Demagogic hate-mongering has become the default mode of the political theater that now passes as "public discourse" in our media on both ends of the political spectrum. The new internet media gives strong incentives to that which gains attention, and nothing gains attention like outrage.

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.

Blood in the stool is quite apt. The cancer is the incentive structure of our media. Let's face it, the current incentive structure of our media today is one in which things like Gawker thrive and anything which is actually substantive suffers a prolonged trickling death. Again, it's the incentives. Outrage politics and the current social media are just the high fructose corn syrup of the mind.

For "substantive" content, this is by far "the best of times" -- such content is very much on the Internet if look for it.

E.g., nearly every interview, debate, or speech of Trump is on YouTube. Good coverage of Trump's positions are on his Web site. So, we have solid primary sources and easy to find good references. I just counted -- I have 187 unique YouTube URLs on Trump.

If you want to know what Trump has said and/or written, primary sources are readily available. In particular, you don't have to take the word of others about what Trump said.

Maybe you will or will not like what Trump has said, but at least now you can know what the heck he actually did say. Sure, this is the first time for such in all of history. So, "best of times".

For more substantive comment, for anyone with such a comment, many blogs and fora are readily available. Finding such things may not always be easy (my startup is intended to help with people finding content on the Internet), but at one time Technorati said that they were tracking 100 million blogs. E.g., as we know here, Sam Altman had some comments, and all of us found them.

For more substantive comment, for anyone with such a comment, many blogs and fora are readily available. Finding such things may not always be easy (my startup is intended to help with people finding content on the Internet)

If there is value in finding such things, there is clearly a degradation of value in their obscuration. Until the general populace can navigate and find their way to the new sources of substantive content, the internet is effectively degraded in this regard.

For your last paragraph, my view is that for ballpark 2/3rds of the content of value on the Internet, searches people would like to do, and results they would like to find there is no good search engine or search means. Part, much of, the challenge is your substantive, that is, how to find (suitably) substantive content. I haven't said my work is for substantive content; the word I have used is content with the meaning the user has in mind, but your substantive is a special case of my meaning. So are entertaining, artistic taste, level of detail, etc.

Sounds like you stand to be an eager user of my startup! Maybe another 3 billion people will also!

Just how to build such a tool is a challenge. I worked out how, but the crucial core internals are some original applied math I derived based on some advanced prerequisites. Some of the prerequisites are astounding -- wouldn't believe that any such things could be true, but they are, and they are astoundingly powerful.

But the user interface is dirt simple -- even a boy of 10 in Thailand who knows no English should be able to learn to use the English language version of the site in five minutes from someone who knows and in 15 minutes on their own. The user experience stands to be fun, something of an addictive adventure.

The code, intended for production, is running and in alpha test.

Ah, YC turned it down!

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.

If God descended from heaven and snapped his fingers and declared, "This November, you shall decide between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton," then I wouldn't find it particularly surprising or worrying that ~50% of the electorate would support Trump.

But the fact that people chose him out of a wide field during the primaries is a totally different story. Yes, none of the other choices were particularly compelling, but neither were they the inconceivable choice represented by Clinton.

It's not that they believe in him more than Clinton, it's that they believe in him more than Rubio and Cruz and Christie and Jeb Bush.

A big chunk of voters basically just said "fuck it" to the whole process and gave up on even the pretense of sane politicians. Who are they going to choose for Congress? Who are they going to nominate for president the next time around? Maybe they'll realize this was a mistake and get back to some form of sanity, but I'm not optimistic.

Sure, the Republican primary electorate found Trump compelling, and that's why they won. And that's what scares me. I don't think they necessarily should have found any of the others compelling (what an awful field of candidates, I mean, seriously, what happened there?) but that's beside the point.

In 2000, Bush mainly kept his mouth shut. But Gore's campaign manager made a series of public statements along the lines of "Gore has clearly won, and if this goes to Bush it's a travesty of the election." That didn't help heal or unite the country after the election; arguably, the division has remained ever since.

Trump could do the same thing, but do it much more loudly, bombastically, and in a more attention-grabbing way. The only prevention would be for him to lose so strongly that nobody listens, and everyone writes it off as the whining of a bitter self-deluded loser.

Trump didn't attract enthusiastic supporters across party lines because they were apathetic jokesters. He may sound insane to you, but to a very large "silent majority" he is the first voice of sanity in a long time.

[citation needed]

But I can't find the primary sources that support this claim. To me, at this point, the claim looks like just attacks on Trump by people who want to attack him for other reasons.

Indeed, from all I can find, Trump is the opposite of racist.

I'm ready, willing, able, and eager to consider some primary sources that show I'm significantly wrong.

For such a claim, as for any serious claim in this election, I just want some solid evidence.

For immigration, Trump is for enforcing the laws. That's not evidence of being racist. Part of one way of enforcing the laws is to build a wall. That's not racist either; it's enforcing our immigration laws.

For "rapists", some of the illegal immigrants across the Mexican border have been rapists. Trump didn't say that all the illegal immigrants were rapists.

More generally, our legal immigration system was well designed and very careful about who gets admitted. The flow of illegal immigrants across the border with Mexico has everyone who is able physically to cross the border at all. That includes people from Mexico, from elsewhere in Central and South America, people from Cuba, and, now, some people from the war areas of the Mideast, likely including ISIS soldiers. Stopping that illegal immigration is important for US public health, US public safety, US drug enforcement, the US economy, and US national security and is not racist.

The Mexican border is also a source of illegal drugs -- a good wall would greatly slow that. Again, a wall to slow the flow of illegal drugs is not racist.

For Mexicans, Trump has said over and over that he has hired thousands of Mexicans and regards them as excellent workers. So, clearly Trump is not a "racist" on Mexicans.

There is good evidence, e.g., in Arizona, that a lot of people from Mexico and now US citizens will be voting for Trump because they agree with Trump that we should not have illegal immigrants from Mexico. Apparently those US citizens do not regard Trump as racist against people from Mexico.

> His proposed policies have even gained him an endorsement from the KKK.

A political candidate can't keep some dirt bags from saying they like the candidate. But when some dirt bags do so say, then the candidate can reject the support, and Trump did that right away. There was a delay of some seconds, but there are some explanations of that that do not cast a bad light on Trump.

Actually, there is a lot of quite positive evidence that Trump has been a leader against racism. IIRC, Trump was a leader in letting everyone in to his high end golf club in Florida.

I'm still looking for evidence that Trump is racist. So far I like Trump -- if there is something wrong with him, then I want to know it.

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.)

If it was presented as "I'm black, and I'm for more equal rights in America, and he's white, so I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage", which I think is more akin to how it was originally presented, they yes, people would be upset if it was proclaimed loudly and publicly in a national forum.

If it was "He's German, and I'm Jewish, therefore I don't think he's treating me fairly because of his heritage" then yes, people would be upset.

I don't know why you think it wouldn't be a big deal. There would be plenty of people denouncing statements like that. There would also be overly apologetic liberals and overly radicalized minorities defending the statements (wrongly, IMO). Those have their equivalents in the current situation as well.

Don't cast aspersions on people's character (is he violating his oath of office?) based purely on their race. We have a word for that. It's called racism, and it applies both ways.

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.

He never said Mexicans are not smart, should go to different schools, or that they can't drink from the same water.

All he said that this judge in particular has a background as an activist lawyer that belongs to an organization that promotes separation of the latino race, and has participated in granting scholarships to undocumented mexicans. And he suggests that background creates a bias in the case.

American society would not accept a judge with ties to the segregationist movement presiding over the case of a black man accused a crime against a white man.

Or how about a judge that was part of BLM presiding the case of a white cop accused of killing a black youth?

Would that be racist too?

Are defense attorneys racist when they dismiss jurors?

Judges are people too, everyone has biases.

Not really. We have to be more careful with the words than that.

Here's the difference: Trump said that the judge's rulings show that the judge is biased. So, if we accept that the judge is biased, then we want a reason, that is, we want some motivation. Well, it turns out, this judge has Mexican ancestry, is active in some pro-Mexican political causes that conflict with Trump's campaign positions on illegal Mexican immigration. So, Trump said that it appears that this pro-Mexican background of the judge is the judge's motivation for the judge being unfair to Trump.

The huge point is, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican background could not be fair. Instead Trump claimed that it was solid that this judge WAS already unfair to Trump and, then, later, saw as motivation the judge's pro-Mexican background.

It has been easy for the media to distort this situation into Trump claiming that the judge must be unfair because he has a Mexican background. Nope, that's a huge distortion, playing with words. Simply put, Trump claims that the judge is unfair because of the judge's rulings.

So, again, just for you, Trump claims that some of the judge's rulings were unfair. Then Trump looked for the judge's motivation for the unfair rulings and noticed the ancestry and political causes and concluded that those were were the motivation for the judge being unfair.

My point is, what Trump was doing was not racist. Maybe Trump was blowing smoke in a legal case, looking for attention, pushing back against a legal case being brought during a campaign and for maybe political reasons, etc., but I don't think Trump was being racist.

Too much of the media wanted to attack Trump and claim that what Trump said was that no judge with Mexican ancestry could be fair to him, but that is nothing like what Trump said. It's more than split hairs.

IMHO, the solid, primary sources do not support that claim.

I do intend to post to this thread a response to Altman's post where I give details, but to me the Trump-judge thing went through three steps:

Step 1. Trump asserted that the judge made some unfair decisions against Trump. Maybe Trump was just blowing smoke as part of a good defense, but maybe he was on solid ground. I'm not a lawyer. Then Trump asked -- I have a quote -- why the judge was being unfair.

Step 2. Soon it was clear enough that the judge had Mexican ancestry and was active in some pro-Mexican political activities that conflicted with Trump's campaign positions on illegal immigration from Mexico. Then, and only then, did Trump assert that this background of the judge was likely the reason the judge was unfair.

Or, Trump never claimed that a judge with Mexican ancestry would have to be unfair. Instead, Trump claimed that this judge's actions in the case showed that the judge was unfair to Trump and, then, could, easily enough, see explanatory reasons in the judge's background. Or, if want to say that someone is being unfair, then it helps to give an explanatory reason. In law, that's called motivation or some such, right, and is regarded as important, right?

Step 3. Since then, a lot more has come out on the judge. He's close to some groups that are wildly racist, e.g., want everyone in the US of Western European descent to return to Europe. Trump has concluded that the judge should recuse himself from the case. If the judge does not recuse, then the case starts to look just political.

Maybe a judge really is strongly for pro-Mexican political causes and is eager to be unfair to others. So, in that case we can't say that the judge is unfair because of his pro-Mexican causes? That would be a license for anyone with pro-Mexican causes to be unfair without being criticized.

Sure he did. Then he doubled down on it by saying a Muslim Judge might be unfair, too. I'm not sure how anybody could fail to see racism here.

   DICKERSON: If it were a Muslim judge, would you also feel like they wouldn't be able to treat you fairly because of that policy of yours?

   TRUMP: It's possible, yes. Yeah. That would be possible, absolutely.

> Poor white people have advantages that poor black people don't have because of racism... I don't see why you consider it racist to point that out.

I don't but that's not what Sanders said. If he said that, that indeed would be true, but he didn't.

I disagree. I don't believe his intent was to degrade. I think he was trying to acknowledge a truth about our culture, ironically an inequality born out of racism. Here is the full quote so anyone reading this doesn't just see the "taken out of context reddit meme" version.

"So to answer your question, I would say, and I think it’s similar to what the secretary said, when you’re white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor. You don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car.

And I believe that as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear. We will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system."

Edit: and since you are not the person that posted the sanders quote.. im not sure how you know what they think their premise is.

Hoover? Was totally oblivious to the The Great Depression. Didn't see the crash coming; didn't know what to do to fix it.

FDR? Was too slow getting us out of The Great Depression. We came out in 90 days flat once people started shooting at us. The damage to the US from The Great Depression was horrible with much of it still with us. He did get us mobilized to win WWII and won it.

Ike? Won WWII in Europe (before he was President). As President, won the war in Korea, pushed back against the Soviets in Berlin, kept the Cold War cold, kept up our military, e.g., nukes, B-52s, ICBMs, SSBNs, and jet airplanes, kept us out of Viet Nam. Did the right things in the Little Rock racism crisis. Ike was slow to keep the economy going. Did respond to Sputnik.

JKF? Did get the economy going again. Started the Apollo program moon shot. Didn't keep us out of Viet Nam. In the end, did the right things in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but looked to the Soviets like a wimp who could be taken advantage of and, thus, partly stimulated that crisis.

LBJ? Went wacko over Viet Nam, killed a lot of people, wasted a lot of money, inflated the US economy.

Nixon? Also wacko over Viet Nam and continued to inflate the US economy. Was a crook. Was driven out of office in disgrace.

Ford? Got out of Viet Nam only after Congress flatly cut off the money.

Carter? Poor leader. Didn't take US energy seriously. Got pushed around by the Iranians. His helicopter effort at Iran flopped.

Reagan? Was a good leader, but had a lot of just silly ideas about what the US should do. Spent a lot of money -- fiscal stimulus -- that did help get the economy going again. Did scare the Soviets over Star Wars and, thus, may have helped the Soviets to give up. Left office mentally handicapped.

Bush 41? Put General Schwarzkopf in charge in Gulf War I who -- in an 8 week air campaign and a 100 hour ground campaign -- totally blew away Saddam's 7 million man army while having fewer US casualties from enemy action than from recreational sports activities. Brilliant. Otherwise neglected the economy.

...

My view is that (1) the US now has some very serious problems, (2) Trump has a lot of determination and a lot of okay to good general approaches for solutions, (3) Trump is good enough as a leader to be able to build consensus for getting things done, (4) he is fully sincere, (5) we are very lucky he is doing what he is, and (6) he has a good shot at being the best president we've had back at least to Hoover where my knowledge of US history is too weak to comment.

Let's DO get out all the important information, but let's NOT be so tough minded that we miss a great opportunity.

In any case, it's the electorate that really matters, not the leadership. I don't see any prospective voters afraid to speak their mind. Trump supporters among the general population all seem to be completely sincere. Trump opposers are unafraid to declare it.

He doesn't say he is "unfit" because he can't -- How can you not think a comment like that from McConnell is pretty damning of Trump's abilities?

I'm not hearing that this time around, except for people who are basically saying "I can't believe I have to choose between these two, I think I'll just stay home and get drunk on election day instead."

Perhaps this is just a reflection of my memory or my media consumption. But that's why I started my comment off with an explicit disclaimer that it's just about what I've seen.

The issue is not the massive wave of ignorance and insecurity, the issue is that those people will procreate more ignorant and insecure people and the issue will never end.

We have a system where the well-thought vote of an educated person has the same value than the sensationalism-based vote of an ignorant and insecure person, the problem is that the educated people is getting outnumbered, so whoever manages to move the feelings of the ignorant and insecure people has the election already won...

Highly procreative undereducated underclasses have long been a staple of American life. Give people enough resources and opportunities, and they will often better themselves. What you are seeing is what happens when you economically squeeze people.

The paradox is that giving people resources and opportunities is the wisdom behind left-wing politics, the opposite of what Trump and the Republican party represent...

This sounds more like the military industrial complex than the Social Security Administration. The SSA pays out something like $870 billion per year (2015) with fewer than 70 thousand employees. It's spending less than a percent of that amount on wages. That's way better than most private charities.

In terms of draining resources out of our society versus benefiting it, the right wing darling of the military industrial complex is far worse than the darling of FDR's New Deal.

They would disagree. Probably disagree with each other if you look close enough and can pin them down to a position. Everyone wants to provide resources and opportunities. Everyone simply disagrees on the best way to do this. (I certainly think of the market as only an imperfect but useful mechanism.)

I really don't think that's true.

Do you think John McCain actually supports Trump?

I think the healthy majority of GOP politicians are unhappy with Trump, but saying that is politically dangerous.