Thiel to support Trump at RNC Thursday
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
This might be a good idea for people who are staunchly anti republican to reexamine their beliefs and look to see what Peter sees. Here is the current GOP platform if you are interested:
I mean if Trump is going to be president, and to be honest I can't see it happening, don't you want him surrounded by some incredibly smart people like Thiel that can talk him down from some of his more "bolder" ideas?
The Republican's have some very good platform points they are pursuing. The return of Glass Stegal is the biggest one I can see. There is almost no way I can see the Democrats under Clinton proposing this.
> like Thiel that can talk him down from some of his more "bolder" ideas
Thiel is one of the few people to have "bolder" (which I assume is a euphemism for batshit insane) ideas than Trump. Thiel believes that freedom and democracy are incompatible[1], and he's strongly pro-freedom (sometimes), so he must be... anti-democracy? I don't know. He also said women and poor people getting to vote was bad for democracy[2].
1. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education...
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peter-thiel-women-democr...
Much of it is stuff I'm just plain opposed to, of course. "The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College"? Ridiculous. They go on about the importance of freedom of speech, then they drop this gem: "By whatever legislative method is most feasible, Old Glory should be given legal protection against desecration." So what is the Republican platform, "freedom as long as we like it"? Continuing on, they want to outlaw abortion, encourage coal burning, restrict marriage rights, and preserve our bloated defense budget.
Here's a real gem: "The Internet must be made safe for children.... Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced." How obscenity laws are compatible with their supposed belief in freedom and liberty is beyond me.
Yes, there are some good things in there. But not nearly enough to get me to see past all this stuff above, and a lot of it is just generic platitudes.
(And don't respond to any of this with "but the Democrats...." I don't like them either. Although I dislike them somewhat less.)
Ideally, this fact would cause people to pause and reflect.
I think Vladimir Putin is one of the smartest world leaders currently. Barack Obama probably is, and it would be contradictory for someone to argue that both he and Peter Thiel are correct about how the US should be governed. Elizabeth Warren and Karl Rove are also both seemingly very intelligent.
Someone took a stab[1][2] at assessing and ranking the smartest presidents, and they're ideologically mixed (from Roosevelt to Reagan).
1. http://www.eoht.info/page/Dean+Simonton
2. http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/SimontonPres...
I suspect there is an inverse relationship.
Thiel also seems to hold some confusing opinions (not very pro-immigration despite working closely with and benefiting from immigrants such as Elon Musk and Max Levchin).
It's also an opportunity for him to raise his own profile in political circles.
All the Democrats care about is power. Witness the shadiness with which Democrats forced Hillary as the nominee and then let her get off when she obviously broke the law and had been lying about it for a year.
When a group wants power that bad it's my job as an American citizen to keep them out of power.
#2 - The republican party itself is at least interested in holding trump accountable. The same can't be said for democrats and Hillary.
And I'm supposed to believe that they're a party of principle?
The level of debate that existed during the primaries, that continues to exist inside the party, the discussion of supporting a 3rd party candidate (in this case libertarian) is all centered around principles and positions.
Meanwhile, the complete lack of candidates, let alone debate among the democrats during the primary, the fait accompli of nominating Hillary, the complete disinterest in holding her accountable for breaking the law and putting national security at risk.... This is all centered around power.
If the result was this guy, does it even matter if the primary debates were centered around principles?
I'm not commenting on the Democrats here, so the nature of their process is not really relevant. I am not arguing for them in any way, and will cast my vote in that direction only with great reluctance.
Thiel is mostly on topic here, of course, but Trump is mostly off topic, so there's a tradeoff. I don't think HN gets better if we resolve that in favor of more arguing about Trump.