28 ms·
So a guy who sits on the FB board and runs his own US defense contracting company says the US Government should investigate the direct competitor of his compani
by wbronitsky 7y ago
So a guy who sits on the FB board and runs his own US defense contracting company says the US Government should investigate the direct competitor of his companies, after donating large sums of money to the campaign of the current US President.
A person who has so much faith in the US government that he has purchased citizenship in New Zeland.
A person who has questioned the US 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.
Why should we listen to him?
- wang_li 7y agoAre they a direct competitor in this space? From the quotes he seems to be asking why they have chosen not to be a competitor.
- wbronitsky 7y agoGoogle is a direct competitor to Facebook in the Ad space. Google is a direct competitor to Palantir in the Defense space. I’m sure he is worried about the latter, as they can test the infra with the Chinese, then sell it to the Americans, in some not too far off future. Remember, we have always been at war with Eurasia. Or was it Eastasia?
- swebs 7y agoThere's nothing wrong with dual citizenship.
- wbronitsky 7y agoVery true and I didn’t mean to say otherwise. There is nothing wrong about being a citizen of more than one country. I’m trying to point out that Thiel doesn’t actually trust the US government and he is making an argument in bad faith to serve his personal interests, not those of other US citizens
- bassman9000 7y agoDoes that mean all those congressmen and senators with dual citizenship don't trust the US gov either?
- wbronitsky 7y agoAnother valid point, but my point is not that he is a dual citizen, it is that he gained his citizenship in NZ to hedge against catastrophe in the US, and is now calling on the US government, which he does not trust to avert catastrophe, to solve his business problems for him
- bassman9000 7y agoNone of those ad-hominems challenge his points.
- wbronitsky 7y agoBut they all challenge why he would make these points, which to me is valid criticism. Is it not? Are you arguing that it isn’t relevant that he owns or sits on the board of direct competitors to Google, one of which works in the very space he is commenting on? Or just that I should not question the context of his arguments? Or something else entirely? I’m not sure why you lobbed this attack. One can seemingly question the context and motives of calling a company “treasonous” without being dismissed out of hand