4 ms·

And the only reason it's getting this level of scrutiny is because Thiel has taken "unpopular" stances. It's not because of his "stances", or because they're "

And the only reason it's getting this level of scrutiny is because Thiel has taken "unpopular" stances. It's not because of his "stances", or because they're "unpopular." It's because he's very close to the new administration, and was instrumental in allowing it to come into power (in fact, crucially so).

tps5 10y ago
> was instrumental in allowing it to come into power (in fact, crucially so). This is vague supposition. No one can quantify how much/how little Thiel had to do with Trump winning. If dollars spent on a campaign = being president, then Trump would not be president. If this election proved one good thing, it's that money can't buy you a general election in the United States. > It's not because of his "stances", or because they're "unpopular." It's because he's very close to the new administration It doesn't matter if this scrutiny is because "he's close to the new administration." I don't want to only read about corruption of people "close to X administration that I dislike." I'd like to read about corruption regardless of which narrative, party, worldview, etc the people involved in the corruption subscribe to. To put it another way, the fact that Thiel likes Trump does not make this valid news.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  No one can quantify how much/how little Thiel had to do with Trump winning. Right, it isn't quantifiable; it require qualitative analysis. Like most significant events and forces in history. In brief response to what you (and the other commenter) were saying: yes, even at $1.25m, Thiel's donation to the campaign wasn't a game changer (or even close to one). But his strategic significance (serving on the Executive Committee of Trump's transition team, and as one of his top financial advisors), in addition to his (perceived) intellectual "gravitas", far outstripped the significance of his cash donation.
  - tps5 10y ago
    Sure, you're free to offer your opinion on which factors tilted the election. But I would urge you to qualify that opinion with an introduction like "in my opinion..." I say this because, to me, it's not obvious at all that Thiel had a significant impact in the election and you stated it so matter-of-factly that I smiled to myself. To me, claims like "X individual was crucial to Y historical event in some vague way that involves 'intellectual gravitas'" seem absurd. That doesn't square with my view on how humans make decisions. It's difficult for me to imagine a human whose decision to vote for Donald Trump hinged on Peter Thiel's endorsement of Donald Trump. I'd also bet money that most Americans who know who Peter Thiel is, and have strong feelings about him, live in CA and voted for Clinton.
sparky_z 10y ago
Wait, are you saying that if Thiel had simply done nothing during the campaign that Trump wouldn't have won? I don't see it. All he did was give $1.25M (less than 0.5% of Trump's total war chest) and make some public statements in support. How is that a "crucial" or "instrumental" part of Trump's election?
- rdtsc 10y ago
  It is a part of the phenomenon of being "surprised by a Trump win". Listening to the news from just one bubble and interpreting everything through it, it does seem like it should have been some extraordinary Russian interference, extreme statistical fluke, a secret cabal of white supremacists, FBI coups or something like that. It is unimaginable that people simply voted for him.
  - vixen99 10y ago
    I'm not taking sides but might be best to try to understand why sixty three million of your fellow citizens voted for your unimaginable or possibly only for 'a-complete-change- because-previous-administrations-had-done-nothing-to-sort- out-the-dreadful-state-America-is-in' and Hillary appeared to them to be the last person likely to alter that. 'Dreadful'? If you're baffled by this, check the stats on US child mortality, median wage, educational attainment for starters. And maybe this guy has something - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/trump-how-did-this-happen/ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/trump-how-did-this-happ....
strictnein 10y ago
> " instrumental in allowing it to come into power (in fact, crucially so)" This is clearly false. Peter Thiel didn't turn rural and suburban counties red in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Please see my response to the sibling comment of yours. As to red states -- no, he didn't single-handedly flip all those rust belt counties of course (if you're looking for a finger to point for that fail, there's good evidence by this point that Hillary's own people did more than their share to basically hamstring their own efforts on that particular front). And of course you can't point to any single factor as solely responsible for a loss of this magnitude -- as I'm sure you understand perfectly well. However, there's good reason to believe that Thiel's endorsement provided a very significant moral boost to Trump's flagging (and in the view of many, basically doomed) campaign at that point -- in addition to the his serving as one of his closest advisors (in particular, as one of his main financial advisors) during this -- yes -- crucial juncture in the campaign.

tps5 10y ago

> was instrumental in allowing it to come into power (in fact, crucially so). This is vague supposition. No one can quantify how much/how little Thiel had to do with Trump winning. If dollars spent on a campaign = being president, then Trump would not be president. If this election proved one good thing, it's that money can't buy you a general election in the United States. > It's not because of his "stances", or because they're "unpopular." It's because he's very close to the new administration It doesn't matter if this scrutiny is because "he's close to the new administration." I don't want to only read about corruption of people "close to X administration that I dislike." I'd like to read about corruption regardless of which narrative, party, worldview, etc the people involved in the corruption subscribe to. To put it another way, the fact that Thiel likes Trump does not make this valid news.

kafkaesq 10y ago
No one can quantify how much/how little Thiel had to do with Trump winning. Right, it isn't quantifiable; it require qualitative analysis. Like most significant events and forces in history. In brief response to what you (and the other commenter) were saying: yes, even at $1.25m, Thiel's donation to the campaign wasn't a game changer (or even close to one). But his strategic significance (serving on the Executive Committee of Trump's transition team, and as one of his top financial advisors), in addition to his (perceived) intellectual "gravitas", far outstripped the significance of his cash donation.
- tps5 10y ago
  Sure, you're free to offer your opinion on which factors tilted the election. But I would urge you to qualify that opinion with an introduction like "in my opinion..." I say this because, to me, it's not obvious at all that Thiel had a significant impact in the election and you stated it so matter-of-factly that I smiled to myself. To me, claims like "X individual was crucial to Y historical event in some vague way that involves 'intellectual gravitas'" seem absurd. That doesn't square with my view on how humans make decisions. It's difficult for me to imagine a human whose decision to vote for Donald Trump hinged on Peter Thiel's endorsement of Donald Trump. I'd also bet money that most Americans who know who Peter Thiel is, and have strong feelings about him, live in CA and voted for Clinton.

sparky_z 10y ago

Wait, are you saying that if Thiel had simply done nothing during the campaign that Trump wouldn't have won? I don't see it. All he did was give $1.25M (less than 0.5% of Trump's total war chest) and make some public statements in support. How is that a "crucial" or "instrumental" part of Trump's election?

rdtsc 10y ago
It is a part of the phenomenon of being "surprised by a Trump win". Listening to the news from just one bubble and interpreting everything through it, it does seem like it should have been some extraordinary Russian interference, extreme statistical fluke, a secret cabal of white supremacists, FBI coups or something like that. It is unimaginable that people simply voted for him.
- vixen99 10y ago
  I'm not taking sides but might be best to try to understand why sixty three million of your fellow citizens voted for your unimaginable or possibly only for 'a-complete-change- because-previous-administrations-had-done-nothing-to-sort- out-the-dreadful-state-America-is-in' and Hillary appeared to them to be the last person likely to alter that. 'Dreadful'? If you're baffled by this, check the stats on US child mortality, median wage, educational attainment for starters. And maybe this guy has something - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/trump-how-did-this-happen/ http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/trump-how-did-this-happ....

strictnein 10y ago

> " instrumental in allowing it to come into power (in fact, crucially so)" This is clearly false. Peter Thiel didn't turn rural and suburban counties red in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

kafkaesq 10y ago
Please see my response to the sibling comment of yours. As to red states -- no, he didn't single-handedly flip all those rust belt counties of course (if you're looking for a finger to point for that fail, there's good evidence by this point that Hillary's own people did more than their share to basically hamstring their own efforts on that particular front). And of course you can't point to any single factor as solely responsible for a loss of this magnitude -- as I'm sure you understand perfectly well. However, there's good reason to believe that Thiel's endorsement provided a very significant moral boost to Trump's flagging (and in the view of many, basically doomed) campaign at that point -- in addition to the his serving as one of his closest advisors (in particular, as one of his main financial advisors) during this -- yes -- crucial juncture in the campaign.