This may surprise you but the Republican Party, like all political parties, isn’t monolithic.

How can one be a libertarian and support Trump? Meanwhile someone being Republican [or Democrat to a lesser extent] and supporting Trump makes sense in terms of the core principles of each party.

You choose the candidate/party that best aligns with your views even if they don't align very well.

There’s a big difference between choosing and publicly loudly and financially supporting said parties specific politicians like Trump who do not align at all except in one aspect (taxing the wealthy and corporations less). In this specific case it isn’t “don’t align very well”.

The best equivalent would be socialists strongly, publicly, and financially advocating for Hillary like Thiel to Trump in 2016. That didn’t happen.

A preemptive note: Bernie is a democratic socialist. That’s what he himself says he is. Not a socialist.

“The Squad” seemed pretty happy to stump for Biden despite it being clear their interests barely overlap.

Does "The Squad" refer to the actual politicians or their bases? Because those groups are playing two different games. The only people I've ever met who were enthusiastic about Biden were hardcore Democratic Party mega-volunteers or staffers.

Biden has grown on me. Exiting Afghanistan helped. Were it not for Manchin and Sinema, his BBB package had a lot of progressive goals stitched in its fabric. He is, like Carter before him, an utterly decent man.

Biden as a symbol is everything I dislike. However you just made me realize he has grown on me too. In practical terms, people are being incredibly hard on him. Even I’m thinking whoa now. Exactly as you stated. He did leave however flawed. And he can’t do much with the two senators there.

I draw the line on him being an utterly decent man. He wasn’t chosen as Obama’s running mate for being someone who could stitch a few progressive goals together. He was chosen because of how conservative he was. Never apologizing for his rabid support of tough on crime (disproportionately affecting lower socioeconomic and minority people/men)

Biden has regretted the 1990s crime bills.

https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2019/01/21/biden-s...

That’s nice. To do it on MLK’s commemoration is very off putting. It’s fine with the white washed MLK version. Not for the actual MLK.

I mean I just choose not to participate, but I guess this is what we get with what’s effectively a 2 party system.

I think you'd be surprised how many votes for Trump in 2016 were actually votes for "not Hillary".

I think you'd be surprised that "not Hillary" wasn't on either the 2016 Republican primary ballot nor on the 2016 general election ballot. Trump was. He was also on the 2020 Republican primary and general election ballots. "not Hillary" wasn't on any of the 2020 ballots.

You should re-read the simple sentence you're replying to. At the 2016 election, if you didn't want Hillary elected, you had to vote Republican, i.e. for Trump. How is this even up for debate?

Yes this is true to an extent in a vacuum. However for context with the overall thread. Many no-Hillary Trump voting people continued to support Trump through now. At which point it isn’t as clear cut it was actually a no Hillary stance as much as a combination of things while the easiest and trendy out at the time was to say no Hillary as your principe.

Otherwise yeah you’re right some did do just that for that one time.

Republicans need to take responsibility for their decisions. First, Republicans chose Trump in the primary. They had choices. They chose Trump. Then they supported him in the general. Then they supported him for re-election. That isn't up for debate.

You should probably argue your anti-Trump case somewhere relevant. Your points have nothing to do with either of the comments you're replying to.

Thiel didn’t just vote for Trump. The OP stated he did more than that. And from what I’ve read he has done more than that too.

I'm not arguing "Thiel is a good guy", but if he didn't want Hillary elected (assumption), using his public profile to boost Trump pre-election != actual MAGA hat Trump true believer.

I’m not referring to Thiel’s morality. Only on actually being libertarian. Sure what you wrote is technically plausible.

However he continues to work with the Trumps. Recently he’s working with Trumps to oust Liz Cheney. His own PACs focuses include many non-libertarian focuses. Immigration control, strict border control, supporting the military as it is now, are some of the top issues of the PAC. These actions are of a conservative Republican, not a libertarian.

Wanting to oust Liz Cheney does not make someone not a libertarian. And military and border control are among the few things that many libertarians believe to be a valid function of a national government.

None of those things prove he's not a libertarian.

Supporting huge military? Right immigration control?

The Liz Cheney stuff was about working with Don Jr. The reason why is unimportant.

The entire point of all this is for there not to be one smoking gun. It’s a collection of everything.

The entire way the right has obfuscated things is by getting by with “no one thing proves I am or am not X or Y”

I don't know what your questions mean or how it addresses my comment so I'll just repeat.

Political maneuvering doesn't mean someone is not a libertarian, and military and border control are not incompatible with libertarianism either.

Thiel like anybody has pretty complex views that don't fit neatly in a box, you could argue where they put him in the spectrum, but the examples you used are poor. I know many libertarian purists obsess over their image and "principle" to the detriment of actually achieving anything politically, but that doesn't mean all of them act this way.

The Republican Party doesn't have to be monolithic for Peter Thiel to be a Republican, which he is.

In particular, Thiel's hawkish military views and (seeming) comfort with just about everything the police and MIC do as long as it pays him puts him thoroughly at odds with stated libertarian orthodoxy.

You missed the point, which is that Thiel is the “libertarian” OP referred to, not the Austrian which many people incorrectly assumed.

Thiel can also be a libertarian who registers and votes Republicans in our two-party system. Libertarianism, whatever you think of it, is more of a political philosophy than a political party, and Republicanism is definitely more of a political party than a political philosophy.

Many libertarians vote Republican.

Voting is different from actively supporting candidates. Outside of lower taxes [for corporations and the wealthy primarily], there is no overlap or rational link between libertarianism and actively supporting Trump.

If libertarians are actively and strongly supporting specific Republican figures like Thiel is. Politicians who have little to no objections and in fact at times expand the huge spending that is defense, general pork spending, social security, and Medicare. Politicians who don’t don’t even draw a hard line on government staying out of personal life and at times want to expand that (think forcing companies to not be allowed to have mask or vaccine rules or ruling on abortion). Thiel publicly supports these sorts of politicians. Not just quietly voting because of a weak two party system less evil situation. Then how are they libertarian? The definition doesn’t fit.

> Voting is different from actively supporting candidates.

Different things are different.

You vote for a candidate because you would prefer them to win. Which is possibly included among the reasons you would support them in other ways.

> Outside of lower taxes [for corporations and the wealthy primarily], there is no overlap or rational link between libertarianism and actively supporting Trump.

Many libertarians support Republicans.

The thread wasn’t about voting. It was about Thiel’s active involvement. Which is the comment you directly responded to.

> Many libertarians support Republicans.

I don’t disagree some do that. However with you repeating this “many”. Any one can call themselves anything. It doesn’t make it so. OTOH I see no issue if the statement was “Many people who say they are libertarian support Republicans”

> The thread wasn’t about voting. It was about Thiel’s active involvement. Which is the comment you directly responded to.

We've moved on from that.

> I don’t disagree some do that. However with you repeating this “many”. Any one can call themselves anything. It doesn’t make it so. OTOH I see no issue if the statement was “Many people who say they are libertarian support Republicans”

Well you're just wrong about that.

https://www.cato.org/blog/how-many-libertarians-are-there-an...

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-o...

Roughly 10-20% of people are libertarians not only how they identify but their stance on various issues. And yet votes, political donations, lobbying, party membership, etc. is far more skewed to the two big parties. Which means they are pragmatic and send their votes and support to where it might make the best difference. Like most people.

Many libertarians support Republicans. I'm really quite astounded you're having such a big problem coping with that.

I read through the links. The oversimplification of liberal by Cato and the references it has is quite a thing. To have a range of different conservative grouping and then liberals is also quite a thing.

The other link brings up Rand Paul. Do we really have to go over how Rand Paul as a senator has not been libertarian? His focus is on taxing less. Especially the wealthy and corporations. Otherwise his views frequently wildly divert from libertarianism into default conservative Republican views.

My original statement remains. Your links have at best given support for both of us. At worst it gave support to my “coping”.

> moved on from that

When? Unless this is clever satire where you shift and move the conversation as you please. Show the issue with people like Thiel and Rand Paul identifying as libertarian whilst enjoying conservative authority quite a bit. Bravo if so.

I don't think it is an oversimplification. I think you are making some over simplified libertarian purity test. Even at the most conservative estimates, the numbers clearly show there are many more libertarians than vote for libertarian parties (or donate to, which is a reasonable if not ideal proxy for donations by libertarians I would say).

Your original point doesn't stand, many libertarians support Republicans. It's truly weird logic that you (begrudgingly) accept that libertarians vote for Republicans, and yet you think any other form of "active" support would be out of the question. Doesn't make any sense. If a libertarian wanted to be active in politics it's quite reasonable to think many would support the same candidates they vote for.

Your strong bias and attitude showed in your other comment on Clinton and Bush as pathetic warmongering neoliberals. It is not incorrect. However to bring those up and exclude Trump or any other very high up politician of the two parties of not being the same thing except some are neoconservatives (which is close to neoliberals), is telling.

Your gaslighting tactics have become more pronounced now too. I never begrudgingly accepted what you stated. I believe I had an apt example. A person identifying in good faith as a socialist isn’t going to be supporting establishment Dems like Thiel and Rand Paul and similar “libertarians” do for their counterparts. I believe you or someone else brought up The Squad. Which has an easy response - the socialist supporters of theirs are not them. The Squad are also not socialists. They are progressives or democratic socialists. Affiliations with differences that are bigger than neolibs and neocons, imho.

I see this is likely about the well worn tactic of conservative [republicans] not identifying as such. Leftists don’t have a pattern of hiding this way. OTOH, there are countless examples of traditional belief right wingers who continue to do this. Supporters around them will continue to dig their heels in saying this facade is not so.

All of this fits with your belief that it is not an oversimplification to label centrists, center-left, neoliberals, progressives, hard leftists, and further on the left all as liberal.

Reality is not "bias" and disdain for warmongers is not "attitude". Sorry you feel that way, it really shows in the rest of your comment.

And if you didn't accept that, it wasn't gaslighting it was a mistake on my behalf. I thought you did -- you still honestly don't believe many libertarians vote Republican? The data just doesn't agree with you, so either you're willfully ignorant of it or using some no true libertarian fallacy.

> see this is likely about the well worn tactic of conservative [republicans] not identifying as such. Leftists don’t have a pattern of hiding this way. OTOH, there are countless examples of traditional belief right wingers who continue to do this. Supporters around them will continue to dig their heels in saying this facade is not so.

That's all based on your no true libertarian beliefs that don't match reality though.

> All of this fits with your belief that it is not an oversimplification to label centrists, center-left, neoliberals, progressives, hard leftists, and further on the left all as liberal.

I have no such belief.

Since you bring them up, many people in the above categories from centrists to communists vote for and support the Democratic party. That doesn't make them not-a-hard-leftist, not even though many of them actually describe the Democrats as a right wing party and claim to dislike many of their policies! I don't know why you have such a mental block about libertarians who support Republicans.

> no true libertarian fallacy

The fallacy is about something specific. Not this. Is it a fallacy to say the Workers Party of Korea lead by Kim Jung un isn’t socialist? Or the PRC isn’t socialist?

> warmonger

Trump didn’t leave Afghanistan. After spending his entire campaign and presidency talking about how amazing he was for being against Iraq and seeing mistakes made this century.

Did he do anything to help out in the Middle East? Yemen continued being pillaged by America thru Saudi. Same with Palestine.

Trump did the pointless escalation of the Iranian general murder too.

That was my point. I said Trump was excluded in my last comment too. I also said it’s not incorrect to say they are warmongers.

> I have no such belief.

You linked to the two sites with studies/data, no? You bring up that data in other parts of your comment. They combined everything listed as liberal. I questioned that and you didn’t have an issue with it.

I’d like to see any non tiny portion of socialists or any one more to the left, support Dems. Voting for is not supporting.

Dem[s] and especially lib[eral] are used as pejoratives frequently in those circles. makes supporting the Dem party contradictory.

You said many will describe Dem party as right wing. How would they be supporting the party then?

So again it’s not the same thing. Your words like “mental block” saying I am stubborn. I understand if you believe those things about socialists and communists then you will not believe IMO more accurate critiques and accountability of a number of the people who say they are libertarians

—

Since it has been two days, a response might not happen. My tldr overall pt: many of the identifying libertarians aren’t as such. Prime example is some one brought up already - Rand Paul. The far left not wavering on their principles so much like supposed libertarians is telling.

This is just going in circles and all over the place. You seem to be upset about Trump and very upset I called his opponents what they are -- warmonger scum. Obama too, and Biden historically although if he's been forced away from wars by Trump's withdrawal plans and anti war rhetoric I'll take that as a great win and proof you don't have to hold office to effect political change.

And the no true libertarian fallacy is that you're saying people aren't libertarians based on your purity tests. You have failed to show why Thiel is not a libertarian: your examples (military and border control) are completely wrong.

And again, I have no such belief. How do you equate data with me believing that ridiculous thing you wrote.

Finally, you're playing semantics with the whole "voting is not supporting" thing. I know you have no argument without that, but voting is literally supporting. That said, even with your semantics, leftists certainly support Democrats. I haven't bothered to look up studies but everywhere I look I see it, on here, reddit, leftist politicians like Sanders, political donation data, and people I know. And you're just claiming without any data that leftists don't support democrats and libertarians don't support republicans. Both wrong.

I’ve stated already to you. Bernie is a social Democrat. My examples were socialists and communists. You switched to leftists. And again I already brought up this Bernie point before. You say semantics then you shoehorn in leftists when I have never brought leftists up. Just sub groups of leftists.

I don’t care if voting is technically supporting. It is obvious I mean support more than vote. Like Thiel does. This is something that has been consistent on my end and other people who responded to you in this thread.

You continue to restate something I then said fine to (military, border control). I said immigration and something else. You didn’t reply to that. You repeated something I did not argue against once you stated it. Why bring it up again?

—

How oh how am I “very upset” about what you said about his opponents? I said I did not disagree. How is saying that being very upset?

At this point every single thing I wrote in this comment shows you have repeated things or said things that have already been addressed. Then you take someone saying they do not disagree with your assessment on trump’s “opponents” (How are Bill Clinton and George Bush his opponents? So this isn’t true you didn’t bring up his opponents) as being very upset with it.

Yes I am upset with Trump. I am also upset with Clinton and George Bush. Obama too. Biden too.

> Biden historically although if he's been forced away from wars by Trump's withdrawal plans and anti war rhetoric I'll take that as a great win

Key word “if”.

Everything on your end has been seemingly done in bad faith. I listed all of this throughout this comment.

> And you're just claiming without any data that leftists don't support democrats

This was never said. More bad faith.

> And the no true libertarian fallacy is that you're saying people aren't libertarians based on your purity tests.

Reply to what I said. Is North Korea’s workers Union Les by Kim Jung Un, socialist? Is rhe PRC Govt communist as they say they are?

> going in circles

Yes because you like in this past comment keep regressing. Bringing up things as if they haven’t been brought up. Changing my words multiple times. Wild conjecture like being very upset with Trump opponents being called out when you didn’t even bring up his opponents. Regardless an incredible statement for someone who dislikes every one you have brought up.

Once of us is going in circles in bad faith. Which does not allow me to continue as nothing I say is actually properly responded to.

There is no reason to continue this as it doesn’t appear you can overcome issues like in the last comment.

> We've moved on from that.

Well, you keep moving on from it and everyone who replies on you keeps trying to move back toward the original topic.

No try to keep up, we moved on from the other poster's pedantic distraction about voting vs "active support" back to the original topic which is that Thiel is a libertarian and the fact he supports Republicans is not evidence he isn't one.

>No try to keep up, we moved on from the other poster's pedantic distraction about voting

Other poster? You brought it up the first time and have brought it up in every post since.

Bringing it back on topic yet again: if you agree Thiel is a libertarian and the fact he supports Republicans is not evidence he isn't one then we don't need to say any more here.

This is the main topic I cared about the entire time. Thiel isn’t libertarian except as he says he is one.

The other poster has made a good reply. I posted about Thiel being a conservative Republican [now] in another nested thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29747080

He supported a dude whose platform was mostly right-leaning populism. If he was just supporting Republicans because they were the closest to Libertarian ideals, why would support the dude driving the party away from Libertarian ideals?

And continue supporting the person. I checked Thiel headlines. He’s working with Don Jr now against Liz Cheney for a Trump approved replacement. This is just recent headlines too.

Thanks for your insightful comments

Why? Presumably because he preferred that to the alternatives, none of which were obviously more libertarian -- pathetic old neoliberal dinosaur warmongers Clinton and Bush!