Billionaire Tech Investor Peter Thiel To Back Trump As GOP Presidential Candidate (techcrunch.com) 281
An anonymous reader writes: Billionaire tech investor, co-founder and former CEO of PayPal Peter Thiel has agreed to back Trump as a California delegate in Cleveland this summer. He will be one of 172 selected Golden State delegates headed to the Republican National Convention. His support for Trump contrasts many other leaders, like A16z's Marc Andreessen who has voiced his distaste for Trump, tweeting: "OH: Trump is like an Internet comments section decided to run for President." In the past, Thiel, who is a libertarian at heart, has donated $2.6 million to Ron Paul in 2012 and added $2 million to a Super PAC backing Ted Cruz's former running mate ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina. He also gave $250,000 to Ted Cruz's bid for Texas attorney general in 2009.
Lucas was right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause..."
Enjoy the slide down my dear countrymen. It's Mr. Toad's wild ride from here on out. Enjoy the political litmus tests and loyalty oaths...
Re:Lucas was right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
you think liberty was alive in a country that had clintons, bushes, obama, etc running it for decades?
no wonder you live in movie delusions.
Re:Lucas was right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Time for third parties to gain influence, as a step away from party politics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thiel represents a significant Republican demographic who would have in a saner political year supported Rand Paul. When the party hierarchy decided to shut out Paul before letting the people decide, Thiel and company say, "Let Trump burn the system down."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Lucas was right.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Roosevelts were kind of an anti-dynasty. The Theodore Roosevelt side of the family didn't support Franklin in his run for President, according to some PBS special I saw last year.. Also Theodore was a Republican and Franklin was a Democrat. They were among the best presidents of the 20th century, though, arguably #1 and #2. I'll take that dynasty.
Re: (Score:2)
Time for third parties to gain influence, as a step away from party politics.
Reach out to your compatriots across superficial opinions that divide you and join up. The people does have real power, then; just look at how much happened as a result of the youth rebellion and hippie movement in the 60es and 70es - and they were stoned out of this world much of the time. It is no wonder those in power keep piling on the most outrageous controversies they can produce - as long as people think they are fighting over important issues, the elite can hold on to power. The truth is that most p
Re: (Score:2)
Government by random selection.
You can't have family dynasties if the family dynasts have the same probability to be chosen as everybody else. Expensive campaigning is removed at a stroke, and gerrymandering for House makes no sense because there are no boundaries to gerrymander. Paying legislators ahead of time and expecting a return on investment doesn't work either, because the randomly chosen representatives won't be chosen again next time around.
For electing a pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lucas was right.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Look at the energy plank in Sanders' platform. No natural gas, no nukes. Even the Commies supported industrial civilization, not going back to the Stone Age.
No nukes was decided years ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga... [bbc.co.uk]
Yeah I know don't bother responding, $NewReactor is going to cost pennies and only emit unicorn farts, it'll be too cheap to meter, etc, etc.
Re: Lucas was right.... (Score:5, Interesting)
So why do you wanna be stuck in the 19th century (fossil fuels) and the early 20th (nukes) ? Sander's plank is that we, in the 21st century, should be using 21st century technology - progress in other words. Literally the opposite of what you're accusing him off.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Lucas was right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Lucas was right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sanders is a magic bullet that lazy Leftists want to shoot and try to change everything from the top down. Real change comes local and works its way up.
If you had been paying even the smallest bit of attention, you'd be aware that virtually every single rally that Sanders speaks at, and virtually every debate performance in which he participates, includes him prominently declaring that real change never comes from the top down but from the bottom up.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all... this is the end game. Wait and watch. The owners of this country are now able to elect one of their own.
Alive and kicking (Score:2)
Care to substantiate any part of that disparaging comment?
Last time I looked both the first and second amendments were in rude good health. Plus all other essential freedoms.
Please don't confuse "freedom" with "I want things done my way", or "I'm angry about ... whatever" with "someone's encroaching on my freedom". Citizens will always have duties, will always face laws and regulations, will always need experts to formulate policy details for them and then administrate that policy, and will
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lucas was right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
you think liberty was alive in a country that had clintons, bushes, obama, etc running it for decades?
no wonder you live in movie delusions.
What's your problem with Obama? It's not like he's from a political family dynasty.
Quite the contrary. If a black guy named "Barack Hussein Obama" who had a muslim father can become the president of the United States, it gives me hope that freedom and democracy are alive and well in the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? I think he is one of the best presidents the US ever had, considering he had to navigate the country across a mess of unfinished wars, economic depression and a probably unprecedented, uncompromising blockade of Republicans in congress (wouldn't surprise me if that was because he was 1/2 black, vague outsider - I guess that rubbed many rich, white boys in the GOP with ambitions the wrong way).
But everyone is entitled to their opinion, fortunately.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfinshed wars (still unfinshed) we're back in Afgahanistan and Iraq, in case you missed the daily dead American drill from the press (oh wait, they don't care now that GWB is out of office)
Economic Depression is still here, and as bad as it has been. The nearly 100 Million Americans out of the labor force, record levels of Food Stamps etc etc etc. But I am sure you're going to point to the "Official" unemployment rate to justify your view, while ignoring the fact that Obama hasn't had a single 3% growth ra
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, yeah, the thunderous applause happened in 2008 for Obama.
At least with Trump you aren't automatically called a racist and deemed wrong simply for disagreeing with him, which is why he'd be better than Hillary "war against women" Clinton.
Re: (Score:3)
At least with Trump you aren't automatically called a racist and deemed wrong simply for disagreeing with him...
Well, you are right. It's agreeing with Trump that gets you called a racist.
Re: (Score:3)
can we stop spreading bullshit??
Re: (Score:3)
have a nice day
Re: (Score:2)
...and deemed wrong simply for disagreeing with him
What does Bush II have to do with this?
Re: (Score:2)
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause..."
Don't forget Sith mind control. Much more elegant than the crude "advertising industry" and "lobbying" that our politicians use.
We need to help republicans... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We need to help republicans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Compared to someone like Cruz, I think we lucked out with Trump.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We need to help republicans... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps both of you got it wrong. The US election system is a free market, it's just not the voters who buy the candidates (obviously) but rather the lobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can Bernie possibly win. Even if he gets more votes Hillary gets the delegates. That system is totally rigged, she started the primaries with over 500 superdelegates in her pocket. Don't worry though, I expect Trump's airplane to have a mysterious accident similar to what happened to Senator Heinz. When you can't afford to buy a politician then that's the only way to handle them. They don't want no loose canons in the White House causing problems for the gravy train. Bernie better watch his ass to
Re: (Score:2)
No need. The convention doesn't have to actually support the winner of the primaries as shown by the Democrats some years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Well you twist the truth then complain when he does it too. Kettle meet black.
Re: We need to help republicans... (Score:5, Interesting)
Come now - Bernie is literally the LEAST Zionist candidate to ever run for president. His views are more in-line with the majority of Jews in America -which these days is decidedly anti-Zionist (at least the younger generation). Hell he had a major bouhaha in New York over that. While every other candidate showed up at the dinner for the Jewish Nationalists and pledged the absolute and unconditional support for Israel no matter what - Bernie refrained from going and made a speech saying support for Israel *cannot* be unconditional and should be made conditional on Israel accepting human rights requirements. So that an outcome can be reached which may actually be stable.
Bernie is literally the only candidate in the US since the very creation of Israel to EVER suggest that support for Israel be contingent on them not committing atrocities. That makes him the least zionist candidate the US has had since 1948.
Re: (Score:3)
People don't want a "better candidate", but someone that will wreck the system so hard, it will have to be rebuilt, because as it is, its just slowly but steadily fucking their lives in a irreversible way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe, but who in his right mind would vote for an egomaniac narcissist billionaire in order to rebuild the party system and support the American middle class? It doesn't make sense.
They got the best one possible (Score:4, Insightful)
The Republicans got a candidate that in the general election will bring in a huge number of Democratic votes - one poll shows Trump at 2x the support of minority voters as any other Republican candidate (like Romney) has had.
Yes Trump will lose some women, but more because Hillary is running than because of Trump - and that doesn't really matter because again polls show Hillary losing as many male votes as Trump loses female. That part is a wash.
Lastly Trump is finally a candidate who is not a political insider like Hillary.
The Democrats had their chance to elect someone as good, Sanders, but they choose to go with the most ancient rapist-protecting white person they could find, so they are toast in the general election.
The very first debate will seal the deal with Trump dancing verbal rings around Hillary.
Some Republicans right now say they will not vote for Trump but Hillary is a rather powerful counterforce for that notion...
Re:They got the best one possible (Score:5, Interesting)
Hillary is probably the only candidate who could make someone like Trump able to win the election. She has even worse negatives and has just as many people who will never vote for her.
We've somehow ended up with the two candidates with the highest negatives from people in general. For the Dems, that's because of their "superdelegates" originally supposedly setup as a quota system for minorities, but which coincidentally turned into ensuring the (D) party elite continue to control everything. For the Reps, that's because the candidates not name Trump split the non-Trump votes for too long across too many states because some guys named Rubio and (especially) Kasich refused to face reality and there are enough populist/celebrity (R) primary voters to form a sizable minority for anyone who tells them what they want to hear while pissing off their enemies in the left.
Bottom line, I'm voting for who will select the next Supreme Court nominee. Trump will make a deal with a GOP Senate if he wins. Hillary will push another Obama-style appointee (albeit a rich one who can bribe her foundation?) through the Senate with her "mandate" if she wins.
Re:They got the best one possible (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not actually sure which bias direction you're accusing me of, but nothing in my post was intended to convey that I don't have an opinion on the election. Quite the opposite and mostly very negative toward the two currently leading candidates.
As far as the superdelegates... their purpose is widely suggested by party leaders to be for racial/minority diversity (So minorities don't have to compete with the elite party leaders for delegate spots anymore), but there are very few people who actually believe that.
or [augusta.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I keep seeing that but it's not his first run for President and he has effectively been an insider since the day he was born.
Not a political insider (Score:3, Insightful)
You should read more on Trump's history. Despite having money Trump has always been an outsider, because he was not from NYC proper originally. He's vastly farther away from being a political insider:
1) Never been elected.
2) Not from Harvard or Yale (how long ago do you have to look through presidents to find one that is not?)
3) Not a lawyer
You may think of him as the 1% because he is rich but the 1% generally do not really consider him to be "one of them". You know how it is in any group, some will not
So he's without influence? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rich have been buying government power from politicians for decades... Trump's one brilliant move was to figure out how to cut out the middle man. It is cheaper than using a politician as a power-contractor and more reliable.
Because what the world needs more than anything a rabid coyote with the nuclear launch codes...
Re: (Score:2)
The very first debate will seal the deal with Trump dancing verbal rings around Hillary.
You keep spouting that bullshit, so I'll take the liberty of repeating myself:
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, she was able to stay TOTALY STILL in a hearing!
Freezing up certainly will look awesome on national TV while Trump ridicules her mercilessly! Good luck with that.
You said "Trump had a tantrum" but whatever "Tantrum" trump had seemed to have value to voters, as his poll numbers only climbed... funny that people prefer other people over robots.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but Clinton is the most unpopular candidate in history... Except for Trump, who is 2x as unpopular as she is.
Trump has enough support within the fractured GOP to get the nomination, but it's far from certain that even his own party will unite behind him, let along if he can attract much support from outside it. His disapproval rating is off the charts with minorities, women, people with a > high school education, Bernie supporters...
I'm far older than most of you on /. (Score:5, Insightful)
so I feel I can make an observation. I've noticed over the last 30 or so years that people have lost the art of public discourse. No one can disagree anymore without resorting to hateful vitriol, slinging insults, rioting in the streets. I don't get it. It's one thing to have a sense of justice, but quite another to act out.
People confuse freedom with permissiveness. Freedom is the ordered pursuit of the good (or at least that's how I was taught). These days, if someone votes differently, acts differently, they are a bigot, a hater, a misogynist. It's time to restore decent public discourse.
Peter has a right to back whomever he wishes, despite what we may think. We don't have to lambast him for his God-given rights. You would not want people to lambast you for your choices.
Re:I'm far older than most of you on /. (Score:5, Insightful)
I absolutely expect that public figures get lambasted for their political positions. That's part of freedom: you get held responsible for your choices, particularly if you make them PUBLIC.
Public discourse isn't about being nice. Or tolerant. It's about ideas, and if your ideas suck, then I get to call you out on that.
I'm not interested in people saying "Oh, Mr. Trump, that idea isn't really a good one. Maybe you might want to change it a little, to make it more nice." I'm interested in calling a spade a spade, and a bigot a bigot. Because that's what much of the rhetoric absolutely is: blatant bigotry.
We've tried to cover up bigotry behind nice phrases and accommodations for too long. Better for it to be out in the open than hidden in niceties.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You think being afraid of a religion is NOT bigotry ? Do you also oppose us calling homophobes bigots ?
Bigot is not a synonymn for racist.
Even then he still IS a racist, the son of a racist (look it up - Fred Trump was probably the single most racist landlord in US history and a huge Hitler sympathizer) who definitely agrees with everything daddy said. You don't have to hate a particular race to be racist, you only have to think your own is better.
I've seen trumpeters claiming he isn't a racist because "Me
Re: I'm far older than most of you on /. (Score:2, Funny)
I fucking hate you and everything you said!! ...even though I didn't finish reading it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take my outrage and protest my way into bestbuy and out the back door with a new flat screen. Then I'll blog about it on twitface.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an old fart as well and I can easily remember how public discourse back in the day wasn't all that courteous. The language has gotten a little courser....well a lot courser but other than that it's always been nasty.
Re: (Score:3)
so I feel I can make an observation. I've noticed over the last 30 or so years that people have lost the art of public discourse.
Nostalgia goggles.
When was this magical period of public discourse of which you speak? During the Slavery era? WW2? The Watts riots?
Public discourse is the most widely available as it has ever been, you just need to apply some filters to who you choose to have a discourse with, rather than relying in media outlets to do it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, if the 2nd amendment was the only thing granting the right to bear arms we'd have to hand them all back in at 40, and women would get the right to have them at all. Funny how a thing about conscripting citizens into a militia got twisted into "freedom" by some NRA idiots.
We've got the right because there is nothing to say we do not have the right.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution enumerates certain things the government is not allowed to do. It recognized that people are imbued with their rights from the moment they're born. If he's a Jesus freak and wants to interpret that as "god-given", then he's more legally correct than those who say rights are given by the government.
Dude, have you ever been on Fidonet's FLAME? (Score:2)
I was there
I was even the moderator (no shit, I was) for one summer, until I had to drop it because of workload (I was working for Bell Labs at that time, severe lack of sleep negatively affected my research)
What is going on right now is chicken shit compared to what we had over there
But I gotta level with ya ... there was a difference, in substance
The cursing, the threats, the whatnots going on in FLAME were (largely) based on substance
Nowadays most of the online arguments are pretty much content-less, voi
Re: (Score:2)
Peter has a right to back whomever he wishes, despite what we may think.
I have a right to despise him for being the founder of Paypal and backer of wannabe facist Trump, and I am exercising that right.
Re: (Score:2)
These days, if someone votes differently, acts differently, they are a bigot
Many voters tune out everything the media says precisely because words like 'racist' have been used to describe an honest difference of opinion and no longer reliably convey any information. And now there's an air of panic because the politicians can't achieve any credibility with the voters, all while the politicians continue to insult each other and talk past each other, unable to hear anything that doesn't fit their preconceived stereotypes, and therefore never responding on the rare occasion that a leg
Re: (Score:2)
I am old too. I've noticed that when people start yelling, everyone stops listening.
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed over the last 30 or so years that people have lost the art of public discourse. No one can disagree anymore without resorting to hateful vitriol, slinging insults, rioting in the streets
Nah. It's that more people have access to public discourse. People were always slinging insults at those moonbats and calling each other hitlers, but now they can actually get a bigger audience than just their family.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that the art of public discourse has been lost, it's that public discourse has been made ineffective. These days the only way you get action is by destroying your opponents, not by making a compelling argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Partially disagree....most political speeches from 100 years ago if uttered by today's politicians would mean complete destruction of their careers...someone here pointed to the father of Trump as a shining example of civility , eh?
Have you read any "adventure" books where you were a kid [about the Wild West, hunters in Africa and so on..]? Books from authors at the end of the 19th century....racism and Christian supremacy is dripping from every word and no one bats an eyelid because that was the prevailing
Re: (Score:2)
While of course I'm taking about the tech industry because it's what I'
Re: (Score:2)
> President Obama has personally said he does not favor bringing it back in play
Because he already had the republican congress actively stalling anything he suggested just because it was him suggesting it - even when he suggested something htey had championed for years they would turn their backs on it... he really didn't need ANOTHER fight with congress.
Re: I'm far older than most of you on /. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty disingenuous to call Thiel a Libertarian... (Score:5, Insightful)
... if he's backing Cruz, Trump, Fiorina, and even Ron Paul.
Nothing about the first three's positions have anything to do with Libertarian beliefs. The first is in favor of autocratic theocracy, the second is simply a demagogue with no actual beliefs other than saying whatever pops into his brain at the moment, and the third is a straight up Establishment Republican in favor of lots of regulation (just not on big business), no business taxes, and significant social dictates. Ron Paul only looks like a Libertarian; a closer examination of his policies reveal nothing more than an anti-internationalist foreign policy, long discredited economic views (a Gold Standard, really?), welded to a George Wallace view of social issues.
Thiel's not a Libertarian. He's just a garden-variety Big Money Republican. He might be an interesting tech person, but his politics are pretty reprehensible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a reasonable description of modern US 'right-wing' libertarianism, especially because it manages to keep libertarianism somewhat distinct from 'left-wing' anarchism. But there is one thing I don't get: If taxation is theft, how on earth would a government be able to pay for anything? Police? Military? Roads? Electricity? Water lines? Dams? Food and water safety (to avoid poisoning)? Aviation safety? Disaster response? Nuclear safety? Embassies? Railroad tracks?
The list could go on and on. T
Why do libertarians support him? (Score:2)
Can anyone explain to me why so many libertarians seem to support Trump? He's not small government at all. He even just recently stated that taxes"may need to go up" for high wage earners.
Re: (Score:3)
I know a lot of libertarians and very few of them support Trump. Like almost none. I know more Democrats who support him, than libertarians. The only small-government case that could be made for him, is that the Democrats and Republicans hate him so much, that they won't likely vote to expand executive power, while he's in office, and may even move to finally curtail it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that is not similiar to my experience at all. I don't know a single Democrat who finds him even acceptable as president while the few libertarians I know seem to love him. Likewise I've seen articles like the above pop up a few times.
Maybe It's a regional thing. I'm in Northern California.
I suppose the labor end of the Democratic party might subscribe to his politics but I put myself a good bit in that group and aside from his objections to the two major trade treaties currently floating out there I fi
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is a cult of personality. His words, his promises, his supporters and his detractors -- everything related to Trump has to do with his personality and not with any incoherent policy crap he tees from
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is not a president, he's a nuke meant to destroy the system.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of self-styled libertarians aren't really libertarians philosophically. They just despise the two establishment parties, and the LP happened to be the biggest alternative for a "fuck you" vote. Now that Trump has become the biggest "fuck you" vote, they flock to him. Sanders is other "fuck you" vote, which is why you have the seemingly incomprehensible scenario of significant number of people who are willing to cast their vote for the polar opposite if the other fails.
Re: (Score:3)
So it's the politically incorrect angle that is getting him this support? The "not of government" angle is bullshit as his multiple files for bankruptcy only helped increase his wealth, He isnt small government at all which is why it baffles me he gets any libertarian supporters at all. Why not vote for a communist who promises to keep all the foreigners away? I suppose I shouldnt be surprised as so many people I meet seem to not be able to rationalize their political choices in any meaningful context, incl
Trump is the best internet comments section! (Score:2)
If there ever was a +5, Troll that deserved it, it's Trump.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If there's any candidate who is prepared to kick Wall St in the pants
Why does everything relating to government have to be about punishing people (who are different than you and therefore apparently "fair game" for whatever ill treatment)? Why can't we ask government to make things better for all of us rather than pursuing old grievances and settling scores?
It's not just Wall St either. It's 100 different designated villains of whatever story, true or false, someone wants to tell. Hillary is "fighting for you" against the villains (a.k.a. your neighbor the banker or pharm
Re: (Score:3)
There are real villains out there. That's why it gets people's attention when politicians talk about villains, even though they actually only talk about decoy villains while they protect the actual villains.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier than solving problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their, there and they're. One of the finest examples of why people despair of learning English as a second language. People born to it can't even handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
Try the portuguese/spanish "porque/por que/por quê/porquê".
What? (Score:2)
Peter Thiel has agreed to back Trump as a California delegate in Cleveland this summer.
What is that supposed to mean?
Re: (Score:3)
It means the money people are starting to get on board. At least some of them. I suspect a lot of others will be much more reluctant. I'm loving this election. I thrive on Chaos and thanks to Bernie and Donald it's been great so far.
Ah yes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Peter "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" Thiel.
There's a man whose opinions I'm going to care about.
Trump+PayPal? (Score:3)
As if Trump weren't objectionable enough!
PayPal...UGH!
Sheesh! (Score:2)
First he helps to create the utterly evil PayPal; then he starts funding a list of politicians who, (with the possible exception of Ron Paul), are venomous and/or vacuous scuzzbuckets. "Peter Thiel - Raising Corporate Political Influence while Razing Your Country". Sounds rather like a campaign slogan, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Who woulda thunkit (Score:2)
Rich guy founder of famously abusive financial racket backs rich guy fraudster thug presidential candidate. Who woulda thunkit? Chickens lay down and prepare to be plucked.
How is it ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... that with all Trump is known for, and who is supporting him, that he has a large following in the low-income parts of the people? The myth of "trickle down economics" has been shown to not work, as proven by the US economics, as well as world wide, with the gap between the wealth of the wealthy and that of the poor ever widening ... how can ANYBODY (apart from the very well off) vote for someone standing for the policies that Trump (and, for that matter, most of the other GOP candidates)??
Just wondering ...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
... that with all Trump is known for, and who is supporting him, that he has a large following in the low-income parts of the people?
That's been debunked as a myth [fivethirtyeight.com], you know...