[flagged]
[1] Short summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibiza_affair
Keep in mind, in Germany, none of the other parties have been willing to form a coalition government with Germany's respective far-right party, the AfD. This has effectively shut out the AfD from having any actual influence in the government, despite having a sizable minority in Thuringia and Saxony.
NSDAP was also democratically voted into the Parlament… only to disassemble it.
There may be fascist members of the AfD, but there are also communist members of other parties and nobody cares, even though it is an equally murderous ideology. There is one party in Germany that is literally the party that was in power in the socialist democratic republic and actually murdered people, and all the other parties are cooperating with them. In contrast to that, the AfD is not a descendant of any fascist parties, it was split off from the CDU over differences in economic strategies. Their original founder is a convinced Christian, definitely not a nazi.
What it boils down to, and what recent years have shown (also the Trump years), is that people or especially leftists don't really care that much about democracy anyway. They are only in favor of it as long as their party of choice gets elected.
Who? DIE LINKE is constantly (rightfully) critizied for their extremist parts and members, also for their SED roots. I agree with your assessment about murderous communism but disagree that nobody cares. I was born in the GDR and hate communism with a fiery passion. Plattenbauten are traumatic for me. Anyway...
The AfD is a fundamentally anti-democratic party at least since Petry took over. It became 10x worse with Gauland and Weidel. The debate is pretty clear in Germany and you are legally (!) allowed to call some of its members fascists because that is exactly what they are and exactly how they act. Proven Neo-Nazis like Björn Höcke and Andreas Kalbitz are only dealt with to save face in front off media and later re-introduced to powerful party positions anyway.
Their only goal is disruption, they have zero constructive solutions to anything and their ideas are based on lies and fake news. On top of it all, they are directly supported by Russian money, a country whose main foreign policy has been disruption since the 1980s.
Also, I didn't talk about how the NSDAP finally seized power, that reads like a distraction. I am talking about how NSDAP was democratically elected for multiple periods although their street thugs already roamed Germany for nearly a decade before Hitler became chancellor. As in - angry people are happy to democratically vote anti-democrats. AfD is just proving it a second time.
The Greens have extreme socialists in their ranks, look at their anti-capitalist youth organisations and prominent Green party members walking with them behind anti-capitalist banners.
The SPD openly calls for Socialism, and they have elected far left Kühnert as new head of the pary.
Please name any anti-democratic policies by the AfD? it is the most ridiculous claim, as one of their main policies is more direct democracy.
If you are referring to the one court case when you claim it is now legally allowed to call some of them nazis, that is fake news. It was not actually the issue that was debated at court. I am too lazy to look up the details, but I think it was about something that a newspaper wrote about Höcke, and Höcke was not even involved in the court case. Anyway if you care, you can find the details why it is fake news.
"Their only goal is disruption, they have zero constructive solutions to anything and their ideas are based on lies and fake news."
I disagree, also, it is not as if the other parties have good solutions. Things have been going downhill in Germany for a while, on many fronts.
"On top of it all, they are directly supported by Russian money, a country whose main foreign policy has been disruption since the 1980s."
Oh please... Really? Even if it were true, so what. Other countries should be allowed to pursue their interest and support parties in other countries. Russia gave a job to the Ex SPD chancellor, too.
"I am talking about how NSDAP was democratically elected for multiple periods although their street thugs already roamed Germany for nearly a decade before Hitler became chancellor. As in - angry people are happy to democratically vote anti-democrats."
I don't know what point you are trying to make. You think other voters don't vote based on their anger? Leftists are mostly driven by hate and anger against "evil capitalism, neocons, exploiters, nazis..." - most media dwells on anger and it is the main thing that drives people to the voting booths.
As for violence, there were more violent attacks against AfD politicians than against all other parties combined (iirc). Antifa is essentially a terrorist organisation fighting any non-socialist politics with violence. And many politicians endorse them, for example Künast from the Greens even called for them to receive government funding.
Fascist parties are illegal in Germany, so if AfD were fascist they wouldn't be allowed to run.
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article214060112/Ibiza-V...
One can imagine Peter Thiel having sympathy for such an individual.
Disclaimer: I voted for Biden but only because I felt like he was the least-worst option. I am no fan of political parties but affiliate with one of them because they ostensibly represent a decent cross-section of my values. I'd be more than happy to point out their flaws another time.
Hunter Biden clearly had no qualifications for the BOD role other than his last name. That part would be a challenge to disprove and and I'm not going to make such a claim.
But what that apparently purchased is not clear to me, and I'm not willing to go through Infowars level of "intelligence" to try and decipher. The politics in that sector were dirty AF and I've not seen anything to date that shows the corruption went to his father.
But since we're using the word "corruption" and discussing the office of the President, it would be fair to ask the same probing questions of his predecessor. So do you have any qualms about that man? The one who has volumes of questionable legal behavior documented well before he took office?
If the answer is no, then we're done here -- I have to save energy to "debate" with my anti-vaxxer uncle. If yes, then please demonstrate you care about corruption regardless of party line.
I've yet to see anybody who makes a deal out of the Biden story display any concerns about corruption in the Trump organization/administration. It's pure tribal "your team bad" bullshit and is manufactured outrage.
There's plenty to be unhappy about with Biden and his presidency but compared to the previous administration it's glorious.
Thiel is a libertarian, and is ostracized by many in tech for rejecting the tenets of Bay Area progressivism. Kurz is not, as far as I can tell, a libertarian.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180724001522/https://www.weltw...
The best equivalent would be socialists strongly, publicly, and financially advocating for Hillary like Thiel to Trump in 2016. That didn’t happen.
A preemptive note: Bernie is a democratic socialist. That’s what he himself says he is. Not a socialist.
I draw the line on him being an utterly decent man. He wasn’t chosen as Obama’s running mate for being someone who could stitch a few progressive goals together. He was chosen because of how conservative he was. Never apologizing for his rabid support of tough on crime (disproportionately affecting lower socioeconomic and minority people/men)
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2019/01/21/biden-s...
Otherwise yeah you’re right some did do just that for that one time.
However he continues to work with the Trumps. Recently he’s working with Trumps to oust Liz Cheney. His own PACs focuses include many non-libertarian focuses. Immigration control, strict border control, supporting the military as it is now, are some of the top issues of the PAC. These actions are of a conservative Republican, not a libertarian.
None of those things prove he's not a libertarian.
The Liz Cheney stuff was about working with Don Jr. The reason why is unimportant.
The entire point of all this is for there not to be one smoking gun. It’s a collection of everything.
The entire way the right has obfuscated things is by getting by with “no one thing proves I am or am not X or Y”
Political maneuvering doesn't mean someone is not a libertarian, and military and border control are not incompatible with libertarianism either.
Thiel like anybody has pretty complex views that don't fit neatly in a box, you could argue where they put him in the spectrum, but the examples you used are poor. I know many libertarian purists obsess over their image and "principle" to the detriment of actually achieving anything politically, but that doesn't mean all of them act this way.
In particular, Thiel's hawkish military views and (seeming) comfort with just about everything the police and MIC do as long as it pays him puts him thoroughly at odds with stated libertarian orthodoxy.
Thiel can also be a libertarian who registers and votes Republicans in our two-party system. Libertarianism, whatever you think of it, is more of a political philosophy than a political party, and Republicanism is definitely more of a political party than a political philosophy.
If libertarians are actively and strongly supporting specific Republican figures like Thiel is. Politicians who have little to no objections and in fact at times expand the huge spending that is defense, general pork spending, social security, and Medicare. Politicians who don’t don’t even draw a hard line on government staying out of personal life and at times want to expand that (think forcing companies to not be allowed to have mask or vaccine rules or ruling on abortion). Thiel publicly supports these sorts of politicians. Not just quietly voting because of a weak two party system less evil situation. Then how are they libertarian? The definition doesn’t fit.
Different things are different.
You vote for a candidate because you would prefer them to win. Which is possibly included among the reasons you would support them in other ways.
> Outside of lower taxes [for corporations and the wealthy primarily], there is no overlap or rational link between libertarianism and actively supporting Trump.
Many libertarians support Republicans.
> Many libertarians support Republicans.
I don’t disagree some do that. However with you repeating this “many”. Any one can call themselves anything. It doesn’t make it so. OTOH I see no issue if the statement was “Many people who say they are libertarian support Republicans”
We've moved on from that.
> I don’t disagree some do that. However with you repeating this “many”. Any one can call themselves anything. It doesn’t make it so. OTOH I see no issue if the statement was “Many people who say they are libertarian support Republicans”
Well you're just wrong about that.
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-many-libertarians-are-there-an...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-o...
Roughly 10-20% of people are libertarians not only how they identify but their stance on various issues. And yet votes, political donations, lobbying, party membership, etc. is far more skewed to the two big parties. Which means they are pragmatic and send their votes and support to where it might make the best difference. Like most people.
Many libertarians support Republicans. I'm really quite astounded you're having such a big problem coping with that.
The other link brings up Rand Paul. Do we really have to go over how Rand Paul as a senator has not been libertarian? His focus is on taxing less. Especially the wealthy and corporations. Otherwise his views frequently wildly divert from libertarianism into default conservative Republican views.
My original statement remains. Your links have at best given support for both of us. At worst it gave support to my “coping”.
> moved on from that
When? Unless this is clever satire where you shift and move the conversation as you please. Show the issue with people like Thiel and Rand Paul identifying as libertarian whilst enjoying conservative authority quite a bit. Bravo if so.
Your original point doesn't stand, many libertarians support Republicans. It's truly weird logic that you (begrudgingly) accept that libertarians vote for Republicans, and yet you think any other form of "active" support would be out of the question. Doesn't make any sense. If a libertarian wanted to be active in politics it's quite reasonable to think many would support the same candidates they vote for.
Your gaslighting tactics have become more pronounced now too. I never begrudgingly accepted what you stated. I believe I had an apt example. A person identifying in good faith as a socialist isn’t going to be supporting establishment Dems like Thiel and Rand Paul and similar “libertarians” do for their counterparts. I believe you or someone else brought up The Squad. Which has an easy response - the socialist supporters of theirs are not them. The Squad are also not socialists. They are progressives or democratic socialists. Affiliations with differences that are bigger than neolibs and neocons, imho.
I see this is likely about the well worn tactic of conservative [republicans] not identifying as such. Leftists don’t have a pattern of hiding this way. OTOH, there are countless examples of traditional belief right wingers who continue to do this. Supporters around them will continue to dig their heels in saying this facade is not so.
All of this fits with your belief that it is not an oversimplification to label centrists, center-left, neoliberals, progressives, hard leftists, and further on the left all as liberal.
And if you didn't accept that, it wasn't gaslighting it was a mistake on my behalf. I thought you did -- you still honestly don't believe many libertarians vote Republican? The data just doesn't agree with you, so either you're willfully ignorant of it or using some no true libertarian fallacy.
> see this is likely about the well worn tactic of conservative [republicans] not identifying as such. Leftists don’t have a pattern of hiding this way. OTOH, there are countless examples of traditional belief right wingers who continue to do this. Supporters around them will continue to dig their heels in saying this facade is not so.
That's all based on your no true libertarian beliefs that don't match reality though.
> All of this fits with your belief that it is not an oversimplification to label centrists, center-left, neoliberals, progressives, hard leftists, and further on the left all as liberal.
I have no such belief.
Since you bring them up, many people in the above categories from centrists to communists vote for and support the Democratic party. That doesn't make them not-a-hard-leftist, not even though many of them actually describe the Democrats as a right wing party and claim to dislike many of their policies! I don't know why you have such a mental block about libertarians who support Republicans.
The fallacy is about something specific. Not this. Is it a fallacy to say the Workers Party of Korea lead by Kim Jung un isn’t socialist? Or the PRC isn’t socialist?
> warmonger
Trump didn’t leave Afghanistan. After spending his entire campaign and presidency talking about how amazing he was for being against Iraq and seeing mistakes made this century.
Did he do anything to help out in the Middle East? Yemen continued being pillaged by America thru Saudi. Same with Palestine.
Trump did the pointless escalation of the Iranian general murder too.
That was my point. I said Trump was excluded in my last comment too. I also said it’s not incorrect to say they are warmongers.
> I have no such belief.
You linked to the two sites with studies/data, no? You bring up that data in other parts of your comment. They combined everything listed as liberal. I questioned that and you didn’t have an issue with it.
I’d like to see any non tiny portion of socialists or any one more to the left, support Dems. Voting for is not supporting.
Dem[s] and especially lib[eral] are used as pejoratives frequently in those circles. makes supporting the Dem party contradictory.
You said many will describe Dem party as right wing. How would they be supporting the party then?
So again it’s not the same thing. Your words like “mental block” saying I am stubborn. I understand if you believe those things about socialists and communists then you will not believe IMO more accurate critiques and accountability of a number of the people who say they are libertarians
—
Since it has been two days, a response might not happen. My tldr overall pt: many of the identifying libertarians aren’t as such. Prime example is some one brought up already - Rand Paul. The far left not wavering on their principles so much like supposed libertarians is telling.
And the no true libertarian fallacy is that you're saying people aren't libertarians based on your purity tests. You have failed to show why Thiel is not a libertarian: your examples (military and border control) are completely wrong.
And again, I have no such belief. How do you equate data with me believing that ridiculous thing you wrote.
Finally, you're playing semantics with the whole "voting is not supporting" thing. I know you have no argument without that, but voting is literally supporting. That said, even with your semantics, leftists certainly support Democrats. I haven't bothered to look up studies but everywhere I look I see it, on here, reddit, leftist politicians like Sanders, political donation data, and people I know. And you're just claiming without any data that leftists don't support democrats and libertarians don't support republicans. Both wrong.
I don’t care if voting is technically supporting. It is obvious I mean support more than vote. Like Thiel does. This is something that has been consistent on my end and other people who responded to you in this thread.
You continue to restate something I then said fine to (military, border control). I said immigration and something else. You didn’t reply to that. You repeated something I did not argue against once you stated it. Why bring it up again?
—
How oh how am I “very upset” about what you said about his opponents? I said I did not disagree. How is saying that being very upset?
At this point every single thing I wrote in this comment shows you have repeated things or said things that have already been addressed. Then you take someone saying they do not disagree with your assessment on trump’s “opponents” (How are Bill Clinton and George Bush his opponents? So this isn’t true you didn’t bring up his opponents) as being very upset with it.
Yes I am upset with Trump. I am also upset with Clinton and George Bush. Obama too. Biden too.
> Biden historically although if he's been forced away from wars by Trump's withdrawal plans and anti war rhetoric I'll take that as a great win
Key word “if”.
Everything on your end has been seemingly done in bad faith. I listed all of this throughout this comment.
> And you're just claiming without any data that leftists don't support democrats
This was never said. More bad faith.
> And the no true libertarian fallacy is that you're saying people aren't libertarians based on your purity tests.
Reply to what I said. Is North Korea’s workers Union Les by Kim Jung Un, socialist? Is rhe PRC Govt communist as they say they are?
> going in circles
Yes because you like in this past comment keep regressing. Bringing up things as if they haven’t been brought up. Changing my words multiple times. Wild conjecture like being very upset with Trump opponents being called out when you didn’t even bring up his opponents. Regardless an incredible statement for someone who dislikes every one you have brought up.
Once of us is going in circles in bad faith. Which does not allow me to continue as nothing I say is actually properly responded to.
There is no reason to continue this as it doesn’t appear you can overcome issues like in the last comment.
Well, you keep moving on from it and everyone who replies on you keeps trying to move back toward the original topic.
Other poster? You brought it up the first time and have brought it up in every post since.
The other poster has made a good reply. I posted about Thiel being a conservative Republican [now] in another nested thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29747080
Thanks for your insightful comments
Disenfranchising adult women's right to vote on the basis of their gender is an attack on fundamental human rights.
"It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better."
Nevertheless it should be possible to discuss the results of giving women the right to vote. The main difference from state of affairs before that presumably being that people got to vote on things they did not have direct stakes in.
Or to give a modern example: afaik more women are opposed to abortion than men, so giving women the right the vote makes it less likely that abortion is legalized. At least some people would consider that a negative outcome.
A single Google search would tell you that's entirely wrong: https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.a...
"Other polls have appeared since that article, and they show the same thing. A 2013 YouGov poll on behalf of the University of Lancaster found 26% of men supporting a reduction or ban, versus 43% of women."
You linked to an article from 2014 about surveys from 2011.
Source please?
> Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
This is not suggesting that anybody’s right to vote should be revoked. It’s pointing out that women have typically voted in opposition to libertarian/capitalist policies. And he might not like this outcome, but not liking something is not the same as saying it shouldn’t exist.
I’m not a libertarian and I’m opposed to many of Thiel’s viewpoints, but we can have an honest discussion about what he has and hasn’t said.
This argument isn't about the fact that Saudi Arabia is ridiculously oppressive to gay people, it is about scoring points to make Peter Thiel look better.
I don't believe gay people should be excluded from economic opportunity based on their sexuality or concerns for their sexuality, nor do they forfeit their right to safety or privacy. I don't personally think western countries or people should invest in or have close ties with Saudi, but I don't think those who do are automatically bad or wrong.
> This argument isn't about the fact that Saudi Arabia is ridiculously oppressive to gay people, it is about scoring points to make Peter Thiel look better.
Taking down bullies who oust gay people makes him look fine to me.
What is being questioned here is the narrative that Gawker put him in any kind of serious risk wrt Saudi Arabia, or that his actions against Gawker were taken in defense of gay people's privacy.
He obviously doesn't care much about the rights of gay people, or have many personal safety concerns if he's investing massive amounts into one of the most gay-oppressive regimes on earth, yet he gets a full pass here from you, and Gawker deserved to be destroyed as a company.
Why?
I assure you Saudi Arabia is a much bigger "bully" to gay people than Gawker ever was, yet Thiel has no problem enabling it, and you apparently have no problem with him doing so either.
Its a ridiculous double standard.
They were. They said he was worried that his investments would be discriminated against if it was found out that he was gay.
Deplorable really. Trying to make out like the bullying journalists from that two bit gossip rag were fine to oust him as gay because he is greedy or rich or something. Doesn't make it okay.
> I assure you Saudi Arabia is a much bigger "bully" to gay people than Gawker ever was, yet Thiel has no problem enabling it, and you apparently have no problem with him doing so either.
I have no problem with gay people investing in what they choose to and not being discriminated against due to their sexuality. Sounds like you do.
As Biden would say “Come on man!”
Libertarianism is an attractive framework for initial thinking, but if you think anythign through, you wind up re-inventing something like the systems we have. What's left are the people who refuse to think it through because they are too attached to the "philosophy" that justifies them acting like an entitled ass in the name of "individual liberty". The result is comments like this.
Hell I can even come up with a workable UBI using libertarian philosophy that would at the same time solve the productivity / automation gap in wages people are seemingly concerned with using georgism as a base.
The reality is people that only have a basic understanding of libertarianism, often only looking to Anarcho style libertarinaism specifically, that make the statements you have.
Other forms of Libertarianism, like Geo-Libertarianism do exist.
EDIT: The jury is still out in my mind whether you add value based on how far out there you are.