in a way that cannot be graded.

I'll take the evil that has a decade long record for fighting for women's rights over the evil that has a decade long record for abusing women.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by sj87
by dylansmrjones on Thu 20th Oct 2016 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by sj87"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Fantasies out of Trump camp's hat.


Those are well documented, no matter how much you deny reality. Her deletion of emails, her failure in regard to Benghazi. All well documented. She should be impeached. Her only chair should be the electric chair.

I'll take the evil that has a decade long record for fighting for women's rights over the evil that has a decade long record for abusing women.


She's a joke in regard to women's rights. All words, but her actions are contrary to those words. Trump has no record, no matter how stupid he is or how crude his comments are.
You do however raise an important question. Should we hope for the known evil or the unknown evil? The latter has a better chance of being a disaster, paving the road for a long overdue armed rebellion by the People. From a scandinavian and baltic perspective Hillary Clinton will be preferable. I'm inclined to believe she will be better for the NATO alliance than Donald Trump. But both are monsters.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by sj87
by jal_ on Fri 21st Oct 2016 06:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by sj87"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Her only chair should be the electric chair. (...)
paving the road for a long overdue armed rebellion by the People.

Well, this is so crude, and so far detached from reality, that I don't think dicussing with you has any merit. You might want to do a reality check though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by sj87
by dylansmrjones on Fri 21st Oct 2016 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by sj87"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-rape-victim-c...


Call it a fantasy again. You make a mockery out of genuine women's right advocates.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by sj87
by jal_ on Fri 21st Oct 2016 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by sj87"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

You make a mockery out of genuine women's right advocates.

All the "genuine" women's right advocates I know are pro Hillary, and anti Trump.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by sj87
by sj87 on Sat 22nd Oct 2016 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by sj87"
sj87 Member since:
2007-12-16

You can also *not* vote, if both candidates are bad.

I'm of course one of the non-voters but many sheeple seem to think that they have to vote for something or they are basically heretics.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by sj87
by Morgan on Fri 21st Oct 2016 02:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by sj87"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Trump happens to be the only alternative and that's nobody's fault really.


Gary Johnson, a third party candidate and former Republican, is on the ballot in all 50 states, which is unprecedented in modern American dual-party politics.

So no, Trump isn't the only alternative, and if everyone who is only voting for Trump because they don't want Hillary would instead vote for Johnson, then Johnson would stand a chance against Hillary. He probably wouldn't win, but it would bring the Libertarian party into the forefront and give American politics the shake-up it needs.

Reply Score: 2

Facebook
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 09:36 UTC
jal_
Member since:
2006-11-02

What's worse, is that Facebook / Mark Z. has defended Peter Tiel: http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/19/13334608/mark-zuckerberg-peter-t...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Facebook
by Gargyle on Thu 20th Oct 2016 14:06 UTC in reply to "Facebook"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

Don't bite the hand that feeds you?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Facebook
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Facebook"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

He's a board member, he doesn't feed Facebook.

Reply Score: 2

No link to referenced article?
by pmac on Thu 20th Oct 2016 10:12 UTC
pmac
Member since:
2009-07-08
RE: No link to referenced article?
by pmac on Thu 20th Oct 2016 12:01 UTC in reply to "No link to referenced article?"
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08

Never mind - I see it now.

Reply Score: 1

Killary for prison 2016!
by void_false on Thu 20th Oct 2016 10:19 UTC
void_false
Member since:
2010-10-06

At first I wanted to delete this site from my bookmarks after reading what the author has said regarding Trump.
But then I decided not to do so, because it would make me just as ignorant and bigotry as democrats and Killary's electorate are.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Killary for prison 2016!
by Gargyle on Thu 20th Oct 2016 14:06 UTC in reply to "Killary for prison 2016!"
Gargyle Member since:
2015-03-27

How extremely nice of you!

Reply Score: 2

v Wow
by alh84001 on Thu 20th Oct 2016 12:44 UTC
RE: Wow
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 14:54 UTC in reply to "Wow"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Good ridance!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wow
by trijdw on Thu 20th Oct 2016 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
trijdw Member since:
2007-08-31

What should Thom do when all non-Dems / non-lefties have jumped ship & ad revenue falls to a non-sustainable level? Should he ask for US taxpayer "donations" a la "nonpartisan" "public" broadcasting's NPR & PBS?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wow
by tylerdurden on Thu 20th Oct 2016 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

We must really live in a post-ideological world, if we're at a point where people who identify themselves with the "left" are not only supporting but identifying themselves with Hillary Clinton's platform and party.

Reply Score: 1

Indeed shame on Y Combinator
by ddc_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 13:33 UTC
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

Some random idiots on the internet attack Y Combinator's investor on the grounds of his electoral choice, and Y Combinator not only fails to support his right to make whatever electoral choice he feels appropriate, but also tentatively distantiate itself from him. That is an unethical action that only someone with no concept of moral agency may commit.

Oh wait, we are speaking of legal entity which has no moral agency by definition.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Indeed shame on Y Combinator
by jal_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 14:56 UTC in reply to "Indeed shame on Y Combinator"
jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

That is an unethical action

Yeah, it's so unethical to call out someone who donates over a million bucks to a man that likes to "grab women in the pussy".

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Indeed shame on Y Combinator
by ddc_ on Thu 20th Oct 2016 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Indeed shame on Y Combinator"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

Yeah, it's so unethical to call out someone who donates over a million bucks to a man that likes to "grab women in the pussy".

Yes, it is unethical to call out someone whom you owe, even if they do something wrong. It is entirely OK to donate money to whatever entity donator deems appropriate. And there is nothing wrong with "grab[bing] women in the pussy" if that happens between concenting adults.

Edited 2016-10-20 15:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

And there is nothing wrong with "grab[bing] women in the pussy" if that happens between concenting adults.

Stretching the definition of "consent" by a mile...

Reply Score: 1

ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

Not really. Unless femenist usage is concerned, the word "consent" is rather well defined and stable in its definition: http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/nph-cent2jpg.php?&vol...

Reply Score: 3

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

With the feminist usage you mean "consent" as in "the woman also has a say in it"?

Reply Score: 2

ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

Sorry to upset you, but women have had a say in it at least since the I century AD. Ironically, that were men who only got a say recently. Please do your research next time.

Femenist usage I am talking of is redefinition of consent from

intelligent concurrence in the adoption of a contract or an agreement of such a nature as to bind the party consenting

to

explicit non-binding agreement expressed in form of affirmative statement

Reply Score: 1

jal_ Member since:
2006-11-02

Sorry to upset you, but women have had a say in it at least since the I century AD. Ironically, that were men who only got a say recently.

In what a fantasy world you live...

Please do your research next time.

The irony, it hurts...

Femenist usage I am talking of is redefinition of consent from

"intelligent concurrence in the adoption of a contract or an agreement of such a nature as to bind the party consenting

to

explicit non-binding agreement expressed in form of affirmative statement
"
I fail to see the difference between the two. And I even more fail to understand how anyone could have anything against the second definition. #rapeculture

Reply Score: 3

winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

That's blatant sophistry on your part, as can be expected when talking about gender issues.
Oh, poor men, so weak and subdued throughout all history!

Reply Score: 2