Live data from Hacker News

Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

linkedin.com

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#881

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes this is what everyone missed. If you watched South Park over the past 3 seasons, or watched Milo Yiannopolous' videos on YouTube, there is a battle going on against the progressive movement. Its about freedom of speech. But the liberals failed to see this, because they were too busy labelling everyone misogynist and racist.

Yes, the rising up of embittered masculinity is a hell of a sight.

masculinity?

Are you trying to inject a identity narrative?

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#882
post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We judge him for how and why he pitches in, bearing in mind that a Trump presidency is something he wanted to actualise rather than mitigate the effects of. I don't doubt Thiel is capable and accomplished, but I also don't doubt he's ruthless, ambitious and tends to see things in black and white. It remains to be seen which of the ideas he's championed on he chooses to focuses his efforts on, of course, whether that'…

> We judge him for how and why he pitches in You have no idea how or why he's pitching in. You have very limited information on that front and judging him based on that is silly. It seems far more likely everything that was said and done was simply to get his foot in the door. You have no idea what his intentions are.

I do.

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#883
post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We judge him for how and why he pitches in, bearing in mind that a Trump presidency is something he wanted to actualise rather than mitigate the effects of. I don't doubt Thiel is capable and accomplished, but I also don't doubt he's ruthless, ambitious and tends to see things in black and white. It remains to be seen which of the ideas he's championed on he chooses to focuses his efforts on, of course, whether that'…

> We judge him for how and why he pitches in You have no idea how or why he's pitching in. You have very limited information on that front and judging him based on that is silly. It seems far more likely everything that was said and done was simply to get his foot in the door. You have no idea what his intentions are.

We'll have considerably more information on how and why he's pitched in after he's actually done something with the foot he's got in the door. Which was literally the entire point of the post you're responding to...

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#884
Trump gets to work helping LGBT Americans by tapping anti-gay Ken Blackwell to his transition team.

“I think homosexuality is a lifestyle, it’s a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed,” Blackwell told the Columbus Dispatch at the time. “I think it is a transgression against God’s law, God’s will.”

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/10/1596184/-Trump-ge...

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#885
post #348

Peter Thiel's "Mein Kampf" excludes women and minorities, who he feels have "damaged" democracy: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

"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." Wow. That is...troubling

If Thiel explicitly said "hence, women shouldn't vote" it would be bad. As it stands, he didn't.

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok - thanks for clarifying. I don't think that this assertion strengthens an argument that voting for Trump is better than voting for any other candidate. I would argue that someone who does not have experience in public office should not be considered a viable candidate for president of the United States, much as I believe that someone who has not driven a car before should not be considered to be a driver in the In…

> does not have experience in public office Reagan didn't. They can just surround themselves with people who know. I think its good though. The longer you spend in politics, the more favours you owe people. Political capital. Don't you get excited at the prospect of a leader not beholden to any special interests at all? > Is that a fair characterization of our positions based on this limited conversation? In terms of…

> Don't you get excited at the prospect of a leader not beholden to any special interests at all?

On paper that does sound exciting, but it's not something that I want at any cost. In specific, I don't want it badly enough to elect Donald Trump as president.

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#887
post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or the blog post he wrote for Cato in 2009 lamenting that women had obtained the right to vote? He said no such thing in that article[1]. I have no idea about the rest, or about Thiel in general, but I did read the article. Your statement is as bad and inaccurate as any one-liner soundbite on right wing media. The section in question (emphasis mine): As one fast-forwards to 2009, the prospects for a *libertarian po…

Despite its length, your comment is not in fact responsive to mine.

At least it provided some sources, than just bare assertions.

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#888

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not you think what Gawker did was right, it is a terrible precedent that a billionaire can shut down the entire publication by funding lawsuits for other people against the publisher. There are ways to get the tape removed without simply outspending the press to the point where they cannot feasibly fight your lawsuit. It is a slippery slope. No one feels too bad about a sex tape getting taken down, but cas…

> it is a terrible precedent that a billionaire can only people without money should be able to sue? > There are ways to get the tape removed without simply outspending the press to the point where they cannot feasibly fight your lawsuit. So this is Thiels fault, not Gawker? Gawker got away with a lot of shit before it was finally called on it. > cases like this ensure that journalists will have to self-censor what t…

> only people without money should be able to sue?

Is this what I said? No. But outspending a publication by an order of magnitude so that they either go bankrupt fighting you or lose the case is an example of how you can abuse the court system if you have way more money than your opponent. Its the same tactics large corporations use to sue small corporations in order to force them to settle regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

>> There are ways to get the tape removed without simply outspending the press to the point where they cannot feasibly fight your lawsuit.

> So this is Thiels fault, not Gawker? Gawker got away with a lot of shit before it was finally called on it.

Well yes, I see it as Thiel's fault because he wasn't a party to the case in any way but decided to give Hogan a blank check to send a huge team of lawyers after Gawker. Even if that was perhaps fair game, they didn't have to sue for so much that they literally shut down the entire organization.

>> cases like this ensure that journalists will have to self-censor what they publish

> Yes, is that difficult?

Yes it is. Its not black and white so there will necessarily be cases in the gray area (cases that could be very important and in the public interest) where publications will say "we can't publish this because we only have $10 million and someone with $10 billion could sue us and we will lose simply based on lawyer fees." For example, see the woman who was sexually harassed by Trump but backed down from talking about it publicly after Trump said he was sending an army of lawyers after her. How can someone who might make say $50,000 defend herself against a multi-billionaire? So we get censorship for no reason other than fear of billionaires suing.

> I disagree, the degrees of freedom Gawker had were far too much, it didn't even try to be fair. What actual good did Gawker do?

I already answered this above but here is one series of examples: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/10-stories-exactly-need-gawker...

I don't agree with Wired that all of those were super important but some of them clearly are. For example, Buzzfeed removing articles that were critical of their advertisers, the first exposes of the Silk Road and The Armory, evidence of Greg Hardy abusing his girlfriend, etc.

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#889

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's Peter's speech at the National Press Club: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 Could you point out anywhere that Peter supports bigotry? Or even, a single crazy statement in Peter's speech? (I wouldn't defend Trump. I'm defending Peter, who I respect a lot). The speech runs from 2:40 to 15:50, and can be watched in 7 minutes if you change speed to 2x. (Thomas, I respect you a lot too. I've never seen o…

"They(Mexicans) are rapists and murderers" Take a look[1] you may have been stranded on an Island the last 2 years and perhaps you did not hear what Trump have said. Now, not all Trump supporters are racists (maybe Thiel isn't? who knows!), but all of them are telling us implicitly that racism and bigotry are not deal breakers. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37zvOZ17eSE

> "They(Mexicans) are rapists and murderers"

Actually "they’re not sending their best" explicitly doesn't mean "Mexicans" (i.e all/any Mexicans). As such, that should be:

> "They(some Mexicans) are rapists and murderers"

http://www.breitbart.com/live/vice-presidential-debate-fact-...

Re: Peter Thiel To Join Trump Transition Team

#890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that this kind of thing only happens on the right? You think that the right-wing parties are more wealthy than the left-wing parties? You are trying to confirm the "trump is bad" case. But when it is shown that Clinton is the same, and liberals are the same...we have to argue on a case-by-base basis...which is not as easy as calling out conservatives that you don't like. This is called bias.

I never said this only happens on the right (whether I think it occurs more on the right is a separate argument but not one that I made here). But the post I responded to was saying they voted for Trump (despite his repeated racism, sexism, and bullying) because the poster perceives the left as bullying. My point is simply that Trump and friends are serious bullies so this isn't a credible reason for choosing him ove…

I think masondixon's point was bullying by the left, not by Clinton. Trump is in fact a bully, and at least some of his friends seem to be too, but that doesn't actually address masondixon's point.

And in fact I think masondixon is right. The left, taken as a whole, is more bullying to most people than the right is. You can argue that, if you're LGBTQ, say, the right is more bullying. If you're just a middle class person with no personal stake in the culture wars, though, the left says that you have to agree with them (and even use their words) or you're a morally bad person who may face ostracism or even lose their job. So for the majority of people, the left is more bullying than the right.

And, as masondixon keeps pointing out, this is all in the context of an election, so how the majority feels is directly relevant.

Post reply on HN