Thiel appeared at the 2016 RNC in support of Trump. He re-registered as a Republican in 2016. He donates to Republicans. Thiel is a Republican.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180724001522/https://www.weltw...
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