If this existence is all some sort of a really complex TV Show for computer AI, I would find it very funny if there was a scene where Trump and Clinton secretly plan about how to get a Democrat in the white house, meanwhile Thiel and Gary Johnson hatch a plan (after Trump's early success at torpedoing the GOP nomination process) to back Trump so that the disaffected GOP members go Libertarian and break the two party race that has been dominating American politics; but Gary is so anti-war and pro-pot that he pulls enough younger democrats off Hilary in just the wrong states to where Trump actually wins the electoral college votes even though by the popular vote Clinton still wins.
I've been hoping this sort of thing happens for about a decade now. The split between the parties is indeed not natural, and the general values of "liberalism" are pretty much absent from both parties, but more and more younger votes care more about liberalism than about labor, defense, and protectionism (the causes that the major parties squabble over the details of).
I wonder what his comments will be on the fact that "gay conversion therapy" is slated to be an official part of the GOP platform adopted at the same convention.
I also wonder why there are still people who want to argue that there was literally no genuine news value in a media outlet outing a powerful billionaire who would personally and financially support a party that would put this on their platform, but I guess that's another story.
It's not just the conversion therapy. The current GOP platform has been decried as the most anti-LGBT in the party's history by the Log Cabin Republicans.
Maybe he'll be there because he believes gay conversion therapy works the other direction too, since the Grindr scene is always so hot during the Republican National Convention. [1]
A lot of Democrats support homeopathy/alternative medicine, think GMOs are bad, dismiss nuclear power, etc. It's not like only one party suffers from a lack of evidence based thinking.
It's misleading to go from "Parents should be allowed to seek whatever treatment or therapy they deem fit for their children" to "Republicans are advocating gay conversion therapy", anyway. Not opposing something is not the same as advocating it.
> I also wonder why there are still people who want to argue that there was literally no genuine news value in a media outlet outing a powerful billionaire who would personally and financially support a party that would put this on their platform, but I guess that's another story.
Is it normal to reverse causality to make an argument?
>I also wonder why there are still people who want to argue that there was literally no genuine news value in a media outlet outing a powerful billionaire who would personally and financially support a party that would put this on their platform, but I guess that's another story.
I assume you agree with every single thing anyone you vote for or support says, since that's the standard you're applying to him, then?
I'm watching a Thiel speech right now on YouTube [0]. To be honest, the only perception I have of Thiel as a public speaker is that "Silicon Valley's" (on HBO) Peter Gregory was partly based on him. He's a better speaker than his HBO caricature, but he doesn't seem like someone who has been groomed to be a public speaker. I'm impressed that he's chosen to put himself in the spotlight here. Even if he just recites the Emancipation Proclamation word-for-word, he is going to be relentlessly grilled by the political punditry. He already was, for being a Silicon Valley-based Trump delegate, and then of course for the Gawker lawsuit. I don't agree with all of his politics but at least he's throwing himself into the public fray even though there's virtually nothing for him to gain personally (unless he's prepping for a run for governor or U.S. Senator).
Peter Thiel is the 21st century Koch in every single way. And I feel sad about that. You'd think when Kochs pass, the old era will be good riddance over. But maybe not...
The Kochs are the 21st century Kochs. Peter Thiel hasn't had any major success as a political donor, while the Kochs have been wildly successful as political donors and furthering their political agendas.
a pbs program i watched last night (human development, evolution, and the populating of n. america) was sponsored by the "David H. Koch Fund for Science".
I'm a little surprised at all the negativity. Everybody complains that the two parties are the same, but as soon as the prospect of a Trump/Thiel ticket comes up (which would, at the very least, shake things up), people freak out.
I'm about as far from a libertarian as you can get, but I find this interesting! The combination of Trump's willingness to attack everything, and Thiel's ideas on disruption could put a lot of sacred cows up for debate. Regardless of what side you're on, that's not a bad thing. It forces the other side to articulate defenses of the status quo, instead of leaning on inertia.
Maybe he just actually supports Trump, or disfavors Hillary even more. Have you all considered that? He is close friends with Ann Coulter and his views on the direction of the country are quite well known. It would be totally in line with his thinking to back Trump.
The cognitive dissonance in the comments here, the desperate attempts to come up with conspiratorial rationalizations, is kind of ridiculous.
This is actually a good thing. If he can get that audience to lusten to his ideas, maybe the two sides of America will get closer to finding common ground. It's better than someone who will go there to pander and incite the mob.
From what I've seen of Thiel, it's worth it to hear him out. He has a lot of good ideas. Some sound a bit out there perhaps, but he doesn't seem malicious or destructively polarizing.
Peter Thiel is a weird guy. For many years he said there is going to be a major economic crisis.
- He wrote a paper on the fall of the Roman Empire [1] and thinks something similar could happen to the US.
- His fund 'Clarium Capital' bet on the fall of US dollar and lost a lot of money [2]
- He also stated that Hillary Clinton is going to win and be a one-term president, probably because the economic collapse is going to happen in few years [3]. He said "You kinda don't want to win 2016".
What do you think is behind his support for Trump? Does he want the economic armageddon to happen or not? Does he think that collapse is going to happen and that Trump is better at dealing with consequences than Hillary?
Thiel isn't just "weird"; it should be pretty clear that he's out-and-out nuts, by this point.
At least he's being honest in conveying to us that not only does he not expect his sockpuppet candidate to win in 2016 - but that his ideology as a whole is essentially fatalistic; and that he needs some major catastrophe (in the form of either the economic collapse he's predicting; or of an actual Trump administration, which he's smart enough to realize would also be a major disaster) to bring about the sweeping, transformative change in global consciousness that he seeks -- the social chaos, ruined lives, and piles of corpses be damned.
Just like any megalomaniacal ideologue anywhere, since the beginning of time.
Making bets on and predicting an economic collapse does not mean one necessarily wants it to happen, simply that they think it is going to. I wouldn't presume to know why he supports Trump, but it will probably be clear after the speech next week.
w/r/t support for Trump (he's a Trump delegate, I think) the best I can come up with -- obviously utter speculation -- is that he's hoping for enough of a collapse of the republican party to create an opening for a new party more in line with is thinking, or alternately, enough of a weakening of the current republican party so as to re-forge it in the same manner.
I have thought about this very topic a little because I'm utterly flabbergasted that a book I like as well as Zero to One was written by a Trump delegate. So -- I may be cobbling together more of an excuse here than an explanation, if that's not obvious.
Also, in other Theil news, he gave a truly fantastic commencement speech this year at Hamilton college (the delivery is a little halting or stilted for sure, but honestly I think it's part of the charm): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id4ywg5oemc
[+] [-] 3pt14159|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 323454|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] CPLX|9 years ago|reply
I also wonder why there are still people who want to argue that there was literally no genuine news value in a media outlet outing a powerful billionaire who would personally and financially support a party that would put this on their platform, but I guess that's another story.
[+] [-] mr_overalls|9 years ago|reply
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/log-cabin-republicans-gop-par...
[+] [-] DonHopkins|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_gWaABMBIU
[+] [-] sevenless|9 years ago|reply
It's misleading to go from "Parents should be allowed to seek whatever treatment or therapy they deem fit for their children" to "Republicans are advocating gay conversion therapy", anyway. Not opposing something is not the same as advocating it.
[+] [-] oconnore|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] internaut|9 years ago|reply
Is it normal to reverse causality to make an argument?
[+] [-] lintiness|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ikeboy|9 years ago|reply
I assume you agree with every single thing anyone you vote for or support says, since that's the standard you're applying to him, then?
[+] [-] danso|9 years ago|reply
[0] His commencement speech at Hamilton College https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id4ywg5oemc
[+] [-] hsileng|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jn1234|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianbreslin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lintiness|9 years ago|reply
pure evil.
[+] [-] cjbenedikt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|9 years ago|reply
I'm about as far from a libertarian as you can get, but I find this interesting! The combination of Trump's willingness to attack everything, and Thiel's ideas on disruption could put a lot of sacred cows up for debate. Regardless of what side you're on, that's not a bad thing. It forces the other side to articulate defenses of the status quo, instead of leaning on inertia.
[+] [-] voodoomagicman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schwabacher|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davesque|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wildmusings|9 years ago|reply
The cognitive dissonance in the comments here, the desperate attempts to come up with conspiratorial rationalizations, is kind of ridiculous.
The man deserves to be taken at his word.
[+] [-] lawnchair_larry|9 years ago|reply
From what I've seen of Thiel, it's worth it to hear him out. He has a lot of good ideas. Some sound a bit out there perhaps, but he doesn't seem malicious or destructively polarizing.
[+] [-] lumberjack|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tmaly|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjuel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] return0|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lavamantis|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DonHopkins|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peter303|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] getgoingnow|9 years ago|reply
- He wrote a paper on the fall of the Roman Empire [1] and thinks something similar could happen to the US.
- His fund 'Clarium Capital' bet on the fall of US dollar and lost a lot of money [2]
- He also stated that Hillary Clinton is going to win and be a one-term president, probably because the economic collapse is going to happen in few years [3]. He said "You kinda don't want to win 2016".
What do you think is behind his support for Trump? Does he want the economic armageddon to happen or not? Does he think that collapse is going to happen and that Trump is better at dealing with consequences than Hillary?
[+] [-] kafkaesq|9 years ago|reply
Thiel isn't just "weird"; it should be pretty clear that he's out-and-out nuts, by this point.
At least he's being honest in conveying to us that not only does he not expect his sockpuppet candidate to win in 2016 - but that his ideology as a whole is essentially fatalistic; and that he needs some major catastrophe (in the form of either the economic collapse he's predicting; or of an actual Trump administration, which he's smart enough to realize would also be a major disaster) to bring about the sweeping, transformative change in global consciousness that he seeks -- the social chaos, ruined lives, and piles of corpses be damned.
Just like any megalomaniacal ideologue anywhere, since the beginning of time.
[+] [-] tcoppi|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] methehack|9 years ago|reply
I have thought about this very topic a little because I'm utterly flabbergasted that a book I like as well as Zero to One was written by a Trump delegate. So -- I may be cobbling together more of an excuse here than an explanation, if that's not obvious.
Also, in other Theil news, he gave a truly fantastic commencement speech this year at Hamilton college (the delivery is a little halting or stilted for sure, but honestly I think it's part of the charm): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id4ywg5oemc
[+] [-] Rotten194|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biot|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://bit.ly/2acARwG
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarium_Capital#Recent_perform...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxtXMlPSQAY
[+] [-] praptak|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kinnard|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pc86|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gmarx|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raimundjoss|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lumberjack|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]