8 ms·

Thiel donating to Trump is not a big deal. Honestly, if people really wanted to solve this 'issue' instead of criticizing the business ethics of YC, they'd go

by CN7R 10y ago

Thiel donating to Trump is not a big deal. Honestly, if people really wanted to solve this 'issue' instead of criticizing the business ethics of YC, they'd go DONATE TO THE OPPOSITE CANDIDATE and VOTE ON NOVEMBER 8TH. Because in the end, it's ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, and I'm sure there's more people who disagree with Thiel than agree. But then again, media—that includes HN—needs a news story.

knodi123 10y ago
> Because in the end, it's ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, Not sure this is really true. Because in the end, ads are effective, political spending influences people, and people like Thiel have vastly more money than I do. If we were only worried about how Thiel was going to cast his own vote, then we wouldn't be having a conversation right now. But we are having a conversation, so it's a bit disingenuous to pretend all we should care about is one man's vote. Let me ask you this - Why do you think the FEC chose to implement a limit of $2700 for individual donations to a political campaign? Is it possible to think that law serves a legitimate purpose, and ALSO to think it's fine for billionaires to give multiple millions to a candidate? I allege that it is not.
- CN7R 10y ago
  I would argue that this election season is an exception: both candidates are polarizing, leaving very little room for undecided voters. As a result, the marginal efficiency of political donations is drastically decreased. In a regular campaign season, political donations that contribute to advertisement and outreach are more important, as there is a larger undecided population to target / convince; hence, the limit of individual donations seems applicable then, but not now. In my opinion, regardless of who wins, a limit on how much a candidate can spend on their campaign should be enforced. Hopefully, this would remove any subjectivity associated with political rhetoric, with people focusing more on a candidates objective politics (such as policy).
  - knodi123 10y ago
    > In my opinion, regardless of who wins, a limit on how much a candidate can spend on their campaign should be enforced Okay, and how about organizations that have absolutely no affiliation with the candidate, who simply have an opinion and want to express it through ad spending? Can they have unlimited budgets and can I make unlimited donations to them? We need to limit paid political speech, like ads. Not harshly, but at patiently and firmly.

by CN7R 10y ago

knodi123 10y ago

> Because in the end, it's ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, Not sure this is really true. Because in the end, ads are effective, political spending influences people, and people like Thiel have vastly more money than I do. If we were only worried about how Thiel was going to cast his own vote, then we wouldn't be having a conversation right now. But we are having a conversation, so it's a bit disingenuous to pretend all we should care about is one man's vote. Let me ask you this - Why do you think the FEC chose to implement a limit of $2700 for individual donations to a political campaign? Is it possible to think that law serves a legitimate purpose, and ALSO to think it's fine for billionaires to give multiple millions to a candidate? I allege that it is not.

CN7R 10y ago
I would argue that this election season is an exception: both candidates are polarizing, leaving very little room for undecided voters. As a result, the marginal efficiency of political donations is drastically decreased. In a regular campaign season, political donations that contribute to advertisement and outreach are more important, as there is a larger undecided population to target / convince; hence, the limit of individual donations seems applicable then, but not now. In my opinion, regardless of who wins, a limit on how much a candidate can spend on their campaign should be enforced. Hopefully, this would remove any subjectivity associated with political rhetoric, with people focusing more on a candidates objective politics (such as policy).
- knodi123 10y ago
  > In my opinion, regardless of who wins, a limit on how much a candidate can spend on their campaign should be enforced Okay, and how about organizations that have absolutely no affiliation with the candidate, who simply have an opinion and want to express it through ad spending? Can they have unlimited budgets and can I make unlimited donations to them? We need to limit paid political speech, like ads. Not harshly, but at patiently and firmly.