12 ms·

In addition to what others have said: His head-over-heels support for a decidedly anti-libertarian candidate like Trump is in itself quite extremist. This has

In addition to what others have said: His head-over-heels support for a decidedly anti-libertarian candidate like Trump is in itself quite extremist. This has always been one of the standard tools for (crypto-)fascists and closet authoritarians of all ilks to get into positions of influence -- by using people of nominally "opposing" viewpoints as, in effect, wedge instruments to disrupt the system as violently as possible -- and then step into the emergent vacuum. And somewhat secondarily, there are the antics of his pals at the Seasteading Institute in blatantly courting partnership with the government in Honduras (basically the most murderous government left in the hemisphere) in order to set up a libertarian microstate in the heart of certain piece of "jungle" that just so happens to also be claimed by one of the region's poorest and most ill-treated ethnic groups. Thiel's own role in this venture (if any) is unclear -- but his association with the SSI (and the principle actors in this "venture") is well-established.

gnarbarian 10y ago
You can't call trump an extremist when half the country voted for him.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  This country was founded by extremists.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  1) Seems a bit strong to tell someone what they can and can't say. 2) He didn't get half the country to vote for him. It looks like around 55-60% of voters turned out this year (the whole tally isn't calculated yet). Of those, he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him). So at best he seems to have gotten around 30% of the voters to vote for him. Not everyone is a voter (age, other disqualifying factors). So even if he had somehow gotten 50% of voters (which, again, he didn't), he'd still have less than half the country voting for him.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > Of those, he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him). Mrs. Clinton also got less than 50% of the votes. Neither one won a clear majority of the popular vote.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      You are rebutting an argument nobody made.
      - wtbob 10y ago
        His phrase, 'he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him),' implies that Mr. Trump received less than 50% because Mrs. Clinton received more votes than him, which is not true: they both received less than 50% because a significant portion of voters chose not to vote for either.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        If there are at least two candidates in an election, and one has more votes than all the others, none of the others can have over 50%. This does not, strictly speaking, imply that the winning (by plurality rules, not majority rules) candidate has over 50%, it merely sets the bounds on what all other candidates can have. Clinton has more votes (popular vote) than Trump, ergo, he cannot have had 50% of the vote. That was my statement, and it's a factual statement. You interpreted it to imply that she, then, must have had over 50% of the vote. That was not my statement nor my intended implication.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      You are correct. I didn't say otherwise. EDIT: Out of curiosity I looked some numbers up, going just by the ones that did turn out to vote, she has 47.52% of the cast votes, he has 47.19%. The difference in votes is around 400k.
      - wtbob 10y ago
- tptacek 10y ago
  Yes, you can. Your rebuttal doesn't even hold together logically. Extremism isn't defined by lack of popular support. Our entire system of government was designed in part out of a fear of the extremism of the massed public.
  - kordless 10y ago
    We do like our roads and cars here.
- pharrington 10y ago
  Perhaps the man who lives in a golden palace with this name emblazoned on it isn't actually representative of half the country?
darawk 10y ago
> His head-over-heels support for a decidedly anti-libertarian candidate like Trump Is Trump anti-libertarian? His policies seem fairly libertarian to me. I suppose being anti-abortion could be considered anti-libertarian, and maybe you could frame his immigration stance as non-libertarian? But i'm not sure. Libertarians don't necessarily extend their liberty to non-citizens. Are you thinking of some others? I'm perfectly willing to be wrong about this. I just can't think of any major instances where he deviates from what i'd consider to be a libertarian agenda.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  His numerous sexual assaults on women (and indisputable, caught-on-tape remarks on the subject) are as diametrically opposed to the libertarian "non-coercion" principle" as one can get, I'd say.

gnarbarian 10y ago

You can't call trump an extremist when half the country voted for him.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
This country was founded by extremists.
Jtsummers 10y ago
1) Seems a bit strong to tell someone what they can and can't say. 2) He didn't get half the country to vote for him. It looks like around 55-60% of voters turned out this year (the whole tally isn't calculated yet). Of those, he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him). So at best he seems to have gotten around 30% of the voters to vote for him. Not everyone is a voter (age, other disqualifying factors). So even if he had somehow gotten 50% of voters (which, again, he didn't), he'd still have less than half the country voting for him.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > Of those, he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him). Mrs. Clinton also got less than 50% of the votes. Neither one won a clear majority of the popular vote.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You are rebutting an argument nobody made.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      His phrase, 'he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him),' implies that Mr. Trump received less than 50% because Mrs. Clinton received more votes than him, which is not true: they both received less than 50% because a significant portion of voters chose not to vote for either.
      - Jtsummers 10y ago
        If there are at least two candidates in an election, and one has more votes than all the others, none of the others can have over 50%. This does not, strictly speaking, imply that the winning (by plurality rules, not majority rules) candidate has over 50%, it merely sets the bounds on what all other candidates can have. Clinton has more votes (popular vote) than Trump, ergo, he cannot have had 50% of the vote. That was my statement, and it's a factual statement. You interpreted it to imply that she, then, must have had over 50% of the vote. That was not my statement nor my intended implication.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    You are correct. I didn't say otherwise. EDIT: Out of curiosity I looked some numbers up, going just by the ones that did turn out to vote, she has 47.52% of the cast votes, he has 47.19%. The difference in votes is around 400k.
    - wtbob 10y ago
tptacek 10y ago
Yes, you can. Your rebuttal doesn't even hold together logically. Extremism isn't defined by lack of popular support. Our entire system of government was designed in part out of a fear of the extremism of the massed public.
- kordless 10y ago
  We do like our roads and cars here.
pharrington 10y ago
Perhaps the man who lives in a golden palace with this name emblazoned on it isn't actually representative of half the country?

darawk 10y ago

> His head-over-heels support for a decidedly anti-libertarian candidate like Trump Is Trump anti-libertarian? His policies seem fairly libertarian to me. I suppose being anti-abortion could be considered anti-libertarian, and maybe you could frame his immigration stance as non-libertarian? But i'm not sure. Libertarians don't necessarily extend their liberty to non-citizens. Are you thinking of some others? I'm perfectly willing to be wrong about this. I just can't think of any major instances where he deviates from what i'd consider to be a libertarian agenda.

kafkaesq 10y ago
His numerous sexual assaults on women (and indisputable, caught-on-tape remarks on the subject) are as diametrically opposed to the libertarian "non-coercion" principle" as one can get, I'd say.