"I don't see a moral obligation for anyone to serve in a Trump administration. But people who opposed Donald Trump, on both the left and right, should commit right now to one thing: We will not tar good people for joining the Trump administration. Their motives will not be questioned, and if things do turn out as some of his critics fear, the people in his foreign and domestic policy apparatus will not suffer guilt by association. It is just too important that Trump have good advisers.
Trump will be the least policy-savvy president in history. He has built no ideological framework for future policies, much less a set of detailed proposals. He has few advisers, in part because so many of the usual contenders have come out against him."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-09/there-s-n...
Peter Thiel is not somebody who has simply refused to rule himself out of serving, however. I do think we can judge people for donating large sums of money to the Trump election campaign and subsequently being appointed to a position of power, both because they signalled strong approval of Trump and his campaign with their wallet and because (like major donors appointed to high office in other administrations) they can readily be accused of paying for positions of power.
But do you judge him even more for pitching in after the election? As an admirer of Thiel and... the opposite of Trump, I find the whole thing confusing, but I'm definitely glad to have a sharp voice outside the Christie/Gingrich/Guiliani-axis involved.
Thiel is not some random rich fat cat who buys an ambassadorship. He's an extremely capable and accomplished man, and to me it looks like he's the one doing Trump a favor, not the other way around.
I realize reasonable people can differ on that part :)
That's not what we're likely to get. We've gotten the following trial balloons for appointments:
* John Bolton or Newt Gingrich for State
* Larry Kudlow or Steven Mnuchin for Treasury
* Joe Arpaio for DHS
* Steve Bannon for Chief Of Staff
* Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani for AG
I do not believe we should cheerlead the spectacular failure of a Trump administration. While I'd rather see Trump serve 4 years than 8, if massive infrastructure spending restores jobs to Ohio and Wisconsin and cements the Rust Belt vote for Trump in '20, so be it. I'm not a Republican, and I think much of Republican ideology is wrongheaded, but I also know the country needs to flip back and forth between the two parties, almost by design, and some of what the GOP does that sticks will be good, and the bad can be corrected.
But what we're looking at now is wrong beyond normal parameters. The suggested appointments I just listed are comically unqualified. One of those State appointments is ideologically opposed to the concept of diplomacy. Their DHS suggestion is (or was) about to be indicted for launching politically motivated bogus prosecutions against local politicians! The people of Maricopa County just tossed him out on his ass. One of those AG trial balloons would have, as a first order of business, the task of excusing himself from an upcoming felony prosecution. The other has made a name for himself in 2016 by loudly proclaiming his intent to lock up Trump's political opposition.
There is every reason to believe that a candidate famous for bragging about his vindictiveness and ability to retain a grudge, working with a party whose best and brightest almost uniformly refused to support him, will run a disastrous, counterproductive, dangerous administration.
I completely agree with McArdle. If Trump appoints Jaime Dimon to Treasury, I will be grateful and relieved. Not because I think the apotheosis of the Wall Street Elite belongs at the head of Treasury, but because at least it's a sign we're getting a normal GOP administration. I am not hopeful.
Most terrifying on the list is Steve Bannon. Rumor is that Trump likes him, and the only one close to him who doesn't is Ivanka. Probably because she's Jewish enough to fear the top adviser to the president being a white nationalist itching for the Day of the Rope.
People laughed when she warned about Russia, Hillary supposedly hit the "reset button" on the relationship, and then... Russia invaded and annexed Crimea.
Sure, I may not know his exact motives for supporting Trump's campaign, or his motives for joining his administration, but if something stinks I'm not going to ignore it.
I'm done giving politicians the benefit of a doubt, because they always just disappoint me in the end.
Sounds like a positive thing
Obama made a push to conserve the rapid "manifest destiny" of China into the pacific. I can only imagine how Trump will shirk at any sign of conflict, much like he failed to condem the well-documented wrongdoings of his most xenophobic supporters. We can only hope that good people with a foreign polic background will understand how unprepared Trump is for foreign policy relations and will volunteer their service for the betterment of the country.
[1]: WSJ November 10th, 2016 China's World: In Trump Win, China Hopes for U.S Retreat by Andrew Browne
His ideology is mostly "might is right". That's actually quite convenient, because it sanctions any outcome. Grandmother robbed at night? Why did you leave the house? Grandmother killed at home? Shoulda worked harder – winners can afford better locks.
>> Their motives will not be questioned,
>> [They] will not suffer guilt by association.
Really? I'll do whatever the hell I want. It's perfectly reasonable to blame the enablers and question why they would associate with and help a person who has said and done such heinous things.
I'm not one to demonize Trump, but I don't see why someone who does demonizes Trump should not extend this to his administrative team, especially since on a lot of topics, Trump is more liberal that a proper GOPer.
Good people like Colin Powell, Gen Eric Shinseki, Tom Ridge, John J. DiIulio, Jr., etc, etc?
Reread 'The Prince'. Any nail sticking up will be pounded down. There will be no tolerance for 'good people'.
As a Trump supporter I have never been able to properly explain the rationale to a liberal. I believe there is a worthy debate beneath all the political smear, but it is never reached. I believe the reason for this is the liberal media and the incredibly effective Democratic party election machine.
The argument stays at the high level of "how could you vote for someone who said that", "he is a monster", etc. It is "I don't want to listen".
All you have to do to realise what is wrong with this is to ask yourself: "What happens if the situation is reversed and someone said they don't want to listen to me?". What if someone else started to restrict what I could say?
Thankfully, freedom of speech is such an integral part of the US, that there is not one side trying to control what the other can say, and the other doing the same back.
This is what makes the country work. The fact that both sides are not in the business of restricting free speech. This doesn't hold true in many other countries.
Sure, you and Donald Trump can say whatever you please. Nobody's restricting your freedom of speech. However, what you say betrays who you are. And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being.
> "What happens if the situation is reversed and someone said they don't want to listen to me?"
People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.
It's quite similar to the post-Brexit discussions, how pro-Bexit people are stupid, etc.
We can talk about what a "liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being" he is all we want. It would probably be fine, as in it wouldn't really matter, if he was some random radical weirdo with an audience of a dozen equally weird folks. But he's the President-elect.
So we can continue with this circle jerk rant about what a disgusting human being is and what his voters are like. Or we can try to actually understand why so many people voted for him. But in order to do that, we need to stop the whole rant that never changes.
I am not pro-Trump. In fact, my safety largely depends on NATO and Trump poses a threat. But there's no point in shouting about what a misogynist he is. It's so counterproductive.
>> And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being.
And Clinton is not a liar, not a tech illiterate, not arrogant, and not disgusting human being? On misogyny - she has never attacked a woman's character before?
Bias, bias, bias, and bias.
> People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.
Do you believe you are rationale. Everyone is saying that you lost the election because you didn't listen. This has real consequences. ACA will be repealed. Etc. Etc.
And you still have the attitude of: "I don't want to listen". All I can say is thank you - because now it doesn't matter anymore.
No doubt. ALL politicians are to some extent.
> misogynist,
because? Misogyny is literally HATRED of women, like, treating them really harsh. I dont think the democrats were convincing at that
> tech illiterate,
He seems to be handling twitter quite great
> arrogant
No doubt about that but sociopathy is a frequent characteristic of leaders
> and overall a disgusting human being
Disgust is visceral aversion, and can be very personal. Not an argument
Are you willing to negotiate any of your positions or are they set in stone? It seems the liberals went full hard-line mode, and ignored half of america.
> People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.
So basically , what the others say is garbage, deplorables, end of conversation. That's the point, swjs broke off the conversation with "you know what i m not arguing with you, you re a deplorable". Thats not how you convince people, you have to try harder.
disclosure: i m not american but watched the war of words from afar.
And they decide that based on emotions, which marks them as not being capable of rational discussions.
As opposed to who?
I understand what you are saying here. He struggles to speak eloquently, and does not have a statesman-like persona. He is no traditional president.
But look at the last 15 years of foreign policy from "statesmen". We had two wars, Obama missed seeing the rise of ISIS, Syria is a humanitarian nightmare, we had a huge financial crash, and terrorism is on the rise.
Trump opposed the war (was not a strong supporter before, and immediately after was certainly opposed to it).
No one likes him and he doesn't owe favours to anyone. The bankers, the lobbyists, the establishment. Everything that we would agree is wrong with the country.
And he did not run on a conservative platform of religion - which has nudged the entire Republican party to the left.
And he use to be a Democrat.
There will never be another candidate like him. But sadly no one can look past the ad-hominem character attacks.
If only pepole expected the Legislature to do that, then we wouldn't be in a position of worrying that Trump will undo almost every policy achievement of Obama's.
It will suck to go backwards in climate agreements.
On a less important note, re the argument being at a level of "how could you vote for someone who said that". That may not be people refusing to engage with what you see as the important points, but them focusing on what they see as the most important points. That doesn't make it right but if it is the case you may do well to understand their point of view holds that someone with his behaviour and character can't be trusted with power, they may see everything else as somewhat irrelevant. If that is the case at least understanding it may help you frame the discussion with such people, and hopefully not dismiss their arguments as petty since they think they are the most important points.
Anyway, aside complete. Let's hear the rationale for being a Trump supporter, I would be genuinely interested to hear it even if I may ultimately disagree.
Yep. But this is what made everyone miss what was happening. It was an emotional response.
But in this case Clinton provided so many analogous examples, which were ignored, which is just plain bias. As bad as someone is you always have to ask: could the same be said as my candidate? And with Hillary is was a yes on everything.
It was always a question of "How could there be so many racists, sexists and xenophobes?". The answer was...there is not. It was the wrong question.
> Anyway, aside complete. Let's hear the rationale for being a Trump supporter, I would be genuinely interested to hear it even if I may ultimately disagree.
I've already posted it in a reply to this comment somewhere.
Mainly corruption - the ultimate poison of a democracy. Counter productive political correctness, money out of politics, bullying and irrational feminists, sjws, and blm supporters. If you don't agree with everything they say you are sexist, racist, misogynist.
Let's hope _other_ people's freedoms aren't being taken away thanks to your vote, though.
I also don't see why you would Trump will actually listen to you. Because he says so? You trust what he says?
I understand and will not debate that you feel like you haven't been heard by the American political system (I immediately take your word for it), but that just doesn't mean the alternative to staying on the same path isn't significantly worse. Or do you think your life couldn't be any worse? Worse is _also_ an alternative you may have voted for.
Such as?
> I also don't see why you would Trump will actually listen to you. Because he says so? You trust what he says?
I'm not talking about Trump listening. I'm talking about liberals listening to trump supporters trying to explain to them why they lost, and why they feel they are taking away freedom of speech.
> I understand and will not debate that you feel like you haven't been heard by the American political system (I immediately take your word for it), but that just doesn't mean the alternative to staying on the same path isn't significantly worse. Or do you think your life couldn't be any worse? Worse is _also_ an alternative you may have voted for.
The past 15 years have been a disaster. War, humanitarian crises, terrorism. I mean its always been a cruisy life for a white male software engineer though. But I just can't stand irrationality (as I perceive it), but more than anything the biggest risk is the attacks on freedom of speech through the liberal's bullying, public shaming, and ad-hominem attacks.
We now HAVE Trump coming in as US president, so frankly I'd welcome a bit of hope that he might be good. I can't promise to agree with you, but I'm very willing to listen to arguments from those who hold opposing positions to mine.
Please argue! And thank you for not slurring :)
> Would you be willing to articulate your argument for Trump here?
I supported Obama. I always considered myself a liberal. I support gay marriage, I support gun control. I support universal health care. I support decent welfare and a safety net.
As a programmer, the formative moment for my Trump support came when a prolific open-source developer was forced to leave the community because he would not accept a trivial change to the documentation to change gendered pro-nouns to non-gendered pro-nouns. His reason was he didn't want to mess up the revision history with a trivial change like that. And he was from South America where nouns are all gendered anyway. But one of the big companies came out and said that "they would have fired him". http://www.dailydot.com/news/github-gendered-pronoun-debate/
This was non-sensical to me, and was bullying. But I soon realised that this overly sensitive behaviour had pervaded all walks of life and all aspects of society and I soon discovered the cliched political correctness run wild with third-wave feminist bloggers, social justice, Black Lives Matter protesting of clearly non-racially motivated attacks, and that was it.
Its ironic that my biggest reason for voting Trump is to stop the bullying from the left - who are protesting against...bullying (sexism, misogyny, racism).
One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say.
One side thinks controlling what you can say will be abused and unfairly target people, the other side thinks that freedom of speech is a means of control by the entitled.
There's a calm, complex, and nuanced debate to be had here to find a middle ground.
But unfortunately there is no Liberal ready to accept that this is the debate that needs to be had.
The alt-right, the new right, the Trump supporters - we are ready and waiting to have this debate...
You also shouldn't expect us to take you at all seriously if you comment with a throwaway account named after the Mason-Dixon line which, at one point in history, separated territories where slavery was either legal or not legal. Don't evoke civil war symbolism and slavery and simultaneously expect to have a calm, reasoned debate.
That is exactly what the recent HN front page articles proposing that Facebook 'stop misinformation' are aiming to accomplish.
I have the same problem trying to explain to my european friends why trump won and why it is not all crazy.
If the rust/bible belters feel the same as Northern England, I fully understand.
> I have never been able to properly explain the rationale to a liberal
Have you ever had explained the liberal rationale to you and did you understand it?
I'm wondering if it works one way, or everyone struggles to understand the other. Thanks.
My Medium daily update newsletter is full of feminist, progressive, black lives matter articles. I read all of them. I read all the comments on Reddit, and on HN.
Everything is labelled as racism and misogynistic and full of vitriol. There is no priority on sound and valid argument. Its all about feelings.
Maybe I live in a filter bubble, but I would love to find a good example of a liberal having a rationale debate with a Trump supporter about political correctness, black lives matter, etc, that doesn't revolve around something being inherently "racist" or simply ad-hominem attacks. I cannot find anything like this.
I get that huge swaths of the electorate feel like this system hasn't been working, and that' it's all manipulated by career political insiders who have their own brand of benevolent authoritarianism. I get the distrust of a liberal culture that overvalues its own contributions to society, and has a false sense of how correct they are and why they are where they are, and overlooks their own serious problems and prejudices. I understand how the media plays into this, and believe that a lot of what Trump has said has been taken too seriously or distorted, that he was projecting a character rather than an argument, and in doing so, demonstrated empathy with a huge group of the population. I get that population has been so screwed by the current system they just want something different, whether that be Sanders or Trump.
However, I strongly believe that there's a false equivalence in these discussions, and that calls for "reasoned debate" on the American right are often intentionally or unintentionally meant as a negotiating tactic, to cover up arrogant intransigence on their part. They don't get what they want, so rather than contributing something constructive, they accuse the left of "not having a reasoned discussion" or not "compromising." When the GOP and Trump talk about the left "not compromising," they're really meaning "we're not getting what we want."
Relatedly, do you really believe that the things that Trump has said about minorities, women, and so forth are acceptable ways of leading the United States, or treating those who disagreed with you? What would the GOP do if the liberal candidate said the same things about Trump?
Which party shut down congress repeatedly rather than have a reasoned discussion? Which party has been obstructing and crippling the supreme court because they didn't get their way?
The reality is that the GOP lost this election in terms of votes, and yet are still entering the white house because of a broken electoral voting system. Like it or not, Clinton won more votes than Trump. So Trump and the GOP are going to undo everything the majority voted for to get their selfish agenda, because they don't care about the majority of the electorate that voted for someone else. Who is being unreasonable in this situation? It's not the liberal party.
I have plenty of reasons to be angry with both parties, but Trump is dangerous in a way that Clinton was not. Sure, I could find some bright sides to his ticket, but it's overshadowed by a lot to be terrified by.
I could not in good conscience vote for either Trump or Hillary. Both were appalling candidates.
Why was Clinton appalling? 25 years of scandals. DNC biasing the primary in her direction. The email server. (I've worked in internet security; that was a horrible decision. It was also completely against policy, which gave the impression that she thought rules were for other people. And it at least looked like she did it to avoid any emails coming home to haunt her presidential run.) The Clinton Foundation at least gave the appearance of "pay for play".
Also, she was very much the establishment candidate. In an election where many people were extremely dis-satisfied with the status quo, that was fatal.
My impression is that some people genuinely bought Trump's message - but not enough of them to win the election. There were a large number of "not Hillary" voters who put Trump over the top. That doesn't make them "pro Trump", it makes them "anti Hillary".
Would you really be saying this if Clinton lost the popular vote?
> calls for "reasoned debate" on the American right
We are not talking about discussion at a political level. This isn't about the GOP. The GOP hates Trump. Its at an interpersonal level. Person to person. Comment to comment.
Look at this thread as a case in point. You will see a perfect sample of the kind of discourse you get when you start talking with liberals. Plenty of accusations of sexism, racism, xenophobia. And I'm just a username on a forum. I could be a gay, female, muslim, illegal immigrant and I would still have been called these things. And also would be called out for betraying the liberal cause. :(
Not that this makes things substantially better. But maybe a little bit? Hopefully?
"He seems intelligent and thoughtful, but has scarily extremist views" might be a better angle to take.
Based on a YouTube video mentioned in another comment thread (https://youtu.be/CoxxGhLFbw4?t=2m30s), I wouldn't regard him as intelligent by any means.
It’s short and to the point. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
I wonder if he doesn't know or if he doesn't care how that might sound to people who were legally denied basic citizenship rights in the 1920s, or the descendants of those people. The 1920s were politically bleak for quite a few Americans.
Palantir worked for the Clinton Foundation.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/45010
For at least several years and definitely before Trump was on the map politically.
The Podesta Emails literally have Alex Karp, the CEO, paying 100k to talk to Bill Clinton.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/05/02/3A142FF40000057...
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
A few summary points:
- Did a BA in philosophy at Stanford--an analytic department--in the late 80s.
- As Reaganism was reaching its apex, he became a libertarian.
- The 90s were a period of pessimism. As the Reagan revolution was in retreat, and as conservatives retreated with it, the "smartest" libertarians sought to move beyond it. So he registered the crisis of libertarianism acutely, and went looking for the solution outside politics altogether--hence the rhetoric from early Paypal about creating a "new world currency" that would bring about the "end of monetary sovereignty". The point was to create new forms of being which would be free simply by virtue of being new. (Nothing wrong with that, and Marxists have a term for it: reification.)
- While the crisis of 2009 further confirmed the bankruptcy of the political project of libertarianism, he thought its understanding of the world was still fundamentally true: "Exhibit A is a financial crisis caused by too much debt and leverage, facilitated by a government that insured against all sorts of moral hazards — and we know that the response to this crisis involves way more debt and leverage, and way more government." But here the answer is the same as it was in the 90s: retreat from politics and build "new worlds."
What's remarkable about Theil is that he fully grasps the crisis of bourgeois society, to the point where he says, "Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of 'capitalist democracy' into an oxymoron."
This was widely denounced as both misogynistic and racist, but it wasn't: he is saying that the 1920s was the last time the crisis of bourgeois democracy might be have been resolved. This is pure Reaganite ideology, but like all ideology has a measure of truth. (It's worth noting that the Left agrees in a sense, but sees the failure of the German revolution, which also meant the failure of the October revolution, as the decisive moment.)
He recognizes the fatal contradiction at the heart of bourgeois society. Clearly. For him libertarianism is the answer that bourgeois society forbids itself because it holds itself to the promise of democracy. Each time the capitalist crisis emerges, Theil becomes anti-political, looks for a "new space for freedom," new avenues for the accumulation of capital. Cyberspace, outerspace, seasteading.
Post-2009 we saw Theil flirt with the Reactionary- or Dark-enlightenment, which while more reactionary than he's ever been nonetheless suggested a renewed desire for politics in the depths of the recession.
Theil remains revolutionary in the sense that he can claim to be in the tradition of Rousseau in the same sense Lenin, for example, could. That may be hard to recognize but it's there.
What is most interesting about Theil and Trump is that if you think of Theil as expressing intellectually the bourgeois ideology of the Reagan period (and he's pure late-80s vintage, no doubt), he has just signed on to work in the administration of the man who single-handedly ended the Reagan Coalition.
In my view what you're calling Thiel's anti-political phrases are important. I know you see them as the spread of virus-capitalism, but I think without that kind of frontier building the world would be a much more boring place. I take it you're familiar with Patri Friedman's thesis. What did you think then of Balaji Srinivasan's Exit Ycombinator talk?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
I know presently the anti-Trumpists are getting a lot of airtime with their talk of secession, but to be honest there is something much deeper beyond the current election fallout which is worth looking at. From a right perspective I have been wondering for a long time whether Silicon Valley's interests are ultimately orthogonal to Washington but appear to be similar in the present because they're competing for the same thing.
This is a strand of Rene Girard's philosophy, which Thiel is a big fan of (he knew Rene at Stanford I think), many of his ideas revolve around ideas of mimesis and scapegoating. Interestingly; he had a Girardian rationale for investing in Facebook. Never say reading philosophy doesn't pay off! I would love to have a photo of his library.
John Strange is very wrong about Thiel's activities being random. I was asked to write essay on Medium which I called "Peter and the Wolfe", which was an attempt to explain the deeper undercurrents around some of his recent decisions.
The main content of it was written before Trump got into power, so it makes it more interesting retroactively. If you recall, many people on HN were calling him mad, stupid, trying to get him kicked out of Ycombinator and Facebook's board etc. Here is the original comment:
"What is the point? He must know that Trump won't win."
"I think he is living in a capitalistic illusion"
"He's putting his Gawker money to good use."
"Maybe he just needed another write off?"
But using race baiting to gain political power crosses a line that should never be crossed. He should not be helping to legitimize this.
The way the left treats minorities is pretty patronizing, to be frank.
(I say this as a minority)
I'd like to think that, for the most part, trying to address a societal problem like [1] is better than denying that any action is needed, even if the increased visibility causes strife—[2] is of interest here—or we don't get it right the first time. It's hard to discuss because many Americans begin on vastly different pages with vastly different experiences.
[0]: https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/
[1]: http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/systemic-racism-is-real
[2] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
(In two years, this cycle starts all over again. Save your energies for that time.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4
Could you point out anywhere that Peter supports bigotry? Or even, a single crazy statement in Peter's speech? (I wouldn't defend Trump. I'm defending Peter, who I respect a lot).
The speech runs from 2:40 to 15:50, and can be watched in 7 minutes if you change speed to 2x.
(Thomas, I respect you a lot too. I've never seen or known Peter to do anything like you describe. I posted this video because it helped me understand his position on the election).
How about we cite other moments in his life? Like the (multiple!) Stanford peers he had who recounted his support for apartheid, or the book he wrote about the evils of diversity, or the blog post he wrote for Cato in 2009 lamenting that women had obtained the right to vote? How about getting up on stage and calling a person who repeatedly said that Muslims citizens of the United States should be forced to register themselves --- at their mosques or at lots of other places, we'll figure it out! --- the most honest candidate in the race?
There's a point at which the challenges you choose to raise cross a line into gaslighting --- who are you going to believe, Thiel or your own lying eyes? --- and while you haven't crossed it, writing in a tone that suggests it's unreasonable to question Thiel's inclusiveness definitely brings you right up to it.
Now, not all Trump supporters are racists (maybe Thiel isn't? who knows!), but all of them are telling us implicitly that racism and bigotry are not deal breakers.
edit: just to clarify, "people who are used to influencing our choice of leaders", I am interpreting in the context of voting rights in the United States, which of course were originally denied to everyone but white men. So those are the ones who are "used to it."
How, exactly, do you give such people $1.25 million and join their team without at least implicitly endorsing such views?
"just as guilty" is a false equivalence. The Left has much to answer for certainly; but the claim that there is somehow comparable bigotry in both sides of the political spectrum is not remotely credible.
Tolerant of | Tolerance | Yes
Intolerant of | Tolerance | No
Tolerant of | Intolerance | No
Intolerant of | Intolerance | Yes
The man clearly states what he means, trying to 'clarify what he exactly means' is convuluted apologism and revisonism. This is like saying slave trade is wrong but you support it. Ok.
If you agree with his views defend them on the platform of reason.
Let's not get carried away here. Trump has not won because he is racist, nobody now thinks racism is ok. He has won because of the disenchantment with the establishment and his opposite number being widely perceived as a crook.
If you think minorities and women are somehow different from you it will appear as bigotry unless you can offer some evidence or reason beyond generalising entire sections of humanity for some self serving and dubious cause.
citation needed.
What you're seeing here isn't an organized movement to find and punish Thiel-supporters. It's people lamenting that other people continue to do business with one specific person, who is being singled out for his own speech and actions. It's an embryonic boycott movement. Boycotts --- something far more specific, pointed, and impactful than what we're seeing in threads like this --- are not "McCarthyism".
If you're willing to see past the proud racism and misogyny, then sure. If you're willing to see past the blatant disregard for objective facts, then sure. I, for one, would vote for pretty much anyone else before supporting that.
Stop the hate online. Stop the hate in the streets. Stop talking about states leaving the union (not going to happen). Stop judging people for their choice--voting freedom is sacred. Many have died defending it. Regardless of how you voted get behind the President of the United States of America. America is still the greatest nation the world has ever known. If we all work together and stop this hate, America will be become even better.
Go tell that to the people scrawling white power slogans, painting swastikas, putting up signs for "colored" drinking fountains, wearing blackface, calling people "niggers", etc.
> voting freedom is sacred
No, your right to vote is enshrined in the constitution, but you have no right not to be judged a horrible human being for your choice.
These things are considered acceptable by the majority of republicans/trump supporters/whites?
If the anti-trump protesters are being sore losers then the KKK are being sore winners.
Not really, since he denies global warming: https://youtu.be/CoxxGhLFbw4?t=2m25s
*Note: I'm not equating a lack of belief in AGW with relativity.
But since he disagrees with you on one controversial issue, he has not.
That would be a complete waste of time, especially considering its opposite, the New Left, will die along with it. Please let's kill two birds with one Trump and move past the neoliberal era.
This article, and ever more sadly so the comments herein, are a huge disappointment.
Trump is the non-establishment candidate the left asks for from Republicans every presidential election. Hillary is, at the very least, the establishment candidate the left profess to despise.
The propaganda is strong in this one.
Grow up everybody.
They were much more worried about how the Republican party has veered right over the years. This has led them to adopt extremist views such as branding entire ethnic groups as dangerous, and rolling out laws that inhibit the ability of minorities to vote.
These are just some of the worries that the left in America has with the Republican party.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/02/this-...
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349...
- Thiel is a founder of Palantir, a.k.a. the private branch of the NSA.
- He also has strong vested interests in the health of hedge funds and the financial industry, as well as strong opinions favoring deregulation.
- He does not believe in global warming or the urgency of combating it.
- His statements in the past have shown lack of respect/consideration for minorities and women.
For example this submission has 349 points and was submitted 6 hours ago and has rank 17 while "Halite: An AI Programming Challenge" has 158 points and was submitted 12 hours ago and is rank 16. The Leonard Cohen post has just a bit more upvotes and was submitted also 6 hours ago and is rank 2. "Island generator was also submitted at the same time and with just barely over 100 upvotes is rank 7.
Can some mod please give some insight into this? I'm gonna give HN the benefit of the doubt, probably some invisible factors playing into it but the ranking plus the editing could look a bit like the story is getting burried.
-Donald Trump says he wants to completely deregulate the banking industry, which will most likely, in the long term, lead to a crisis on par with or greater than the last banking crisis in 2008. That will probably harm most YC companies in just about every sector, and will negatively influence the value of YC's holdings.
-Donald Trump and Paul Ryan plan to strip approximately 20 million people of health insurance, and millions more of food stamps, decimating our already weak safety net for the poor. He will do more harm to the poor and disadvantaged in his first six months than YC's non-profit efforts have ever achieved and maybe will ever achieve, probably by orders of magnitude.
-Donald Trump is part of a movement to dismantle pluralism in the United States, including the marginalization of immigrants and their descendants. He has stated, and his followers are now performing, an antipathy toward people from other countries, and views their economic success as directly opposed to the success of white Americans. YC is a network that includes many diverse people of all backgrounds, including many immigrants. These people will be persecuted by Trumps followers and oppressed by his government.
-Donald Trump has appointed a "climate skeptic," which means, "dangersous liar," to head the Environmental Protection Agency Transition. He has already sent out many other signals that he intends to cease any US efforts to combat Global Warming, which will have the effect of destabilizing the various international agreements that might have ameliorated its effects. It currently seems likely that Trump will single-handedly prevent the world from achieving a viable response to this threat for another four years. This gravely threatens the entire world, and will cause rippling suffering around the world. Every person who interacts with Y Combinator and their descendants will be unambiguously worse off because of this.
YC should not reject Thiel because "he holds opposing political beliefs." YC should reject Thiel, cut off all relationship with him, publicly condemn him, because he has joined an organization, the Donald Trump Administration, which has stated its intentions to do massive harm to YC and the people of the world. If YC continues its relationship with Thiel, if it fails to acknowledge its association with him as a black mark on its standing among people of conscience, and if it does not muster all of its leverage, economic and otherwise, in the fight to curtail the power of Thiel's organization (The Trump Administration), than they are part of a problem that should terrify anyone who prefers economic growth, the reduction of human suffering, political freedom and the viability of earth as a home for humanity.
Now is a test for many people and institutions in American life. YC doesn't have many days left before it has failed.
No - they said they are going to repeal and replace Obamacare with something else. That does not mean they are going to strip people of their health insurance.
"Donald Trump is part of a movement to dismantle pluralism in the United States, including the marginalization of immigrants and their descendants"
This is a lie. Trump has consistently supported all legal immigrants, and voiced concern against those entering the country illegally. Again - your position misrepresents reality and paints anyone who is against illegal immigration to be against all immigrants, and a 'racist' etc..
As a non-Trump supporter, you should easily be able to win someone like me over - but you can't when you mix in so much hyperbole.
It's comments like this that basically made me stop supporting progressive causes about 10 years ago, even though in general, I do support a lot of it ... I never give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.
Trump confirmed his own opposition to people of Mexican descent when he said judge Gonzalo Curiel had a conflict of interest.
He said that Curiel, who is descended from legal Mexican immigrants, could not rule fairly on a Trump trial, because Trump wanted to build a wall on the Mexican border.
Note that Trump did not claim that Curiel was an illegal immigrant, or that his predecessor were illegal immigrants. It was Mexican heritage generally that Trump claimed caused the conflict of interest.
And Trump of course has repeatedly spoken in favor of banning all Muslims from coming into the country, even legal immigrants.
These are just off the top of my head; there are many more examples. If you won't be convinced, that's on you.
Do not casually dismiss these people by appealing to "legal immigration". The Obama Administration had to fight hard to secure continued residency for some of these children, and Trump's 100 Day Plan includes a pledge to revoke that security.
This is a real concern deserving your careful consideration. It's not a sound bite. You can disagree, but if you're disagreeing that we should be concerned about a pledge to rend families apart, you owe a more careful and honest articulation of your disagreement than you gave here.
The only "something else" that has been mentioned thus far is the utterly inadequate notion of savings accounts. If Donald Trump manages to produce the magical pony that provides affordable health care for individuals regardless of pre-existing conditions while not requiring an individual mandate or bankrupting the health insurance industry, then I'll believe he actually is a genius.
The president does not appoint cabinet level officials, the president nominates them and they are approved by Congress.
And there hasn't been a formal nomination, just a floating of the name.
Anyway, the point is that everyone who votes to approve the various cabinet officials should be held responsible for the things that follow, not just the president.
And I agree, it's not just Trump. It is his administration and his party. All the more reason why YC must repudiate Thiel.
Nobody is forcing me to be friends with Peter Thiel.
James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
Whether you respect the Electoral College or don't, Trump should not be the President. But given that he will be, we have an obligation to stand against him. And to shame those who refuse to stand against him and his administration. Sadly this appears to include YC and its leaders.
I don't write often, or even blog, but I felt the need to vent on some of the issues of the picks here: https://medium.com/@joshbrody_36224/dear-president-elect-tru...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/most-important-wiki...
But rare does not mean always.
Well I'm hopeful. He has made investments into clean tech. He is both smart & a business guy. So Trump will listen to him & that's good.
He is also a connection back to Tesla & energy storage.
Hmm. Maybe this Trump thing isn't so bad after all (for the planet).
Trump may want more oil -- but the reality of that is that oil is controlled by the market.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2g4g95/peter_thiel_te...
He was asked "Why do you financially support so many anti-gay GOP politicians?" Which is exactly what you're wondering about. And lo, he answered:
"If I thought they were anti-gay, then I would not support them. I do not find myself fully on the side of any of our political leaders -- because none of them are fully on my side."
Reading some of his other stuff, this turns out to be a recurring theme: he's on board with approximately zero electable politicians, and kind of disgusted by the whole mess, so any viable political strategy will necessarily involve kissing a few toads. If you've been near a voting booth recently, you probably did the same.
(I admit that Trump is warty even by the standards of toads, but Hillary probably wouldn't have taken someone with Thiel's... mixed reputation.)
So, in essence, no social policy or law is going to be of particular importance to Thiel; it's all positional in his worldview - all the rules are made to be broken.
“I think homosexuality is a lifestyle, it’s a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed,” Blackwell told the Columbus Dispatch at the time. “I think it is a transgression against God’s law, God’s will.”
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/10/1596184/-Trump-ge...
What could go wrong?
IMHO, YC had their chance to divorce themselves from Thiel. They can still do it, but this is their last chance. Silicon Valley is not going to forget this conflict of interest.
The Silicon Valley that was giving Hillary millions so they could vie for the same positions? Or Google staffers that met at the White House over 427 times, during the same administration that expanded surveillance against Americans?
TL;DR; It's probably a good thing for Silicon Valley, considering the alternative outcome (all other things equal): Trump still winning the election without a single Silicon Valley influencer.
(Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.)
On the other hand, if he's finding "heat" that he'll inevitably be taking, by ever-rising degrees, for his association with Thiel (and hence, Trump and everything he stands for) to be not to his liking -- it's still not too late to get out of the kitchen.
Mark my words, if Trump starts to raise the national debt by a large amount, pull out of markets and put into bitcoin.
Wow. That is...troubling
He did not mean women should not have been given the vote. And "welfare beneficiaries" actually doesn't refer to minorities there (although they'd be included among the beneficiaries of the New Deal).
What he said and meant, translated into Leftist language, is that it was clear by the 1920s that there was no longer any hope for resolving the crisis of bourgeois democracy. In other words, democracy and capitalism had become contradictory, incompatible. That's true, and had been true long before 1920, but the concept of history he articulates isn't totally incorrect. At least he thinks.
It is worth noting that the 1920s was also the decade when the German Left collapsed, all but sealing the fate of the October Revolution with it. Theil misrecognizes history when he blames the failure of the bourgeois revolution on politics, but he isn't wrong to recognize the importance of the bourgeois revolution. He just doesn't go far enough--only the socialist revolution could fulfill the promises of the bourgeois revolution (Great French Revolution).
I give a sort of point-by-point critique of his essay here:
> It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better.
He also points out that the "most intense reaction" was to the factual "commonplace statistical observation about voting patterns that is often called the gender gap".
Lying is one of the main reasons the Democrats lost. Learn something from their failure.
He prefers "freedom" over democracy.
He wants to disenfranchise anyone who votes against his ideas of freedom. This is not good, eh?
I had very negative feelings about Thiel, and those were magnified 10x after his endorsement of Trump, but I'll at least concede he's a very shrewd individual.
> I think Thiel is hedging for both himself and as a proxy for Facebook. If Trump wins, Facebook gets the most favored corporation status currently awarded to Google. If Trump loses, Thiel perhaps assumes everyone will forget soon enough and Zuckerberg can diss-avow any Facebook connection.
In retrospect, the one thing I think I was wrong about were the odds. I thought it was a long shot.
Facebook has sentiment analysis and definitely had a better guess on how the election would turn out than perhaps anyone else in the world. While pollsters were trying to extrapolate on what the entire population would be doing based on small samples and proprietary methods, Facebook just had the data. Not only can Facebook say you are a Trump supporter, but they can know by how much and as time series!
Make no mistake, "Most favored tech company" status just swapped Google with Facebook.
I don't support Trump, I believe very, very little of what he has said he supports or will do. However, I am fairly upset about the public support Hillary received. From foreign policy to domestic issues, her track record is appalling and with the exception of pro-war moderates, everyone who supported her should at least be embarrassed about it.
Don't get me wrong, I think Trump has the potential to do some good. I am still unsure how much of his campaign he actually believes or intends to do. Term limits, I think, are probably a good thing, though also probably a long shot. If he keeps his word on not being able to be bought, that will be good. More non-professional politicians in government is probably a good thing in general.
That said, because of Trump you can almost certainly kiss goodbye: climate/renewable energy science, net neutrality, Roe v. Wade, higher minimum wage, etc. You can bet that soon the official language/religion of the US will be English and Christianity respectively. Nuclear weapons will almost certainly go back into production and military spending in general will skyrocket, while education funding continues to shrink.
It would take a hell of a lot of corruption from Hillary to get me to vote for any of that.
That's a fascinating insight. They also have the geographic data and could slice/dice to get a sense of electoral college. After the systematic polling error that caught everyone off-guard, we will probably see some innovations in the next 4 years that will get incorporated into the ensemble models (e.g. 538). Perhaps Facebook will release some sort of sentiment data. Although that may get a little creepy.
Wasn't Trump rallying against such crony corruption aka 'pay for play'?
I'm not sure Trump realizes what worked best in business, or what he felt worked best for him in what business he has done, is not necessarily best for operating policy. I'm not sure he cares. I suspect he might though. Dude looked humble-struck in the video today with Obama; almost worried about what he got himself into.
We've seen this during his entire campaign. Anything he attacked Clinton for came up as something he was guilty of.
Also, having an openly gay advisor gives some hope that Trump might stand up to the anti-LGBT majority of the Republican party, perhaps even nominate a supreme court justice that doesn't want to overturn marriage equality.
Thiel having called climate change pseudoscience as recently as 2 years ago on the other hand, and having actually acted on the authoritarian impulses he shares with Trump to shut down media organizations out of revenge, is not encouraging.
Trump "hacked" the electoral process. Whether he broke things remains to be seen. It's one thing chasing a bear, and quite another catching one.
why is that?
To be honest, I've always had the feeling that it was more like 10% - 90%.
Thiel is a very good person to advise on the tech sector and which direction technology might lead society to since he obviously called many major developments and made huge profits on these bets.
Thiel also happens to align with the Republicans on certain issues so why should Trump not ask for his advise or Thiel offer advise?
It's great that a true Libertarian like Thiel even gets the chance to influence the direction of the government.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
At worst getting the facts wrong by a few months doesn't make Thiel a climate change denier.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-...
https://www.ycombinator.com/rfs/
The longer YC waits to do the right thing on this, the worse it will get.
Sometimes the people you do business with have political opinions you don't agree with. The melodrama over Thiel's political opinions is pointless. If you demand Thiel steps down, are you personally just going to stop doing business with 49% of the country that voted differently?
Personally I lean liberal, but I'm pretty disgusted with all the theatrics I've seen in this election from the left. The Trump phenomenon arguably occurred because half the country felt ostracized and decided to lob a brick through the window of washington in the form of donald trump. Maybe we should all get to understand our neighbors instead of doubling down on us-vs-them tribalism.
I'd blame the democrats alone (the party, leadership, delegates, superdelegates and a section of voters + ~~liar~~ media) for giving away the presidency to Trump. For free, literally.
How is Peter Thiel or anyone else (Trump's supporters) responsible for what comes out of the man's mouth when at the same time the other party is clearly doing what's downright corruption/stifling a democratic nomination?
ICYMI, Peter Thiel did mention that he'd have preferred a race between Sanders and Trump instead (watch his interview to the press club) -- where he quotes: "because they get it" -- and that Trump gets the big things right even though his behavior isn't acceptable.
I don't see any reason for YC or any other organization to follow through with your advice. It is also mind numbing that a portion of democrats who made a joke of Trump when he said "he will accept the results only if he wins" are unable to accept the result of the election themselves.
Move on folks, open your ears and do your job.
On downvotes: I'm pretty sure downvoting over here is symptomatic behavior of a community that doesn't like to listen. Thank you for proving the point. I am happy that Trump is leading us and he is the elected premier for this country despite his weaknesses.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/...
Yeah I'll believe it when I see it
Can we have a black bar for America, please?
This Saturday, my two daughters (ages 11 and 8) are driving a 1,700km journey to North Dakota to show our support for the #NoDAPL movement. I am doing it because my eldest is really into Aboriginal rights right now. These people are just trying to preserve their land.
I hope we don't get shot by Peter Thiel.
Trump doesn't really have any consistent ideology about most things, but the one thing he never wavers on is his commitment to protectionist trade policy.
If California seceded from the US to spite Trump, Trump will do everything in his power to block commerce between California and the United States. California's economy will tank, and all the tech companies there will be practically worthless.