Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Just because he can’t anticipate the repercussions doesn’t mean it wasn’t politically motivated



Do you really think some moron bumbled his way into the most powerful office in the world? Have you stopped to think about how unlikely something like that is?

You may not agree with his style (I don't) or his personality (hate it) but the guy has to be minimally intelligent to make it as far as he has. At the very least he knows how to work a crowd and spot opportunity.


I think you're confusing different kinds of intelligence.

Just to lower the temperature, I'll use a non-political example. My grandfather, long since departed, was a master salesman. He sold all sorts of stuff door to door, including the highly dubious Kirby vacuum cleaners, before ending up in real estate. He was an incredibly good manipulator of people, but he was a very bad planner. He once famously sold the same piece of property to two different people, just for the thrill of the sale. (My grandmother had to sort it all out after.)

Being good at manipulation and bad at planning were deeply related in him and some other scoundrels I've met. Why? Because if you don't care at all about facts or repercussions, you can devote 100% of your attention to telling other people what they want to hear, what they'll believe. And it works the other way, too. If you're very good at talking your way out of problems, you never need to learn things like being disciplined or facing facts.

So yes, it is perfectly possible that some goof bumbled his way into the most powerful office in the world. My grandfather, thank goodness, was never very ambitious, so he had a pretty small blast radius. I shudder to think what harm he could have done if he had actually applied himself.


Thank you for the anecdote. It was well written and I think it’s very applicable to the current topic.


Elections are popularity contests. There are no qualification requirements for the job.


Which he didn't even win and is only there because of an anarchism in our government.


Anarchism? Hardly. It's one of the handful of intentionally anti-populist features of the Constitution, along with the existence of the Senate.

He did win. The only way to say he lost is by focusing on a measure that everyone agrees isn't the one that matters.


Well, that seems a little strong. The measure used in the US is one that I don't think is used in any other democracy. Every non-American I've talked with about this believes that national popular vote is definitely the number that matters.


They're wrong, for purposes of American presidential elections anyway.


Then perhaps the people saying that have different purposes. Which I'm sure was dlp211's point as well.


Sure, but I’m not obliged to give any deference to improper purposes like delegitimization of the President.


I never claimed that he is illegitimate. Shame on you for not taking my argument in good faith.


You don't get to decide what is proper for other people's purposes. They do.


The Useful Idiot is absolutely a real thing.


> Do you really think some moron bumbled his way into the most powerful office in the world?

Yes, and in light of anecdotes of how decisions are made in the current administration: double yes




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

Search: