Typical mod treatment.

Can't even put up an argument.

You're getting downvotes here, but Tiel wrote his own manifesto, published it, and there isn't any ambiguity in what he wrote. He believes enfranchising women and "welfare beneficaries" was incompatible with his view of a well-run government, but it is now impractical to take the vote away from them.

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

You also did a terrific job as summarizing his idea of 'freedom' as the freedom a of a feudal lord to do as he pleases.

There are many accusations that Trump engaged in the behavior he voluntarily described himself behaving in.

I don't think that matters though. He is already on the record encouraging (and bragging about) coercion; it is completely antithetical to libertarianism.

There's a video of him saying he does it. That might not be enough to convict him in court, by personally I don't see why I shouldn't take him at his word on that.

When just two people are in the room, you won't find it possible to "prove" anything.

But there is, of course, no reason to doubt the honesty of the women involved. Why wouldn't you trust them?