4 ms·
> 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 jus
by 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 agoWhich part of my comment was about preventing Trump from collecting donations?
- grzm 10y agoI 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 agoThere 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 agoThat's it's not their exes, it's them, isn't it?