Partisan media assigns fabricated evil motivations to explain his actions, like they do with everyone who they view as not on their side. People who get their idea of him from these sources have distorted view of him.
What he actually said:
The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. 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.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
It is rather obvious that he thinks women shouldn't vote given he blames them, in part, for the decline of "capitalist democracy".
I could have also mentioned his work to make sure the general public has much less privacy while fighting with lots of money to make sure his privacy is respected. I have little use for those who wish to have separate rules for themselves than they want others to follow.
He didn't say what you claimed, why not just edit your post and retract it. By not doing backing down it makes it look like you knew it was untrue, but just wanted to take the cheap shot.
He uses his money to support people who would make marriage be hetrosexual only because he has enough money to work around the issues bothers me. His doesn't think those who aren't as rich as he is are worthy of having all the rights and privileges he has.
It’s quite clear he believes women voting and “capitalist democracy” are fundamentally incompatible.
How about you cite a source instead of jumping on the false accusation bandwagon.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/01/peter-thiel/suffrage...
You mean if he had had a crystal ball, which absolutely nobody on the planet possesses.
Hyper concentrating your wealth in a highly risky investment, is not a good investment strategy. In the absence of a crystal ball, he made a very reasonable choice to cash the Facebook position out given his exposure to numerous other high-risk tech-related positions.
Bill Gates would be richer if he had never sold a share of Microsoft, and it would have similarly been a really bad approach to personal wealth management. That doesn't mean Gates wasn't interested in the money (for his goals, the more money the better), it means he was acting rationally, prudent, in diversifying.
Amusingly isn't that what a Palantir actually is?