He may not be explicitly against non-white, non-male, non-gay, non-christian people, but he may be perfectly willing to have them thrown under the bus as long as he gets what he wants.

Some people find that deplorable.

There is a similar dynamic in play with Trump's support from evangelicals. His personal choices are nearly 100% at odds with their social conservatism, but many evangelicals seem ok with this as long as he nominates a judge that will repeal Roe vs. Wade.

Such evangelicals probably aren't really in favour of Trump, but are willing to throw many people under the bus to get what they want as well.

So... I agree that Thiel may not explicitly support everything Trump advocates (who really could), but all the same, it is valid to criticize him for the things he is willing to tolerate to get what he wants.

Sure, but that's a consequence of a 2 party system and choosing the lesser evil, isn't it?

He's both Libertarian and gay, both are extremely socially liberal. Why do you say he is socially conservative? I'm not seeing that.

A lot of Libertarian tend to vote Republican because they feel stronger about economic issues, high taxes, 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, etc, than they do about social issues but that is just because there are only 2 choices (my bedroom vs my wallet).

A vote for either party is throwing everyone from the other party under the bus, isn't it?

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-31-control-o...

> A lot of Libertarian tend to vote Republican because they feel stronger about economic issues, high taxes, 2nd amendment, freedom of religion, etc, than they do about social issues

But that's the problem. Who exactly are affected by these "Social issues"? (Hint: It's not rich white guys).

That's democracy in general and one of the problems with it. People will generally vote for whatever is in their best interest at the expense of someone else. The 2 party system exacerbates the problem and steals choice from people by not allowing them to vote on specific issues.

That wasn't the argument I was making. What I was saying is that a policy of "We will allow people to express their political views free of judgement and consequence" only really works when "political views" is taken to mean "things we're saying about people who aren't in the room".

I'm not sure I follow. Any political view usually affects all people in any room.

Are you referring to Trump's bigotry? Sure, I'll admit, he is definitely a character in that regard. But again there's realistically only 2 choices. Thiel is going to take whichever one is closest. It's not ideal but that's the choice Libertarians are often forced to make.

Get a bunch of men in a room, and discuss abortion.

Get a bunch of straight folks in a room and discuss AIDS research funding.

Get a bunch of white folks in a room and discuss police treatment of African-Americans.

Get a bunch of 5th-generation Americans in a room and discuss funding for ESL programs in schools.

Welcome to Democracy