6 ms·

> The thread wasn’t about voting. It was about Thiel’s active involvement. Which is the comment you directly responded to. We've moved on from that. > I don’t

> The thread wasn’t about voting. It was about Thiel’s active involvement. Which is the comment you directly responded to. We've moved on from that. > I don’t disagree some do that. However with you repeating this “many”. Any one can call themselves anything. It doesn’t make it so. OTOH I see no issue if the statement was “Many people who say they are libertarian support Republicans” Well you're just wrong about that. https://www.cato.org/blog/how-many-libertarians-are-there-answer-depends-method-you-use https://www.cato.org/blog/how-many-libertarians-are-there-an... https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-o... Roughly 10-20% of people are libertarians not only how they identify but their stance on various issues. And yet votes, political donations, lobbying, party membership, etc. is far more skewed to the two big parties. Which means they are pragmatic and send their votes and support to where it might make the best difference. Like most people. Many libertarians support Republicans. I'm really quite astounded you're having such a big problem coping with that.

Talanes 5y ago
> We've moved on from that. Well, you keep moving on from it and everyone who replies on you keeps trying to move back toward the original topic.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  No try to keep up, we moved on from the other poster's pedantic distraction about voting vs "active support" back to the original topic which is that Thiel is a libertarian and the fact he supports Republicans is not evidence he isn't one.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    >No try to keep up, we moved on from the other poster's pedantic distraction about voting Other poster? You brought it up the first time and have brought it up in every post since.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Bringing it back on topic yet again: if you agree Thiel is a libertarian and the fact he supports Republicans is not evidence he isn't one then we don't need to say any more here.
      - Talanes 5y ago
        He supported a dude whose platform was mostly right-leaning populism. If he was just supporting Republicans because they were the closest to Libertarian ideals, why would support the dude driving the party away from Libertarian ideals?
        skinnymuch 5y ago
        And continue supporting the person. I checked Thiel headlines. He’s working with Don Jr now against Liz Cheney for a Trump approved replacement. This is just recent headlines too. Thanks for your insightful comments
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Why? Presumably because he preferred that to the alternatives, none of which were obviously more libertarian -- pathetic old neoliberal dinosaur warmongers Clinton and Bush!
      - skinnymuch 5y ago
        This is the main topic I cared about the entire time. Thiel isn’t libertarian except as he says he is one. The other poster has made a good reply. I posted about Thiel being a conservative Republican [now] in another nested thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29747080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29747080
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
skinnymuch 5y ago
I read through the links. The oversimplification of liberal by Cato and the references it has is quite a thing. To have a range of different conservative grouping and then liberals is also quite a thing. The other link brings up Rand Paul. Do we really have to go over how Rand Paul as a senator has not been libertarian? His focus is on taxing less. Especially the wealthy and corporations. Otherwise his views frequently wildly divert from libertarianism into default conservative Republican views. My original statement remains. Your links have at best given support for both of us. At worst it gave support to my “coping”. > moved on from that When? Unless this is clever satire where you shift and move the conversation as you please. Show the issue with people like Thiel and Rand Paul identifying as libertarian whilst enjoying conservative authority quite a bit. Bravo if so.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I don't think it is an oversimplification. I think you are making some over simplified libertarian purity test. Even at the most conservative estimates, the numbers clearly show there are many more libertarians than vote for libertarian parties (or donate to, which is a reasonable if not ideal proxy for donations by libertarians I would say). Your original point doesn't stand, many libertarians support Republicans. It's truly weird logic that you (begrudgingly) accept that libertarians vote for Republicans, and yet you think any other form of "active" support would be out of the question. Doesn't make any sense. If a libertarian wanted to be active in politics it's quite reasonable to think many would support the same candidates they vote for.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    Your strong bias and attitude showed in your other comment on Clinton and Bush as pathetic warmongering neoliberals. It is not incorrect. However to bring those up and exclude Trump or any other very high up politician of the two parties of not being the same thing except some are neoconservatives (which is close to neoliberals), is telling. Your gaslighting tactics have become more pronounced now too. I never begrudgingly accepted what you stated. I believe I had an apt example. A person identifying in good faith as a socialist isn’t going to be supporting establishment Dems like Thiel and Rand Paul and similar “libertarians” do for their counterparts. I believe you or someone else brought up The Squad. Which has an easy response - the socialist supporters of theirs are not them. The Squad are also not socialists. They are progressives or democratic socialists. Affiliations with differences that are bigger than neolibs and neocons, imho. I see this is likely about the well worn tactic of conservative [republicans] not identifying as such. Leftists don’t have a pattern of hiding this way. OTOH, there are countless examples of traditional belief right wingers who continue to do this. Supporters around them will continue to dig their heels in saying this facade is not so. All of this fits with your belief that it is not an oversimplification to label centrists, center-left, neoliberals, progressives, hard leftists, and further on the left all as liberal.

Talanes 5y ago

> We've moved on from that. Well, you keep moving on from it and everyone who replies on you keeps trying to move back toward the original topic.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
No try to keep up, we moved on from the other poster's pedantic distraction about voting vs "active support" back to the original topic which is that Thiel is a libertarian and the fact he supports Republicans is not evidence he isn't one.
- Talanes 5y ago
  >No try to keep up, we moved on from the other poster's pedantic distraction about voting Other poster? You brought it up the first time and have brought it up in every post since.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Bringing it back on topic yet again: if you agree Thiel is a libertarian and the fact he supports Republicans is not evidence he isn't one then we don't need to say any more here.
    - Talanes 5y ago
      He supported a dude whose platform was mostly right-leaning populism. If he was just supporting Republicans because they were the closest to Libertarian ideals, why would support the dude driving the party away from Libertarian ideals?
      - skinnymuch 5y ago
        And continue supporting the person. I checked Thiel headlines. He’s working with Don Jr now against Liz Cheney for a Trump approved replacement. This is just recent headlines too. Thanks for your insightful comments
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Why? Presumably because he preferred that to the alternatives, none of which were obviously more libertarian -- pathetic old neoliberal dinosaur warmongers Clinton and Bush!
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      This is the main topic I cared about the entire time. Thiel isn’t libertarian except as he says he is one. The other poster has made a good reply. I posted about Thiel being a conservative Republican [now] in another nested thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29747080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29747080
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

skinnymuch 5y ago

I read through the links. The oversimplification of liberal by Cato and the references it has is quite a thing. To have a range of different conservative grouping and then liberals is also quite a thing. The other link brings up Rand Paul. Do we really have to go over how Rand Paul as a senator has not been libertarian? His focus is on taxing less. Especially the wealthy and corporations. Otherwise his views frequently wildly divert from libertarianism into default conservative Republican views. My original statement remains. Your links have at best given support for both of us. At worst it gave support to my “coping”. > moved on from that When? Unless this is clever satire where you shift and move the conversation as you please. Show the issue with people like Thiel and Rand Paul identifying as libertarian whilst enjoying conservative authority quite a bit. Bravo if so.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
I don't think it is an oversimplification. I think you are making some over simplified libertarian purity test. Even at the most conservative estimates, the numbers clearly show there are many more libertarians than vote for libertarian parties (or donate to, which is a reasonable if not ideal proxy for donations by libertarians I would say). Your original point doesn't stand, many libertarians support Republicans. It's truly weird logic that you (begrudgingly) accept that libertarians vote for Republicans, and yet you think any other form of "active" support would be out of the question. Doesn't make any sense. If a libertarian wanted to be active in politics it's quite reasonable to think many would support the same candidates they vote for.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  Your strong bias and attitude showed in your other comment on Clinton and Bush as pathetic warmongering neoliberals. It is not incorrect. However to bring those up and exclude Trump or any other very high up politician of the two parties of not being the same thing except some are neoconservatives (which is close to neoliberals), is telling. Your gaslighting tactics have become more pronounced now too. I never begrudgingly accepted what you stated. I believe I had an apt example. A person identifying in good faith as a socialist isn’t going to be supporting establishment Dems like Thiel and Rand Paul and similar “libertarians” do for their counterparts. I believe you or someone else brought up The Squad. Which has an easy response - the socialist supporters of theirs are not them. The Squad are also not socialists. They are progressives or democratic socialists. Affiliations with differences that are bigger than neolibs and neocons, imho. I see this is likely about the well worn tactic of conservative [republicans] not identifying as such. Leftists don’t have a pattern of hiding this way. OTOH, there are countless examples of traditional belief right wingers who continue to do this. Supporters around them will continue to dig their heels in saying this facade is not so. All of this fits with your belief that it is not an oversimplification to label centrists, center-left, neoliberals, progressives, hard leftists, and further on the left all as liberal.