To me this just seems part of democracy. Popular ideas will get a lot of financial support, and unpopular ideas will not get a lot of support. Have you considered the reach, the power and the wealth of the media establishment that is railing against Trump? I highly doubt that a million dollar is more than a drop in this contest. If Trump should not be allowed to get substantial financial support, why don't we simply forbid Trump to run at all?

I'm going to do my best to paraphrase both you and GP. If either of you feel I'm doing so unfairly or want to expand or clarify, please do.

I understand you to be discussing whether or not someone should be allowed to support a candidate or campaign.

The one I understand ashark to be making is about the ramifications of supporting a candidate or campaign.

They are related in the sense that the ramifications be so severe that it prevents someone from contributing, and that's worthy of (a separate) discussion

In this case, I don't think Peter Thiel is being prevented from contributing. I'm pretty sure he considered the ramifications before he made his contribution. What do you think?

Agreed. Throw in with a campaign or do anything else for that matter. Has there been anything from Peter Thiel on the response to his donation? I think it's highly likely he anticipated some kind of response to his donation. He may well have weighed this very response when making his decision to donate.

Right, to be clear I wasn't likening Thiel in particular to the kid in my analogy, since, like you, I'm not aware of how or even whether he's weighed in on this.

Frankly, part of why I responded to you was because it looks like you're trying to look at the behavior in general rather than the politics in particular, and I appreciate that. I'm trying to do the same.

Thanks for being part of that!