5 ms·

I think you'd be surprised how many votes for Trump in 2016 were actually votes for "not Hillary".

by alvah 5y ago

skinnymuch 5y ago
Thiel didn’t just vote for Trump. The OP stated he did more than that. And from what I’ve read he has done more than that too.
- alvah 5y ago
  I'm not arguing "Thiel is a good guy", but if he didn't want Hillary elected (assumption), using his public profile to boost Trump pre-election != actual MAGA hat Trump true believer.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    I’m not referring to Thiel’s morality. Only on actually being libertarian. Sure what you wrote is technically plausible. However he continues to work with the Trumps. Recently he’s working with Trumps to oust Liz Cheney. His own PACs focuses include many non-libertarian focuses. Immigration control, strict border control, supporting the military as it is now, are some of the top issues of the PAC. These actions are of a conservative Republican, not a libertarian.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Wanting to oust Liz Cheney does not make someone not a libertarian. And military and border control are among the few things that many libertarians believe to be a valid function of a national government. None of those things prove he's not a libertarian.
      - skinnymuch 5y ago
        Supporting huge military? Right immigration control? The Liz Cheney stuff was about working with Don Jr. The reason why is unimportant. The entire point of all this is for there not to be one smoking gun. It’s a collection of everything. The entire way the right has obfuscated things is by getting by with “no one thing proves I am or am not X or Y”
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        I don't know what your questions mean or how it addresses my comment so I'll just repeat. Political maneuvering doesn't mean someone is not a libertarian, and military and border control are not incompatible with libertarianism either. Thiel like anybody has pretty complex views that don't fit neatly in a box, you could argue where they put him in the spectrum, but the examples you used are poor. I know many libertarian purists obsess over their image and "principle" to the detriment of actually achieving anything politically, but that doesn't mean all of them act this way.
CalChris 5y ago
I think you'd be surprised that "not Hillary" wasn't on either the 2016 Republican primary ballot nor on the 2016 general election ballot. Trump was. He was also on the 2020 Republican primary and general election ballots. "not Hillary" wasn't on any of the 2020 ballots.
- alvah 5y ago
  You should re-read the simple sentence you're replying to. At the 2016 election, if you didn't want Hillary elected, you had to vote Republican, i.e. for Trump. How is this even up for debate?
  - CalChris 5y ago
    Republicans need to take responsibility for their decisions. First, Republicans chose Trump in the primary. They had choices. They chose Trump. Then they supported him in the general. Then they supported him for re-election. That isn't up for debate.
    - alvah 5y ago
      You should probably argue your anti-Trump case somewhere relevant. Your points have nothing to do with either of the comments you're replying to.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    Yes this is true to an extent in a vacuum. However for context with the overall thread. Many no-Hillary Trump voting people continued to support Trump through now. At which point it isn’t as clear cut it was actually a no Hillary stance as much as a combination of things while the easiest and trendy out at the time was to say no Hillary as your principe. Otherwise yeah you’re right some did do just that for that one time.

I think you'd be surprised how many votes for Trump in 2016 were actually votes for "not Hillary".

by alvah 5y ago

I think you'd be surprised how many votes for Trump in 2016 were actually votes for "not Hillary".

Thiel didn’t just vote for Trump. The OP stated he did more than that. And from what I’ve read he has done more than that too.

alvah 5y ago
I'm not arguing "Thiel is a good guy", but if he didn't want Hillary elected (assumption), using his public profile to boost Trump pre-election != actual MAGA hat Trump true believer.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  I’m not referring to Thiel’s morality. Only on actually being libertarian. Sure what you wrote is technically plausible. However he continues to work with the Trumps. Recently he’s working with Trumps to oust Liz Cheney. His own PACs focuses include many non-libertarian focuses. Immigration control, strict border control, supporting the military as it is now, are some of the top issues of the PAC. These actions are of a conservative Republican, not a libertarian.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Wanting to oust Liz Cheney does not make someone not a libertarian. And military and border control are among the few things that many libertarians believe to be a valid function of a national government. None of those things prove he's not a libertarian.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      Supporting huge military? Right immigration control? The Liz Cheney stuff was about working with Don Jr. The reason why is unimportant. The entire point of all this is for there not to be one smoking gun. It’s a collection of everything. The entire way the right has obfuscated things is by getting by with “no one thing proves I am or am not X or Y”
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        I don't know what your questions mean or how it addresses my comment so I'll just repeat. Political maneuvering doesn't mean someone is not a libertarian, and military and border control are not incompatible with libertarianism either. Thiel like anybody has pretty complex views that don't fit neatly in a box, you could argue where they put him in the spectrum, but the examples you used are poor. I know many libertarian purists obsess over their image and "principle" to the detriment of actually achieving anything politically, but that doesn't mean all of them act this way.

CalChris 5y ago

I think you'd be surprised that "not Hillary" wasn't on either the 2016 Republican primary ballot nor on the 2016 general election ballot. Trump was. He was also on the 2020 Republican primary and general election ballots. "not Hillary" wasn't on any of the 2020 ballots.

alvah 5y ago
You should re-read the simple sentence you're replying to. At the 2016 election, if you didn't want Hillary elected, you had to vote Republican, i.e. for Trump. How is this even up for debate?
- CalChris 5y ago
  Republicans need to take responsibility for their decisions. First, Republicans chose Trump in the primary. They had choices. They chose Trump. Then they supported him in the general. Then they supported him for re-election. That isn't up for debate.
  - alvah 5y ago
    You should probably argue your anti-Trump case somewhere relevant. Your points have nothing to do with either of the comments you're replying to.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  Yes this is true to an extent in a vacuum. However for context with the overall thread. Many no-Hillary Trump voting people continued to support Trump through now. At which point it isn’t as clear cut it was actually a no Hillary stance as much as a combination of things while the easiest and trendy out at the time was to say no Hillary as your principe. Otherwise yeah you’re right some did do just that for that one time.