3 ms·

It's pretty much all laid out on Wikipedia. He initially supported the Democratic Party but because of crypto and AI he donated millions to super PACs for Trum

by svelle 9mo ago

It's pretty much all laid out on Wikipedia. He initially supported the Democratic Party but because of crypto and AI he donated millions to super PACs for Trump, supported DOGE and said that children are now being readicalized to hate capitalism as well as directly messaging the Trump administration to put pressure on Universities like NSF, SU and MIT because of DEI or something like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen#Political_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Andreessen#Political_view...

lotsofpulp 9mo ago
One can support a party and then change to not supporting a party for a variety of reasons. Such as disagreeing with the direction the party is going, especially locally, or even as simple as eschewing the previously supported party because you are betting the other one will win and need to curry favor.
- afavour 9mo ago
  Sure, but why argue the abstract when we have Andreessen’s views and actions on record?
  - lotsofpulp 9mo ago
    I haven't studied Andreessen's views and actions, so I was just positing a strategic reason for a change in political support for a high profile person. (as opposed to a drastic change in their thoughts which is what I take to mean as "radicalized") For example, I have always preferred most of Democrats' positions on the national level, but on the local/state level, especially in California/Oregon/Washington, I disagree with a lot of the Democrat leaders, more and more since 2010 (I would say my views have not changed much, but the party's priorities at the state and local level have). Of course, I'm nowhere near as influential as Andreessen nor do I have interests that would warrant a say in national politics, but I can see why if one is against local leadership, they would cozy up to someone who they think can help you fight against them, without being "radicalized", per the above definition.
gulfofamerica 9mo ago
Is he wrong? The mayor of NYC is a socialist elected by young voters.
- pjc50 9mo ago
  Yes, because he's basically the only candidate that isn't overtly a crook and/or a lunatic. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46597024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46597024
  - gulfofamerica 9mo ago
    Fair, but it's everywhere. 'Smash capitalism' sent from my iPhone. The billionaire tax that they are already repealing.
    - afavour 9mo ago
      It’s only “everywhere” on social media feeds that prioritize content that outrages you.
- pavlov 9mo ago
  How is that related to the claim that "children are now being radicalized to hate capitalism"?
  - gulfofamerica 9mo ago
    Isn't the core tenet of Socialism replacing capitalism?
    - n4r9 9mo ago
      They're different economic philosophies, but most Western countries have a mixed system incorporating elements from both. Voting for Momdani doesn't necessarily mean you want total public ownership of the means of production. His manifesto is only moderately more socialist than the status quo.

by svelle 9mo ago

lotsofpulp 9mo ago

One can support a party and then change to not supporting a party for a variety of reasons. Such as disagreeing with the direction the party is going, especially locally, or even as simple as eschewing the previously supported party because you are betting the other one will win and need to curry favor.

afavour 9mo ago
Sure, but why argue the abstract when we have Andreessen’s views and actions on record?
- lotsofpulp 9mo ago
  I haven't studied Andreessen's views and actions, so I was just positing a strategic reason for a change in political support for a high profile person. (as opposed to a drastic change in their thoughts which is what I take to mean as "radicalized") For example, I have always preferred most of Democrats' positions on the national level, but on the local/state level, especially in California/Oregon/Washington, I disagree with a lot of the Democrat leaders, more and more since 2010 (I would say my views have not changed much, but the party's priorities at the state and local level have). Of course, I'm nowhere near as influential as Andreessen nor do I have interests that would warrant a say in national politics, but I can see why if one is against local leadership, they would cozy up to someone who they think can help you fight against them, without being "radicalized", per the above definition.

gulfofamerica 9mo ago

Is he wrong? The mayor of NYC is a socialist elected by young voters.

pjc50 9mo ago
Yes, because he's basically the only candidate that isn't overtly a crook and/or a lunatic. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46597024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46597024
- gulfofamerica 9mo ago
  Fair, but it's everywhere. 'Smash capitalism' sent from my iPhone. The billionaire tax that they are already repealing.
  - afavour 9mo ago
    It’s only “everywhere” on social media feeds that prioritize content that outrages you.
pavlov 9mo ago
How is that related to the claim that "children are now being radicalized to hate capitalism"?
- gulfofamerica 9mo ago
  Isn't the core tenet of Socialism replacing capitalism?
  - n4r9 9mo ago
    They're different economic philosophies, but most Western countries have a mixed system incorporating elements from both. Voting for Momdani doesn't necessarily mean you want total public ownership of the means of production. His manifesto is only moderately more socialist than the status quo.