Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

If you believe that Trump is no more dangerous than Clinton, your support for Peter Thiel makes sense, and, while I'd implore you to reconsider, I'm content for us to agree to disagree.

But Sam Altman and Paul Graham don't agree with you. They virulently disagree with you. They repeatedly compare Trump to a fascist dictator. They claim Trump is an existential threat to our democracy. Paul Graham said that if Trump wins, he'll "join the resistance".

I agree with Altman and Graham on that. But I feel obligated to point out to them both --- Altman in particular --- that what they say about Trump is incompatible with the manner in which they affiliate with Peter Thiel, who is a part of the Trump campaign.

View on HN

Or perhaps you are hijacking their words and misrepresent their actual opinions.

Perhaps they dont believe its as litterally as you do. It would certainly make sense since claiming Trump is Stalin is as ill informed as it is absurd.

Just like you are ready to ignore your principles for a bigger belief so is Theil. He is not voting for Trump he is voting for change. The very change everyone agrees is needed.

I am not.

Apparently they dont believe him to be a big enough threat to cut ties with Thiel for supporting him. Make of that what you want.

Thank you. This perception is exactly why we keep telling Sam Altman and Paul Graham that they need to reconsider their stance on Peter Thiel.

But that's in support of my point that perhaps they don't mean it the way you want them to not yours that they really believe that Trump is a threat to democracy.

You can decide to read what Sam Altman says and say "but maybe he doesn't really mean it", but that's a bit of a stretch. Just read their actual thoughts on the subject. tptacek is not misrepresenting what they are saying.

From Altman:

"His racist, isolationist policies would divide our country, and American innovation would suffer. But the man himself is even more dangerous than his policies. He's erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage.

He represents a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants, and I believe this reason alone more than disqualifies him to be president. [...]

Trump shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency, and I fear for national security if he becomes our president."

I am not saying he doesn't mean it, simply that he doesn't mean it enough (it would also be an absurd claim to compare Trump with Musolini) to do anything about it.

Thank you. This perception is exactly why we keep telling Sam Altman and Paul Graham that they need to reconsider their stance on Peter Thiel.

You do concede that people (including Thiel) can be decent and support Trump? I know plenty of good people who support him and for good reasons.

If Altman is comfortable with the idea that his actions are encouraging people to comfortably support Donald Trump, then I'm comfortable with him continuing to endorse Peter Thiel.

He personally endorsed the opposing candidate. What more can he do?

Any more would send the wrong signal and establish a odious norm in our free society.

He can stop endorsing an active, diligent member of Trump's campaign.

You keep using that word "endorsing". I think it does not mean what you think it means.

Altman has made it quite clear that he endorses neither Trump nor Thiel's support of him.

"Endorsing" and "refusing to purge" are two different things entirely.

Do you really see no difference between the two?

Of course a decent person can support Trump, if by decent you mean hard working, honest, responsible, etc.

This isn't about the decency or not of Trump supporters. It's about indirectly supporting Trump and thereby increasing the chances he'll be elected.

Altman's and YC's non-disavowal of Thiel supports that outcome. Altman's support is a layer removed from writing a check for Trump, but it's still support.

If Altman believes (as he seems to) that a Trump presidency would be very bad for America, it's hard to see why he would not specifically repudiate Thiel's actions. That's different from repudiating a friendship.

If you had a friend who used their considerable resources to publicly and materially support what you believed to be a truly bad outcome for America, would you not consider saying, "I can't go there with you, and I can't let my company's prestige support you while you do."?

He's NOT indirectly supporting Trump though. You shouldn't HAVE to fire everyone who disagrees with you politically in order to convince "ridgeguy" that you support your own views.

This is a very good point. I do not think supporting Trump is outside the bounds of decency, and I would not disassociate from Thiel on these grounds. But Sam Altman stated that "If Peter said some of the things Trump says himself, he would no longer be part of Y Combinator." The recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision re-affirmed the intimate connection between monetary support and political speech. So this is a serious logical disjunction on sama's part. Every fascist is someone's friend.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com