Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#441

Post by striking »

dickman3000 wrote: post #390
easyd wrote: post #144

Everyone seems to think it's about maximizing his ROI or, less cynical, about economics. But here's a quote from Thiel's speech at the republican convention: "Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don't need to see Hillary Clinton's deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. She pushed for a war in Libya, and today it's a training ground for ISIS. On this most important issue, Donald…

Hasn't Thiel talked about how it's bad that women have the right to vote? Doesn't seem like he cares much about liberty here. Thiel strikes me as more of an authoritarian than libertarian, hence probably why he supports Trump. I mean ... why else would he support Trump? No sense in doing complicated mental gymnastics here.

> Hasn't Thiel talked about how it's bad that women have the right to vote?

I was curious about this, so I looked it up. From Thiel's writings on Cato Unbound:

> 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.

Later:

> 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.

I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say. It sounds more like nonsense than any sort of actionable malice to me. (But then again, I don't really care about Thiel in the first place, so maybe I'm a little biased.)

Re: undefined

#442

Post by msandford »

rorykoehler wrote: post #120
solipsism wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom in the Libertarianism context (and in most contexts) means lack of coercion or constraint imposed by government or other institutions. It doesn't refer to freedom from natural or physical constraints. That wouldn't make any sense to advocate for. Does this clear it up for you?

Precisely. The inability of a person to choose their desired path because they need money to feed their family is textbook economic coercion. We've long passed the point where lack of resources (especially food) is a physical/natural constraint.

What would a person who had a family that needed feeding do in the absence of government entirely? My guess is that they would perform some kind of activity in an attempt to feed them. You can take money and even capitalism out of the equation entirely and people would still work. That Russian family that cut themselves off from the outside for 40 years in the wilderness still worked to survive. The food didn't grow itself and then climb into their mouths to be eaten.

Re: undefined

#443

Post by ting_bu_dung »

Tsugumo wrote: post #146
threeseed wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make much sense. Super Tuesday primaries included all likely Republican voters. But Trump only has the support of about 40% of them and nothing he has done to date indicates that number is changing. And there is no evidence that electoral fraud is likely to decide the election. In fact it's looking like efforts to prevent it e.g. in Indiana are far more likely to influence the election.

The record-breaking Republican turnout was due to Trump, and I think it is reasonable to believe that the vast majority of Republicans will vote Trump over Hillary, or 3rd party. At the same time, many independents and Bernie supporters will vote Trump as well. In my mind, Trump is the Republican Obama, and will benefit from many first-time voters, and a large turnout in general. It does not seem to me that Hillary h…

you seem to live in a delusional fantasy where angry white uneducated men are the only voters in the country

Re: undefined

#444

Post by untog »

maxerickson wrote: post #370
untog wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of what you wrote answers "why Trump?", though. If Thiel thinks he can somehow control Trump and get him to pursue a Libertarian agenda (which Trump's platform bares no resemblance to) then he's an idiot. If he wants Libertarianism he should donate to Gary Johnson. Anything else is just opportunism.

Flattering Gary Johnson isn't going to accomplish any political goals. Getting him into the 3rd debate might moderately raise awareness of the party, but he isn't going to win the election. Full stop.

Neither, at this point, is Trump. So it's a bad investment either way.

Re: undefined

#445

Post by thecrow1213 »

One, Thiel is an investor (which I don't have high regard for). Seems like a lot of investment is gambling these days anyways.

Two, he's Christian. Which I don't have a problem with but if he's gay as well those are two conflicting ideologies. Wonder how he reconciles that.

Oh and the party he supports doesn't support equal rights for him. Wonder how he reconciles that...

He's all against 'social liberalism' even though liberal communities are the only reason he has a right to marry.

Believes climate change is pseudoscience... like he's a scientist himself or something.

Thiel is an idiot.

Re: undefined

#446

Post by ting_bu_dung »

easyd wrote: post #144

Everyone seems to think it's about maximizing his ROI or, less cynical, about economics. But here's a quote from Thiel's speech at the republican convention: "Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don't need to see Hillary Clinton's deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. She pushed for a war in Libya, and today it's a training ground for ISIS. On this most important issue, Donald…

just goes to show how myopic and stupid thiel is. a single issue voter who ignores that trump is a women hating, racist, tax dodging psychopath

Re: undefined

#447

Post by curiousgeorgio »

matt4077 wrote: post #280
curiousgeorgio wrote: post #239

It looks like a lot of people here don't understand how someone could possibly support Trump. If I were simply following the mainstream media's narrative, I'd be in a similar position. If you're really interested in trying to understand a viewpoint that differs from your own (which I believe is healthy for anyone, even if you don't plan on changing your views), I would suggest beginning by listening to Stefan Molyneu…

" According to Jessica Roy of Time Magazine Molyneux argued that violence in the world is the result of how women treat their children, and that "If we could just get people to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, ... Almost all would be completely eliminated, because they all arise from dysfunctional early childh…

See, you're falling into the trap of trusting what other people say about a person, rather than actually listening to that person's viewpoint. If you were familiar with Molyneux and his full line of reasoning, you'd understand quotes like that in context rather than how someone in the media wants to characterize him.

Re: undefined

#448

Post by ting_bu_dung »

jondubois wrote: post #285

I agree with Thiel about Trump. On the surface, individually, I think that Trump probably looks like a worse person than Hillary, but if you look at each candidate as the sum of their social connections - I think Hillary turns out to be much, much worse. Hillary Clinton is heavily influenced by big finance. That's where the bulk of her friends and her connections come from. Even her son in law is an investment banker…

you're letting big finance cloud your judgement. you don't think trump is influenced by 'big finance'? how about the real estate? Russia? republican 1%ers?

Re: undefined

#449

Post by curiousgeorgio »

sagichmal wrote: post #313
curiousgeorgio wrote: post #239

It looks like a lot of people here don't understand how someone could possibly support Trump. If I were simply following the mainstream media's narrative, I'd be in a similar position. If you're really interested in trying to understand a viewpoint that differs from your own (which I believe is healthy for anyone, even if you don't plan on changing your views), I would suggest beginning by listening to Stefan Molyneu…

Oh who's this Stefan Molyneux character, let me just check out his Twitter... https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/787530311299112961 :\

Have you actually listened to a significant portion of what Molyneux has said, or do you routinely judge people 100% based on tweets out of context? Please, do yourself a favor and start listening to alternative viewpoints.

It's this kind of "let's judge a person by a tweet" mindset that is extremely dangerous to the pursuit of truth and improving society. The media thrives on one-liners (such as those found on Twitter), but I'd like to think we can do better.

Re: undefined

#450

Post by Sacho »

abcampbell wrote: post #343
Senji wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neoreactionary(NRx). Dark Enlightenment.

Why doesn't someone just ask him why he's giving the money. He's participating the democratic process, would be interested to hear his rationale rather than a bunch of speculations about what he may or may not believe.

You don't need to ask him - he already gave a speech at the RNC endorsing Trump.
Post reply on HN