Don't follow american politics that much, but hats off to Peter Thiel for having the courage to support Trump!
Even if a person seems horrible as a human being, if some of his/her ideas make sense and align with your ideas, than it's OK to support them. I happen to like Trump because he happens to think that America's problems are internal and should be solved internally - no need to make any issue into a "global issue" and solve it through an international trade agreement or through a war that affects everyone in the world even if it's not their f problem!
> Even if a person seems horrible as a human being, if some of his/her ideas make sense and align with your ideas, than it's OK to support them.
No, it's not. Not when that person has other horrific ideas that should not be supported by any sensible human being. Not if that person is a pathological liar that jumps from one idea to the contrary on a whims notice. Not if that person uses racism and violence as a platform. Not if that person openly calls for committing war crimes and invading other countries. It's - and I'm deliberately choosing the godwin route here - akin to saying "It was ok to support Hitler because I support the construction of the Autobahn."
Hillary ticks off many of those boxes too. Difference is she's already had the opportunity to show what she does with power, and how she gets away with being corrupt. Once upon a time HN would've been aghast at her authoritarian streak. And she uses sexism as a platform to promote female chauvinism.
Maybe Trump isn't Hitler, maybe Rome is simply on fire, and there are no suitable candidates.
> Not if that person openly calls for committing war crimes and invading other countries.
Do you have any quote for that? Trump is acceptable for many people outside US, because he wants to limit US involvement in wars. His main opponent on other side has long history if initiating wars. There is a serious risk she/he would even start war with Russia.
Look at the reddit post I referenced for citations. It lists 6 citations for the first part or my statement and 2 citations for the second part (look for "invading").
Not supporting war crimes or anything, but a more "heavy-handed or not-at-all" american involvement in foreign conflicts would be much better.
Like:
1. if you decide to invade Iraq, do a f proper large scale invasion, sweep the whole country, purge anyone opposing, pay some some of the reconstruction bill by training and equipping local forces, and after like 5 years or so of this occupation and purging, after you cleaned up the mess (or at least after you've reunited the country against one common enemy - YOU, which is still better than leaving a civil war behind), then f leave with parade and give them a "national freedom day" to celebrate or whatever.
or
2. if you want a foreign president down, either do it diplomatically, or give up, or do a proper job of f assassinating him and his entire family, don't start a bloody civil war that destroys an entire country and turns its population into refugees.
...the so called "partial involvement", where you go in, kick the bad guys' ass, and then leave without cleaning the mess or paying for it to be cleaned is the problem.
me? I don't get to vote in the US, so that's a bit of a moot question. I deliberately phrased my posting focused on one particular statement that I regard as particularly dangerous because by that line of reason you can justify support for anyone.
Anyways, since the choice currently boils down to Trump vs. Clinton: I regard trump as a deeply dangerous candidate. He seems oblivious to a lot of issues and seems to be focused primarily on furthering his ascend to power, by whatever means necessary. While Clintons politics certainly have their own set of issues I'd prefer her as president since the person in the oval office should show a little interest in complicated matters. In that regard, she passes.
From your post above, it didn't seem like you were taking a lesser of two evils approach - was just curious if you were supporting a third party candidate and if so who.
Well, it's more a "Trump is absolutely not within the boundaries that make him electable" approach. It doesn't say much about preferences regarding all other candidates.
I 'm pretty convinced that most people people do not support trump for what he claims he will do. He seems so unpredictable that nobody can believe what he says. What seems to resonate more is his confidence, and his risk-taking ability vs the very predictable, but very unlikeable Hillary. No amount of quote-listing or fact-checking is going to change their minds.
There are at least two third-party candidates in the race. Last I heard, the Libertarian candidate (for those on the Right) has been polling almost well enough to get into the official debate cycle.
Agreed that no amount of quote-listing or fact-checking will change some Trump supporters' minds.
However, let's be clear: there are people who very much DO believe he will do what he says. I know plenty of people who want - and believe he will - follow through on his ban on Muslims immigrating into the USA (they always remind me it's temporary, until we "figure out what's going on," assuming our immigration services have no idea what they are doing), and build a wall because they feel that's as good as anything to deter people.
People truly believe he will do as he claims. Those of us who think "no way someone can believe that" should be incredibly careful and put down a vote for someone other than him this fall, rather than thinking "oh there's no way he would do all that, right?"
Many people voting him in actively WANT him to do many of his more controversial things.
I agree that there is a large chunk of Trump supporters that will not be swayed by fact-checking. However that's still a vastly important thing to do because they goal is not to sway those that are unreachable already but rather to sway the chunk that still can be reached.
On a larger picture: I regard the fact that a large chunk of people by now seem oblivious to facts and unreachable for civilized dialogue as the threatening streak in the last major votes, see brexit, see the rise of the AFD in germany. The crucial question for the next coming years will in my opinion be how we can enter a reasonable discourse with people that see every statement as a bipartisan issue that must be decided on principle, regard all measured statements as lies and political correctness and are unwilling to compromise on anything. We live in interesting times indeed.
Then you also support torture, deliberate bombing of civilians, bailing on NATO, banning muslims, calling up Bill Gates to shut off the internet, and you endorse the idea that Obama is a muslim and illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists.
If Trump thinks the problems are internal why are his solutions focused externally. Closing down immigration, withdrawing from international treaties etc?
Darth Thiel is one of the most frightening characters on the modern scene.... a man with virtually infinite resources and proven willingness to covertly carry out long term secret revenge plots against those he feels deserve it.
Princess Leia and Nick Denton would have had much in common.
I think the narrative in the article may be a bit of a stretch (Thiel is not against creating restaurants because he thinks they are worthless, he just says they aren't profitable), but I think the conclusion is pretty much correct: the question that Thiel's arguments raise revolve around the question of "What Matters?"
Personally when I listen to talks by Thiel or Musk I almost wonder, do I really need to drop everything and go build rockets? But to be honest, I find working on digital products pretty fulfilling. I think it's a real craft. The deeper question of fulfilment then goes to what you're building with that craft (I've found marketing campaigns are less fulfilling than user-facing products, for example), and then the even-deeper question goes to what you want to do with your life, and then there's the yet-deeper question of how you want to interact with, and have your life experienced by, other people. At that point the question of whether you're going from Zero-to-One (what Thiel calls technology) or One-to-Many (what he calls globalization) starts to recede in importance when making personal choices.
that's a bit of jargon from a different German philosopher (Heidegger). IMO, that sentence is trying to smear Theil as a Nazi, since Heidegger was one and some of Nietzsche's concepts were reappropriated by them.
This is just a gutter hit-piece on Peter Thiel because he isn't falling in line like the rest of SV.
There is zero actual substance here, the author takes a single anecdote from his book, interprets it to mean that Thiel thinks running a small business is not worthwhile and then proceeds to end with this:
-----------------------------------------
Silicon Valley, too, is of two minds. There are those who recognize that their uniquely innovative culture is a precipitate of a lot of expensive long-term institutional investment on the part of governments, universities and corporations, and that to function in a democracy you need to worry about stuff you personally don’t think is important. And there are those who believe only in charisma and prowess, the blinding insight and iron will that get you from zero to one.
-----------------------------------------
Silicon Valley isn't of two minds, it is of many; and no, the uniquely innovative culture isn't the sole result of expensive long-term institutional investment on the part of governments.
I'd say a few smarter/innovative individuals can imprint a culture to a place that is self-sustaining.
For example, William Shockley's transistor company brought a bunch of smart PhDs to what was at the time a rural area (Mountain View). A few of these PhDs - called the "traitorous eight" - left to work on their own. Over 65 companies in the area over the next 20 years came from there, including Intel and AMD. You know why William Shockley chose SV? Because his mother lived in Palo Alto.
Citing what people say - and in this instance what Trump says - to expose what their political goals or non-goals are is hardly fear mongering. None of the statements I made compared Trump to Hitler, you may want to re-read. The comparison was made to underline how absurd the statement of the parent poster was because by his line of reason you could - literally in good conscience - even support Hilter "because some of his goals align with mine and I don't care of the world burns as a result".
Define this murky "left". In case you haven't noticed, the old political categories are shifting. I should be on "the right", having grown up in the Midwest, served in the military, and am now working on Wall Street.
Donald Trump is irresponsible and wrong, and you should note that many military service members in particular are rooting for Gary Johnson. Advocating for war crimes is wrong. Nuking Syria will not work. But don't mind us, we've only fought the wars of the past two decades.... Listen to the guy who dodged the draft.
The fact that Johnson is so popular among vets and service members should be a telling indictment of the foreign policies of both Trump and Clinton.
Facts are facts. If Trump talks like Mussolini, perhaps deliberately, then he deserves the comparison.
Sure, all the fascism in his speeches and platform could be some grand act just to rile people up, but he's giving no reliable indication that the terrifying things he says aren't what he really believes.
But I am, of course, biased. As a Jew, I can't stomach anyone who brings white supremacism and open antisemitism into the mainstream. It's just bad for me, you know?
And not just bad for you. Trump will bring misery to a large chunk of the world if he gets to act on just a small percentage of what he has to date said he will do.
posting pictures drawing on antisemitic imagery and motives probably should count, especially if those have been lifted from white supremacist/anti-semitic sources:
Since I'm obviously too dumb to see the obvious please tell me how reusing imagery that uses and reinforces anti-semitic prejudices in conjunction with a star of david and has been lifted from an anti-semitic source is obviously a non-issue and a fake media controversy?
Ok, serious question: Which of the statements do you dispute:
1. The image was lifted from a reddit channel known as anti-semitic and white supremacist.
2. The image uses and reaffirms anti-semitic prejudices, namely the prejudice that jewish world domination/conspiracy using money and buying power.
3. The image uses the david star.
I grant you that (2) and (3) in isolation might be forgiven and an honest mistake, but in combination, especially in combination with (1) they can't be regarded as anything other than an obvious antisemitic slur.
I get it, the author was very irritated that Thiel spoke for trump, so he wrote a really bad article full of personal attacks, misinformation, belittling comparisons etc. Why did the NYtimes publish this garbage ?
>he wrote a really bad article full of personal attacks, misinformation, belittling comparisons
Calm your sensibilities, it's nothing of the sort. It's an op-ed piece that has a negative bias against Thiel (who has also said dumb things). Why does this site criticize any piece that speculates are conveys opinion?
I'm generally one who ignores bias in the Opinion section of the paper, but one thing that made an impression on me was that this was published in the "Magazine", not the Opinion section. It reads more like a hit piece against someone for having the "wrong" politics than a thoughtful essay, IMO. (This, coming from someone who dislikes Thiel, Trump, and the GOP)
It's about the bad and false arguments in the article, such as painting him as a nostalgic warmonger. I don't like Thiel either, but not for these reasons.
I identify with "liberal" politics and parts of Thiel's RNC speech resonated with me, but I'm wondering if those parts were lost on the RNC's target demographic. For example: he says we should have gone to Mars instead of starting a war in Iraq (paraphrasing). I feel like the Republican demographic wouldn't care about going to Mars, and not to mention a bunch of people got rich off the war (at tax payer's expense of course).
Then there's the part where he said the party shouldn't focus on fake "culture wars" like which bathrooms transgender people use. How were those parts received by the RNC's target audience?
This very non-charitable reading of Zero to One makes it a hit piece. The reasoning is plausible and it's well written. But anyone that's in tech, has followed Peter and read the book knows it was never meant as a general philosophy/political book. Though admittedly it has gotten so popular that a lot of people read it as such so perhaps there was no ill intention in the interpretation (tho the bathroom comment got interpreted rather maliciously).
Personally I think Peter talking at the RNC and [hopefully for me] exerting some kind of influence on Trump is the best thing to happen. I still see Trump as a blank slate. With his presidency [IMO] inevitable I think it's super important that people like Peter start steering him in the right direction.
Trump isn't a blank slate, he's first and foremost a self-serving businessman. Sure, he says outrageous things that people want to hear with no intention of ever doing them, but that doesn't make him a blank slate. It makes him a sycophantic liar.
Don't delude yourself that he's neutral. He has a clear agenda of promoting racism, violence, and religious intolerance because that's what his future Trump Network customer base wants to hear. If he is elected he'll most likely resign on day 2 because he can make much more money licensing his brand than actually having to deal with complex problems that can't be solved by simply building a wall, deporting all muslims, etc. for 4 years.
Somewhat related: Any ideas why NYT blocks my ability to "Add to Read it Later" on Safari for OS X? What motivations are there to do that (if they are doing it on purpose)?
75 comments
[ 162 ms ] story [ 170 ms ] threadEven if a person seems horrible as a human being, if some of his/her ideas make sense and align with your ideas, than it's OK to support them. I happen to like Trump because he happens to think that America's problems are internal and should be solved internally - no need to make any issue into a "global issue" and solve it through an international trade agreement or through a war that affects everyone in the world even if it's not their f problem!
No, it's not. Not when that person has other horrific ideas that should not be supported by any sensible human being. Not if that person is a pathological liar that jumps from one idea to the contrary on a whims notice. Not if that person uses racism and violence as a platform. Not if that person openly calls for committing war crimes and invading other countries. It's - and I'm deliberately choosing the godwin route here - akin to saying "It was ok to support Hitler because I support the construction of the Autobahn."
Citations can be found en masse here: https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/
Maybe Trump isn't Hitler, maybe Rome is simply on fire, and there are no suitable candidates.
Do you have any quote for that? Trump is acceptable for many people outside US, because he wants to limit US involvement in wars. His main opponent on other side has long history if initiating wars. There is a serious risk she/he would even start war with Russia.
Invasion: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/11/trump-wants...
Like:
1. if you decide to invade Iraq, do a f proper large scale invasion, sweep the whole country, purge anyone opposing, pay some some of the reconstruction bill by training and equipping local forces, and after like 5 years or so of this occupation and purging, after you cleaned up the mess (or at least after you've reunited the country against one common enemy - YOU, which is still better than leaving a civil war behind), then f leave with parade and give them a "national freedom day" to celebrate or whatever. or
2. if you want a foreign president down, either do it diplomatically, or give up, or do a proper job of f assassinating him and his entire family, don't start a bloody civil war that destroys an entire country and turns its population into refugees.
...the so called "partial involvement", where you go in, kick the bad guys' ass, and then leave without cleaning the mess or paying for it to be cleaned is the problem.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/3/donald-trump-...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/...
Anyways, since the choice currently boils down to Trump vs. Clinton: I regard trump as a deeply dangerous candidate. He seems oblivious to a lot of issues and seems to be focused primarily on furthering his ascend to power, by whatever means necessary. While Clintons politics certainly have their own set of issues I'd prefer her as president since the person in the oval office should show a little interest in complicated matters. In that regard, she passes.
However, let's be clear: there are people who very much DO believe he will do what he says. I know plenty of people who want - and believe he will - follow through on his ban on Muslims immigrating into the USA (they always remind me it's temporary, until we "figure out what's going on," assuming our immigration services have no idea what they are doing), and build a wall because they feel that's as good as anything to deter people.
People truly believe he will do as he claims. Those of us who think "no way someone can believe that" should be incredibly careful and put down a vote for someone other than him this fall, rather than thinking "oh there's no way he would do all that, right?"
Many people voting him in actively WANT him to do many of his more controversial things.
On a larger picture: I regard the fact that a large chunk of people by now seem oblivious to facts and unreachable for civilized dialogue as the threatening streak in the last major votes, see brexit, see the rise of the AFD in germany. The crucial question for the next coming years will in my opinion be how we can enter a reasonable discourse with people that see every statement as a bipartisan issue that must be decided on principle, regard all measured statements as lies and political correctness and are unwilling to compromise on anything. We live in interesting times indeed.
Good on ya for having the courage to do that.
Trump is one of two candidates. What, exactly, requires courage? Tons of people support Trump.
Princess Leia and Nick Denton would have had much in common.
Personally when I listen to talks by Thiel or Musk I almost wonder, do I really need to drop everything and go build rockets? But to be honest, I find working on digital products pretty fulfilling. I think it's a real craft. The deeper question of fulfilment then goes to what you're building with that craft (I've found marketing campaigns are less fulfilling than user-facing products, for example), and then the even-deeper question goes to what you want to do with your life, and then there's the yet-deeper question of how you want to interact with, and have your life experienced by, other people. At that point the question of whether you're going from Zero-to-One (what Thiel calls technology) or One-to-Many (what he calls globalization) starts to recede in importance when making personal choices.
You need to drop everything and make them rich.
that's a bit of jargon from a different German philosopher (Heidegger). IMO, that sentence is trying to smear Theil as a Nazi, since Heidegger was one and some of Nietzsche's concepts were reappropriated by them.
There is zero actual substance here, the author takes a single anecdote from his book, interprets it to mean that Thiel thinks running a small business is not worthwhile and then proceeds to end with this:
-----------------------------------------
Silicon Valley, too, is of two minds. There are those who recognize that their uniquely innovative culture is a precipitate of a lot of expensive long-term institutional investment on the part of governments, universities and corporations, and that to function in a democracy you need to worry about stuff you personally don’t think is important. And there are those who believe only in charisma and prowess, the blinding insight and iron will that get you from zero to one.
-----------------------------------------
Silicon Valley isn't of two minds, it is of many; and no, the uniquely innovative culture isn't the sole result of expensive long-term institutional investment on the part of governments.
What's the reason then? Are the people just better and smarter there?
For example, William Shockley's transistor company brought a bunch of smart PhDs to what was at the time a rural area (Mountain View). A few of these PhDs - called the "traitorous eight" - left to work on their own. Over 65 companies in the area over the next 20 years came from there, including Intel and AMD. You know why William Shockley chose SV? Because his mother lived in Palo Alto.
Narcs are barely a step up from psychopaths. They literally lie professionally and have no conscience to speak of.
They're also famous for having no empathy whatsoever. So the chances that Trump genuinely cares about the struggling and low paid is zero.
There is absolutely no rational reason to want someone with NPD as president.
Donald Trump is irresponsible and wrong, and you should note that many military service members in particular are rooting for Gary Johnson. Advocating for war crimes is wrong. Nuking Syria will not work. But don't mind us, we've only fought the wars of the past two decades.... Listen to the guy who dodged the draft.
The fact that Johnson is so popular among vets and service members should be a telling indictment of the foreign policies of both Trump and Clinton.
Sure, all the fascism in his speeches and platform could be some grand act just to rile people up, but he's giving no reliable indication that the terrifying things he says aren't what he really believes.
But I am, of course, biased. As a Jew, I can't stomach anyone who brings white supremacism and open antisemitism into the mainstream. It's just bad for me, you know?
It's time we had a woman in office! Hillary has done nothing wrong!
[citation needed]
https://mic.com/articles/147711/donald-trump-s-star-of-david...
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/03/trumps-star-david-ant...
you're welcome.
1. The image was lifted from a reddit channel known as anti-semitic and white supremacist.
2. The image uses and reaffirms anti-semitic prejudices, namely the prejudice that jewish world domination/conspiracy using money and buying power.
3. The image uses the david star.
I grant you that (2) and (3) in isolation might be forgiven and an honest mistake, but in combination, especially in combination with (1) they can't be regarded as anything other than an obvious antisemitic slur.
You better be able to explain how a genuine anti-semite would do that without using conspiracy theories yourself.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/04/politics/donald-trump-star-of-...
Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
has Trump done that?
Cruz pulled his "new york values" thing and got called out pretty quick.
>Why did the NYtimes publish this garbage ?
Probably because the rest of the staff shares the author's personal resentment for Thiel, which isn't surprising considering their liberal bias.
Calm your sensibilities, it's nothing of the sort. It's an op-ed piece that has a negative bias against Thiel (who has also said dumb things). Why does this site criticize any piece that speculates are conveys opinion?
Then there's the part where he said the party shouldn't focus on fake "culture wars" like which bathrooms transgender people use. How were those parts received by the RNC's target audience?
Personally I think Peter talking at the RNC and [hopefully for me] exerting some kind of influence on Trump is the best thing to happen. I still see Trump as a blank slate. With his presidency [IMO] inevitable I think it's super important that people like Peter start steering him in the right direction.
Don't delude yourself that he's neutral. He has a clear agenda of promoting racism, violence, and religious intolerance because that's what his future Trump Network customer base wants to hear. If he is elected he'll most likely resign on day 2 because he can make much more money licensing his brand than actually having to deal with complex problems that can't be solved by simply building a wall, deporting all muslims, etc. for 4 years.
1. Get elected. 2. Resign in favor of Pence. 3. Get a general pardon in the Federal investigations against him. 4. Profit.