Thiel: we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom | Hacker News Reader

Thiel: we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom

thehill.com

40 pointsjsprogrammer34 comments

I really don't have a clue how Thiel can endorse a Trump / Pence ticket. Pence advocates "conversion therapy".

Edit: I realize Thiel does not "agree with every plank in [his] party’s platform" -- I'm guessing he loves the tax cuts he will gain of course (so I suppose I do have a clue how he can support the ticket after all). Unfortunately that's also going to throw our country deeper into debt.

Maybe he understands that neither the President nor the Vice President has any authority over "conversion therapy", and finds their positions (or their competencies, or whatever) on the things that they will have authority over as being preferable to Hillary Clinton?

Just a thought.

Thus far trump has paraded Mexicans on stage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm6LGITkiz4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJVAaPPXdew) while talking about building a wall between our countries, pointed out black people in the audience ("look at my african american over here" http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/donald-trump-african-...) but wouldn't condemn David Duke's endorsement (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-declines-to-cond...) and now gets Thiel on stage after choosing a running mate who thinks conversion therapy is science.

Trumps positions seem to be pro-xenophobia, pro-racism, pro-homophobia. That is the ticket Thiel is supporting -- it is the platform Trump rode to the top. But hey.. muh tax breaks!

I doubt it's anything so pedestrian as tax cuts; Thiel has been quite vocal about his disdain for the democratic system and his desire to see the US run as a quasi-private fiefdom led by a strongman CEO. Since it's hard to find a national-level politician who would support an effort to effectively shred the Constitution, Trump might be his best bet to promulgate his thesis. Thiel is, if nothing else, the kind of guy who plays the long game with his obsessions.

You could argue that having a presence at the RNC as an openly gay, wealthy and successful person could make a strong counter against the prevailing GOP beliefs on sexuality

That strategy did not work well for Ernst Röhm. Given that the entirety of Trump's campaign seems to be one of political expediency, I don't see Thiel being anymore than "Trump's best friend is gay, so of course we're not against gay people!".

Here was a fun surprise: when he said "I'm proud to be gay," the crowd cheered. At the Republican National Convention.

> You could argue that having a presence at the RNC as an openly gay, wealthy and successful person could make a strong counter against the prevailing GOP beliefs on sexuality

You could also argue that he has a net worth of $2.8b and will gain massive tax cuts if trump is elected.

Thiel is endorsing the party which is well known for its racism, its xenophobic rhetoric, its hatred for gays (as evidenced by policies and actions). Trump built his platform on fear and hatred, and he chose a running mate that is known for advocating a dangerous, dehumanizing pseudo-science.

The only message I'm getting out of Thiel's endorsement is greed.

I thougt that Thiel's speech was very good, making a good point that Trump is more likely keep us out of stupid military conflicts and has some decent economic ideas.

That said, the idea of Trump or Clinton being president scares me a bit. Usually I more or less like both candidates running for president, but in this election both candidates concern me.

I'm not sure which way to read this statement. Is he saying Republicans shouldn't waste time with bathroom bills or that Democrats are wasting time by arguing against them?

I interpreted it as both, actually. It seems quite clear that his point (whether you agree with it or not) was that it is a distraction that take time way from (what he sees as) more important issues.

It can't really be both. The one is a reaction to the other. If North Carolina hadn't brought it up, we'd scarcely be talking about it.

Of course it can. Why is the origin of a particular controversy relevant to telling both sides to stop sweating the small stuff and get on with the critical business of running the country? If anything the, "they hit me first", sort of back-and-forth is exactly the sort of thing he's saying is the problem. I don't know that Trump is the answer to that, but on his statement at the convention: Thiel is right.

Someone on the other side would argue that if the left-wing hadn't started pushing for it, North Carolina wouldn't have passed the law.

Again, no matter what your position is on this, it's quite clear that the "left" is the group that altered the status quo and therefore brought the issue to the foreground.

And again, that isn't correct. The status quo was that you used the bathroom for the gender you identified as. And the status quo was maintained, perhaps silently, for a long time. HB2 upended that and imposed on personal freedoms.

No, the status quo was that you used the bathroom that matched your external physical genitalia, not what you "identified as".

Your claim is untrue on its face.

Now, if you want to argue that it should be otherwise, you won't necessarily find me in disagreement, but claiming things that are contrary to facts does not lead to a productive conversation.

Not sure what you're getting at, but your history is wrong:

"In a one-day specially convened session on March 23, North Carolina’s legislature passed a sweeping law that reverses a Charlotte ordinance that had extended some rights to people who are gay or transgender.

The North Carolina bill was not something that was pulled from thin air to antagonize a disfavored community, but it was a response to a local ordinance which sought to codify specific legal privileges for that community.

No matter what you think of either law, the sequence of events is not how you represent them.

The way I heard it was essentially: both. With this sort of issue, it's usually some advocacy group of the Left that gets the ball rolling with policy (not legislation, usually some regulatory, rule making, or court thing) and then the Right feels the need to react as it's advocacy groups see fit. In the meantime, more critical, if perhaps boring, problems are ignored. Sure, to those for whom this is their world there is nothing more critical, but on the whole it is a side show.

I think Thiel is correct on this point. And I do think it was remarkable that he got such a warm reception on his statement about being Gay and not agreeing with all the platform planks; and that Trump's statement on Orlando was so warmly received.

Having said that, for me jury is out. Personally, this election feels not unlike how I'd feel about be given a choice between killing a puppy, killing a kitten, or just walking away leaving them both to starve. There is no option that won't make me sick, and even just not voting leaves you with the taste that this time you should have done something productive to stop one or the other from getting in.

I think he is taking Trump's POV that it shouldn't even be discussed by either side and whole thing is stupid.

Full speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVHoGiSCfmU

This is what an attempt to change a party's rhetoric from the inside looks like. Kind of fun to watch, really.

From what I read previously about Thiel's views, I would've thought he'd endorse (and generously donate to) Gary Johnson.

Not sure why he wouldn't take the chance to endorse a third party candidate when both of the main parties have extremely disliked candidates [0].

[0] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-b...

Yes, There are many that want to argue about whether Bruce... err... Cate Jenner using the Womens' bathroom is some sort of epic battle for civilization, meanwhile we've doubled our national debt, the % of people working is the lowest its been in 40 years, and the world is so destabilized we have refugee crises across multiple continents. Honestly, if you aren't in the 1% who wants four more years of this?

Will this hurt Thiel's deal flow? I know if I were fundraising I would look elsewhere after reading this article.

Bathroom bills are the highest expression of the modern US right wing: freedom and liberty for me, but not for you. Endless forgiveness and acceptance for me, Old Testament fire and brimstone for you. Religious freedom from things that are offensive to me, belittling as "PC police run mad" whenever something offends you. A nation built on the backs of immigrants like me, which now has to keep out all the immigrants like you.

Lest you think I joke, this is literally what Donald Trump espouses: Mike Pence, his running mate, gets to make mistakes and be forgiven. Hillary Clinton makes mistakes? LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/28809...

And by endorsing that mess, Thiel basically forfeits any moral high ground he might think he holds.

I believe I've spotted a typo:

"Hillary makes mistakes"

was probably meant to read

"Hillary jeopardizes the security of an entire nation by leaking top secret information to our enemies and then denying everything under oath before getting caught by the FBI".

Let me know if that made it clearer, just here to help. Thanks!

Agreed. Hillary's crime and subsequent lies were far worse than what forced Nixon to resign. The real fascists who think that law doesn't matter are the ones that nominated her anyway.

The president makes judgement calls not the VP. If you have bad judgement as the president you have no hope. Plus the opposition's job is to disagree with the government when they are wrong.

> When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy. > Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of? > “Making America great again” was the casual reply.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-...

Edit:

I don't know if this is just a gaffe by Trump Jr but it seems to be Trump Sr's style -- hire someone to do the job for you.

Donald Trump Jr went onto Morning Joe and said he never said something that stupid.

Edit: He said on Morning Joe that Trump Sr was not part of this conversation and his head would be rolling for suggesting such a deal. What makes you think this is Trump Sr's style? From what I can see from his campaign he is very hard working. Always willing to give media reports and has very rapid response times. He responded to Nice within 8 minutes.

If anything hiring someone else to do the job seems to be Hillary's style. She always has surrogates speaking to the media. Trump isn't afraid of defending his position to highly critical media. Its something that even his critics admire.

No matter if you are a Trump support or hate. There are definitely things you can admire about Trump's character.

> He said on Morning Joe that Trump Sr was not part of this conversation and his head would be rolling for suggesting such a deal

Probably true, I didn't see the follow up.

> What makes you think this is Trump Sr's style?

Nearly every solution he offers up is "I can hire the best people for the job". What is he personally going to do? What position or opinion has he personally offered up that wasn't batshit insane? He called for a "total ban on muslims", for months on end talked about deporting 11 million people, tapped an anti-gay VP. I really don't see how this man is qualified to lead a superpower.

Jon Stewart (paraphrased) pointed out "These guys say 'why are blacks so sensitive [about issues]', 'why are muslims so sensitive [about issues]' .... but god forbid you say 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry christmas', because then it's fucking war"

Can't recall the exact point he said it, but it's always interesting to hear him speak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da5VYSPsoE0

Jon Stewart is really smart and knows how to turn a phrase. I'm not as good as him, so I'll try to copy him:

"These guys say, why are christians so sensitive about their religion, but god forbid you draw a cartoon about their prophet, because then it's fucking terrorism" - except "the war on christmas" is rhetorical spin by fox news, whereas the terrorism committed against people who have breached muslim religious norms is real. That does not mean "these guys" actually support the terrorism, it's simply rhetoric to discredit your opposition.

When Stewart says "these guys", I am sure he knows the fallacy he's committing - smearing a whole group by the actions of a subgroup within it. Since most such statements are not followed by rigorous statistical analysis to prove whether this sentiment is widely-held and core to the group, they're almost always just a rhetorical device to score points against your political opponents. Any sufficiently large group will have a dissonance of voices within it. By extracting a particular issue out of its context and reaching for the widest label possible to slap on it, you can accrue political capital without actually dealing with the issue.

Who is telling us this? Really, the great debate?

Also, where can we get stats on the flag count?

Well, Garry Kasparov who I thought Peter was "friends" with has some really great tweets on how this election is like 1920's when people said Hitler's racism was just an entertainment ploy to fool the masses into his real... more politically savvy agenda.

New York Times 1922: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cn6vn_SW8AIsuZc.jpg

Garry on possitive correlation words vs policy. Strength, Power, Greatness https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cn8BwA5WEAAbp10.jpg

It's frightening. We grew up saying things like "If I lived in Germany I would not be evil like those guys"

Well here is Peter Thiel, Investor of Facebook, Investor in Hulk Hogan's lawsuit, and now investor in the end

of the United States of America as we knew it.

We will look back at a later date and say, "Back in 2016, America was pretty great"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com