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.

54 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 Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Look at the energy plank in Sanders' platform. No natural gas, no nukes. Even the Commies supported industrial civilization, not going back to the Stone Age.

    6. 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.

    7. Re:Lucas was right.... by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Roosevelts were kind of an anti-dynasty. The Theodore Roosevelt side of the family didn't support Franklin in his run for President, according to some PBS special I saw last year.. Also Theodore was a Republican and Franklin was a Democrat. They were among the best presidents of the 20th century, though, arguably #1 and #2. I'll take that dynasty.

    8. 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.

    9. Re:Lucas was right.... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      At least with Trump you aren't automatically called a racist and deemed wrong simply for disagreeing with him...

      Well, you are right. It's agreeing with Trump that gets you called a racist.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    10. 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.

    11. Re:Lucas was right.... by Some+nick+or+other · · Score: 2

      I think I've got a better idea.

      Government by random selection.

      You can't have family dynasties if the family dynasts have the same probability to be chosen as everybody else. Expensive campaigning is removed at a stroke, and gerrymandering for House makes no sense because there are no boundaries to gerrymander. Paying legislators ahead of time and expecting a return on investment doesn't work either, because the randomly chosen representatives won't be chosen again next time around.

      For electing a president, choose a thousand people at random, hide them away somewhere, and let them find out whom to elect (by majority vote, taking as long time as needed). The candidate could either be among their numbers or from candidates presented by the parties, depending on how you'd like it to work. Same thing with Senators, only within each state. Or have the thousand choose two and let the people vote on them, like it were a referendum.

      Not that the system will ever permit it, though. It's incredibly easy to run a campaign against: "Would you want this schmuck to decide your laws?". Appealing to e.g. the Condorcet jury theorem that shows it's the size of the group that makes it good is going to be a lot harder. The image of the uneducated slob deciding a law is much more vivid than that of the wisdom of crowds.

    12. Re: Lucas was right.... by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So why do you wanna be stuck in the 19th century (fossil fuels) and the early 20th (nukes) ? Sander's plank is that we, in the 21st century, should be using 21st century technology - progress in other words. Literally the opposite of what you're accusing him off.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re: Lucas was right.... by tom229 · · Score: 2

      I think what he's taking about is that there's no evidence "21st century energy" is worth more than making us feel good. I assume you mean solar, wind, etc. While it all sounds good I've yet to hear of a community being able to provide this without heavy subsidising and/or an increase in energy costs. In the area I grew up, the government subsidized a project to build hundreds of windmills. It's been about 15 years now and my parents electricity bill is much higher, the skyline looks like a scene from war of the worlds, and the local government is debating bankruptcy. Like many far left policies that Bernie subscribes to, they sounds wonderful, but lack substance. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      So we can run the world on renewables while everyone gets free college, and healthcare? Sounds amazing! What's your plan? Oh, you're pretty sure Norway does it? That's all you've got? Forgive me for being skeptical.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    14. Re:Lucas was right.... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      repeating a lie enough times still doesnt make it true. He hasnt said anything that leads me to believe he is a racist, and no one has been able to show me anything that proves he is. unlike LBJ who said "ill have these niggers voting democrat for the next 100 years" what has trump said? he wants to keep out illegals (not racist) he wants to ban muslims from a war torn country where we are fighting muslism until we can figure things out? also not racist.

      can we stop spreading bullshit??

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

      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 had been paying even the smallest bit of attention, you'd be aware that virtually every single rally that Sanders speaks at, and virtually every debate performance in which he participates, includes him prominently declaring that real change never comes from the top down but from the bottom up.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    16. Re:Lucas was right.... by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      no, the fact that you cant point to a thing that he said that is actually racist and use the blanket EVERYTHING he says.... then accuse me of being racist... shows you are a typical piece of shit representative of todays society

      have a nice day

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    17. 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.

    18. Re:Lucas was right.... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Unfinshed wars (still unfinshed) we're back in Afgahanistan and Iraq, in case you missed the daily dead American drill from the press (oh wait, they don't care now that GWB is out of office)

      Economic Depression is still here, and as bad as it has been. The nearly 100 Million Americans out of the labor force, record levels of Food Stamps etc etc etc. But I am sure you're going to point to the "Official" unemployment rate to justify your view, while ignoring the fact that Obama hasn't had a single 3% growth rate GDP in nearly 8 years in office, a first for the US.

      unprecedented, uncompromising blockade of Republicans in congress is laughable, since they gave Obama just about everything he wanted for the last six years in terms of budget. Continued funding of all of Obama's illegal Executive orders. Which is one of the reasons the Republican voters rejected every single mainstream republican presidential candidate this year, without exception.

      And the rich white people were those running for the DNC, the Republicans (which I am not one) at least had variation in color, economic status from Very Rich (Trump) to someone who grew up as a poor black boy and became a world famous surgeon. The only "poor" person on the DNC side is that way because he wasn't successful until he figured out how to run for office.

      But yeah, keep parroting the same tired lines, while ignoring the real racism of low expectations. After 50 years and three generations, black people would realize that voting DNC hasn't help their community at all. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. We need to help republicans... by martiniturbide · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...to have more decent candidates.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. Re:We need to help republicans... by Z80a · · Score: 2

      People don't want a "better candidate", but someone that will wreck the system so hard, it will have to be rebuilt, because as it is, its just slowly but steadily fucking their lives in a irreversible way.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:We need to help republicans... by butzwonker · · Score: 2

      Maybe, but who in his right mind would vote for an egomaniac narcissist billionaire in order to rebuild the party system and support the American middle class? It doesn't make sense.

    6. Re: We need to help republicans... by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Come now - Bernie is literally the LEAST Zionist candidate to ever run for president. His views are more in-line with the majority of Jews in America -which these days is decidedly anti-Zionist (at least the younger generation). Hell he had a major bouhaha in New York over that. While every other candidate showed up at the dinner for the Jewish Nationalists and pledged the absolute and unconditional support for Israel no matter what - Bernie refrained from going and made a speech saying support for Israel *cannot* be unconditional and should be made conditional on Israel accepting human rights requirements. So that an outcome can be reached which may actually be stable.

      Bernie is literally the only candidate in the US since the very creation of Israel to EVER suggest that support for Israel be contingent on them not committing atrocities. That makes him the least zionist candidate the US has had since 1948.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  3. 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: 2, Funny

      I fucking hate you and everything you said!! ...even though I didn't finish reading it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take my outrage and protest my way into bestbuy and out the back door with a new flat screen. Then I'll blog about it on twitface.

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

      People quit talking about issues & ideas and started talking up/down people. Politics has become more about rooting for "your people" like a sports team, rather blindly I might add, instead of actually talking about issues and ideas.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:I'm far older than most of you on /. by Gussington · · Score: 2

      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.

      Nostalgia goggles.
      When was this magical period of public discourse of which you speak? During the Slavery era? WW2? The Watts riots?
      Public discourse is the most widely available as it has ever been, you just need to apply some filters to who you choose to have a discourse with, rather than relying in media outlets to do it for you.

    6. 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.

  4. 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.

  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.

    1. Re:Not a bad bet by Kohath · · Score: 2

      If there's any candidate who is prepared to kick Wall St in the pants

      Why does everything relating to government have to be about punishing people (who are different than you and therefore apparently "fair game" for whatever ill treatment)? Why can't we ask government to make things better for all of us rather than pursuing old grievances and settling scores?

      It's not just Wall St either. It's 100 different designated villains of whatever story, true or false, someone wants to tell. Hillary is "fighting for you" against the villains (a.k.a. your neighbor the banker or pharma researcher). Trump wants to expel the villains (a.k.a. your neighbors who are muslims or whomever he has mentioned in his latest tweet).

      When is being nasty to people supposed to start paying off? Never? Let's stop doing it then.

    2. Re:Not a bad bet by Livius · · Score: 2

      There are real villains out there. That's why it gets people's attention when politicians talk about villains, even though they actually only talk about decoy villains while they protect the actual villains.

  6. Re:Why do libertarians support him? by Maltheus · · Score: 2

    I know a lot of libertarians and very few of them support Trump. Like almost none. I know more Democrats who support him, than libertarians. The only small-government case that could be made for him, is that the Democrats and Republicans hate him so much, that they won't likely vote to expand executive power, while he's in office, and may even move to finally curtail it.

  7. Re:Why do libertarians support him? by krkhan · · Score: 2

    When talking about Trump, policies and logic aren't really part of the equation. Jeff Bezos is also a prominent libertarian and doesn't look like supporting Trump anytime soon.

    Trump is a cult of personality. His words, his promises, his supporters and his detractors -- everything related to Trump has to do with his personality and not with any incoherent policy crap he tees from /dev/urandom day-to-day.

  8. Re:What? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    It means the money people are starting to get on board. At least some of them. I suspect a lot of others will be much more reluctant. I'm loving this election. I thrive on Chaos and thanks to Bernie and Donald it's been great so far.

  9. 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.

  10. 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
    1. Re:They got the best one possible by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hillary is probably the only candidate who could make someone like Trump able to win the election. She has even worse negatives and has just as many people who will never vote for her.

      We've somehow ended up with the two candidates with the highest negatives from people in general. For the Dems, that's because of their "superdelegates" originally supposedly setup as a quota system for minorities, but which coincidentally turned into ensuring the (D) party elite continue to control everything. For the Reps, that's because the candidates not name Trump split the non-Trump votes for too long across too many states because some guys named Rubio and (especially) Kasich refused to face reality and there are enough populist/celebrity (R) primary voters to form a sizable minority for anyone who tells them what they want to hear while pissing off their enemies in the left.

      Bottom line, I'm voting for who will select the next Supreme Court nominee. Trump will make a deal with a GOP Senate if he wins. Hillary will push another Obama-style appointee (albeit a rich one who can bribe her foundation?) through the Senate with her "mandate" if she wins.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    2. Re:They got the best one possible by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not actually sure which bias direction you're accusing me of, but nothing in my post was intended to convey that I don't have an opinion on the election. Quite the opposite and mostly very negative toward the two currently leading candidates.

      As far as the superdelegates... their purpose is widely suggested by party leaders to be for racial/minority diversity (So minorities don't have to compete with the elite party leaders for delegate spots anymore), but there are very few people who actually believe that.

      WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D) Congress: Unpledged delegates are our party leaders and elected officials who actually can make up their mind at any point and change their mind. We separate those so that we don’t have elected officials and party leaders running against the activists, but want to make sure are helping to diversify our convention. That is something we take great pride in. A Native-American cancer survivor. Those people should have an opportunity to be delegates, too. And they shouldn’t have to deal with very well-known officials and party leaders. And that’s why we separate them.

      or

      Kendra Cotton (D) political director: Democrats have quotas for gender and preferences for minorities to become pledged delegates, but they don’t give them too much power.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    3. Re:They got the best one possible by dbIII · · Score: 2

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

      I keep seeing that but it's not his first run for President and he has effectively been an insider since the day he was born.

  11. Trump+PayPal? by Chas · · Score: 2

    As if Trump weren't objectionable enough!

    PayPal...UGH!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  12. Re:Pretty disingenuous to call Thiel a Libertarian by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    He's a "libertarian" in the weak sense that he combines an enthusiasm for 'seasteading' and similar probably-lost-causes with a conventional dislike of paying taxes; but that's not saying much.

  13. Dude, have you ever been on Fidonet's FLAME? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    I was there

    I was even the moderator (no shit, I was) for one summer, until I had to drop it because of workload (I was working for Bell Labs at that time, severe lack of sleep negatively affected my research)

    What is going on right now is chicken shit compared to what we had over there

    But I gotta level with ya ... there was a difference, in substance

    The cursing, the threats, the whatnots going on in FLAME were (largely) based on substance

    Nowadays most of the online arguments are pretty much content-less, void of substance

    sigh!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  14. 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
  15. Re:Why do libertarians support him? by skam240 · · Score: 2

    So it's the politically incorrect angle that is getting him this support? The "not of government" angle is bullshit as his multiple files for bankruptcy only helped increase his wealth, He isnt small government at all which is why it baffles me he gets any libertarian supporters at all. Why not vote for a communist who promises to keep all the foreigners away? I suppose I shouldnt be surprised as so many people I meet seem to not be able to rationalize their political choices in any meaningful context, including those within the generally left wing category I fall in.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  16. 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 ...

    1. Re:How is it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... 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?

      That's been debunked as a myth, you know...

  17. Re:Absolutely wrong... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    Well you twist the truth then complain when he does it too. Kettle meet black.

  18. Re:This is privilege talking by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    you didnt fix anything, you simply decided to insult someone because you are a dick

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same