3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoNo 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 agoSure, 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.