12 ms·
Peter Thiel’s Embrace of Trump Has Silicon Valley Squirming
- daveqr 10y agoGood.
- Apocryphon 10y agoWhy?
- carsongross 10y agoThere are quite a few Trump supporters in the Valley, but they simply stay quiet because they will get 'racist' yelled at them and it will potentially hurt their careers.
- seany 10y agoI don't even think we're that rare. The more left leaning folks around here are just _really_ left though, so staying quiet makes more sense most of the time.
- josephlord 10y agoWhat do you like about him?
- James001 10y agoHe's not a murderer, unlike the other option
- seany 10y agoHonestly, Trump and Hillary aren't that different. He's a little less of a warhawk, speaks his mind, and is pro-2A. The last one is almost enough on its own for me, given Hillarys stance on that issue.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> He's a little less of a warhawk Given that he's criticized Obama/Clinton for being insufficiently aggressive in several areas, and praised Putin's aggressiveness, I'm not sure where that conclusion comes from, besides his after-the-fact claims to have opposed the Iraq War before it started (his only public statement on the war before it started appears to have been grudging support, not opposition, on the Howard Stern show in 2002, and stating that a decision on the war one way or another was important on Fox News in January 2003, without expressing support or opposition.)
- 13years 10y agoHe has criticized John McCain and Lindsey Graham over their pro war stances. In the debates he has mentioned problems with the interventionist foreign policy. Surprisingly he even attracted support of Michael Scheuer ( a huge critic of our interventionist foreign policy), although I believe he has pulled back a bit on that recently. However, yes he has also made somewhat contradictory statements as well. So, it is hard to draw any definitive conclusions what his actual policy would look like.
- sp527 10y agoHonest question: if that's really what you believe (that he's fundamentally unpredictable), why would you vote for him?
- 13years 10y agoI don't find him credible enough to vote for him. However, what I have observed is that some feel that Clinton is a certainty in continuing our existing foreign policy and that the choice is between certain more war and maybe less war and they are opting for the maybe less war. The one facet he has been mostly consistent on to my knowledge is at least he is not trying to push an aggressive provoking stance against Russia. It will be very interesting of Gary Johnson can succeed in getting into the debates. If he has a good performance, that could really change everything.
- 13years 10y agoHe has espoused a non-interventionalist foreign policy. Unfortunately though, he is not a man of principle; therefore, I don't have high hopes he would follow through unlike someone like Ron Paul. So for libertarian leaning voters, some might opt for Trump in hopes of less war. I feel that is a bit of a wildcard though. On the other hand, those same voters likely feel that Clinton is more certain of more war and debt.
- josephlord 10y agoI thought his policy was to "bomb the hell out of ISIS"? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/18/new_trump_ad_i_will_quickly_and_decisively_bomb_the_hell_out_of_isis.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/18/new_trump_...
- Apocryphon 10y agoHe's expressed a lot of contradictory statements, though. His recent rhetoric has been very gung ho about smashing ISIS and the like (to be fair, every candidate, even Sanders, following the Orlando attacks, has said the same). He's talked about killing the families of terrorists and bringing back torture methods worse than waterboarding. He might not be as canny or experienced as Clinton is at wielding this nation's military-intelligence systems to wage war with, but that doesn't mean he won't try, at some point. Trump just doesn't come across as a principled peace candidate. Not to mention, there seems to be a tendency for third party, or dark horse candidates, to run on non-interventionism. Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, George Wallace, even Charles Lindbergh- I think when one doesn't have previous political commitments to defense contractors and other entrenched pro-interventionist interests, there's no need to suck up on them. Instead, it becomes natural to run on a populist, America first, foreign policy deemphasized campaign to appeal to the common people. Trump is no longer dark horse, he's no longer fringe. He no longer needs to commit to non-interventionism. If anything, he is currently trying to outmaneuver Clinton as the candidate who can bring terrorism to heel.
- dforrestwilson 10y agoWhy not more Gary Johnson supporters?
- carsongross 10y agoBecause there has been a collapse in right-leaning libertarianism in the post Ron Paul era. Libertarianism has shifted to the left and there has been an exodus of right-libertarians to various flavors of nationalism. I think this is one of the major intellectual stories of the last decade, largely uncovered by the media.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoI would argue that it is the right's embrace of authoritarianism rooted in nativist and nationalist (some might even say racist) sentiments that pushed libertarians to the left, which is traditionally the sphere of people who have been historically oppressed or just want to be left alone.
- noobermin 10y ago>exodus of right-libertarians to various flavors of nationalism. How does a libertarian become a nationalist? Trump sure seems to facillitate "USA pride" but his politics and economics are not that libertarian at all. How can nationalistic pride win over what I thought was the center of the libertarian philosophy?
- dragonwriter 10y ago> How does a libertarian become a nationalist? Right-libertarians in the US already generally were nationalists (nationalism is a very common, if not defining, element of the right-wing orientation), and generally had the least opposition for government action in the same areas where authoritarian nationalists tend to focus on preferring government action, which is why lots of right-libertarians have always been within the Republican fold rather than voting for the Libertarian Party.
- carsongross 10y ago
- callcallcall 10y agoTrump has an extensive history of using racism to divide people for his own benefit.
- oh_sigh 10y agoExamples? Should be pretty easy to find if it is an "extensive history"
- wolfram74 10y agoSaying Gonzalo Curiel (born in Indiana) can't be impartial in a court case involving Trump "University" because he's mexican is one example.
- oh_sigh 10y ago1) Mexican isn't a race - it is a nationality. There are people of all races that are Mexican. 2) Curiels parents were illegal immigrants, and exactly the kind of people that Trump says he would deport. 3) Curiel has mentioned in the past (in a NYT article from the early 2000s, I can find a link if you like) that his Mexican heritage has had an impact in his practice of the law. 4) Curiel isn't a robot. Imagine if he ruled in favor of Trump...how popular would he be at the next family gathering? 5) Was it racist when Justice Sotomayor said that a "wise Latina" could make a better judicial decision than an old white man?
- whatyoucantsay 10y agoI'm curious which of these points downvoters are disagreeing with. I say this as someone with family members who look very much "Mexican" to most Americans. I don't like Trump's talk at all, but how would anyone with illegal immigrant parents would have comfortable family gatherings after supporting Trump? Job or not, family is strong. Is this just an example of herd HN behavior?
- meira 10y ago
- redwood 10y agoThere are plenty of racists around, that's true.
- oh_sigh 10y agoYup...and I'm quite curious how the author squares these two lines: > [Thiel] will become the most prominent public face of a species so endangered it might as well be called extinct: the Silicon Valley Trump supporter. and > The danger, then, is that not only could Mr. Thiel’s public embrace of Mr. Trump backfire on him, but it could also become another plot point in the larger story line that Silicon Valley is exclusionary and narrow-minded and that its innovations are advancing global inequality. So...the author thinks that there are almost no Trump supporters in the valley, and also thinks that a single public supporter of Trump will lead to people believing that Trump is the problem with Silicon valley...
- kamakazizuru 10y agoThat actually does make sense, negative signalling is powerful, there are many blaming silicon valley for all sorts of problems in society (AI killing jobs, rents in the bay area rising etc) and it would be easy to then take the views of a prominent valley figure and superimpose them onto all of the valley, even if <0,01% support trump.
- dguaraglia 10y agoWhich is not an incorrect assessment. People consistently fall for the trap of taking the worst possible exponent of a group and extrapolating what the whole group looks like. With Bernie Sanders supporters, it was the "Bernie bro", with Hillary Clinton it's the "nothing's wrong with her, she's perfect" supporters, with Trump is the cesspool of hatred that is /r/the_donald (people celebrating pictures of a guy armed with an assault-style rifle wearing a "cuckhunter" shirt at the RNC convention... let that sink in.) Tech workers already receive quite a bit of hate from some people (harassing at shuttle stops has become a semi-regular thing, I've been called a "fucking techie" when bar hopping, etc.) The last thing we need is the same people associating us with a political candidate who openly demonizes immigrants, insults women and disabled people, and who repeats "I'm RICH! SO RICH!" every time he's given an opportunity. I'm all for Peter Thiel supporting whoever he wants, but I definitely don't want him to be the representative for the majorly progressive Silicon Valley population.
- pbreit 10y agoDon't you think being a Trump supporter =should= hurt most people's careers? It's pretty poor judgment, for starters.
- saboot 10y agoMany prominent republicans have come to this same conclusion, so it's not an unreasonable fear.
- crusso 10y agoAllow me to meander a ways with extending what I view as your point: Should employers use whatever public records they have available to punish employees who donate money to the wrong party or candidates? Perhaps they should use this information in hiring? If political support is fair game for attacking people in other aspects of their lives, why as a society should we allow for votes to be made in secret? Maybe we should force people to vote on public record so we can really punish or reward each individual for his or her political choices.
- judah 10y agoNo. That's called thought-policing, and it's wrong. We should not harm people's livelihood just because we don't like their politics.
- googlryas 10y agoPat, that is a pretty disgusting thing to say. Please reconsider if political viewpoints are worthy of career punishment.
- serge2k 10y agoThey aren't... but can we make an exception?
- rsmckinney 10y agoThat's a good Nazi.
- pbreit 10y ago
- 3princip 10y agoOnes career being affected by a political opinion is very dangerous, especially since the goal-posts are constantly being moved by the thought-police. It's understandable how political opinions can affect how we view our peers, sometimes I question how a rational person could, for example, vote for Hillary Clinton. That does not change that persons professional proficiency nor would I hinder their career in any way because of it. It's a shame some people don't feel it inappropriate to cause harm because someone does not subscribe to their world view.
- noobermin 10y ago>It's understandable how political opinions can affect how we view our peers[...] That's how it happens. Even if you try to be impartial, it's hard to give someone the same respect and give them as much of a chance after they have a differing opinion from you. Not that you shouldn't try, but it's difficult.
- internaut 10y agoThat's why you have to go out of your way to talk to people you don't agree with. When you have an 'ugh' moment, you should notice this and put it to work. Some of my most interesting conversation have come from talking to persons who completely rejected the ideas I consider to be self evident. There are definite conflicts of interest that cannot be resolved but there are also major spheres of thought that 'the other side' does not even consider because they are orthogonal to their thinking. Gradually I have incorporated some of the enemy's thinking into my own conception of the world. If an idea is relevant it tends to seep in without you being consciously aware of it. If you've ever read old internet posts or comments you'd have made and thought "who the fuck is that guy and how is he/she so wrong" then you get it.
- patrickburke 10y agoThe narrative in this country is people who dont agree with the liberal establishment are mentally ill in the form of racism, sexism, etc. This is the level of political discourse we put up with.
- jasonmp85 10y ago> they will get 'racist' yelled This formulation implies they are victims of people irrationally yelling 'racist' at them. They just said they supported a particular political candidate! How unfair of the mob to slur them! You elide the underlying cause: they keep quiet to avoid having 'racist' yelled at them, because being a Trump supporter is supporting racism.
- carsongross 10y agoSee?
- Nadya 10y agoThis argument is often double-downed with "You're sexist if you don't support Hillary". You don't want to be a racist/sexist, right? Vote Hillary! Both arguments are increasingly why so many people are supporting Trump. They are emotional appeals based on presumptions that aren't necessarily true - and are more irritating than compelling. It also hurts the image of legitimate social issues. When everything is racist/sexist then being racist/sexist no longer holds any meaning.
- sp527 10y agoThis is a man who has demonstrated an extraordinary and heretofore unrivaled degree of ignorance and stupidity on the public stage. Clinton's no angel herself, but at least she has a brain. I think there's an IQ hurdle a potential candidate needs to clear and even though it's relatively low, Trump has managed the astonishing feat of not being able to meet it. That alone disqualifies him. Any further arguments are irrelevant. That's why one feels compelled to assume that Trump supporters - the ones we would otherwise assume are reasonably intelligent at least - must have an ulterior rationale for their vote. The most obvious explanation is closet bigotry.
- eevilspock 10y agoIf there is much squirming much of it has to be dishonest, because the popular attitudes that I see displayed in the Valley and here on HN are rather in line with Trump's anti-PC, dismissive-of-sexism-or-racism-claims, anti-afirmative action, pro-business, pro-money rhetoric.
- anonymousguy 10y agoThe Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson might set a record this year for highest votes attained by a third party candidate.
- harryh 10y agoPerot got 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992. Gonna be tough to beat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
- dforrestwilson 10y agoThat was before the Republican party ran completely off the rails, and embraced the old white scared vote.
- harryh 10y agoTrue. Not saying it can't happen. I just think it's unlikely. I think Johnson is currently polling somewhere around 10%? I guess the big hurdle will be getting in the debates like Perot did. Not sure what the current rules are for that.
- stcredzero 10y agoI think you underestimate the size of the "precariat" that feels it's on a trajectory towards becoming economically and culturally disenfranchised. The educated elites are quite disconnected with the population from the lower half of the "middle class" and downward. Look at what's happening in the Internet driven media of today. The lion's share of the volume online is outrage politics. It's the young and economically squeezed vote you need to keep track of, both on the right and left. Trump and Sanders both knew this.
- anonymousguy 10y agoHe is at 13% now and needs only to be at 15% to enter the national spotlight of increased media coverage and access to the general debates. His polling numbers are increasing with a notable momentum as general support of the Republican candidate and Democratic candidate are both at all time lows. As long as the majority of voters think of Trump as a broke racist narcissist and Clinton as an apathetic or unethical elitist he may well have a chance. http://heatst.com/politics/gary-johnsons-polling-numbers-reach-all-time-high/ http://heatst.com/politics/gary-johnsons-polling-numbers-rea...
- intopieces 10y agoGiven the libertarian/Randian streak that runs through silicon valley, support for Trump doesn't seem too outlandish. Especially when you consider his non-dedication to the typical right-wing 'family values' that aren't really popular in that region of California.
- sevenless 10y agoIsn't a libertarian just what Republicans call themselves in Northern California?
- saboot 10y agoDepends if by Northern California you mean SV. Travel further north to the foothills and it's pretty traditional. As someone who grew up in Placer County and now lives in the bible belt the main difference in political culture is that conservatives here are much more into the religious fire and brimstone narratives.
- maratd 10y ago> Given the libertarian/Randian streak that runs through silicon valley, support for Trump doesn't seem too outlandish. What? Exactly what libertarian values does Trump espouse?
- goodcitizen147 10y agoDecreased regulation, meritocratic systems, and property rights Why is this being downvoted?
- api 10y agoWhen he says things like "I will force company X to do Y" I find it hard to take him seriously as a small government or pro-property-rights candidate. My personal prediction is that if elected he will grow the size of government dramatically, quite likely more than Sanders would have if elected and certainly more than Clinton (who is the "conservative" candidate in this election if that means status quo). He will also grow the power of government, which is more important and significant.
- jscott0918 10y agoThis is interesting to me. The lack of diversity in the tech industry is definitely something that will be harmful in the long run. Diversity is necessary to improve the relevance of new ideas in tech and to promote them to broader audiences from different cultures. The trend towards making a pariah out of anyone with opposing points of view can be equally harmful to promoting diversity of thought. Making people afraid of speaking their minds can hardly help the flow of new ideas or positively impact the industry. While I likely don't agree with the political ideology of a speaker at the RNC, I definitely agree with the right of anyone to do so without being held captive by the threat of activism at home. Boycotting and protesting people with different political views may feel good in the short run, but it is unhelpful to promoting freedom and equality in the long run. If they can't say what I find reprehensible today, how do I know that views I hold dear will be "allowed" in the future?
- stcredzero 10y agoThe lack of diversity in the tech industry is definitely something that will be harmful in the long run. My intuition is that the harm has already been done, but we will only fully understand it 10 years hence. Making people afraid of speaking their minds can hardly help the flow of new ideas or positively impact the industry. There seem to be a lot of people online who have been indoctrinated to believe that pressuring/intimidating/shaming people into compliance is a useful means of changing people's minds. History tells us that it never works that way. You change people's minds through friendly interaction, by living and working with them.
- rsmckinney 10y agoWait. What does the relevance of a new idea have to do with the ethnic composition of the people with the idea? Isn't that a racist statement? Fascinating. My favorite part about the liberal mind are its obvious contradictions and, thus, the unintended consequences of its thought process.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoDeclaring a general fault in a <EntityType>'s mind isn't often the best way to endear the neutral or opposed to your point of view.
- wturner 10y agoFrom Peter Thiels perspective its a smart move because he's the only one willing to do something this crazy. This gives him a "monopoly" (as he likes to say) on political access as it relates to the tech world if Trump wins. In short it looks like a bet. Personally I find Trump an archetype of everything I'm trying to get away from in life.... but that is not the point. Also this is just my opinion and maybe their is no greater agenda and Peter Thiel just likes him.
- pbreit 10y agoYep, it's pretty much the supreme contrarian move which as you say, if he's right, gives him a virtually monopoly.
- __derek__ 10y agoThat is interesting. I hadn't come across that idea before. He's effectively shorting American democracy and rule of law. If he wins, he will collect a huge windfall (aside from the access, imagine all the contracts that Palantir will win). If he loses, he still has his status in the Valley, where he hasn't been ostracized for heterdox ideas.
- mark_l_watson 10y ago+1 good comment! I read Thiel's Zero to One book twice, and you might have nailed the reason. BTW, off topic, but this campaign is crazy. I don't like either Clinton or Trump, and have mentioned to friends and family that I will leave the presidential part of the ballot in November blank or vote for Jill Stein. It just seems wrong to me to vote for someone I simply don't like. For this honesty, I have several friends who are all over my case for 'wasting my vote.'
- tlrobinson 10y agoIf you really want to upset your unprincipled friends tell them you're going to write in "Giant Meteor" https://twitter.com/votegiantmeteor https://twitter.com/votegiantmeteor
- Miner49er 10y ago
- goodcitizen147 10y ago> Mr. Thiel will have a direct line to a chief executive who hints at a penchant for making big things happen for his supporters. Look at this masterfully subtle insinuation that Trump will be corrupt. The NY Times never fails to impress. > This year there was an opportunity for a Republican to make overtures to tech — but with Mr. Trump, that chance seems to have passed. >[...] >it almost seems like he’s gone out of his way to smite Silicon Valley leaders on the issues they care about, Yes, like bringing in scores of cheap H1Bs as veritable indentured servants (their right to reside in the country is is tied to their employer). This drives down wages – of course SV VCs and founders want this. Of course the NY Times does not elaborate at all on this point > “As a black guy in Silicon Valley, I just find it very hard to support a candidate who has been called racist,” Mr. Johnson said. Oh my god
- crispyambulance 10y agoWell, it is not surprising why Thiel supports Trump: SELF INTEREST. It _has_ to be. Thiel seems like a remarkably smart guy who would never fall for the fool BS coming out "The Donald's" mouth. He must be in it for the influence he can leverage out of the orangutan-man from being a delegate, an influential SV player and and sizable donor. What will really be interesting is the (what I expect to be) PURE pandering baloney he gives during his speech at the RNC. Obviously, he can't just say "the real reason" he supports Trump. Pass the popcorn, its going to be interesting.
- goodcitizen147 10y agoI also support Trump out of self interest. It is in my self interest to live in a county not divided along racial lines, where rule of law exists, where rioters are not given "space to destroy", where people are judged on their merit rather than on the color of their skin, where our military is powerful and deters threats from abroad, and where I can go out with my friends and family and not get run over or shot and tortured by a deranged Islamist lunatic. I am very self interested.
- spraak 10y ago> After that, he suggested, things went south because, among other things, women were given the right to vote. Wow, does Peter Thiel really think that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?
- Miner49er 10y agoThe article is referring to a line from this article: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education... The line in question: " 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."
- serge2k 10y agoHow shocking, people who aren't set for life aren't in favor of idiotic "I got mine" libertarian style policies.
- sevenless 10y agoThere's a certain conservative mentality that delights in being more-reactionary-than-thou. When I encounter it I tend to say things like "Oh, the real problem started when we adopted agriculture in 6000BC. It was Big Government that wanted us to drop the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and submit to the state. And don't get me started on the invention of reading and writing..."
- Apocryphon 10y agoThat's pretty much what the ideology of primitivism is about. They advocate a return to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. John Zerzan (/ˈzɜːrzən/, zur-zən; born 1943) is an American anarchist and primitivist philosopher and author. His works criticize agricultural civilization as inherently oppressive, and advocate drawing upon the ways of life of hunter-gatherers as an inspiration for what a free society should look like. Some subjects of his criticism include domestication, language, symbolic thought (such as mathematics and art) and the concept of time. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zerzan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- James001 10y agoHe's not a murderer, unlike the other option
- dang 10y agoPlease don't do this here. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12130976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12130976 and marked it off-topic.
- davidw 10y agoProbably, any thread with 'Trump' or 'Hillary' is going to get bad, fast. Everyone has an opinion on them.
- xiaoma 10y ago"Courage is in even shorter supply than genius." -Peter Thiel
- Apocryphon 10y ago"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
- xiaoma 10y agoThat's why Peter Thiel not only speaks intelligently but also takes action. While I have serious misgivings about the move, I stand in awe of the courage he has. I suspect it comes from the same reservoir he drew from to invest in SpaceX over a decade ago when it looked insane to people, or to start Paypal. I don't always agree with the man, but I have tremendous respect for both his genius and his courage.
- Apocryphon 10y agoSure. But those accomplishments have nothing to do with his pro-Trump views.
- xiaoma 10y agoIt's not about having a given view. Doing what you believe when most your peers agree with you is easy. It's about having a view, knowing it's unpopular and still having the courage to publicly state it and face the mob that is extraordinary. People who do that sometimes change the world (and other times get burnt at the stake).
- DyslexicAtheist 10y agowhen will the world learn that the man is a liability (Thiel not Trump). Speaking of blaming the 1% this guy (compared to other influencers like E Musk) is a serious threat to world peace. Palantir is to the US what Volkswagen was to the Nazis. Let's remember drones, Palantir and Thiel every time we speak of neocon cunts like Thiel: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/ https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/
- dang 10y agoOver-the-top rhetoric and gratuitous Godwinning make this a terrible post for HN. Please don't post like this here—it's not what this site is for. Beyond that, this is a bannable offense: > neocon cunts like Thiel We're not banning you for it because I don't see many comments like it in your history, but please don't post anything like this—I mean this entire comment—again.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tc313 10y agoI would think that if any major voting bloc were to turn against Silicon Valley, it'd be Trump's populist base.
- a2tech 10y agoThey're uncomfortable with him supporting Trump but fine with him using his billions to underwrite legal campaigns against people he doesn't like?
- sudokoheck 10y agoShame on Thiel. Robert Reich - " Yesterday, Trump argued that the United States should investigate every American who practices Islam. "We really have to look at profiling," Trump told CBS's "Face the Nation." And that the government should investigate mosques in the U.S. Never before has a major party’s presumptive nominee for president of the United States urged that an entire religion be singled out for investigation. Each day, it seems, Trump comes closer to the fascism America went to war against in 1941. Why doesn’t Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and every Republican leader withdraw their endorsement of him and disavow this hatefulness? To nominate this bigot for the highest office in America is a slap in the face of American values, constitutional rights, and the pluralism America stands for. Trump must be dumped. " " One by one, Republican leaders are falling in line behind a man who says undocumented workers “bring drugs, crime, they’re rapists;” who claimed “thousands and thousands” of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated the Twin Towers collapsing; who says black criminals are responsible for 81 percent of homicides against whites, which turns out to be a racist myth from white supremacist website; who tells a Jewish group "I'm a negotiator, like you folks;" who bullies, humiliates, and threatens his opponents, including a federal judge now hearing a case against one of his businesses; who suggested President Obama wasn’t born in the United States, that childhood vaccinations cause autism, and that human-caused climate change is a hoax; and whose hateful and demeaning attitude toward women is best summed up in an interview where he said “women, you have to treat them like shit.” By falling into line behind Trump, Republican leaders are lending legitimacy to such hatefulness, bigotry, and lies. Shame on them. "
- mark_l_watson 10y agoI don't disagree with you (I refuse to vote for Trump or Clinton). It was interesting to hear the the Muslim speaker at the republican convention last night. I didn't think that his speech was so good but later he made some nice points on a CNN interview. Anyway, I was surprised to see him as a speaker.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- honkhonkpants 10y agoWe've already established that you're an idiot. You're just reinforcing the fact if you continue to claim that a "security cordon" is the same thing as a wall.
- googlryas 10y agoI appreciate the civility of your tone. Okay, I'm sorry I said that security cordons and fencing was a wall. I was wrong. Is that really enough to make me an idiot? Does that mistake detract from the rest of the post? Is a wall in itself racist?
- SilasX 10y agoI don't follow: is the opposition to the wall grounded on a distinction between a cordon and a wall? Is the argument that, "walls are great, but not that high"? If not, then this seems like a distinction without a difference.
- honkhonkpants 10y agoCordon just means an imaginary area patrolled by guards. Anyone can declare a cordon without building anything or deploying anybody.
- SilasX 10y agoThe Guatemala-Mexico security cordon has no structures or deployed patrols?
- honkhonkpants 10y agoHere's a Federal checkpoint that's made out of grass and sticks. https://www.google.com/maps/@16.0751514,-91.0688863,3a,75y,198.46h,73.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXLX_toMgsrvkB6GyYeBpng!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@16.0751514,-91.0688863,3a,75y,1... How much of a wall were you hoping for? Most of their border consists of nothing but a graded road through the forest, much like the American border with Canada.
- joesmo 10y agoMaybe he's betting on Trump bringing Palantir more business with the concentration camps Trump plans to build. Or he might just be a stupid, racist asshole who can relate to Trump and enjoys others' suffering. Who knows what makes scumbags like this tick?
- heifetz 10y agowhy is he even considering supporting a party that views homosexuality as a sin?