Nobody ever ran for the Presidency of a dictatorship, that's kinda like their defining feature.

I'd point to Putin, Erdogan and Victor Orban as current strongmen who were elected democratically and slowly transformed their countries towards authoritarianism.

The parallels are undeniable: a bit of hatred against the "other", a lot of complaining about the media (and calling for laws to stop their "lying"), the hyper-masculine rhetoric and so on.

From what I understand of the US Constitution, there is a very good degree of separation of powers along with checks and balances to make this very difficult to implement in a practical sense, and would necessarily require both houses of congress as well as the supreme court to all be complicit in the act, thus requiring more than just one immoral person to pull off.

Indeed, but it's not one person. It's him and apparently 40% of the population, and large parts of the Republican establishment have also fallen in line (and many more would have if another 5% had switched to his side and made him the frontrunner).

These things don't happen overnight, and the single most important firewall may be the presidential term limit, and the absence of any similar office (like Russia's "prime minister" that Putin switched to when he was term-limited, installing Medvedev as his puppet in the meantime).

I'd hope that the limit is such a binary line that 8 year's aren't enough to change that perception. But who knows? Maybe he could have created a narrative to legitimize another term. Some sort of crisis... The usual.

But, luckily, the worst now seems unlikely to happen. It still seems important to run up the score, and then we'll see how his party deals with it. Ideologically, at least on economics, there isn't much left of what was called conservatism a year ago.

> Indeed, but it's not one person. It's him and apparently 40% of the population, and large parts of the Republican establishment have also fallen in line (and many more would have if another 5% had switched to his side and made him the frontrunner).

I don't agree with this 40% thing because it's not sufficient to say that because they support him, they support his worst ideas. Maybe they support his best ideas, and have a high degree of confidence that the worst will not happen. Nobody has foreknowledge of what a President will actually do in office. We can choose to use our best judgment and apply it while voting - that is why everyone gets one vote, to exercise that judgment.

To argue that those who are voting for him are in favor of racism, bigotry, etc. is a generalization. Would you generalize this way about followers of any religion? Many religions advocate some oppressive ideas, but we give followers the benefit of the doubt beforehand by saying that unless proved otherwise, let's first assume that they are peace-loving tolerant people of faith who believe only the "good parts" of this book, and not the violent parts. We don't seem to be doing that in politics, and I think that's wrong.

This is the situation: Identity politics makes gross hyperbole socially acceptable with ~50% of the population and "fightin words" with the other half.

Again, this is an argument you might first take up with Paul Graham and Sam Altman, because they disagree with you.

If you won't defend it, don't parrot it.

Again: I actually appreciate the comments here strenuously suggesting that Trump is no real threat to democracy. This is the sentiment Altman is making room for by continuing to endorse Thiel. Their relationship works to normalize Donald Trump.

If Sam Altman is comfortable with that, he should remain affiliated with Thiel.

I am really confused by your comments here. You keep invoking Sam and Paul, but what does their business relationship with Thiel have to do with political support? Should they delete him from their contact list, too? What level of separation would you, tptacek, require of someone to disassociate themselves from a political opponent?

Your comments are infuriating in another way, because you're not actually debating what many people here are trying to talk about. You are dodging any defense of your assertions that Trump would be like a dictator, while backhandedly repeating it. That's not a conversation. That's preaching, and dodging.

Postscript: Trump can only "act like a dictator" so far as he can abuse the massive expansion of presidential power granted as much by the Democratic party as from Republicans. But I won't defend that here. I'll just tell you that other, smarter people think it too, and you should ask them about it.

>Your comments are infuriating in another way, because you're not actually debating what many people here are trying to talk about.

tptacek is focusing on the article. He has a very simple argument that Altman is acting shamefully.

This argument depends on Altman believing that Trump is a threat to democracy. It does not depend on anyone else believing that Trump is a threat to democracy.

tptacek wants to settle that, rather than get mired in arguing about Trump.

It's not preaching and dodging. It's focusing.

tptacek is arguing Sam A and Paul G are being inconsistent. I think maybe he could've made that point more clear by being a little less clever with his comments. :)

He is arguing with prejudice, so "clever" comments are by design.

I'm not discussing whether Trump would be a dictator because that's not my argument. If you believe Trump wouldn't be a dictator, I am entirely comfortable with your support of Peter Thiel.

Lol. "I appreciate this discussion because, just the fact that there is a discussion, proves I'm right"?

It proves your beliefs are not universally held by the community. It supports my points, not yours.

No one has the influence to convert the US to anything overnight. However, I do think that normalizing the language of authoritarianism can have long-term negative effects on our democratic process.

The same thing can be said about the normalization of globalization and technological progress which allowed the politicians and the companies who pay for their campaigns to trade jobs for cheap flat screens.

Ignoring one just because the other is more obvious isn't any better in my book.

No need to assume that I'm ignoring anything. I'm willing to accept globalization and technological progress despite their many imperfections because they have real, tangible benefits to humanity. On the other hand, the only person that stands to gain from authoritarianism is its leader.

Yeah so you are willing to accept the collateral damage of those who don't stand to benefit and whose lives are being destroyed from that. This is just another version of the same. Not better, not worse, just different.

This is exactly why the anti-Trump hyperbole is dangerous.

If the world is ending and the country is at stake then both sides take up pitchforks.

Trumps authoritarianism is much less threatening than the same rhetoric from Obama or Hillary.

A lot of people are advocating authoritarianism- in fact thats the point of this whole thread- whether we should "excommunicate" Peter Theil.

But they don't seem to realize that leftism is essentially more authoritarian than rightism. Rightists want economic freedom, Leftists don't. (On social freedom neither of them want it- which is why Obama didn't try to legalize gay marriage, and picked Joe Biden the architect of the war on teen pot smokers as a running mate.)

Why don't liberals recognized that Hillary and Obama are authoritarians?

They're authoritarian in a sense too, but only in the ways you would expect people inside of an institution wanting to expand that institution's powers.

Trump is authoritarian in a different, more overt way. He's proposed extreme authoritarian moves like mass deportation, religious tests for entry to the US, camps, and directing the justice system at political enemies.

Maybe you don't see the difference between their versions of authoritarianism, but I do, and a lot of other people do too. It's an unfair comparison, and I think you should be able to recognize that.

There's historical evidence of people being elected, in democracies, and turning them into dictatorships. Part of the process looks the same as what Trump is doing. (e.g. saying the election is rigged therefore calling the process illegitimate, saying he'd put his political opponent in jail).

If that doesn't persuade you, what kind of evidence would persuade you?

Oh, I'm persuaded- just look at the actions of W and Obama - both moved the presidency closer to dictatorship.

As for elections not being legitimate, that clam was made repeatedly, with merit, after 2000. The democrats lost, and they lost due to widespread fraud.

Finally, Hillary belongs in jail. Basically all of the allegations have been proven by the wikileaks email releases.

When your opponent is a blatant criminal it's quite fair to say "you'll be in jail" and quite different than saying "I'm going to jail you for disagreeing with me" which is what people seem to want to clam he said (so basically they are lying about him. If he's so obviously reprehensible, why the need to lie about him?)

"Basically all of the allegations have been proven by the wikileaks email releases."

Hmm. Interesting. What allegations do you think were proven? I was under the (mistaken?) impression that they mostly proved things that seem bad, nothing that was specifically criminal. It's not like we didn't know the details of the whole email situation beforehand.

Also, thought experiment - how would you react if Hillary Clinton were to say that she would appoint a special prosecutor to jail Trump for sexual harassment?

Edit: BTW, afaik, the democrats' allegations in 2000 came after the results of the election. They didn't repeatedly claim ahead of time that the election was rigged. Not sure if this is a huge difference, just putting it out there.

"When your opponent is a blatant criminal it's quite fair to say "you'll be in jail" and quite different than saying "I'm going to jail you for disagreeing with me""

sigh

No, you still can't say that. Presidents cannot tell their attorney general who to prosecute or not to prosecute, even if the President thinks the person is a blatant criminal.

Maybe if you stopped to think about it a little bit, you would understand why allowing this could lead to very bad abuses of power?

Historical footnote that is not news to 'jimbokun but which I get the sense might be news to some of the people in this thread: the last time a President tried to interfere with the prerogative of their Attorney General, their administration collapsed as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

Also odd considering Trump spent the entire nomination campaign shilling his deal making abilities, and how he would lead by consensus instead of executive orders.

I don't see how YC denying Peter Thiel is anything more than political theatre it has no bearing on whether Trump will win or not.

All these distractions when the US has two states CT and IL in near bankruptcy due to pensions being 200%+ over state revenues, and a frightening national debt meaning Feds will likely not be able to bail them out. Wish everybody could panic over that not Thiel being involved with YC.

States can go bankrupt. The Federal government cannot.

"A bit childish, considering the slot the candidate is running for is not in a dictatorship."

True, but Trump's rhetoric indicates he has not grasped the distinction.