Peter Thiel’s Bet on Donald Trump Wins Big
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
His self-interest aside, this is a huge deal for Palantir, the company that he helped found and has many federal governments as their client. Also, in a sense, Thiel ensured that Silicon Valley didn't completely lose touch with the White House and will have some leverage in influencing them. For starters, immigration is a key issue for Silicon Valley for which Thiel can be a voice of reason to influence the new administration.
I don't agree with many things Thiel says or does. That said, this was a brilliant execution.
I don't know if immigration is as much of an issue for Palantir, given many of its clients are clandestine and won't permit non-citizens to work on their projects.
> I don't know if immigration is as much of an issue for Palantir, given many of its clients are clandestine and won't permit non-citizens to work on their projects.
So, Palantir is actually in trouble for not hiring certain immigrants / races. See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/technology/us-accuses-tech...
And my worthless personal single data point: I personally know a Pakistani guy who was rejected from Palantir. Sure, every other person gets rejected from every other place. The thing is, this guy is one of the best programmers I know of, has great charisma, has great communication skills, and has a star-studded pedigree. Yeah I know I'm going off on a single data, but I was just stunned to see anyone reject this guy because I happen to personally know of his genius.
And I mean no offense to your friend, but that's how those folks think.
Foreign contacts (including family) may be a complication in security clearance background investigations, IIRC, but AFAIK discriminating directly on that basis (rather than simply requiring the clearance if necessary for the specific job) would be a bright-line violation of the law.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign, he said, forgot the motto that Bill Clinton had won the presidency with in 1992: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Donald Trump was a stealth 3rd party candidate, riding on a wave produced by demographic changes and the falling fortunes of a large demographic. He's down with OPP -- where OPP means "Other Person's Party." He's used other people's money to further himself. This time, he used the Republican Party, but historically, he should be compared to other 3rd party candidates.
The media producing class in this country is out of touch with a whopping huge fraction of the populace which is going from majority middle class status to minority lower class. Not only is the media producing class out of touch, many of them on the political left actively villify and denigrate them. Seriously, what did they expect?
The degree to which the upper-middle class is out of touch, concerned with fripperies, and denigrating of the lower classes in the Bay Area is starting to look like a bunch of tropes from French Revolution period dramas. Programmers and technorati -- This means you!
Many of these people are decent but weren't offered even lip-service by the Democratic candidate or party. You have Hillary treating them like second class citizens offering them a lower minimum wage than urbanites, for example. Why should people who have been historically neglected maintain this situation?
This isn't permanent though. I've mentioned in other posts on other subjects that the "New Economy" needs to align its interests with those who have been left behind. You get their kids into dynamic programs that offer them an opportunity to share in the largesse generated by innovation and they will become more generous and open and integrated with the rest of the country.
Curious what revitalization looks like in an increasingly automated economy though. Not sure Trump has his finger on the pulse of where the world's going to aim ahead of that trend. Although he might, and honestly, is probably more likely to than Hilary.
A) He was putting money towards the fall of our government as we know it, I think that would be consistent with his previous stances
or
B) He was investing in a future political career in the Republican party
but to be honest, hearing sama's comments on Thiel, it seems like he legitimately really likes Trump.
Which I guess is great if you're a billionaire and probably get some time with Trump or someone close to him that knows what he actually plans to do.
In the meantime, all the rest of us are left with "I'm going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something great." Forgive me if I would have preferred something a little more substantial. Then again, I would like other people to have preferred that as well. :/
In this case, we have "I will make something great", as if every candidate wasn't implicitly setting out to to do the same and every voter wasn't hoping for the same. So, am I more or less likely to get the outcome I want in this situation? Who knows? I don't because there's no way to, but I would sure appreciate being empowered to at least try to figure that out.
The problem with authoritarian governments is that they can delay plans but never forget about them.
If Thiel really think that, then he is not only an opportunist but also a fool.
That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama.
A president's economic platform is more important, and Hillary, as did most pundits, mostly retold the old wives tales that globalization necessarily means giving up factories, or that somehow having jobs and motives for building stuff in one's country is obsolete, etc.
That approach might maximize enterprise profits, but not necessarily help middle and lower classes, and general societal wealth. A country can have huge companies, but not get out of them but minimal local jobs and infrastructure (because they outsource those), and not even taxes on their profits (since they use globalized subsidies and other schemes to avoid paying any).
I don't believe that Trump will actually fix that, but he at least (as did Bernie Sanders) paid lip service to the notion, and that counted to a lot of people.
There's also the foreign policy issues. Trump might be a "loose canon" or whatever, but Hillary has been constantly and vehemently pro war / invasion etc. She has threatened Russia and Iran, helped destabilize Syria, Libya, etc.
The very real potential for wars and tons of deaths (on both sides) is more important than whether Trump made misogynistic comments, or spoke against illegal immigration, etc.
This actually touches on what upset me most about this election. It's not so much that I think Trump is going to be horrible. I think he's been vague enough and it's obvious enough that he was playing to his audience that he could roll out Clinton's exact plan tomorrow and I wouldn't be all that surprised. What really bothers me is the support he got based on the persona and values he projected.
That people can equate breaking the rules using a personal email server with recorded audio of a candidate condoning and admitting sexual assault. That one was often brought out to even the score when tallying the reported sins of the candidates leaves me somewhat depressed about the state of my country. I'm left feeling that if a video was presented of Trump actually doing the things he talked about but denied, sure, Clinton would probably have won, but it still would have been close, and I'm left in the position of trying to reconcile what I thought were values most my country believed in with evidence to the contrary.
I think most Trump supporters saw a pattern of behavior in Clinton that they trusted even less than Trump's gaffes. Not so much that they condoned sexual assault, but they'd rather the devil who speaks clearly than the devil who seems to have a secret in every closet.
I understand that sentiment, but I never took Trump as one who spoke clearly. He spoke simply, but not clearly. I think Clinton was actually the clearer speaker by far, with her specific proposals and plans, but she didn't speak simply (and for what it's worth, I'm not sure we should optimize for candidates that speak simply over clearly, as I've covered elsewhere in these comments).
I feel there has to be a formula that defines how many people stop reading for each additional word you add to an informative document.
If you have written a 20,000 word document every time you're asked "Do you support the war in Iraq?" then I'm going to call bullshit.
Holding people accountable for their promises by a democratic electorate is impossible for promises over a certain level of complexity -- the voting mass simply doesn't have the time. And proxying personal research to biased, for-profit news organizations seems to be another feature that's gotten us into this mess.
You are underestimating the effect of a racist speech coming from a person in a position of power. Racists tend to keep their views for their own when are not sure they can speak freely without being judged. When they can speak freely they turn up the tone of the speech (which happened in Trump's rallies).
In Venezuela we had a similar situation when Chavez came to power, not with race but with economical status... At some point you could be yielded at the street just because the way you were dressed (didn't have to be fancy). All that was unheard before Chavez.
So yeah... A bad president can indeed reshape the view and behavior of people. Just wait until he has their own tv show as Chavez did.
We are the country we create, whoever is in power.
I find that pretty amusing.
People just self-regulate their views depending on how is perceived in the environment
(0) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias
I noted when Thiel made his original donations, and then kept doubling down, that there was a good probability he would 'win' (Trump never falling below 10% in the prediction markets) but I felt that the more serious issue was whether he would benefit. Trump has a long history of using and discarding people as soon as they are no longer useful, including decades of simply not paying people who have done work for him (at least two examples in his campaign alone: the polling agency and the girls who sang at his rallies) and daring them to sue. Not to mention how often he loudly promises to donate to charity and then... doesn't. Narcissists are not known for their gratitude, generosity, reciprocation, or feeling bound by past promises or contracts explicit or implicit. Thiel donating to Trump and giving speeches in his support is merely Trump's due for being the greatest businessman in the world and the man who will make America great again. It does not follow that Trump will actually do anything for Thiel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farmer_and_the_Viper
It will be interesting to see if Thiel's bet on Donald Trump ever wins big and he gets something out of it like a Supreme Court nomination. But it's not over yet, and his chickens have neither hatched nor come home to roost.
I'm especially bewildered why deeply religious, evangelical Christians I know were big on Trump. He's such a sinner by biblical standards, the love for the guy didn't make sense - I thought it'd be hypocrisy to support the guy. For most, they told me the single issue for them was the supreme court nominees that Trump was promising to put forward. But, in discussing what Trump was going to do once elected, the level of projection of their goodness onto Trump seemed to go to delusional, fantasy-land places.
What I'm coming to realize is that, being upper middle-class puts me completely out of touch culturally with the 50% that voted for Trump. The book Coming Apart, by Charles Murray is really helping me understand what is going on in America and what a cloistered life I've led.
Fascinating, pretty strong turnout for Trump with college educated folks! Clinton's numbers reflect that she lost a ton of male votes to third party.
> But among the 64% of American voters who earn more than $50,000 a year, 49% chose Trump, and 47% Clinton.
Middle class came out for Trump too. I wish they'd break out higher income brackets, that's where I'm at. And I guess that Clinton's support there is much stronger - which reflects the disconnect Murray describes in cultures and political leanings between the urban wealthy classes and the rest of the population.
The real takeaway for me is figuring why this is the case — how could / can we change the polls to be more robust?
To some degree, perhaps the polls influence the outcome of the election. For example, if people on the edge of voting or not think Clinton will win by a healthy margin, they might not actually bother to vote.
While I think it was 70/30 for Clinton they were very explicit that this doesn't mean Clinton will win. They admitted it's very difficult to convey probabilities to the average person and it's something they're still working on. I feel like a lot of the pundits (honestly, on Trump's side, too) seemed to believe Hillary winning was inevitable and the night was just going to play out like the predictions, but the polls and analysts were saying it was going to be close (although, Hillary was favored).
While Clinton had a confident lead in the popular vote, her electoral map was rocky. She had thin margins in a bunch of contentious states, but in states like California and Texas she got fairly large numbers in individuals that wouldn't translate into electoral votes. When it came to the vote she just lost the contentious states.
Something else they said today is that pollsters see outliers (changes from the norm) as possible noise, so they tend to bias that back to historical values or neighboring values. This can hide pockets of change or make trends slower to show up. The last election was Obama obviously he appealed to different groups of people. Many assumed the areas he flipped would stay flipped. That's why pollsters were off almost as much as 10% in some areas instead of the expected 3%.
Another thing I've heard toyed around is that public polls are funded by universities and newspapers--institutions who haven't had as much money lately. So while analysis of polls have gotten better, polls have gotten worse. There's also talk about landlines falling out of favor and online polling being worse. Campaign polls have gotten better since there's more money now. From what I've heard Romney's internal polls were way off, but Obama's polls were spot on. I've heard both Hillary's and Trump's internal polls had Hillary ahead...so all of that might be irrelevant.
It was a close race and the unconventional nature made it difficult to honestly predict. But most predictions ended up close to the margin of error--they just guessed the winner with too much confidence.
That said, he speaks his mind and it's trivial to see what he's thinking.
Had Hillary Clinton (who I and any sane person would like over Trump) become President, it would be impossible to know what she really thought of anything or to decipher anything she said: she's a career politician, who pauses before speaking and then speaks out of both sides of her mouth.
listening to Trump is like listening to some random drunk idiot in a bar. he isn't pulling one over on anyone - he barely knows where he is. sometimes that has its advantages.
I'd rather get in a plane flown by a pilot who has spoken out publicly about being a Jihadi terrorist (in this analogy Hillary Clinton, and I make this analogy because I really, really disagree with a lot of her policies and I don't even like her and don't think she even wants what's best for me), than in a plane piloted by someone who literally has never piloted anything, not just a jumbo jet but not even sat in a student's seat, of any kind of plane. Who doesn't even have a driver's license. That is insane. Never in the history of the United States has someone with no political experience of any kind been elected to the Presidency. It's just insane.
I don't know if you realize, but Trump's definition of efficiency is ripping off people he has leverage off, now he will have several degrees of freedom to rip off not only tax players but governments.
I have a strong feeling that the plan he has to make Mexico pay for the wall involves leverage with the NAFTA redefinition... He might miscalculate this though, Mexico is not as dependent of USA as it used to be
I don't think the efficiency of his campaign is directly applicable, more I would say his ability to seize an advantage (the media's strong dislike of him) where others would not have even known there was an advantage to be had is the real takeaway.
A crucial skill for negotiating.
You do realize that Clinton won the popular vote, right? the majority of Americans agree with her policies and voted for her. Trump won because of the arcane 18th century election structure unique to the US called an electoral college.
The thorough repudiation is that Hillary Clinton was anointed the next president, anointed the "only" "sane" choice, and lost. It's a fact, no matter what tears people dredge up now.
I say this with no love or support for Donald Trump, just open eyes in a process that most people enter willfully blind.
To be fair, it's not like this only gets brought up after the election. The last 3-6 months have been filled with people complaining about how our voting system works, different systems and their own problems, etc.
http://i.imgur.com/FZEjdCF.jpg
these are facts, one can decide to deride them in a childish attempt to obfuscate or wallow in ignorance or one can choose to objectively discuss them as they are
Just barely. So? Besides, nobody would have complained is she had won against the popular vote (which most pundits expected her to).
No, not actually. Clinton was a lot closer to Trump's vote count than 50%.
She was crystal clear when she justified bombing Iran in a private (and paid) speech to some bankers: https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/5945ho/hillary_ju...
Any person that is able to parry and repose mid air the fat pigs question with "Only Rosie O'Donnel" is not an idiot by a long margin.
I have been trump supporter since the beginning - your expert diagnosis of my mental health aside - the guy won for too long, against great odds, made all the long shots for that to be luck.
And with a world gone mad, you may need a madman on top.
So take a break, take a kit-kat, watch About Last Night... (South Park), calm down - the world has not ended yet. The country is mostly the same as yesterday. The deer in headlights coupled with chicken little act that Hilary supporters are performing today while mildly amusing is pointless.
And if the left don't start to see the others as at least capable and dangerous opponents and not bigoted simpletons you may not see an winning election for a long time to come.
What the SJW managed to do in the last 4 years by overplaying their hand is the creation of strong white identity. That thing did not existed before.
You felt the first cut with brexit, and are now lacerated by 2016 election.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Trump knew himself and knew exactly what was against him. Your side didn't.
The media in both countries was outright lying. The only surprise here is that they believed their own lies.