Untitled topic

To believe that somehow our leaders only need to be held to the same standard as we are is a notion that works only in theory. If a normal, every day person commits a small crime, say speeding, it is a routine procedure. If a billionaire speeds, it becomes a story. Because leaders hold so much influence and sway, criticizing them is not a direct criticism on them, it is criticism on the group of people influenced by the leader. Thiel's vote is not a singular one, it is a vote that has a dramatic effect on those influenced by him. Is this not a sufficient reason to bring outcry against him?

> It means a multitude of actions done in support of political point or candidate you prefer, including donating money to the causes you prefer. His expression of his political opinion is not some fault you can tolerate, but only if he hides it well and it doesn't matter. It's a basic right any person of a democratic country is entitled to, and it is a right that millions of persons exercise proudly every day.

Where is the line between speech and action drawn then? I can't go out and destroy property I dislike and hide behind the notion I was "expressing my right of free speech". Thiel's donation is massive, far larger than any regular donation amount from a common man. Does this still qualify as speech?

> What I said is claiming his action somehow is exceptional is completely false, and trying to get him and everybody he associates with ostracized for the fact he did it betrays intolerance to opposing opinions which can develop into a full blown totalitarian mindset if left unchecked.

Anything and everything can lead to negative effects if taken to an extreme. However, to preemptively withhold criticism because it has a chance of leading to negative consequences if left unchecked is an awful rule to hold yourself to, since where are we at otherwise? Endlessly creating equivalencies where they do not exist? Blatant trying to stay neutral in the face of overwhelming disgust? This election, as I'm sure anyone will agree, is nothing like the norm. One side has attacked the fundamental structures of society that we have held ourselves to, when is the point of no return? We (as a collective group of people who enjoy the merits of democracy) should realize when some ideas fall outside of the moral lines, and what else decides moral lines than a society?

>Criticizing him and demanding his peers to ostracize him is different.

I'm sure many people who agree with idlewords don't completely agree with him word for word. Is it wrong to demand people who have both 1. publicly disparaged Trump and 2. collaborated with someone who supports Trump on a massive scale to pick a side of the fence? If idlewords believes that Thiel is acting unethically, and that Thiel is simply a business partner to YC, is it wrong of idlewords to ask that YC stop doing business with someone he perceives to be unethical?

So did Clinton. To the point she promised first thing she would do is try to reverse Supreme Court decision which confirmed that people can organize to criticize her. And unlike Trump, which has neither the knowledge (President doesn't make laws, for starters) nor expertise not sound mind to actually produce anything but hot air on the topic, I fully believe she can do it - she can find a judge who hates the First Amendment, she can put him or, even more probably, her on the Supreme Court, and she can hurt freedom of speech and freedom of association for decades to come.

And I must also remind that in the last scandal about freedom of association - namely, documented use of IRS powers for political purposes - nobody was seriously punished and no safeguards preventing it from happening in the future were instituted. Which means it will happen again. And history shows Clinton has absolutely no problem with (ab)using state power against her enemies.

> All this, of course, after he took to the stage of a Presidential debate to argue in public that his political opponent should be jailed --- not investigated, but jailed. That is his rallying cry: "lock her up".

While I oppose Trump on a very long list of points, and dislike him for even longer list of reasons, on this point he is completely right. If anybody else but Clinton or another high-ranking Democrat would do what she did - he would be in jail. Many were for less, and many still are. US government is highly intolerant to mishandling classified documents and trying to circumvent regulations, even for benign reasons, let alone for reasons of avoiding oversight. Government hates avoiding oversight. Unless it's some of the "special people" who's doing it.

Of course, election propaganda tries to present it as if Trump wants Clinton to be locked up for opposing him. Nope. She must be locked up for doing things every regular person - including me and you - would be locked up. Because right now we know for sure that there's one law for regular people and another law for top government officials. And it's not a country of laws that US is supposed to be, it's a banana republic stuff.

> We are not required to tolerate intolerance when it actively jeopardizes the fabric of our civil society.

I'm sorry, but I hear this bullshit every election - if a Republican gets elected, our society is ruined. Ruined I say! Everybody will be dead! US will be a nuclear wasteland!

I heard it for Bush, I heard it for McCain, I hear it for Romney, now I hear it for Trump. It's nothing but electoral bullshit.

Yes, Trump is a disgusting pig, a blowhard and a conman. No, he won't ruin our civil society. Not unless we first dismantle the safeguards that was built into the system - on which, btw, both Obama and Clinton are working vigorously, because those are the same safeguards that limit their powers. To be sure, Trump is no friend of the safeguards either - but he has much less chance of success on actually removing any of them, unless something huge - like 9/11 - happens. In which case Clinton would be probably even worse, as the press would attack Trump vigorously and would be (already is) very servile and docile towards Clinton.

This hysterical frenzy about ruining the society is impossible to take seriously, and I won't. Even less I would take it from the same people is completely silent in the face of a thousands of routine government abuses taking place literally every day (I don't mean you here, I don't know your history, I mean the press and the commentariat). Our society has a lot of warts, and a lot of problems, and still survives. It can survive Trump and not even break a sweat.

> Particularly when a movement towards intolerance is progressing so fast that there's little time for its adherents to be educated in the gravity of what they're doing before intolerance itself wins.

The mindset of "we're right, so we should not be bound by the rules" is the most dangerous mindset there ever was, bar none. If you think it's ok to suppress opposition because you're right and it's too important to let them oppose you - you are the problem. Maybe in one particular regard you would turn out to be right - but it never lasts and not playing by the rules always does.

As for implication that Trump supporters are mainly moved by racism - it is also an electoral canard. I could expand on this but it's already too long, so I'll just say that it's true that many racists do support Trump, but it's not the reason he won the Republican nomination, and way detached from the reason every single person I know that supports him and millions I don't support him.

Definitely. I'm far enough to the Left that I resent Trump for being so bad that Clinton can pin both parties' godawful policies all on him.

Of course not, unless you routinely outcry agains people the try to influence other's votes - like journalists, political pundits, campaign workers, prominent bloggers, etc. When last time you outcried against George Soros or Tom Stayer spending money in support of political causes? I'd venture a guess - never.

Unless, of course, the problem is not supporting. The problem is supporting the case you oppose. In which case, half of the country should boycott the other half, and independents should boycott everyone.

> I can't go out and destroy property I dislike and hide behind the notion I was "expressing my right of free speech".

Right, because it's not your property. You can't donate other's money - though unions routinely do that, and so does DOJ recently, but that's a topic for another day - but you can donate your own. I can't believe this distinction is a problem for you. Your property - you do what you want. Not yours - you don't.

> Thiel's donation is massive, far larger than any regular donation amount from a common man. Does this still qualify as speech?

Of course. Just as editorial in NYT is massively more influential than a tweet of an obscure geek with 10 followers, all spam bots. Both are speech. I still can't see why it is a problem for you - do you have a problem with New York Times or Washington Post influencing millions with their speech and being large corporations with a lot of money? Do you have problem with what MSNBC is doing called speech? If not, why understanding that what Thiel is doing is a speech is a problem?

Let's ask another question - if you learned that Tom Stayer donated a million dollars to a Clinton-supporting PAC, would you say it's something exceptional that should raise an outcry from everybody?

> However, to preemptively withhold criticism because it has a chance of leading to negative consequences if left unchecked is an awful rule to hold yourself to

Nobody asks to withhold criticism, as I said, criticizing somebody and demanding that he will be ostracized by his peers is a different thing.

Also, criticizing somebody for doing what everybody is routinely doing and what is completely normal and a right of every citizen to do, exercised daily by thousands - is not a valid criticism. Valid criticism has to outline what is different that Thiel did that nobody else is doing. So far nothing was shown.

> This election, as I'm sure anyone will agree, is nothing like the norm.

Yes, it features the worst candidates from both sides on my memory.

> One side has attacked the fundamental structures of society that we have held ourselves to,

Yes, I think the handling of Clinton case by the FBI and the shameful refusal of Comey to prosecute, despite numerous rank-and-file advising to do so and ample evidence of wrongdoing, is a disgusting affront to a principle of rule of law we hold dear. But I don't think it is new for this elections - principle of rule of law and accountability of government, of limited government and separation of powers, is under attack for a long time. Members of the government routinely lie to the Congress and the public, routinely use their office for partisan purposes, routinely circumvent the law and sometimes blatantly disregard it, routinely avoid accountability and brazenly destroy evidence in clear view of the public, and are almost never held responsible for it. This election would not change this, most likely, as neither of the candidates is fit to do anything about it.

> We (as a collective group of people who enjoy the merits of democracy) should realize when some ideas fall outside of the moral lines, and what else decides moral lines than a society?

Yes. One of these ideas is that if somebody supports a person we disagree with, he must be run out of town tarred and feathered and everybody who associated with him must undergo struggle sessions and repent of their association, lest the same fate occurs to them. This is a very dangerous idea, and I agree that we should realize its danger before it's too late.

> Is it wrong to demand people who have both 1. publicly disparaged Trump and 2. collaborated with someone who supports Trump on a massive scale to pick a side of the fence?

Yes, it is.

Did I say or even imply you couldn't? No, I didnt. I was simply disagreeing that these candidates are the same.

I'll be voting for my interpretation of the "lesser evil" unapologetically.

I'm not 'wasting my life in the trenches', I'm an American citizen with an opinion. I respect your decision to vote third party or not at all, but please stop trying to shame me for "being evil" and voting how I see fit.

TYVM