6 ms·

I think this is a very bad development. Trump was previously exposed to a lot of intelligent people - Thiel, Kalanick, Musk, etc. In our quest for ideological p

I think this is a very bad development. Trump was previously exposed to a lot of intelligent people - Thiel, Kalanick, Musk, etc. In our quest for ideological purity, we are driving all the people who can provide Trump with good advice to stay away from him. Trump is hardly an ideologue on this matter: Trump: “When someone is going to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Stanford, all the greats and then they graduate, we throw them out of the country, and they can’t get back in, I think that’s terrible, We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country.” Bannon: “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-disgusted-asian-ceos-silicon-valley_us_582c5d19e4b0e39c1fa71e48 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-disgusted-a... Guess what - now Trump has one fewer voice telling him to be inclusive. Bannon is still advising Trump to double down on nationalism. Realistically, we can have two presidencies: the Bannon presidency or the Thiel presidency. The odds of a Bannon presidency just went up.

tptacek 10y ago
A message board comment like this is the only place in the world anyone believes there was a likelihood of a "Thiel presidency". Thiel's influence is in no way comparable to Bannon's.
mjmsmith 10y ago
So the President of the United States is such a weak-minded fool that he can be taken in by a white supremacist hell-bent on destroying the foundations of this society, but it will be the opposition's fault if he continues to listen to him? Again, THIS IS NOT NORMAL. You don't appease that kind of insanity, you fight it with every tool you have.
- concinds 10y ago
  If he is such a weak minded fool, wouldn't you want to stay on his advisory board and influence him?
  - conistonwater 10y ago
    Isn't it a bit unreasonable to just assume that people on that board will have enough actual influence? I know what you said is said often, but it seems to rely on a pretty big assumption there.
    - concinds 10y ago
      Obviously they won't influence Trump on what he sees as a national security matter. But if you accept that Trump means everything he says, then jobs are also one of his top priorities. He wants Silicon Valley and automotive manufacturers there for a reason.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Trump was previously exposed to a lot of intelligent people - Thiel, Kalanick, Musk, etc. ...And what concrete good was produced by that exposure? Intelligent (even well-informed) people don't produce better results just by exposing themselves to others, independent of those others intention and inclination not.just to passively bask in their flow, but actively engage.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  There's the 2 for 1 rule, which Trump is trying to quietly sneak it through while everyone is distracted by immigration stuff. https://nypost.com/2017/01/30/trump-executive-order-creates-2-for-1-rule-on-regulations/ https://nypost.com/2017/01/30/trump-executive-order-creates-... There's Trump's FDA shortlist - Balaji Srinavasan and Jim O'Neill: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/31/14364090/peter-thiel-fda-trump-silicon-valley-oneill-gulfo-srinivasan-gottlieb http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/31/14364090/pet... These are both certainly far more based on Thiel's influence than Bannon's.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The first is just plain stupid, and the other seems actively harmful (though likely ideologically the same orientation as Bannon or Priebus would have recommended, if not the same individuals, so perhaps not actually a net negative), so I don't see any good that would be lost by them not being attached to Trump.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    As someone else pointed out, the 2-for-1 rule has long been a GOP talking point.
hackuser 10y ago
Trump has demonstrated, beyond any doubt, since 2015, that he will not listen to anyone who disagrees with him and is not interested in knowledge, expertise, or reason. There always is a slim possibility of some tiny influence. This is the reasoning of people who have advised all sorts of monsters, including the many ministers who helped the Nazis and Soviets. It's also a convenient, seductive rationalization to avoid risking yourself and your career in a political war. Far beyond the tiny influence they lend him, they lend him their enormous credibility. People see him talking to people like Musk, Kalanick, etc, and think he has their respect, their advice, and their approval (at least enough to keep working with him). And they deny the opposition that same credibility. Think of it this way: Would they work with a CEO who consistently and publicly (not in private) pushed the same hateful ideas as Trump? Not for long. At some point, one must decide there is a war and pick a side. To stay home, to keep one's head down and play it safe while victims are suffering and dying, and while other people are standing up, taking those same risks and suffering themselves, is cowardice. (A harsh term, but I think it's applicable.) If Trump's behavior over all this time doesn't convince someone there is a war and an enemy, I don't know what will. I can't imagine what could make it more clear. Evil people usually are far more subtle; look at Putin, for example.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Bannon disagreed with him (see the quotes above) yet he's listening to Bannon. Consider the possibility that your caricatures of Trump being stupid and irrational might not be true - if they were, he probably wouldn't have won the election. If you look at his cabinet picks, and the actions he's taken so far, there is pretty clear Thiel influence. The 2 for 1 rule on regulations is pretty clearly Thiel. So is Balaji Srinavasan and O'Neill for the FDA. In fact, much of the transition team is Thiel, as is much of the advisory council.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    This is a facile argument. The "cut N regulations for every K new regulations" has been a Republican trope for decades; Romney used it in 2012. Virtually none of Trump's appointees are within 6 degrees of Thiel.
dllthomas 10y ago
> Trump was previously exposed to a lot of intelligent people - Thiel, Kalanick, Musk, etc. I was under the impression that the "Strategic and Policy Forum" has not met yet. (Not, of course, relevant to Thiel)

tptacek 10y ago

A message board comment like this is the only place in the world anyone believes there was a likelihood of a "Thiel presidency". Thiel's influence is in no way comparable to Bannon's.

mjmsmith 10y ago

So the President of the United States is such a weak-minded fool that he can be taken in by a white supremacist hell-bent on destroying the foundations of this society, but it will be the opposition's fault if he continues to listen to him? Again, THIS IS NOT NORMAL. You don't appease that kind of insanity, you fight it with every tool you have.

concinds 10y ago
If he is such a weak minded fool, wouldn't you want to stay on his advisory board and influence him?
- conistonwater 10y ago
  Isn't it a bit unreasonable to just assume that people on that board will have enough actual influence? I know what you said is said often, but it seems to rely on a pretty big assumption there.
  - concinds 10y ago
    Obviously they won't influence Trump on what he sees as a national security matter. But if you accept that Trump means everything he says, then jobs are also one of his top priorities. He wants Silicon Valley and automotive manufacturers there for a reason.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Trump was previously exposed to a lot of intelligent people - Thiel, Kalanick, Musk, etc. ...And what concrete good was produced by that exposure? Intelligent (even well-informed) people don't produce better results just by exposing themselves to others, independent of those others intention and inclination not.just to passively bask in their flow, but actively engage.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
There's the 2 for 1 rule, which Trump is trying to quietly sneak it through while everyone is distracted by immigration stuff. https://nypost.com/2017/01/30/trump-executive-order-creates-2-for-1-rule-on-regulations/ https://nypost.com/2017/01/30/trump-executive-order-creates-... There's Trump's FDA shortlist - Balaji Srinavasan and Jim O'Neill: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/31/14364090/peter-thiel-fda-trump-silicon-valley-oneill-gulfo-srinivasan-gottlieb http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/31/14364090/pet... These are both certainly far more based on Thiel's influence than Bannon's.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The first is just plain stupid, and the other seems actively harmful (though likely ideologically the same orientation as Bannon or Priebus would have recommended, if not the same individuals, so perhaps not actually a net negative), so I don't see any good that would be lost by them not being attached to Trump.
- hackuser 10y ago
  As someone else pointed out, the 2-for-1 rule has long been a GOP talking point.

hackuser 10y ago

Trump has demonstrated, beyond any doubt, since 2015, that he will not listen to anyone who disagrees with him and is not interested in knowledge, expertise, or reason. There always is a slim possibility of some tiny influence. This is the reasoning of people who have advised all sorts of monsters, including the many ministers who helped the Nazis and Soviets. It's also a convenient, seductive rationalization to avoid risking yourself and your career in a political war. Far beyond the tiny influence they lend him, they lend him their enormous credibility. People see him talking to people like Musk, Kalanick, etc, and think he has their respect, their advice, and their approval (at least enough to keep working with him). And they deny the opposition that same credibility. Think of it this way: Would they work with a CEO who consistently and publicly (not in private) pushed the same hateful ideas as Trump? Not for long. At some point, one must decide there is a war and pick a side. To stay home, to keep one's head down and play it safe while victims are suffering and dying, and while other people are standing up, taking those same risks and suffering themselves, is cowardice. (A harsh term, but I think it's applicable.) If Trump's behavior over all this time doesn't convince someone there is a war and an enemy, I don't know what will. I can't imagine what could make it more clear. Evil people usually are far more subtle; look at Putin, for example.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Bannon disagreed with him (see the quotes above) yet he's listening to Bannon. Consider the possibility that your caricatures of Trump being stupid and irrational might not be true - if they were, he probably wouldn't have won the election. If you look at his cabinet picks, and the actions he's taken so far, there is pretty clear Thiel influence. The 2 for 1 rule on regulations is pretty clearly Thiel. So is Balaji Srinavasan and O'Neill for the FDA. In fact, much of the transition team is Thiel, as is much of the advisory council.
- tptacek 10y ago
  This is a facile argument. The "cut N regulations for every K new regulations" has been a Republican trope for decades; Romney used it in 2012. Virtually none of Trump's appointees are within 6 degrees of Thiel.

dllthomas 10y ago

> Trump was previously exposed to a lot of intelligent people - Thiel, Kalanick, Musk, etc. I was under the impression that the "Strategic and Policy Forum" has not met yet. (Not, of course, relevant to Thiel)