The 2016 Election

I upvoted your comment because I think it's important, even though I disagree with you. Would you mind explaining your position? I think it might be helpful in furthering people's understanding, although it does run some risk of devolving into an argument.

Everything you listed in why people support Trump over Clinton. They view the following:

- erratic, abusive, and prone to fits of rage

- a real threat to the safety of women, minorities, and immigrants

- shows little respect for the Constitution, the Republic, or for human decency

As major faults of Clinton.

SNL writer Chris Kelly 'How bout instead of an “I Voted” sticker, everyone who votes Trump gets to wear a scarlet T for the rest of their lives?'[0]

Person thinks 40% of people are crazy, racist, hates women etc. Maybe the person who thinks that is the one not understanding the situation.

Clinton: Read Wikileaks, study Clinton Foundation (Haiti) Trump: Read news from both sides msm and Breitbart & similar. Scott Adams blog gives you some sense what is going on.[1]

[0]http://archive.is/NiRJ4 [1]http://blog.dilbert.com

I'm heartened to hear that Thiel's support for Trump --- which is ongoing and extensive --- has been a strain on Altman's relationship with him.

Thiel is not merely one of the 43% of Americans who supports Donald Trump. There are degrees of support, and there are different reasons to support him. Thiel has chosen to serve as a surrogate for the Trump campaign, appearing on stage for him at the RNC in a nationally televised event even as many of the leaders of the Republican party (including all of their previous Presidential candidates) refused to do the same. His support for Trump has continued even after Trump pivoted his election to run against the legitimacy of the US elections themselves.

I strongly agree that we must avoid ostracizing Republicans because of the actions of a few monsters in their party. We should continue the work HRC and Obama started earlier in this election, to de-normalize Trump and separate him from the mainstream Republican party. The country needs a loyal opposition and a voice for limited government, the strengths of our private sector, and humility in regulation. HRC and Obama have stopped this work, believing that the outcome of the election is a foregone conclusion, and are now trying their best to tether the party to Trump in an effort to win downticket races. As a loyal, lifelong Democrat, I think they're making a terrible mistake.

But that does not mean we should forget that the Trump campaign itself is truly monstrous, nor does it mean we're required to tolerate the least tolerant members of our society --- the white nationalist fringe that, according to Sam Wang at Princeton, has been within striking range of the Presidency for much of this election cycle.

Thiel isn't just a supporter of this campaign; he's a part of it. We should recognize that, and not gloss over it, or pretend that the discussion we're having is the same as the kind we'd have with John Fund and Jonah Goldberg at The National Review. Thiel isn't William F. Buckley. He's a man that just last week mustered $1.25MM in an attempt to rend the fabric of the American political system, a system which he has repeatedly argued against.

I don't ask that Altman sever formal ties with Peter Thiel. Shit's complicated. But as someone who has, yet again, acknowledged in writing the grave threat Trump poses to our country, I do ask that he live up to his own words and recognize publicly the role Thiel has played in this election.

This post was a good start.

I'm torn on the issue of parting ways with someone over them supporting a despicable person.

On one hand, supporting someone who's genocidal or something is bad.

Trump, on the other hand, might be the exact terrible thing this country needs to reign in government. Lets say he wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb off the coast of North Korea. (Borrowing from the most recent Dan Carlin/Common Sense podcast [0])

This would be objectively bad. We should not be nuking anything, anywhere, ever. Period.

If trump-the-president wants to do this, you might really quickly find people talking about the constitutional limits to declare war that Congress is supposed to maintain.

So, they might step in and say "Actually, presidents cannot unilaterally declare war. Oh, and they cannot create internment camps, or do deep packet inspection on the entire internet, or collectivize businesses, etc."

In other words, when a terrible guy gets into office, everyone else might wake up and try to roll back his power. So, it might be a net win, though it's a hell of a gamble to get there.

So, by that line of reasoning, I could see the GOOD that a trump presidency could bring about.

Even if I couldn't, I still don't know what the limit is for donating money to a cause and forcing separation with a company. The free-speech guy in me says it's fine, but... I really don't like trump.

[0] http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/