Maybe he was kicked off the board for 'wrong think' - he certainly was chastised by members of Facebook's board for endorsing & contributing to Donald Trump's Presidential campaign (Trump's victory vindication of said endorsement & contribution).

While Thiel was endorsing/investing who would ultimately win - YC's President did the opposite.

While Theil's endorsement/investment in Trump was based on principal - I don't know if the same can be said for YC's endorsement of Hillary. At the time, it came as a surprise ie- a prominent tech company claiming to invest in 'hackers' endorsing a candidate who had just been exposed as technically incompetent (and/or corrupt) via thousands of leaked emails.

It also came across as contrived. Because those same emails revealed Eric Schmidt's role as technical/marketing/search consultant for Hillary's campaign and so it was not a stretch to assume Eric was leveraging his prominence & connections in tech to solicit endorsements from SV 'leaders'.

> a prominent tech company claiming to invest in 'hackers' endorsing a candidate who had just been exposed as technically incompetent

Her opponent is wildly incompetent with technology. I'm not sure why you latch onto this idea that Clinton was uniquely bad at IT. Googling comes up with exactly two photos of Trump ever using a computer. He doesn't even have a web browser on his phone [according to this NYT article](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/john-kelly-tr...).

Hillary, as Secretary of State, had an unauthorized email server running from a household bathroom that was being used to transmit classified material (that she lied about).

If not technically incompetent, then sure - how about woefully ignorant, deceitful & corrupt and in no position to take lead role of the world's most powerful country. And that is not even taking into account the beef in the leaked emails, for example there are a lot of very curious tidbits in there not limited to the omnimous "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker"[0] statement by her campaign manager John Podesta.

I don't know how any 'hacker' could honestly endorse this person, let alone the president of YC. No personal offense to Sam. I dont' judge people based on political opinion (especially cause an opinion is malleable; it can change and as such people shouldn't be judged based on them) but do like to point out anomalies & contradictions.

[0]https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082

> I dont' judge people based on political opinion ... but do like to point out anomalies & contradictions.

Everyone has anomalies and contradictions. Chucking substance and just looking for red herrings is the exact opposite of the type of critical analysis people need to do.

Fair point, but staying silent isn't a good option either. If everyone chucks substance perhaps at least there are those on the sidelines who can aggregate all of it, dig deeper, critically analyze & and make their own determinations.

I think most of us could see that even with Hillary doing that, she would be a better president than Trump. Everything you list about Hillary can be applied to Trump several times over. Overall, it was two truly horrible candidates that we had to choose from; and the worst one won.

I don't know how any 'hacker' could argue right now that Trump is a better president than Hillary could have been.

We have a different definition of hacker.

A few logical errors: 1. He doesn't have a web browser because of the security concerns, and this is not unique to him. 2. Trump using a computer is a rare photo, same can be said for many many celebrities (career politicians at a computer is rather not rare due to public filming in Congressional buildings for example) 3. Trump has been known to be a late-night researcher (Cruz's father killed JFK?, InfoWars, etc.)

Sam Altman himself explicitly said they weren't cutting ties with Thiel after the donation was known and they were pressured to do so. It would be strange to withstand that criticism only to silently do so afterwards.

Yes, it would be strange and also concerning and rather dishonest & contradictory - a little damaging to the integrity of the brand (which IMO has already been tarnished via the gleaming endorsement of Hillary Clinton in late 2016).

But perhaps someone has a link to a statement or article from YC on the matter where their position is clarified; I'm sure many of us would love to know.