>... nevertheless his endorsement is worth discussing. It's obvious that trump is more aligned with his world view of a more risk taking, long-term planning and less people-pleasing leadership.

Given some of Thiel's views and statements on politics (and without necessarily making a value judgment on those views), I'd honestly put more money on his just wanting to hurt the functioning and credibility of the US government as much as possible by seeing Trump elected.

At least one source[1] reports it as: "'Peter has become an increasing admirer of Trump's public attacks on political correctness, especially what he has been saying about women,' says a close friend of Thiel...."

[1]https://heatst.com/politics/the-real-reasons-peter-thiel-has...

It's certainly a possibility. But what if political correctness is indeed becoming problematic. For example political correctness is often limited to "what he has been saying about women", even though in america racism is visibly more prevalent than sexism. In the end, i may not agree with the positions, but he doesnt sound like a fundamentalist who is not open to debate. Certainly people with contrarian views are not "not welcome".

Trump long-term planning? In what way?

What if Thiel started openly calling for the deportation of Muslims? Or if he started calling non-white people rapists? Or made grossly misogynist comments? Would it be alright to tell him to take a hike then?

At some point, if a person is supporting values that are antithetical to your culture, then you're going to ask them to leave. This may or may not be that time for Thiel.

You can't judge people with "what if they did X".

Many of the immigrants who arrive to a western countries have antithetical cultural views. Do you find it appropriate to tell them to take a hike? Isn't it better to act as grown ups instead?

> You can't judge people with "what if they did X".

What I'm saying is that at some point, someone's behavior will become toxic to "your group" (not the whole US - here, the "tech community" however you want to define that) and then they get asked to leave.

This is actually the mature thing to do, to part ways, as opposed to escalating conflict where the same thing happens in the end but the participants are left bloodied and hurting after the in-fighting.

No. The mature thing would be for you to part ways when in situations you disapprove of, not try to derail others' conversations about unrelated topics simply because you disagree with their politics.

You have a problem with Theil? Don't take funding from him. Or if you're exceptionally aggrieved then don't engage with Paypal, Facebook, Tesla, SpaceX or any other companies he's had an instrumental effect on as an employee or investor. More rational would be to simply put your energy into positively supporting a candidate you do approve of.

Not if the debate is conducted in civil terms. There is no indication that thiel will start shouting and calling names. However you're suggesting that people should be preemptively removed from debate. That's evil.

Thiel is though actively supporting someone for POTUS who has made jingoistic, racist and misogynist comments and stands by them. It's a discussion worth having. Saying that is "evil" is a bit over the top - Thiel is a rich and powerful person by any definition; he can more than handle some criticism.

Ok, but let's not call names ("evil") ourselves.