That sounds logical absent any context, but context matters. Thiel took a very public stance on a very controversial figure. A figure that's controversial for g

That sounds logical absent any context, but context matters. Thiel took a very public stance on a very controversial figure. A figure that's controversial for good reasons: things he's done, things he's said, and things he says he'll do. And Thiel's in a public role. So his actions are advertising for his various ventures. To the extent I'm a 'customer' for his various products and services, I've taken note. This is a very democratic and capitalist response, I believe. I'm also not sure why you mention a single party system. Asking a political donor and public speaker to explain his position is very democratic, and I'd expect it in a multiparty democracy, not just an explicitly two-party system like ours. In fact, in a liberal democracy, we should be working to preserve our right to demand those kinds of answers. I'm old enough to remember a time before Citizens United and Super PACs; I believe politics should be conducted in public. Do you disagree?