Comment by memossy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by memossy | Hacker News Reader

Something missing in the hundreds (thousands?) of comments on this is why Thiel supports Trump.

The bottom line is that Thiel believes the 'positives' of a Trump presidency would outweigh the negatives.

The expected value is positive versus a status quo Clinton administration so he should support Trump.

He lays his priority set out quite clearly in his RNC speech: http://time.com/4417679/republican-convention-peter-thiel-tr... and if you agree with his central premises of a structurally broken economy, excessive foreign intervention etc then tbh Trump is the only viable candidate even after recent headlines, particularly if you believe in the strength of US institutions to curb any excesses.

If Thiel's position were based on hatred then I think it would be another story, but as it is, again given acceptance of the possibility of his central premises being correct and Trump being a 'viable' (as in could win vs Stein or Johnson) major party candidate his support is rational.

Across America Trump will win fifty million votes or more and while some of them may be deplorables voting for deplorable reasons, many will be voting based on implicit expected value metrics.

You're right, Thiel's position isn't based on hatred – it's based on indifference. It's based on being privileged enough that Trump's hatefulness doesn't and won't personally affect him. I don't see how that's any better.

It isn't a given that Trump is objectively hateful or that Trump's expressed words will personally affect any given American. Your point of view, while a wonderful work of emotionally-charged rhetoric, is not legitimate.

I don't get what you're trying to say. What does "objectively hateful" mean? You think the president's words don't affect Americans?

You don't see how it's better to be indifferent to the plight of minorities (which is just your characterization of Thiel, by the way) than it is to promote hatred of those groups?

It's not about Thiel being indifferent to the issue in general as a passive observer. He's actively making things worse by supporting Trump, and he's indifferent about that. He's willing to take his policy wins in exchange for helping make a serial sexual assaulter president. Helping Trump become president is promoting hatred. Whether Thiel himself feels any particular hatred doesn't seem all that relevant.

>serial sexual assaulter president

Allegedly, in the same way that HRC is allegedly a rapist apologist and allegedly threatened a rape victim of her husband. I don't understand why Clinton supporters try to ignore this but harp on Trump constantly. The supporters on both sides use tremendously dishonest hyperbole and it makes everyone look like ignorant, brainless assholes.

How about sticking to talking points that are of real substance? Apparently we're too busy screaming at each other about how Trump wants to fuck all non-whites to death and Hillary is actually Lord Voldemort.

The stuff about Trump is mostly verifiably true beyond reasonable doubt. ("I like to assault women.", dozens of women in his circles: "Yeah he does that.")

The stuff about Clinton is mostly verifiably false. (see Snopes for example http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-lau...)

That's the difference.

Yeah, no one has incentive to lie during this campaign, and no one has ever lied during this campaign. Let's go ahead and treat everything everyone says as fact. Good point. /s

While it may perhaps be true, you shouldn't put it in quotes if he didn't say it.

"Serial sexual assaulter" isn't hyperbole, and I'm not screaming. fletom's comment is correct. It's not just an allegation when it's on record for everyone to listen to.

One could argue the success of most companies in SV are based in part on indifference.

Disruption creates many losers as well as winners, not everything is a positive sum game.

Indifference towards second order impacts due to a focus on the primary goal (economy is really really bad about to explode etc) is pretty common.

I think Thiel does acknowledge some of the ugliness though looking at his speech, he's just focused on the necessity for immediate change versus status quo/gradual shifts & calls for him to be disavowed for doing so still don't ring quite true.

After George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, I don't understand how the Republican Party is the one to vote for if you're concerned with "excessive foreign intervention".

How many countries have we bombed and/or invaded since 2008?

We haven't invaded any and we've drawn out troops down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com