4 ms·

I am ok with Thiel thinking Trump would win. What was a disappointment for me is that Thiel actually believes Trump was a good candidate and (I speculate) agree

I am ok with Thiel thinking Trump would win. What was a disappointment for me is that Thiel actually believes Trump was a good candidate and (I speculate) agrees with his platform. Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump

dsugarman 10y ago
my best guess is that either A) He was putting money towards the fall of our government as we know it, I think that would be consistent with his previous stances or B) He was investing in a future political career in the Republican party but to be honest, hearing sama's comments on Thiel, it seems like he legitimately really likes Trump.
return0 10y ago
He explains his rational argument here[1]. Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously". 1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4
- andrewchambers 10y ago
  edit: link no longer missing
  - sremani 10y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously". Which I guess is great if you're a billionaire and probably get some time with Trump or someone close to him that knows what he actually plans to do. In the meantime, all the rest of us are left with "I'm going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something great." Forgive me if I would have preferred something a little more substantial. Then again, I would like other people to have preferred that as well. :/
  - ErikVandeWater 10y ago
    Can any politician be taken literally, though? How did Obama's promises on the revolving door between lobbyists and his administration work out? Or his promise on health insurance premiums? These promises aren't the exception, they are the rule. Politicians (almost) always have to lie to win. So Trump not being specific as to what he will do seems unlikely to be any different to interpret than if he made very specific plans.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Well, I think there are differing levels of information that can be conveyed. You can say you want a healthcare system where everyone is insured. You can say you want a healthcare system where costs are lowered. You can say you want both. All these convey some information about the goals of the politician, and how they may or may not align with your own. What they eventually come up with, or not, will inform you how much they compromised on that position. I would hazard most politicians are less likely to compromise on specific goals they stated, and more likely to compromise on ones they didn't state. This allows you to steer yourself towards a candidate that may work for an outcome you want, even if there's obviously no guarantee. In this case, we have "I will make something great", as if every candidate wasn't implicitly setting out to to do the same and every voter wasn't hoping for the same. So, am I more or less likely to get the outcome I want in this situation? Who knows? I don't because there's no way to, but I would sure appreciate being empowered to at least try to figure that out.
  - return0 10y ago
    Can't disagree with you on that. However it's very likely that most of his voters took him seriously. It's not likely that they are all bigoted idiots, and in fact, they were not: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters...
- pmelendez 10y ago
  Being Venezuelan I am familiar with the whole "pay attention what he does instead of what it says", and that didn't work well for us. The problem with authoritarian governments is that they can delay plans but never forget about them. If Thiel really think that, then he is not only an opportunist but also a fool.
  - return0 10y ago
    I don't know, given thiel's track record, maybe we should wonder if we are the fools.
    - pmelendez 10y ago
      I have seen successful people having foolish calculations before... specially regarding reading other people.
coldtea 10y ago
>Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. A president's economic platform is more important, and Hillary, as did most pundits, mostly retold the old wives tales that globalization necessarily means giving up factories, or that somehow having jobs and motives for building stuff in one's country is obsolete, etc. That approach might maximize enterprise profits, but not necessarily help middle and lower classes, and general societal wealth. A country can have huge companies, but not get out of them but minimal local jobs and infrastructure (because they outsource those), and not even taxes on their profits (since they use globalized subsidies and other schemes to avoid paying any). I don't believe that Trump will actually fix that, but he at least (as did Bernie Sanders) paid lip service to the notion, and that counted to a lot of people. There's also the foreign policy issues. Trump might be a "loose canon" or whatever, but Hillary has been constantly and vehemently pro war / invasion etc. She has threatened Russia and Iran, helped destabilize Syria, Libya, etc. The very real potential for wars and tons of deaths (on both sides) is more important than whether Trump made misogynistic comments, or spoke against illegal immigration, etc.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. This actually touches on what upset me most about this election. It's not so much that I think Trump is going to be horrible. I think he's been vague enough and it's obvious enough that he was playing to his audience that he could roll out Clinton's exact plan tomorrow and I wouldn't be all that surprised. What really bothers me is the support he got based on the persona and values he projected. That people can equate breaking the rules using a personal email server with recorded audio of a candidate condoning and admitting sexual assault. That one was often brought out to even the score when tallying the reported sins of the candidates leaves me somewhat depressed about the state of my country. I'm left feeling that if a video was presented of Trump actually doing the things he talked about but denied, sure, Clinton would probably have won, but it still would have been close, and I'm left in the position of trying to reconcile what I thought were values most my country believed in with evidence to the contrary.

dsugarman 10y ago

my best guess is that either A) He was putting money towards the fall of our government as we know it, I think that would be consistent with his previous stances or B) He was investing in a future political career in the Republican party but to be honest, hearing sama's comments on Thiel, it seems like he legitimately really likes Trump.

return0 10y ago

He explains his rational argument here[1]. Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously". 1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4

andrewchambers 10y ago
edit: link no longer missing
- sremani 10y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4
kbenson 10y ago
> Basically his argument is "don't take Trump literally, take him seriously". Which I guess is great if you're a billionaire and probably get some time with Trump or someone close to him that knows what he actually plans to do. In the meantime, all the rest of us are left with "I'm going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something great." Forgive me if I would have preferred something a little more substantial. Then again, I would like other people to have preferred that as well. :/
- ErikVandeWater 10y ago
  Can any politician be taken literally, though? How did Obama's promises on the revolving door between lobbyists and his administration work out? Or his promise on health insurance premiums? These promises aren't the exception, they are the rule. Politicians (almost) always have to lie to win. So Trump not being specific as to what he will do seems unlikely to be any different to interpret than if he made very specific plans.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Well, I think there are differing levels of information that can be conveyed. You can say you want a healthcare system where everyone is insured. You can say you want a healthcare system where costs are lowered. You can say you want both. All these convey some information about the goals of the politician, and how they may or may not align with your own. What they eventually come up with, or not, will inform you how much they compromised on that position. I would hazard most politicians are less likely to compromise on specific goals they stated, and more likely to compromise on ones they didn't state. This allows you to steer yourself towards a candidate that may work for an outcome you want, even if there's obviously no guarantee. In this case, we have "I will make something great", as if every candidate wasn't implicitly setting out to to do the same and every voter wasn't hoping for the same. So, am I more or less likely to get the outcome I want in this situation? Who knows? I don't because there's no way to, but I would sure appreciate being empowered to at least try to figure that out.
- return0 10y ago
  Can't disagree with you on that. However it's very likely that most of his voters took him seriously. It's not likely that they are all bigoted idiots, and in fact, they were not: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters...
pmelendez 10y ago
Being Venezuelan I am familiar with the whole "pay attention what he does instead of what it says", and that didn't work well for us. The problem with authoritarian governments is that they can delay plans but never forget about them. If Thiel really think that, then he is not only an opportunist but also a fool.
- return0 10y ago
  I don't know, given thiel's track record, maybe we should wonder if we are the fools.
  - pmelendez 10y ago
    I have seen successful people having foolish calculations before... specially regarding reading other people.

coldtea 10y ago

>Also, apparently has no problem with the incendiary and hateful speech of Trump That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. A president's economic platform is more important, and Hillary, as did most pundits, mostly retold the old wives tales that globalization necessarily means giving up factories, or that somehow having jobs and motives for building stuff in one's country is obsolete, etc. That approach might maximize enterprise profits, but not necessarily help middle and lower classes, and general societal wealth. A country can have huge companies, but not get out of them but minimal local jobs and infrastructure (because they outsource those), and not even taxes on their profits (since they use globalized subsidies and other schemes to avoid paying any). I don't believe that Trump will actually fix that, but he at least (as did Bernie Sanders) paid lip service to the notion, and that counted to a lot of people. There's also the foreign policy issues. Trump might be a "loose canon" or whatever, but Hillary has been constantly and vehemently pro war / invasion etc. She has threatened Russia and Iran, helped destabilize Syria, Libya, etc. The very real potential for wars and tons of deaths (on both sides) is more important than whether Trump made misogynistic comments, or spoke against illegal immigration, etc.

kbenson 10y ago
> That's probably because that has been overplayed. The President, whatever his beliefs doesn't change America's racism (or lack thereof), in the same way there was a record of police shootings of blacks etc. under Obama. This actually touches on what upset me most about this election. It's not so much that I think Trump is going to be horrible. I think he's been vague enough and it's obvious enough that he was playing to his audience that he could roll out Clinton's exact plan tomorrow and I wouldn't be all that surprised. What really bothers me is the support he got based on the persona and values he projected. That people can equate breaking the rules using a personal email server with recorded audio of a candidate condoning and admitting sexual assault. That one was often brought out to even the score when tallying the reported sins of the candidates leaves me somewhat depressed about the state of my country. I'm left feeling that if a video was presented of Trump actually doing the things he talked about but denied, sure, Clinton would probably have won, but it still would have been close, and I'm left in the position of trying to reconcile what I thought were values most my country believed in with evidence to the contrary.