Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Billionaire Tech Investor Peter Thiel To Back Trump As GOP Presidential Candidate (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the influential-leaders dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Billionaire tech investor, co-founder and former CEO of PayPal Peter Thiel has agreed to back Trump as a California delegate in Cleveland this summer. He will be one of 172 selected Golden State delegates headed to the Republican National Convention. His support for Trump contrasts many other leaders, like A16z's Marc Andreessen who has voiced his distaste for Trump, tweeting: "OH: Trump is like an Internet comments section decided to run for President." In the past, Thiel, who is a libertarian at heart, has donated $2.6 million to Ron Paul in 2012 and added $2 million to a Super PAC backing Ted Cruz's former running mate ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina. He also gave $250,000 to Ted Cruz's bid for Texas attorney general in 2009.

26 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Lucas was right.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause..."

    Enjoy the slide down my dear countrymen. It's Mr. Toad's wild ride from here on out. Enjoy the political litmus tests and loyalty oaths...

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    1. Re:Lucas was right.... by sittingnut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you think liberty was alive in a country that had clintons, bushes, obama, etc running it for decades?
      no wonder you live in movie delusions.

    2. Re:Lucas was right.... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No more family dynasties. I'm done with Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Roosevelts, Harrisons, Adams, Madison/Taylors. With 320000000 people, Clinton and Trump (and the other runners) are the best the major parties can come up with? That says a lot about party politics in the US.

      Time for third parties to gain influence, as a step away from party politics.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Lucas was right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uh, yeah, the thunderous applause happened in 2008 for Obama.
      At least with Trump you aren't automatically called a racist and deemed wrong simply for disagreeing with him, which is why he'd be better than Hillary "war against women" Clinton.

    4. Re:Lucas was right.... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thiel represents a significant Republican demographic who would have in a saner political year supported Rand Paul. When the party hierarchy decided to shut out Paul before letting the people decide, Thiel and company say, "Let Trump burn the system down."

    5. Re: Lucas was right.... by gcswt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sanders is a magic bullet that lazy Leftists want to shoot and try to change everything from the top down. Real change comes local and works its way up. If you like Sanders ideas, you need to push them at a local level and change the culture there. You need to actually have conversations with moderates and Republicans and convince them it's the way to go, or god forbid, adjust your own ideas to gain support. The young always flock to a candidate that says all these magical things while calling everybody else names or tearing them down. It's hilarious to see the youth throw their votes away every cycle.

    6. Re: Lucas was right.... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sanders is a step along the road - not a shortcut to the end. It's a long road, and it will be a hike, not a quick skip and a jump. The problem is that too many young and overly idealistic sorts don't get that. Even if Sanders won, it's still far from over. You need to elect people who share the same bent at the local, state, and congressional levels too. Look at how the right wing took control of the Republican party - it certainly wasn't done simply by electing a president, it was done by electing candidates for Congress and elsewhere in primaries, getting involved in local party politics, and showing that they were a faction that couldn't be ignored. Eventually winning the party's presidential primary was almost a foregone conclusion, because in this cycle even the "moderate" ones had already veered hard right.to begin with.

    7. Re:Lucas was right.... by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you think liberty was alive in a country that had clintons, bushes, obama, etc running it for decades?
      no wonder you live in movie delusions.

      What's your problem with Obama? It's not like he's from a political family dynasty.

      Quite the contrary. If a black guy named "Barack Hussein Obama" who had a muslim father can become the president of the United States, it gives me hope that freedom and democracy are alive and well in the US.

    8. Re:Lucas was right.... by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      trying to stack SCOTUS and prolonging the great depression makes one a good president? id argue the policies put forth by FDR are directly related to the entitlement attitude of kids today. I used to love FDR, was my favorite president growing up, until i read more than school textbooks about him

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    9. Re:Lucas was right.... by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really? I think he is one of the best presidents the US ever had, considering he had to navigate the country across a mess of unfinished wars, economic depression and a probably unprecedented, uncompromising blockade of Republicans in congress (wouldn't surprise me if that was because he was 1/2 black, vague outsider - I guess that rubbed many rich, white boys in the GOP with ambitions the wrong way).

      But everyone is entitled to their opinion, fortunately.

  2. I'm far older than most of you on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    so I feel I can make an observation. I've noticed over the last 30 or so years that people have lost the art of public discourse. No one can disagree anymore without resorting to hateful vitriol, slinging insults, rioting in the streets. I don't get it. It's one thing to have a sense of justice, but quite another to act out.

    People confuse freedom with permissiveness. Freedom is the ordered pursuit of the good (or at least that's how I was taught). These days, if someone votes differently, acts differently, they are a bigot, a hater, a misogynist. It's time to restore decent public discourse.

    Peter has a right to back whomever he wishes, despite what we may think. We don't have to lambast him for his God-given rights. You would not want people to lambast you for your choices.

    1. Re:I'm far older than most of you on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I absolutely expect that public figures get lambasted for their political positions. That's part of freedom: you get held responsible for your choices, particularly if you make them PUBLIC.

      Public discourse isn't about being nice. Or tolerant. It's about ideas, and if your ideas suck, then I get to call you out on that.

      I'm not interested in people saying "Oh, Mr. Trump, that idea isn't really a good one. Maybe you might want to change it a little, to make it more nice." I'm interested in calling a spade a spade, and a bigot a bigot. Because that's what much of the rhetoric absolutely is: blatant bigotry.

      We've tried to cover up bigotry behind nice phrases and accommodations for too long. Better for it to be out in the open than hidden in niceties.

    2. Re:I'm far older than most of you on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, 30 years is about right. It's the direct result of conservatives dismantling the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. Turn on Rush Limbaugh and you'll see how public discourse was poisoned. But it helped win elections back then so it's all worthwhile!

    3. Re:I'm far older than most of you on /. by gcswt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's afraid of Muslims and he's concerned about a border that really needs some retooling. Reserve bigot for someone that actually believes a race is inferior. Ignore people's concerns about those subjects at your own risk. I don't think we need a wall and I don't think Muslims should be banned from the United States, but I can see how some Americans have been negatively impacted by the border and I can see how terrorism in Europe has been the result of not so great immigration policies (vetting) and I can empathize that some people are afraid of that happening here. Simply labeling Trump a bigot is politically useless. You need to discuss the issues on hand and bring "better" and rational ideas to the front if you want his supporters to come into a rational way of thinking. Trump represents some of our neighbors that we shouldn't simply ignore off hand.

    4. Re: I'm far older than most of you on /. by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bull. Most of the morality and decency we have in Western civilization comes from the enlightenment and is in SPITE of Christianity, not because of it.

  3. Pretty disingenuous to call Thiel a Libertarian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... if he's backing Cruz, Trump, Fiorina, and even Ron Paul.

    Nothing about the first three's positions have anything to do with Libertarian beliefs. The first is in favor of autocratic theocracy, the second is simply a demagogue with no actual beliefs other than saying whatever pops into his brain at the moment, and the third is a straight up Establishment Republican in favor of lots of regulation (just not on big business), no business taxes, and significant social dictates. Ron Paul only looks like a Libertarian; a closer examination of his policies reveal nothing more than an anti-internationalist foreign policy, long discredited economic views (a Gold Standard, really?), welded to a George Wallace view of social issues.

    Thiel's not a Libertarian. He's just a garden-variety Big Money Republican. He might be an interesting tech person, but his politics are pretty reprehensible.

  4. Re:We need to help republicans... by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a free market you can only expect sellers to rise to the level of their competition. Both parties are pushing absolute garbage because the voters don't demand better.

    Compared to someone like Cruz, I think we lucked out with Trump.

  5. Not a bad bet by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trump has loads of experience dealing with the upper echelons of finance, which is something that none of the other candidates have. If there's any candidate who is prepared to kick Wall St in the pants without destroying finance in general, it's probably him. Say what you will about him, but in bankruptcy, he forced them to come to the table and help him get out in order to save everyone's hides. That's the kind of man you want controlling the federal side of the table the next time Wall St threatens that if they don't get there way, we'll see an economic collapse.

  6. Re:We need to help republicans... by gcswt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Our election system isn't a free market. It's a market with only two sellers that control all the voting districts, funding & campaign spending rules. We need a voting system that lets us reject who is on the ballot rather than be forced to choose from two political monopolies.

  7. Ah yes... by SolemnLord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Peter "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" Thiel.

    There's a man whose opinions I'm going to care about.

  8. They got the best one possible by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Republicans got a candidate that in the general election will bring in a huge number of Democratic votes - one poll shows Trump at 2x the support of minority voters as any other Republican candidate (like Romney) has had.

    Yes Trump will lose some women, but more because Hillary is running than because of Trump - and that doesn't really matter because again polls show Hillary losing as many male votes as Trump loses female. That part is a wash.

    Lastly Trump is finally a candidate who is not a political insider like Hillary.

    The Democrats had their chance to elect someone as good, Sanders, but they choose to go with the most ancient rapist-protecting white person they could find, so they are toast in the general election.

    The very first debate will seal the deal with Trump dancing verbal rings around Hillary.

    Some Republicans right now say they will not vote for Trump but Hillary is a rather powerful counterforce for that notion...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  9. Not a political insider by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You should read more on Trump's history. Despite having money Trump has always been an outsider, because he was not from NYC proper originally. He's vastly farther away from being a political insider:

    1) Never been elected.
    2) Not from Harvard or Yale (how long ago do you have to look through presidents to find one that is not?)
    3) Not a lawyer

    You may think of him as the 1% because he is rich but the 1% generally do not really consider him to be "one of them". You know how it is in any group, some will not be accepted.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  10. Re:Alive and kicking by Stuarticus · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think he supports classic American Freedom, freedom for oneself and solitary confinement for everyone else.

    --
    If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  11. Re:We need to help republicans... by butzwonker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps both of you got it wrong. The US election system is a free market, it's just not the voters who buy the candidates (obviously) but rather the lobbyists.

  12. How is it ... by garry_g · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... that with all Trump is known for, and who is supporting him, that he has a large following in the low-income parts of the people? The myth of "trickle down economics" has been shown to not work, as proven by the US economics, as well as world wide, with the gap between the wealth of the wealthy and that of the poor ever widening ... how can ANYBODY (apart from the very well off) vote for someone standing for the policies that Trump (and, for that matter, most of the other GOP candidates)??

    Just wondering ...

  13. Re:Absolutely wrong... by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "and 44% of Sanders voters will vote for Trump [thehill.com]." Yeah. In WEST VIRGINIA. Do I even have to point out exactly how skewed that makes your "statistic?"