Also, there are varying degrees of agree-ability. I do not agree with many of Hillary's policies, but there aren't any that I would take a firm stance against. Most of Donald's policies are different: I don't agree with them, and I believe it'd be awful if they were to actually happen.
You have to understand that that is how some people feel about Hillary. That losing their own vote forever, for their entire gender, would be worth it to them to keep her out of office.
I think the problem is that's not true. From what I've read, people don't support a candidate because they agree or disagree with the opposition on real-terms. They support because of "fake terms."
I consider these fake terms to be one I hear a lot from Trump supporters: "Hillary Clinton wants to take our guns away."
> women (a small number, mind you) were tweeting they'd gladly give up their right to vote if it got Trump elected.
There are plenty of women that think women shouldn't vote, regardless of Trump! There are men who think men shouldn't vote, etc.. etc.. fortunately, the internet gives them a platform: unfortunately, sometimes these groups aren't keen on reason.
For a lot of people, this year, you are basically on a scale from yourself with no chance to the major nominees with at least 99.9% of the chance and almost nothing you agree with.
1. A rich and powerful person parroting Trump's evil statements --> ban from YC.
2. A rich and powerful person helping put Trump in a position to turn his evil statements into reality for an entire country --> No ban from YC.
Has this happened yet?
Also, the Supreme Court does not believe money is speech. If they did, campaign contribution limits would be obviously unconstitutional.
1. Donating to the Clinton Foundation is not the same as donating to the Clinton campaign.
2. Buying an album is not the same as donating money to a campaign or voting, both of which can meaningfully affect a large number of other people, unlike buying an album.
3. If you knowingly fund criminal operations without actually committing said crimes yourself you can definitely be held accountable for it by the law.
4. The US Supreme Court did rule that donating money is a form of free speech in Buckley v. Valeo, but this doesn't imply that free speech is limitless. As with other forms of speech, Congress has the power to place reasonable limits on it.
2. If money that supports speech is equivalent to making that speech, isn't this just a matter of degree?
3. I understand. Doesn't my specific example seem absurd, though?
4. But there are many more limitations on money than there are on speech. There is no limit on speech in support of a campaign. There is a limit on money in support of a campaign. Is that not enough evidence that money and speech are not equivalent, at least legally?
What about yelling "fire" in a crowded polling place?
:P
Let's assume Alice supports a candidate not because of their general positions but because of a certain niche position that person A thinks is really important.
If you hate a certain position the candidate believes but person A might feel ambivalent about, is it fair to redirect that anger to Alice?
The major difference I see between the candidate and Alice is simply that if another candidate that came along without the position you may hate but still having the niche belief, they may switch quite quickly.
Issue: A B C D E F G
A: O O O X X X O
B: O O X X O O X
Being well educated and successful doesn't mean he acts rationally at all time. Some persons get extremely passionate and dogmatic when it comes to politics. I'm just speculating but maybe Trump's personality and style appeals to him in an irresistible way.
This is a very dangerous way of viewing politics, and exactly the kind of black-and-white thinking we're trying to get away from. Just because you donate to someone, just because you vote for them, just because you campaign for them does not mean you agree 100% with everything they say. If 100% agreement were a prerequisite for voting for someone, nobody would ever vote. There has never been a candidate that has held all of my views, and there never will be, because my views are a pretty peculiar mix based on my experiences and exposure to information.
No, they're just saying they support that candidate. Maybe they support every position they hold, but that's not a corollary. Maybe they just really dislike the alternative candidates, and maybe they made this decision solely based on comparing two candidates on a single issue.
This rant isn't directed at you (or the article for that matter), but I have a disdain for people who decry single-issue voters. For whatever reason, being a single-issue voter is seen as this taboo that any educated and cultured individual ought to stay away from. I think that's bullshit, especially in a political realm as polarized as ours. In my eyes, there's nothing "wrong" with being a single issue voter. For any given individual, certain topics in politics affect them disproportionately. The idea that people shouldn't account for that when making their decision comes entirely from an ego-driven world of journalists, politicians, and academics who need to convince themselves that they consider politics from a hilltop, above and beyond the mere peasants who only care about themselves and their personal life.
And to bring this back to the topic at hand, if you agree with what I'm saying about single-issue voting, I think it's inconsistent to think that it reflects personally on someone to support Trump.
If you are a single issue voter that is:
* against foreign intervention
* concerned about the federal budget
* against the ACA
* against common core and the department of education
* for allowing marijuana legalization by individual states
* etc. etc. etc.
sort of yes, sort of no. this seems like it could be an all-or-nothing statement, which could be unrealistic.
every candidate is flawed and ultimately one has to make a decision on which will be the most beneficial wrt the issues you care about.
In that regard, donating really isn't saying much. It is simply saying "I think Trump will do a better job as president than Clinton."
That all said, I have no idea what Theil's political beliefs are so he might really agree with everything Trump says, but you can't infer that off of a donation to his campaign.
This is the primary reason I am so frustrated with friends of mine who are content to see Hillary and Trump as 'the same'. One of these two people will tilt the court away from the majority that decided on Citizens United. The other will tilt it further in favor of the side that decided on Citizens United.
Even if HRC was ideologically opposed to my own views I would vote for her since 4 or 8 years of HRC trumps (pardon the pun) the 40 years of SCOTUS seating the next president will set.
> If Thiel donates ... to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying.
It amplifies the speaker's message at a point in time when it may still affect others who hear it.
By the time you vote, in secret, your choice affects no other voters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
"The majority, in a per curiam opinion, contended that expenditure limits contravened the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because spending money, in its view, was the same as written or verbal expression."
It's possible for someone to agree with some things a candidate says, and disagree with other things. If I agree with more things Trump says than things Clinton says (or does, or believes, etc...) then it makes sense to support that candidate. So money is not speech. Even votes are not speech.
Disagree.
Thiel is making an investment. He can likely separate his emotions from his actions. I imagine Thiel doesn't agree with a lot of what Pence says about homosexuals, but that certainly didn't stop him from making the investment.
http://fortune.com/2016/07/21/peter-thiel-gives-full-throate...
The only way that this could be anything less than a full support of the Trump platform, would be if Thiel had specifically rejected large chunks of the platform are bad, and he's not supporting them, but there's some things there in particular that he finds so important that they override all the bad stuff. In other words, the "lesser of two evils" endorsement, such as some Republicans have made for Clinton this year.
Thiel didn't do that. In his speech, the only reference to that was decrying the "fake culture wars".
Ergo, he fully supports not just Trump, but the entirety of the Trump platform.
I've had way too much of people getting fired for petty personal disagreements or baseless accusations.
And wasn't this the argument made by those who supported the ouster of Brendan Eich from Mozilla?
How is being uninvited as a keynote speaker being burned at the stake? Or even remotely comparable to the policies that Donald Trump has advocated (killing the families of suspected terrorists, jailing political opponents) or bragging about sexual assault, which is illegal?
I can see why folks had an issue with Eich being forced out of Mozilla, but the world isn't black and white when it comes to "free speech". Allowing free speech doesn't mean that you should be shielded from the consequences from the world at large.
1) Germans forced to march through an extermination camp because their cowardice in not stopping Hitler made them responsible for his actions.
2) Osama bin Laden justifying 9/11 by saying citizens are responsible for the actions of the US Govt.
Do you like either interpretation of your statement?
- Voters holding candidates responsible for where their support comes from, and whether that will influence their actions in office. - Consumers / collaborators / whatnot holding financiers responsible for what they are funding.
I, as a voter, do choose to take into account who is funding a candidate's campaign.
I, as a consumer / potential employee / human, take into account the speech funded by someone I'm intending to conduct a transaction with / form a friendship with, as evidence of their character.
Apparently the apology was over "half" rather than "deplorables".
Mitt Romney dismissed 47% of the voting public in 2012 and was roundly criticized for dismissing the people he supposedly wanted to lead.
If Clinton had said 46%, would that have made it ok?
It's not dismissing them, it's saying they hold contemptible views. Just as, at one point in time, I'd imagine 50% of the population were in favour of slavery.
It's not a good political move, but it's telling the truth.
I don't have any problem with what Clinton said. Based on the numerous polls, she is absolutely correct. It may not be a politically prudent thing to say, but that's not an ethical matter.
Which is fair. It's impossible to deny that there are white supremacists (who are deplorable) that support Trump. They're very candid about it.
So what is the acceptable number? "Almost half"?
And what does that say about the rest of the group? Are they too to be damned by association, for standing too close to the "real deplorables"?
This is precisely where your whole argument fell apart. If money is speech (and SCOTUS tells us it is) and Thiel donates over $1 million to Trump's campaign, then he effectively is saying what Trump is saying.
Money talks. In our society, it's almost always even louder than the calm reasoning of a rationalist.