4 ms·

There's also a big difference between supporting a candidate the way a normal person does—donate a little money, stuff some envelopes at their local campaign of

by ashark 10y ago

There's also a big difference between supporting a candidate the way a normal person does—donate a little money, stuff some envelopes at their local campaign office, that kind of thing—and lending them your substantial business reputation very publicly, and donating large amounts of money to their campaign. Said reputation and the fortune backing those donations become fair game in the field of politics when you do something like that. Acting the part of the big-money political oligarch-influencer draws heat and has consequences, and it ought to. The notion that you can throw in with a campaign in this manner and expect people to act like this is somehow disconnected from every other part of your life, and especially your business life, is absurd. They're obviously tightly linked. It reminds me of the outrage a kid expresses when they think they've found a way to be a jerk and not get in trouble for it, then get called out on it by an adult.

grzm 10y ago
"The notion that you can throw in with a campaign in this manner and expect people to act like this is somehow disconnected from every other part of your life, and especially your business life, is absurd." Agreed. Throw in with a campaign or do anything else for that matter. Has there been anything from Peter Thiel on the response to his donation? I think it's highly likely he anticipated some kind of response to his donation. He may well have weighed this very response when making his decision to donate.
- ashark 10y ago
  > Has there been anything from Peter Thiel on the response to his donation? Right, to be clear I wasn't likening Thiel in particular to the kid in my analogy, since, like you, I'm not aware of how or even whether he's weighed in on this.
  - grzm 10y ago
    That was clear to me. Likewise I hope you didn't take my comment as assuming you were! Your analogy got me thinking about the situation from Thiel's perspective. This whole election has had me thinking about a lot of things. Frankly, part of why I responded to you was because it looks like you're trying to look at the behavior in general rather than the politics in particular, and I appreciate that. I'm trying to do the same. Thanks for being part of that!
random_upvoter 10y ago
> that kind of thing—and lending them your substantial business reputation very publicly, and donating large amounts of money to their campaign. To me this just seems part of democracy. Popular ideas will get a lot of financial support, and unpopular ideas will not get a lot of support. Have you considered the reach, the power and the wealth of the media establishment that is railing against Trump? I highly doubt that a million dollar is more than a drop in this contest. If Trump should not be allowed to get substantial financial support, why don't we simply forbid Trump to run at all?
- ashark 10y ago
  Which part of my comment was about preventing Trump from collecting donations?
- grzm 10y ago
  I think that's a separate topic, though, isn't it? I'm going to do my best to paraphrase both you and GP. If either of you feel I'm doing so unfairly or want to expand or clarify, please do. I understand you to be discussing whether or not someone should be allowed to support a candidate or campaign. The one I understand ashark to be making is about the ramifications of supporting a candidate or campaign. They are related in the sense that the ramifications be so severe that it prevents someone from contributing, and that's worthy of (a separate) discussion In this case, I don't think Peter Thiel is being prevented from contributing. I'm pretty sure he considered the ramifications before he made his contribution. What do you think?
- goalieca 10y ago
  There is a saying that if someone says all of their exes are crazy then it is not them but their exes. Likewise if all of the media has conspired against trump them perhaps trump is to blame.
  - grzm 10y ago
    That's it's not their exes, it's them, isn't it?

by ashark 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

"The notion that you can throw in with a campaign in this manner and expect people to act like this is somehow disconnected from every other part of your life, and especially your business life, is absurd." Agreed. Throw in with a campaign or do anything else for that matter. Has there been anything from Peter Thiel on the response to his donation? I think it's highly likely he anticipated some kind of response to his donation. He may well have weighed this very response when making his decision to donate.

ashark 10y ago
> Has there been anything from Peter Thiel on the response to his donation? Right, to be clear I wasn't likening Thiel in particular to the kid in my analogy, since, like you, I'm not aware of how or even whether he's weighed in on this.
- grzm 10y ago
  That was clear to me. Likewise I hope you didn't take my comment as assuming you were! Your analogy got me thinking about the situation from Thiel's perspective. This whole election has had me thinking about a lot of things. Frankly, part of why I responded to you was because it looks like you're trying to look at the behavior in general rather than the politics in particular, and I appreciate that. I'm trying to do the same. Thanks for being part of that!

random_upvoter 10y ago

> that kind of thing—and lending them your substantial business reputation very publicly, and donating large amounts of money to their campaign. To me this just seems part of democracy. Popular ideas will get a lot of financial support, and unpopular ideas will not get a lot of support. Have you considered the reach, the power and the wealth of the media establishment that is railing against Trump? I highly doubt that a million dollar is more than a drop in this contest. If Trump should not be allowed to get substantial financial support, why don't we simply forbid Trump to run at all?

ashark 10y ago
Which part of my comment was about preventing Trump from collecting donations?
grzm 10y ago
I think that's a separate topic, though, isn't it? I'm going to do my best to paraphrase both you and GP. If either of you feel I'm doing so unfairly or want to expand or clarify, please do. I understand you to be discussing whether or not someone should be allowed to support a candidate or campaign. The one I understand ashark to be making is about the ramifications of supporting a candidate or campaign. They are related in the sense that the ramifications be so severe that it prevents someone from contributing, and that's worthy of (a separate) discussion In this case, I don't think Peter Thiel is being prevented from contributing. I'm pretty sure he considered the ramifications before he made his contribution. What do you think?
goalieca 10y ago
There is a saying that if someone says all of their exes are crazy then it is not them but their exes. Likewise if all of the media has conspired against trump them perhaps trump is to blame.
- grzm 10y ago
  That's it's not their exes, it's them, isn't it?