Also racism and sexism is a subjective issue, asking people to take a stand against "this kind of thing" without specifics is playing into the political banter.
(I say this as a left-leaning guy by Canadian standards. Believe me, I'm terrified you guys might actually elect that monster.)
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/07/22/trump-makes-histo...
But Thiel does. We know this, because Thiel got up on stage at the Republican National Convention, in a nationally televised speech, and proclaimed to the nation that Donald Trump was the best candidate in the race --- and the only "honest" one. Thiel's support for Trump is not in question.
Some people have higher preference of political correctness, smooth behavior and strong, likable speeches. Some feel bad/desperate enough to don't give a f__k about this and rather want to see a change in current not-so-bright-for-them situation. This kind of situation happens very often, all around the globe where you have elections.
Personally, choosing between spoiled amoral brat who didn't achieve much without daddy's cash and influence, and Clinton which is arrogant lawyer (where is the common lawyer hate when it matters?) apparently too deep in corporate pockets to ever see or solve anything real... well, I guess I would just pick a candidate that doesn't have a chance.
luckily not US citizen, so this is just outside view
Your position undermines the very democracy it purports to defend.
i also believe many others will vote for trump simply to push the country toward a breakup of the 2-party system into a 3 or 4-party system. they very well could have voted for bernie if that were an option.
Starting an argument from "this is ok because we're right and they're wrong" means that you have to expect the other side to use the exact same argument. I'd rather not see us go down the road of firing people for supporting popular candidates, if only because everyone can do it.
http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf
Possibly not the most unbiased of sources, I think.
This comment is actually pretty hilarious given the fact that Teneo Holdings, mentioned in the report, was founded by ex Bill Clinton staffers, and had Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as 2 of it's original 3 advisors. Huma Abedin is presently on the Teneo payroll.
If those sorts of ties between people are problematic to you, then you must ABSOLUTELY HATE the Clintons, because the same type of arrangement is how literally everyone close to them got there.
Funding should always be considered, but is not cause to discount otherwise valid methodologies and findings.
saying stuff like this doesn't help your cause. it really, really doesn't.
No it is not tacit acceptance. People weigh pros and cons of each candidate and make a choice. No donation or endorsement implies 100% allegiance, only an overall preference. I'm sure Thiel thinks Trump is fairly idiotic. "But he's a sexist" doesn't change anything even if it were true.
Anyone is free to shun people for their publicly stated political stance but any particular policies or personal attributes of Trump or anyone are not in a special category that is shun-worthy.
And no, turning it into a symbolic issue in a Presidential election isn't going to help prevent it happening to the women in your life.
For all the fearmongering over him (and let's face it some of it has been absurd) I think he'd end up being a lame duck president who doesn't do very much except primp, preen and massage his ego. Assuming that's true (he never has been particularly well connected to reality and the president can't do an awful lot unilaterally), that might actually be the preferable option.
Ironically many of the people who were against Bernie because "he wasn't realistic" and what he wanted "isn't achieveable" seem intent on forgetting that now that an orange attached to a blonde mop is running for president.
Most of Trump's supporters don't accept that he's racist, or generally sexist, or the other charges being made. The ones I've talked to largely believe that he's just rude, and sometimes directs that through traits like race, gender, and disability. On policy, they would say that opposing things like illegal immigration isn't actually racism.
Laugh at that if you want, say they're stupid, but realize they're saying the exact same thing about you and the claim that Hillary is dangerously corrupt. "No she isn't, it's just..." - same structure.
My point is that you can't rescue a stance of "fire Trump supporters" by saying he's the bad guy. If that were consensus reality, the election would be over.
So you're absolutely opening the door to retribution from people who think the same way in reverse. That's exactly why the value of having a norm against punishing people for holding popular opinions, no matter how divisive.
I wonder if we have enough evidence to reach that conclusion? Respectfully, I'm not sure you've talked to enough supporters to generalize about the whole group.
Speaking only for myself, if I end up voting for one of those two, it will be for Trump. I accept the strong possibility that every one of the negative personality traits he's shown are genuine.
I think in policy matters he's basically a wildcard. But I find Clinton so undesirable as a candidate that I would prefer a wildcard.
Does this mean I approve in any way of Trump's apparent personal characteristics? Absolutely not.
I should probably have said "don't accept that he's racist or sexist in a way that precludes voting for him". The claim I meant to make is that most of his supporters are not voting for him because they feel that racism and sexism are good. That claim, I think, carries no matter what the breakdown between "he doesn't mean it", "he's racist but I'm not", and "he means it but I don't think it's racist". Certainly, I've seen all three assertions.
My broader point was simply that "but Trump is worse, false equivalence" is absurdly circular reasoning. There are plenty of people (yourself included?) who could make the same charge against Clinton.
For myself, I wouldn't want to be accused of 'tacit acceptance' of the stances of any of the candidates. Everyone running (third parties included) has at least one view or policy that I find abhorrent, so I get personally uncomfortable about the idea that voting for someone means accepting their stances.
I dislike Trump immensely, but this narrative that this guy is OBVIOUSLY a racist, homophobe, a misogynist whatever, is not good for your country. Every election the DNC dog-whistles that the GOP candidate is all those things in order to discredit their opposition. For example, Romney was a flake but generally a decent guy and yet he was spun as a misogynist!! He's not a misogynist. Trump is a narcissist and a huckster, but he's not a racist. I'm not even sure he's a misogynist either.
You cannot disparage your opposition like that. It's unproductive because it entrenches supporters in their views and even radicalizes them. You're basically alienating 100 million people from mainstream politics - do you really really want to do that?
Stick to the issues.
1) Questioning the legitimacy of the electoral process without evidence. This could turn the US into a powder keg if he keeps it up past election day.
2) Rejecting nuclear non-proliferation and the stability of international alliances, paired with a volatile and immature temperament, could lead to the nuclear clock ticking to midnight.
3) Proposing the blacklist people based solely on a religious test. I'm not religious, but if there was one thing I learned in Hebrew school, is that we must never again allow this.
4) Obliquely threatening his political opponent with violence and directly threatening to jail his political opponent. Does this sound like a candidate from a first world country?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/rnc-halts-all-victory-...
Are you kidding ? when Condoleezza Rice got a seat on DropBox's board, people here on HN very much complained and said how they were going to "drop" Dropbox because someone on its board was on the wrong political side.
I'm not republican but it's pretty clear in most US tech circles,especially in the Silicon Valley, you just cannot be republican or people will be out to get you. Trump or not, that's a fact and it's ridiculous.